Notices. Notice of Consent Motion to Terminate Panel Review of the final results of the second antidumping administrative review respecting Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (Secretariat File No

127,515 words·~580 min read·/register/2008/04/29/08-1199

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

BILLING CODE 6350-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-840] Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 2008. SUMMARY: Tropicana Products, Inc. (Tropicana) has requested that the Department initiate a changed circumstances review to consider partially revoking the order on certain orange juice from Brazil to exclude ultra low pulp orange juice (ULPOJ) pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216(b) and 351.222(g)(1)(i).

In response to this request, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond; AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3874 or

(202)482-0049, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 9, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil* , 72 FR 12183 (Mar. 9, 2006). On June 14, 2007, Tropicana requested that the Department initiate a changed circumstances review to consider partially revoking the antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil to exclude ULPOJ. According to Tropicana, producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have no interest in maintaining the order on ULPOJ. On July 24, 2007, we requested documentation from Tropicana regarding its industry support assertions and the documentation to support the pulp content of ULPOJ. On January 31, 2008, Tropicana responded to the Department's request for information, providing: 1) letters of support from processors either supporting or not opposing Tropicana's request to exclude ULPOJ from the order; 2) a calculation of the level of industry support; and 3) documentation regarding the pulp content of ULPOJ. On February 29, 2008, we received comments from Florida Citrus Mutual, A. Duda & Sons, Inc. (doing business as Citrus Belle), and Citrus World, Inc. (collectively, “the petitioners”), regarding Tropicana's request. The petitioners contend that the Department must consider the position of the entire domestic industry ( *i.e.* , both processors and growers) when determining the level of industry support, as was done for purposes of the initiation of this proceeding. According to the petitioners, when the growers are considered, there will be an insufficient level of industry support necessary for the Department to partially revoke the order under 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i). In addition, the petitioners note that, contrary to Tropicana's assertion, the U.S. domestic industry is capable of producing ULPOJ. Therefore, the petitioners urge the Department to reject Tropicana's request and not initiate this changed circumstances review. On March 6, 2008, we requested additional information from Tropicana regarding an incomplete letter contained in its January 31 response. On March 10, 2008, Tropicana submitted the requested information. Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain orange juice for transport and/or further manufacturing, produced in two different forms:

(1)frozen orange juice in a highly concentrated form, sometimes referred to as frozen concentrated orange juice for manufacture (FCOJM); and

(2)pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been concentrated, referred to as not-from-concentrate (NFC). At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing antidumping duty order on frozen concentrated orange juice

(FCOJ)from Brazil. *See Antidumping Duty Order; Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil* , 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). Therefore, the scope of this order with regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM produced and/or exported by those companies which were excluded or revoked from the pre-existing antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil as of December 27, 2004. Those companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada, Coinbra-Frutesp S.A., Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. , Fischer S/A - Agroindustria, and Montecitrus Trading S.A. Excluded from the scope of the order are reconstituted orange juice and frozen concentrated orange juice for retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange juice is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, by adding water, oils and essences to the orange juice concentrate. FCOJR is concentrated orange juice, typically at 42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in retail-sized containers ready for sale to consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer product, is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk manufacturer's product. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive. Rather, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department finds there is sufficient information to warrant initiating a changed circumstances review. Therefore, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), we are initiating a changed circumstances review to determine whether the Department should partially revoke the order on certain orange juice from Brazil to exclude ULPOJ. While Tropicana contends that it has sufficient industry support under 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) for the Department to partially revoke the order to exclude ULPOJ, we note that the petitioners have questioned Tropicana's exclusion of orange growers from the calculation of industry support. We will address the level of industry support for Tropicana's request in the context of this proceeding. The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. The Department will issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). This notice is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 23, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-9337 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904; Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Consent Motion To Terminate Panel Review AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Consent Motion to Terminate Panel Review of the final results of the second antidumping administrative review respecting Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2006-1904-04). SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Notice of Consent Motion to Terminate the Panel Review by the case participants, the panel review is terminated as of April 18, 2008. A panel was appointed to this panel review and has been dismissed pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Review,* effective April 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Dees, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). The panel review in this matter was requested and terminated pursuant to these Rules. *Dated:* April 22, 2008. Valerie Dees, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E8-9296 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-936] Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; *telephone:*

(202)482-4793 and

(202)482-6071, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On April 3, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received the Petition concerning imports of certain circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe (“welded line pipe”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) filed in proper form by United States Steel Corporation, Maverick Tube Corporation, Tex-Tube Company, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, and AFL-CIO-CLC (collectively, “Petitioners”). *See* Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, dated April 3, 2008 (“Petition”). On April 9 and 10, 2008, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition. Based on the Department's requests, Petitioners filed additional information supplementing the Petition on April 14, 2008, including one submission on general issues (Response to the Department Questionnaire Concerning Volume I of the Petition, dated April 14, 2008 (“Supp. Response”)) and one submission on the imposition of countervailing duties (“CVD”) (Response to the Department Questionnaires Concerning Volume III of the Petition, dated April 14, 2008 (“Supp. CVD Response”)). On April 16, 2008, the Department called Petitioners to request certain information relating to the Petition. *See* Memorandum to the File from Meredith A.W. Rutherford, Import Policy Analyst, regarding Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties—Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea: Phone Call with Petitioner Regarding Industry Support, dated April 16, 2008. On April 17, 2008, the Department issued a request for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition concerning the imposition of countervailing duties. On April 18, 2008, Wheatland Tube Company, a U.S. manufacturer of welded line pipe, filed a letter in support of the Petition. On April 21, 2008, Petitioners filed additional information in response to the April 16, 2008, memorandum to the file. *See* Response to the Department's Second Request for Additional Information Concerning the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, dated April 21, 2008 (“Second Supp. Response”). Petitioners also filed a response to the Department's April 17, 2008, request for additional information on the imposition of countervailing duties. *See* Response to the Department's Request for Additional Information Concerning Volume III of the Petition filed on April 3, 2008 (“Second CVD Supp. Response”). On April 21, 2008, the Department called Petitioners regarding the scope language. *See* Memorandum to the File from Norbert Gannon, Supervisory Import Policy Analyst, regarding Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties—Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea: Phone Call with Petitioners Regarding Industry Support, dated April 21, 2008. Additionally, on April 21, 2008, Stupp Corporation, a domestic producer of subject merchandise, filed a letter in support of the Petition. In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), Petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of welded line pipe in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation ( *see* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section below). Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded carbon quality steel pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines (“welded line pipe”), not more that 406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end finish or stenciling. The term “carbon quality steel” includes both carbon steel and carbon steel mixed with small amounts of alloying elements that may exceed the individual weight limits for nonalloy steels imposed in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which

(1)iron predominates by weight over each of the other contained elements,

(2)the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight and

(3)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated:

(i)2.00 percent of manganese,

(ii)2.25 percent of silicon,

(iii)1.00 percent of copper,

(iv)0.50 percent of aluminum,

(v)1.25 percent of chromium,

(vi)0.30 percent of cobalt,

(vii)0.40 percent of lead,

(viii)1.25 percent of nickel,

(ix)0.30 percent of tungsten,

(x)0.012 percent of boron,

(xi)0.50 percent of molybdenum,

(xii)0.15 percent of niobium,

(xiii)0.41 percent of titanium,

(xiv)0.15 percent of vanadium, or

(AD)and CVD investigations of circular welded pipe (CWP investigations). *See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination,* 73 FR 2445, January 15, 2008; *see also Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances; and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination,* 72 FR 63875, November 13, 2007. Given that the scope issue has not been finally resolved in the CWP investigations, for purposes of this initiation, we have defined the scope to include the potential overlap. However, we intend to resolve the issue to ensure that there will be no overlap between the scopes in the CWP and welded line pipe cases. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by May 13, 2008, which is 20 calendar days from the date of signature of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Consultations Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the Government of the PRC for consultations with respect to the CVD petition. The Department held these consultations in Beijing, China, with representatives of the Government of the PRC on April 18, 2008. *See* the April 18, 2008, Memorandum to the File, entitled, “Consultations with Officials from the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Countervailing Duty Petition regarding Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe,” on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) of the Department of Commerce, Room 1117. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for:

(i)At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and

(ii)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:

(i)Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or

(ii)determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. *See USEC, Inc.* v. *United States,* 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing *Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd.* v. *United States,* 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” ( *i.e.* , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that welded line pipe constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, *see* “Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Circular Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China,” (“Initiation Checklist”) Industry Support at Attachment II, on file in the CRU. In determining whether Petitioners have standing ( *i.e.* , those domestic workers and producers supporting the petition account for

(1)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and

(2)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition), we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of Investigation” section above. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their shipments for the domestic like product for the year 2007, and compared them to shipments of the domestic like product for the industry. In the Petition, Petitioners demonstrated the correlation between shipments and production. *See* Petition, Volume I, at 3, and Exhibit 3b. Based on the fact that total industry production data for the domestic like product for 2007 is not reasonably available, and that Petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data, we have relied upon shipment data for purposes of measuring industry support. For further discussion *see* Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department's review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First, the Petition establishes support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( *e.g.* , polling). *See* Section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(I) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. *See Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) and

(D)of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate. *See Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Industry Support). Injury Test Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioners allege that imports of welded line pipe from the PRC are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing or threaten to cause, material injury to the domestic industry producing welded line pipe. In addition, Petitioners allege that subsidized imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost sales and revenue, a decline in financial performance, and an increase in import penetration. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See* Initiation Checklist at Attachment III (Injury). Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of an industry that

(1)alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and

(2)is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner(s) supporting the allegations. The Department has examined the CVD petition on welded line pipe from the PRC and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of welded line pipe in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, *see* Initiation Checklist. We are including in our investigation the following programs alleged in the Petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC: A. Preferential Loans 1. Preferential Lending of Policy Loans to State-Owned Enterprises (“SOEs”) and the Steel Industry by State-Owned and Controlled Banks. 2. Preferential Loans for Key Projects and Technologies. B. Equity Infusions and Debt-to-Equity Swaps 1. Equity Infusions into Baosteel. 2. Debt-to-Equity Swaps for SOEs. C. Tax Benefit Programs 1. The “Two Free, Three Half” Program. 2. Income Tax Reduction for Export-Oriented Foreign Invested Enterprises (“FIEs”). 3. Income Tax Reductions for FIEs Based on Location. 4. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs that Quality as Technology-Intensive or Knowledge-Intensive. 5. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs Recognized as High or New Technology Enterprises. 6. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs that are Engaged in Research and Development. 7. Income Tax Reduction for FIEs that Reinvest Profits into Export-Oriented Enterprises. 8. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for “Productive” FIEs. 9. Income Tax Credits on Purchases of Domestically-produced Equipment by FIEs. 10. Income Tax Credits on Purchases of Domestically-produced Equipment by Domestically-Owned Companies. D. Value-Added Tax (“VAT”) Programs 1. VAT Exemptions for Use of Imported Equipment. 2. VAT Export Rebates. E. Land Grants and Discounts F. Provision of Inputs for Less Than Adequate Remuneration 1. Hot-Rolled Steel. 2. Electricity. 3. Water. G. Grant Programs 1. Interest Subsidies for Key Projects and Technologies. 2. State Key Technologies Renovation Project Fund. 3. Central Government's Famous Brands Program. 4. Government of Guandong Province Provision of Grants to Companies for Outward Expansion and Export Performance. 5. Export Interest Subsidy Program. 6. Grants to State Owned Enterprises Operating at Loss. H. Provincial Programs 1. Northeast Revitalization Program. 2. Liaoning Province Framework. 3. The “Five Points One Line” Program. 4. Liaoning Province Grants. 5. Sub-Central Government Programs to Promote Famous Brands. For further information explaining why the Department is investigating these programs, *see* Initiation Checklist. We are not including in our investigation the following programs alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC: 1. VAT Refunds Available to Companies Operating in Specific Locations Petitioners allege that VAT refunds are available to companies that are located in the Economic Development Zone of Hainan. Specifically, under the “Preferential Policies Regarding Investment by Manufacturer,” high-tech or labor intensive enterprises with an investment of more than RMB 3 billion and more than 1,000 local employees are refunded 25 percent of the VAT paid on domestic sales, the percentage of the tax received by the local government. The subsidy starts the first year the company has production and sales and continues for five years. Petitioners, however, did not demonstrate that producers/exporters of welded line pipe are located in the Hainan Province or explain why such information is unavailable. Therefore, we are not investigating this program. 2. Preferential Tax Programs for Enterprises Making Little Profit Petitioners assert that China's subsidies notification to the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) indicates that the Chinese government (“GOC”) provides preferential tax treatment to enterprises making little profit. This program, which is authorized by the Ministry of Finance, provides an 18 percent income tax reduction for enterprises which have annual taxable income of less than RMB 30,000 and a 27 percent income tax reduction to enterprises which have annual taxable income between RMB 30,000 and RMB 100,000. Petitioners, however, have not established with reasonably available information that “enterprises making little profit” are a *de jure* or *de facto* specific group. Petitioners failed to provide an explanation of why companies with access to this program comprise an enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries, as those terms are normally interpreted by the Department. Therefore, we are not investigating this program. 3. Preferential Tax Programs for Enterprises Engaged in Research and Development Petitioners allege that the GOC provides preferential tax policies for domestic-invested enterprises engaged in research and development. Specifically, Petitioners claim that under this program, authorized by the Ministry of Finance, the costs associated with research and development of new products, new technologies, and new crafts which have increased 10 percent or more from the previous year, are offset by 150 percent from the taxable income of that year. Petitioners, however, have not established with reasonably available information that “domestic enterprises” are a *de jure* or *de facto* specific group. Petitioners failed to provide an explanation of why companies with access to this program comprise an enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries, as those terms are normally interpreted by the Department. Therefore, we are not investigating this program. 4. Central Government Grants and Loans Petitioners allege that the government provides grants and loans for technology and research. Petitioners claim that one such program is administered by the Ministry of Finance pursuant to State Council Circular No. 99 of 1987, which is referenced in China's WTO accession. Petitioners assert that this grant program is intended to benefit preferred industries such as the steel industry, including welded line pipe producers. Petitioners, however, have not provided adequate documentation to support the allegation that this program is specific. For example, the evidence provided by Petitioners does not support the claim that this program is specific to state-owned enterprises or to the steel industry. We, therefore, are not investigating this program. 5. Hunan Province Grants and Loans Petitioners allege that in 1999, the Hunan Province provided approximately RMB 300 million, in the form of grants and reduced-interest loans, for technological upgrades and for hi-tech companies located in the province. Petitioners claim that welded line pipe producers located in Hunan Province likely benefited from the program. Petitioners, however, have failed to demonstrate that welded line pipe producers are located in Hunan Province. We, therefore, are not investigating this program. 6. Government-Mandated Mergers and Transfers of Ownership on Terms Inconsistent With Commercial Considerations Petitioners allege that the GOC provides benefits to welded line pipe producers through government-mandated mergers and transfers of ownership on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations. Petitioners maintain that the mergers are driven by the GOC's Eleventh FYP and China's Steel Policy. Petitioners allege that because many Chinese steel companies are controlled by the government, the GOC can essentially order companies to merge. Petitioners allege that such mergers commonly involve offering ownership stakes in state-owned steel companies to other, larger steel producers at prices below market value, or even for free. Petitioners, however, fail to explain how mergers and restructuring of state-owned enterprises provide a financial contribution in light of the Department's past practice in addressing restructuring of government-owned steel companies. *See* , *e.g.* , * Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from Italy * , 58 FR 37327 (July 9, 1993). Therefore, we are not investigating the provision of “other companies” for less than adequate remuneration. 7. Other Grant Programs Petitioners assert that a review of available financial reports of Chinese welded line pipe producers indicates that many of the producers have benefitted from direct cash grants provided under other grant programs and policies administered by the GOC. Petitioners, however, have not adequately established with reasonably available evidence how these programs are specific. Petitioners also have not established whether these grants are a result of programs separate from those which Petitioners have already alleged. We, therefore, are not investigating this program. Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to the PRC The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) country in all past AD investigations and administrative reviews. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See* , *e.g.* , *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 10 Unfinished, (“TRBs”) From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500, 7500-1 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in *TRBs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review* , 68 FR 70488, 70488-89 (December 18, 2003). In the final affirmative CVD determination on coated free sheet paper from the PRC, the Department determined that the current nature of the PRC economy does not create obstacles to applying the necessary criteria in the CVD law. *See Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Therefore, because Petitioners have provided sufficient allegations and support of their allegations to meet the statutory criteria for initiating a CVD investigation of welded line pipe from the PRC, initiation of a CVD investigation is warranted in this case. Respondent Selection For this investigation, the Department expects to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POI. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within seven calendar days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC. As soon as possible and to the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which it receives notice of the initiation, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of subsidized welded line pipe from the PRC are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. *See* Section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: April 23, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-9345 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-861, A-570-935] Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland (Republic of Korea), Jeffrey Pederson, or Rebecca Pandolph (People's Republic of China), AD/CVD Operations, Office 7 and Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3362, 202-482-2769, or 202-482-3627, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On April 3, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received the petition concerning imports of certain circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe (“welded line pipe”) from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) and the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) filed in proper form by United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”), Maverick Tube Corporation (“Maverick”), Tex-Tube Company (“Tex-Tube”), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, and AFL-CIO-CLC (“United Steelworkers”) (collectively, “Petitioners”). *See* Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, dated April 3, 2008 (in four volumes) (“Petition”). On April 9, 2008, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition. Based on the Department's requests, Petitioners filed additional information supplementing the Petition on April 14, 2008, including one submission on general issues (Response to the Department Questionnaire Concerning Volume I of the Petition, dated April 14, 2008 (“Supp. Response”)), one distinct submission on Korea-only material (Response to the Department Questionnaire Concerning the Republic of Korea, dated April 14, 2008 (“Supp. Korea Response”)), and one distinct submission on PRC-only material (Response to the Department Questionnaire Concerning the People's Republic of China, dated April 14, 2008 (“Supp. PRC AD Response”)). On April 16 and April 17, 2008, the Department called Petitioners to request certain information relating to the Petition, the Supp. Korea Response, and the Supp. PRC AD Response. *See* Memorandum to the File from Meredith A.W. Rutherford, Import Policy Analyst, regarding Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties—Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea: Phone Call with Petitioner Regarding Industry Support, dated April 16, 2008; Memorandum to the File from Juanita H. Chen, Special Assistant to the SEC Office, through Edward C. Yang, Director, SEC Office, AD/CVD Operations, China/NME Group, regarding Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Request for Information, dated April 17, 2008; and Memorandum to the File from Dena Crossland, Analyst, through Patrick Edwards, Acting Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, regarding Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Request for Information, dated April 17, 2008. On April 18, 2008, Wheatland Tube Company, a U.S. manufacturer of welded line pipe, filed a letter in support of the Petition. On April 21, 2008, Petitioners filed additional information in response to the Department's April 16, 2008, and April 17, 2008, request for information. *See* Response to the Department's Second Request for Additional Information Concerning the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, dated April 21, 2008 (“Second Supp. Response”); Response to the Department's Second Request for Additional Information Concerning the People's Republic of China, dated April 21, 2008 (“Second Supp. PRC AD Response”); and Response to the Department's Second Request for Additional Information Concerning the Republic of Korea, dated April 21, 2008 (“Second Supp. Korea Response”). On April 21, 2008, The Department called Petitioners regarding the scope language. *See* Memorandum to the File from Norbert Gannon, Supervisory Import Policy Analyst, regarding Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties—Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea: Phone Call with Petitioner Regarding Scope, dated April 21, 2008. Additionally, on April 21, 2008, Stupp Corporation, a domestic producer of subject merchandise, filed a letter in support of the Petition. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), Petitioners allege that imports of welded line pipe from Korea and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act, and have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty investigations that Petitioners are requesting that the Department initiate. *See* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section below. Periods of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) for Korea is April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. The POI for the PRC is October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigations The merchandise covered by each of these investigations is circular welded carbon quality steel pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines (“welded line pipe”), not more that 406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end finish or stenciling. The term “carbon quality steel” includes both carbon steel and carbon steel mixed with small amounts of alloying elements that may exceed the individual weight limits for nonalloy steels imposed in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which

(1)Iron predominates by weight over each of the other contained elements,

(2)the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight and

(3)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated:

(i)2.00 percent of manganese,

(ii)2.25 percent of silicon,

(iii)1.00 percent of copper,

(iv)0.50 percent of aluminum,

(v)1.25 percent of chromium,

(vi)0.30 percent of cobalt,

(vii)0.40 percent of lead,

(viii)1.25 percent of nickel,

(ix)0.30 percent of tungsten,

(x)0.012 percent of boron,

(xi)0.50 percent of molybdenum,

(xii)0.15 percent of niobium,

(xiii)0.41 percent of titanium,

(xiv)0.15 percent of vanadium, or

(xv)0.15 percent of zirconium. Welded line pipe is normally produced to specifications published by the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) (or comparable foreign specifications) including API A-25, 5LA, 5LB, and X grades from 42 and above, and/or any other proprietary grades or non-graded material. Nevertheless, all pipe meeting the physical description set forth above that is of a kind used in oil and gas pipelines, including all multiple-stenciled pipe with an API line pipe stencil is covered by the scope of these investigations. The line pipe products that are the subject of these investigations are currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and 7306.19.51.50. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Comments on Scope of Investigations During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. The scope of these investigations covers line pipe which, we recognize, may include certain merchandise potentially subject to the on-going antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations of circular welded pipe (“CWP”). *See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination* , 73 FR 2445 (January 15, 2008); *see also Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances; and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination* , 72 FR 63875 ( November 13, 2007). Given that the scope issue has not been finally resolved in the CWP investigations, for purposes of these initiations, we have defined the scope to include the potential overlap. However, we intend to resolve the issue to ensure that there will be no overlap between the scopes in the CWP and welded line pipe cases. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by May 13, 2008, which is 20 calendar days from the date of signature of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1117, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of welded line pipe to be reported in response to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to more accurately report the relevant factors and costs of production, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria. Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as

(1)general product characteristics and

(2)the product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe welded line pipe, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in product matching. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must receive comments at the above-referenced address by May 13, 2008. Additionally, rebuttal comments addressing only those issues raised in the comments must be received by May 20, 2008. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for:

(i)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and

(ii)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:

(i)Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or

(ii)determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. *See USEC, Inc.* v. *United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), *citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd.* v. *United States* , 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( *i.e.* , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of these investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that welded line pipe constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, *see* “Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea)” (“Korea Initiation Checklist”), Industry Support at Attachment II, and “Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China'' (“PRC Initiation Checklist”), Industry Support at Attachment II, on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 1117 of the main Department of Commerce building. With regard to section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, in determining whether Petitioners have standing ( *i.e.* , those domestic workers and producers supporting the Petition account for

(1)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and

(2)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition), we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of Investigations” section, above. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their shipments for the domestic like product for the year 2007, and compared them to shipments of the domestic like product for the industry. In the Petition, Petitioners demonstrated the correlation between shipments and production and argued that shipments are a good proxy for production. *See* Petition, Volume I, at 3, and Exhibit 3b. Based on the fact that total industry production data for the domestic like product for 2007 is not reasonably available, and that Petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data, we have relied upon shipment data for purposes of measuring industry support. For further discussion, *see* Korea Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department's review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First, the Petition establishes support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( *e.g.* , polling). *See* section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act and Korea Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. *See* Korea Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. *See* Korea Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act and have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate. *See* Korea Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (“NV”). Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost sales and revenues, a decline in financial performance, and an increase in import penetration. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See* Korea Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment III. Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) upon which the Department based its decision to initiate these investigations of imports of welded line pipe from Korea and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price, NV (for Korea), and the factors of production (for the PRC) are also discussed in the country-specific initiation checklists. *See* Korea Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determinations, we will reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate. Korea Constructed Export Price (“CEP”) Petitioners calculated two CEPs based on price quotes for Korean-produced welded line pipe that was sold or offered for sale in the United States during the POI. Petitioners claimed that CEP was appropriate for Korea because the major Korean producers of welded line pipe typically sell through affiliated offices in the United States which, in turn, resell the welded line pipe to distributors in the United States. *See* Petition, Volume IV, at Exhibit IV-1. Petitioners made adjustments to the starting price for foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance expenses, foreign and U.S. port expenses, and estimated expenses that the affiliated distributor would incur in selling merchandise on behalf of the Korean producer in the United States. Foreign inland freight, ocean freight and insurance were calculated as the difference between the value of welded line pipe imports from Korea on a “cost-insurance-freight” (“CIF”) basis, and the value of welded line pipe imports from Korea on a custom's value basis as reported on the ITC's “DataWeb” at *http://usitc.gov/tata/hts/other/dataweb* . Petitioners calculated foreign and U.S. port expenses based on U.S. and Korean tariff schedule data. *See* Petition, Volume IV, at Exhibits 7, 7a, and 7b. *See* Korea Initiation Checklist for further discussion. NV Petitioners calculated NV based on home market prices for welded line pipe produced in Korea and sold or offered for sale to customers in Korea. Petitioners calculated the ex-factory NV for the home market sales by converting the reported offer prices to a per-ton basis. *See* Petition, Volume IV, at 9-12, and Korea Initiation Checklist for further discussion. PRC EP Petitioners calculated two EPs based on two price quotes for welded line pipe from the PRC, offered for sale during the POI. Petitioners made adjustments to the starting prices by deducting the costs associated with exporting and delivering the product, including foreign inland freight and ocean freight, insurance expenses, foreign and U.S. port expenses and wharfage fees, and brokerage and handling expenses. *See* PRC Initiation Checklist for further discussion. NV Petitioners note that the PRC is a non-market economy country (“NME”) and, as the Department has not revoked this determination, such status remains in effect today. *See* Petition, Volume II, at 11. The Department has previously examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. *See* Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding The People's Republic of China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated May 15, 2006 (available online at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf* ). In addition, in recent investigations, the Department has continued to determine that the PRC is an NME country. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from The People's Republic of China* , 73 FR 6479 (February 4, 2008); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of the PRC investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. Petitioners argue that India is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because it is at a comparable level of economic development and it is a significant producer of welded line pipe. *See* Petition, Volume II, at 12. Based on the information provided by Petitioners, the Department believes that the use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiation. However, after initiation of the investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Petitioners calculated NV and dumping margins for the two U.S. prices, discussed above, using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners calculated NV based on Company A's consumption rates for producing welded line pipe, arguing that it is the best information reasonably available to Petitioners. 1 *See* PRC Initiation Checklist. 1 The identity of Company A is proprietary information; further discussion of Company A is available in the initiation checklist. *See* PRC Initiation Checklist. Petitioners valued the factors of production to produce welded line pipe based on reasonably available, public surrogate country data, including India import data from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, and prices from Energy Prices & Taxes: Second Quarter 2003, published by the International Energy Agency. Petitioners calculated labor cost using rates posted on the Department's Web site. Where Petitioners were unable to find input prices from a period contemporaneous with the POI, Petitioners adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price index for India, as published in the International Monetary Fund Publication “International Financial Statistics.” *See* Petition, Volume II, at 19 and Exhibit II-8. Petitioners made currency conversions, where necessary, using a simple average of the rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POI, as reported on the Department's Web site. *See* Petition, Volume II, at 19; Supp. PRC AD Response, at Exhibit Supp-9. While Petitioners calculated movement expenses using information from the Department of Commerce and the ITC, Petitioners did not include freight expenses in their calculation of surrogate values for the PRC because they could not determine the correct distance necessary for the calculations. *See* Petition, Volume II, at 19-20; Supp. PRC AD Response, at Exhibit Supp-9. For purposes of initiation, the Department determines that the surrogate values used by Petitioners are reasonably available and, thus, acceptable. However, the Department modified the surrogate value that Petitioners calculated for hot-rolled steel coil. *See* PRC Initiation Checklist. Petitioners based factory overhead expenses, selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit, on financial data from the 2006-2007 annual reports of Tata Steel Limited, Jindal SAW Ltd. (“Jindal”), and Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd., Indian producers of welded steel pipe using steel sheet in coils. *See* Petition, Volume II, at 22-25; Supp. PRC AD Response at Exhibit Supp-9. We recalculated factory overhead expenses, SG&A expenses, and profit using only Jindal's data because of the three potential surrogate companies, only Jindal's financial data were from a period that overlapped with the POI. In addition, we revised the financial ratios that Petitioners calculated from Jindal's data to account for expenses that were omitted from Petitioner's calculation. *See* PRC Initiation Checklist. Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by Petitioners, with adjustments as requested by the Department, there is reason to believe that imports of welded line pipe from Korea and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on a comparison of CEP and NV, calculated in accordance with sections 772(b) and 773(a)(1) of the Act, respectively, estimated dumping margins for welded line pipe from Korea range from 41.69 percent to 42.75 percent. *See* Korea Initiation Checklist. Based on a comparison of EP and NV, calculated in accordance with sections 772(a) and 773(c) of the Act, respectively, the revised estimated dumping margins for welded line pipe from the PRC range from 57.45 percent to 58.96 percent. *See* PRC Initiation Checklist. Initiation of Antidumping Investigations Based upon the examination of the Petition on welded line pipe from Korea and the PRC, the Department finds that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of welded line pipe from Korea and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless postponed, we intend to make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Respondent Selection for Korea For the Korean investigation, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POI. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice, and make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within 10 days of publication of this **Federal Register** notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo* . Respondent Selection for the PRC In the PRC investigation, the Department will request quantity and value information from all known exporters and producers identified, with complete contact information, in the Petition. The quantity and value data received from these exporters/producers will be used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents. The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. *See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation* , 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). Attachment I of this notice contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters/producers no later than May 14, 2008. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import Administration Web site, at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* . The Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified, with complete contact information, in the Petition, Volume I, at Exhibit 6a, and in the Supp. PRC AD Response, at Supp-1. Separate Rates In order to obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status application. *See* Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (“Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin”), available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf* . The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the **Federal Register** . The separate-rate application will be due 60 days from publication of this notice. Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin states: {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. *See* Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the representatives of the Governments of Korea and the PRC. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery of the public version to the Governments of Korea and the PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determinations by the International Trade Commission The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than May 19, 2008, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of welded line pipe from Korea and the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination with respect to either of the investigations will result in that investigation being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: April 23, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Attachment I Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) permits us to investigate 1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection, or 2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total value of all of your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation (see attachment II of this document), produced in the PRC, and exported/shipped to the United States during the period October 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008. Market Total quantity Terms of sale Total value United States 1. Export Price Sales 2. a. Exporter name b. Address c. Contact d. Phone No e. Fax No 3. Constructed Export Price Sales 4. Further Manufactured Sales Total Sales Because the scope of this investigation may include certain merchandise potentially subject to the on-going antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of circular welded pipe, we also request that you identify, in the chart below, the total quantity and total value that was reported in the above chart for sales of the following merchandise: Pipe multiple-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to any other specification, such as the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) API-5L specification, when it meets the physical description set forth in the scope description in the circular welded pipe cases ( *see Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination* , 73 FR 2445 (January 15, 2008)) and also has one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish. Market Total quantity Terms of sale Total value United States 1. Export Price Sales 2. a. Exporter name b. Address c. Contact d. Phone No e. Fax No 3. Constructed Export Price Sales 4. Further Manufactured Sales Total Sales Total Quantity: • Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. Terms of Sales: • Please report all sales on the same terms ( *e.g.* , free on board—port of export). Total Value: • All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars. Please indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before importation into the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please do not include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Constructed Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please do not include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Further Manufactured Sales: • Sales of further manufactured or assembled (including re-packaged) merchandise are sales of merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before being sold to the first unaffiliated customer. • Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry to the further manufacturer. [FR Doc. E8-9361 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH34 Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; American Samoa Longline Limited Entry Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; availability of permit upgrades. SUMMARY: NMFS is soliciting applications for American Samoa longline limited entry permit upgrades. Nineteen

(19)permit upgrades will be available in 2008 for Class A vessel (i.e., less than or equal to 40 ft, or 12.2 m, in length) permit holders to upgrade to larger vessel size classes. The permit upgrades are available only to Class A permit holders who participated in the fishery before March 22, 2002, and the highest priority for receiving a permit upgrade will be given to the person with the earliest date of documented participation. DATES: Completed applications for permit upgrades must be received by NMFS by June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send completed applications to NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), ATTN: ASLE Permit Upgrade, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700. Application forms are available from NMFS Pacific Islands Region, ATTN: Permits, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700, or the Pacific Islands Region website at *www.fpir.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Ikehara, NMFS PIR, Tel 808-944-2275, Fax 808-973-2941, or e-mail *Walter.Ikehara@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 25, 2005, NMFS published a final rule (70 FR 29646) that established a limited entry program for the pelagic longline fishery based in American Samoa, under Amendment 11 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries in the Western Pacific Region. American Samoa longline limited entry permits were established for four vessel size classes, based on length: • Class A: less than or equal to 40 ft (12.2 m); • Class B and B-1: over 40 ft (12.2 m) to 50 ft (15.2 m) inclusive; • Class C and C-1: over 50 ft (15.2 m) to 70 ft (21.3 m) inclusive; and • Class D and D-1: over 70 ft (21.3 m). The limited entry program allows for 26 permit upgrades to be made available for the exclusive use of permit holders in Class A, distributed over a four-year period following the issuance of initial limited entry permits. In 2008, 19 permit upgrades will be available (11 in Class B-1, six in Class C-1, and two in Class D-1). The Regional Administrator may initially issue permit upgrades only to persons who hold Class A permits and who participated in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery before March 22, 2002. The highest priority will be given to those with the earliest date of documented participation. Those receiving upgraded permits must surrender their Class A permits and the surrendered permits are deducted from the allowed Class A permit total. This notice announces the availability of permit upgrades and solicits applications for the upgrades. Complete applications must include the completed and signed application form (available from NMFS PIR, see ADDRESSES ), legible copies of documents supporting historical participation in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery, and payment for the non-refundable application processing fee. Documents supporting participation should show that fishing was conducted using longline gear. Applications must be received by NMFS by June 30, 2008 to be considered for eligibility for the 2008 permit upgrades. Authoritative additional information on the American Samoa limited entry program may be found in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 665. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 23, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-9392 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH44 Endangered Species; File No. 10022 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Raymond Carthy, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110485, Gainesville, Florida 23611-0450, has been issued a permit to take loggerhead ( *Caretta caretta* ), green ( *Chelonia mydas* ), and Kemp's ridley ( *Lepidochelys kempii* ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Amy Hapeman, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 26, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 65940) that a request for a scientific research permit to take sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). Researchers will determine the significance of Florida's northwest coastal bays to sea turtle development. Researchers will assess sea turtle population abundance and composition, determine size classes, evaluate growth, identify seasonal movements, define overwintering behaviors, and investigate developmental migration. The permit authorizes the researchers to conduct research off the northwest coast of Florida for 5 years. Researchers will capture up to 40 loggerhead, 600 green, and 110 Kemp's ridley sea turtles using strike-net or set-net capture techniques. Animals will be weighed, measured, photographed, skin biopsied, flipper and Passive Integrated Transponder tagged, and released. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit

(1)was applied for in good faith,

(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: April 23, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-9389 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Notice of Meeting The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 15 May 2008, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials. Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: *http://www.cfa.gov.* Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address, or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date. Dated in Washington, DC, 21 April 2008. Thomas Luebke, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9118 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6330-01-M COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Determination of the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements to Apply a Textile Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Cotton Socks from Honduras April 23, 2008. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“the Committee”). ACTION: Notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: ** April 29, 2008.** SUMMARY: The Committee has determined to apply a textile safeguard measure on imports of Honduran origin cotton socks classifiable under subheading 9115.95 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sergio Botero, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Title III, Subtitle B, Section 321 through Section 328 of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (“CAFTA-DR” or the “Agreement”) Implementation Act; Proclamation 7987 of February 28, 2006, paragraph (6); Proclamation 8228 of March 28, 2008, paragraph (4); Article 3.23 of the Agreement. **Notice:** On April 25, 2008, the Committee determined to apply a textile safeguard measure on imports of certain cotton socks of Honduras. The relief provided by the safeguard measure applies to imports entering, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. BACKGROUND: On August 21, 2007, the Committee initiated a safeguard proceeding to determine whether imports of Honduran cotton, wool, and man-made fiber socks (merged Category 332/432 and 632 part) are causing serious damage, or actual threat thereof, to the U.S. industry producing socks, (72 FR 46611, August 21, 2007). The initiation of the safeguard proceeding commenced a 30-day period during which interested parties and stakeholders were invited to submit comments. Based on the comments received and information available to the Committee, the Committee determined that imports of Honduran origin cotton socks (Category 332) were causing serious damage, or actual threat thereof, and therefore, the Committee intended to apply a textile safeguard measure with respect to such goods. In accordance with section 4 of the Committee's Procedures for considering action under the CAFTA-DR textile and apparel safeguard, (71 FR 25157, April 28, 2006), on January 18, 2008, the United States provided written notice to the Government of Honduras indicating its intent to apply a textile safeguard measure on imports of Honduran origin cotton socks (73 FR 4542, January 25, 2008). The Committee noted that it was not at that time making a determination regarding whether to apply a safeguard measure with respect to wool and man-made fiber socks (Categories 432 and 632 Part, respectively), that were part of the original safeguards inquiry. In accordance with Article 3.23.4 of the Agreement, following receipt of written notice by the United States of its intent to apply a safeguard measure, the Government of Honduras requested consultations. Consultations between the Governments of Honduras and the United States were held for 60 days, and by agreement of the Parties, were continued for an additional 30 day period. The Committee has determined, pursuant to section 322(a) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, that cotton socks of Honduras classifiable in subheading 6115.95 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS)are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause serious damage to the domestic industry producing like or directly competitive cotton socks. The Committee has further decided, pursuant to section 322(b) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, to provide relief from the imports that are the subject of this determination, in the form of a duty in the amount of 5 percent ad valorem to all CAFTA-DR originating cotton socks of Honduras classifiable in subheading 6115.95 of the HTSUS that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. The 5 percent ad valorem duty shall be applicable on the full value of the entered goods, regardless of the value of any United States content of such goods. The Committee further notes that, in the course of consultations, the Government of Honduras agreed that it will not seek compensation or take any tariff action under Article 3.23.6 of the Agreement with respect to this safeguard measure. The Committee has determined that the actions described above will remedy the serious damage and facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition. As provided in paragraph

(5)of Proclamation 8228 of March 28, 2008, the United States Trade Representative will modify the HTS to reflect this determination. R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-9339 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 08-C00l0] DollarDays International, LLC, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with DollarDays International, LLC, containing a civil penalty of $25,000.00. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 08-C0010, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth B. Popkin, Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone

(301)504-7612. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: April 23, 2008. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. In the Matter of DollarDays International, LLC; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0010 Settlement Agreement 1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, DollarDays International, LLC (“DDI”) and the staff (“Staff”) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) settle the Staff's allegations set forth below. Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084 (“CPSA”). 3. DDI is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal offices located in Scottsdale, Arizona. At all times relevant hereto, DDI sold apparel and accessories. Staff Allegations 4. From December 2005 through November 2006, DDI sold to retailers or other persons 180 children's parka jackets with drawstrings through the hoods (“Drawstring Jackets”). 5. Retailers sold the Drawstring Jackets to consumers, 6. The Drawstring Jackets are “consumer product[s],” and, at all times relevant hereto, DDI was a “distributor” of those consumer products, which were “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(l), (5), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(l), (5), (11), and (12). 7. In February 1996, the Staff issued the Guidelines for Drawstrings on Children's Upper Outerwear (“Guidelines”) to help prevent children from strangling or entangling on neck and waist drawstrings. The Guidelines state that drawstrings can cause, and have caused, injuries and deaths when they catch on items such as playground equipment, bus doors, or cribs. In the Guidelines, the Staff recommends that there be no hood and neck drawstrings in children's upper outerwear sized 2T to 12. 8. In June 1997, ASTM adopted a voluntary standard, ASTM F1816-97, that incorporated the Guidelines. The Guidelines state that firms should be aware of the hazards and should be sure garments they sell conform to the voluntary standard. 9. On May 19, 2006, the Commission posted on its Web site a letter from the Commission's Director of the Office of Compliance to manufacturers, importers, and retailers of children's upper outerwear. The letter urges them to make certain that all children's upper outerwear sold in the United States complies with ASTM F1816-97. The letter states that the Staff considers children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck area to be defective and to present a substantial risk of injury to young children under Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) section 15(c), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c). The letter also notes the CPSA's section 15(b) reporting requirements. 10. DDI reported to the Commission that there had been no incidents or injuries from the Drawstring Jackets. 11. DDI's distribution in commerce of the Drawstring Jackets did not meet the Guidelines or ASTM F1816-97, failed to comport with the Staff's May 2006 defect notice, and posed a strangulation hazard to children. 12. On November 30, 2006, the Commission, in cooperation with DDI, announced a recall of the Drawstring Jackets, informing consumers that they should immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard. 13. DDI had presumed and actual knowledge that the Drawstring Jackets distributed in commerce posed a strangulation hazard and presented a substantial risk of injury to children under FHSA section 15(c)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(l). DDI had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Drawstring Jackets contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required DDI to immediately inform the Commission of the defect and risk. 14. DDI knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission about the Drawstring Jackets as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), and as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected DDI to civil penalties. DDI Response 15. DDI denies the Staff's allegations above that DDI knowingly violated the CPSA. Agreement of the Parties 16. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over DDI. 17. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by DDI, or a determination by the Commission, that DDI has knowingly violated the CPSA. 18. In settlement of the Staff's allegations, DDI shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) in three

(3)installments as follows: $5,000.00 shall be paid within twenty

(15)calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the sixteenth

(16th)calendar day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** . 20. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, DDI knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:

(1)An administrative or judicial hearing;

(2)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Order or of the Commission's actions;

(3)a determination by the Commission of whether DDI failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations;

(4)a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(5)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 21. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order. 22. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, DDI and each of its successors and assigns. 23. The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA, and violation of the Order may subject DDI to appropriate legal action. 24. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced. 25. If any provision of the Agreement and the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and DDI agree that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order. 26. Pursuant to section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, the Commission delegated to the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance and Field Operations the authority to act, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, for the Commission under 16 CFR 1118.20 with respect to Staff allegations that any person or firm violated 15 U.S.C. 2068, where the total amount of the settlement involves no more than $100,000. DollarDays International, LLC Dated: 3/19/08. By: Marc Joseph, *President,* DollarDays International, LLC 7575 E. Redfield Rd., Suite 201, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Staff J. Gibson Mullan, *Assistant Executive Director,* Office of Compliance and Field Operations Ronald G. Yelenik, *Acting Director* , Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations Dated: 4-16-08. By: Seth B. Popkin, *Trial Attorney* , Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations In the Matter of DollarDays International, LLC; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0010 Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between DollarDays International, LLC (“DDI”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over DDI, and pursuant to the authority delegated in section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is *Ordered,* that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is *Further ordered,* that DDI shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) in three

(3)installments as follows: $5,000.00 shall be paid within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement; $10,000.00 shall be paid on or before May 1, 2008; and $10,000.00 shall be paid on or before August 1, 2008. The payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of DDI to make any of the foregoing payments when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by DDI at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 22nd day of April, 2008. By Order of the Commission: Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission [FR Doc. E8-9290 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-M CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 08-COO12] Gildan Activewear SRL, a corporation, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with Gildan Activewear SRL, containing a civil penalty of $35,000.00. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 08-COO12, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis C. Kacoyanis, Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone

(301)504-7587. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: April 23, 2008. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. In the Matter of Gildan Activewear SRL, a Corporation.; CPSC DOCKET NO. 08-C0012 Settlement Agreement 1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, Gildan Activewear SRL (“Gildan”) and the staff (“Staff”) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) settle the Staff's allegations set forth below. Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084 (“CPSA”). 3. Gildan is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Barbados, with its principal offices located in St. Michael, Barbados. At all times relevant hereto, Gildan sold apparel and accessories. Staff Allegations 4. Between January 2006 and September 2006, Gildan manufactured 146,466 youth hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings through the hoods for sale in the United States (“Drawstring Sweatshirts”). 5. Wholesale distributors sold the Drawstring Sweatshirts to consumers. 6. The Drawstring Sweatshirts are “consumer product[s],” and, at all times relevant hereto, Gildan was a “manufacturer” of those consumer products, which were “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12). 7. In February 1996, the Staff issued the Guidelines for Drawstrings on Children's Upper Outerwear (“Guidelines”) to help prevent children from strangling or entangling on neck and waist drawstrings. The Guidelines state that drawstrings can cause, and have caused, injuries and deaths when they catch on items such as playground equipment, bus doors, or cribs. In the Guidelines, the Staff recommends that there be no hood and neck drawstrings in children's upper outerwear sized 2T to 12. 8. In June 1997, ASTM adopted a voluntary standard, ASTM F1816-97, that incorporated the Guidelines. The Guidelines state that firms should be aware of the hazards and should be sure garments they sell conform to the voluntary standard. 9. On May 19, 2006, the Commission posted on its Web site a letter from the Commission's Director of the Office of Compliance to manufacturers, importers, and retailers of children's upper outerwear. The letter urges them to make certain that all children's upper outerwear sold in the United States complies with ASTM F1816-97. The letter states that the Staff considers children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck area to be defective and to present a substantial risk of injury to young children under Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) section 15(c), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c). The letter also notes the CPSA's section 15(b) reporting requirements. 10. Gildan reported to the Commission that there had been no incidents or injuries from the Drawstring Sweatshirts. 11. Gildan's manufacture and distribution in commerce of the Drawstring Sweatshirts did not meet the Guidelines or ASTM F1816-97, failed to comport with the Staff's May 2006 defect notice, and posed a strangulation hazard to children. 12. On September 20, 2006, the Commission, in cooperation with Gildan, announced a recall of Drawstring Sweatshirts, informing consumers that they should immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard. 13. Gildan had presumed and actual knowledge that the Drawstring Sweatshirts distributed in commerce posed a strangulation hazard and presented a substantial risk of injury to children under FHSA section 15(c)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(1). Gildan had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Drawstring Sweatshirts contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required Gildan to immediately inform the Commission of the defect and risk. 14. Gildan knowingly failed to inform the Commission about the Drawstring Sweatshirts immediately as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), and as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected Gildan to civil penalties. Gildan's Response 15. Gildan denies the Staff's allegations; specifically, as follows:

(a)Gildan did not knowingly violate the CPSA;

(b)Gildan sold the Drawstring Sweatshirts to wholesale distributors, who then, directly or indirectly, sold less than 70,000 to consumers;

(c)Gildan, in cooperation with the Commission, announced the recall of Drawstring Sweatshirts and recovered all Drawstring Sweatshirts still in the possession of wholesale distributors;

(d)Gildan had access to information that could support the conclusion that the Drawstring Sweatshirts were a potential hazard;

(e)Gildan reported the existence of the potential hazard to the Commission immediately upon having actual knowledge of the potential hazard; and

(f)Gildan has reported to the Commission that it had received no reports of any injuries from the Drawstring Sweatshirts. Agreement of the Parties 16. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Gildan. 17. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Gildan, or a determination by the Commission, that Gildan knowingly violated the CPSA. 18. In settlement of the Staff's allegations, Gildan shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. This payment shall be by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 19. Upon provisional acceptance of the Agreement, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f), if the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen

(15)calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the sixteenth

(16th)calendar day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** . 20. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, Gildan knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:

(1)An administrative or judicial hearing;

(2)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Order or of the Commission's actions;

(3)a determination by the Commission of whether Gildan failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations;

(4)a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(5)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Upon issuance of, and Gildan's compliance with, the final Order, the Commission agrees not to bring a civil penalty action against Gildan and each of its successors and assigns based upon the Staff's allegations contained herein regarding the Drawstring Sweatshirts. 21. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order. 22. The Agreement and Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, Gildan and each of its successors and assigns. 23. The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA, and violation of the Order subjects Gildan to appropriate legal action in any United States District Court. For purposes of any such action, counsel of record agrees to accept service of process. 24. This Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced. 25. If any provision of the Agreement and the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and Gildan agree that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order. 26. Pursuant to section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, the Commission delegated to the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance and Field Operations the authority to act, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, for the Commission under 16 CFR 1118.20 with respect to Staff allegations that any person or firm violated 15 U.S.C. 2068, where the total amount of the settlement involves no more than $100,000. Gildan Activewear SRL. Dated: 04/08/08. By: Michael R. Hoffman, *President,* Gildan Activewear SRL, 34 Warrens Street,St. Michael, Barbados. Dated: 04/08/08. By: Thomas D. Myriek, Esquire, Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, *Counsel for Gildan Activewear SRL* , 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700, Charlotte, NC 28202-4003. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Staff. J. Gibson Mullen, *Assistant Executive Director,* Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Ronald G. Yelenik, *Acting Director,* Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Dated: 04/11/08. By: Dennis C. Kacoyanis, *Trial Attorney,* Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations. In the Matter of Gildan Activewear SRL, a corporation.; CPSC DOCKET NO. 08-C0012 Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Gildan Activewear SRL (“Gildan”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Gildan, and pursuant to the authority delegated in section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is Ordered, that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is Further Ordered, that Gildan shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00). This payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury within

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's Final Order accepting the Agreement. Upon the failure of Gildan to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by Gildan at the federal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 22nd day of April, 2008. By Order of the Commission. Todd A. Stevenson, *Secretary,* Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E8-9263 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-M CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 08-COO11] Life is Good, Inc., Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally accepted Settlement Agreement with Life is Good, Inc., containing a civil penalty of $50,000.00. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 08-COO11, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth B. Popkin, Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone

(301)504-7612. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: April 23, 2008. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. In the Matter of Life is Good, Inc.; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0011 Settlement Agreement 1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, Life is Good, Inc. (“LIG”) and the staff (“Staff”) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) settle the Staff's allegations set forth below. Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084 (“CPSA”). 3. LIG is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Massachusetts, with its principal offices located in Boston, Massachusetts. At all times relevant hereto, LIG sold apparel and accessories. Staff Allegations 4. Beginning in or about March 2006, LIG distributed 2,493 children's hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings through the hoods, and, beginning in or about July 2007, LIG sold and/or held for sale or distribution after introduction into commerce, 7,793 Zippity Hoodie and Sherpa Full Zip children's hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings through the hood (collectively “Drawstring Sweatshirts”). 5. Retailers sold Drawstring Sweatshirts to consumers. 6. The Drawstring Sweatshirts are “consumer product[s],” and, at all times relevant hereto, LIG was a “distributor” of those consumer products, which were “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(1), (5), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (5), (11), and (12). 7. In February 1996, the Staff issued the Guidelines for Drawstrings on Children's Upper Outerwear (“Guidelines”) to help prevent children from strangling or entangling on neck and waist drawstrings. The Guidelines state that drawstrings can cause, and have caused, injuries and deaths when they catch on items such as playground equipment, bus doors, or cribs. In the Guidelines, the Staff recommends that there be no hood and neck drawstrings in children's upper outerwear sized 2T to 12. 8. In June 1997, ASTM adopted a voluntary standard, ASTM F1816-97, that incorporated the Guidelines. The Guidelines state that firms should be aware of the hazards and should be sure garments they sell conform to the voluntary standard. 9. On May 19, 2006, the Commission posted on its Web site a letter from the Commission's Director of the Office of Compliance to manufacturers, importers, and retailers of children's upper outerwear. The letter urges them to make certain that all children's upper outerwear sold in the United States complies with ASTM F1816-97. The letter states that the Staff considers children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck area to be defective and to present a substantial risk of injury to young children under Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) section 15(c), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c). The letter also notes the CPSA's section 15(b) reporting requirements. 10. LIG reported to the Commission that there had been no incidents or injuries from the Drawstring Sweatshirts. 11. LIG's distribution in commerce of the Drawstring Sweatshirts did not meet the Guidelines or ASTM F1816-97, failed to abide by the Staff's May 2006 defect notice, and posed a strangulation hazard to children. 12. On April 17, 2007 and August 30, 2007, recalls of the Drawstring Sweatshirts were announced, informing consumers that they should immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard. 13. LIG had presumed and actual knowledge that the Drawstring Sweatshirts distributed in commerce posed a strangulation hazard and presented a substantial risk of injury to children under FHSA section 15(c)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(1). LIG had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Drawstring Sweatshirts contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. CPSA sections 1 5(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required LIG to immediately inform the Commission of the defect and risk. 14. LIG knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission about the Drawstring Sweatshirts as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), and as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected LIG to civil penalties. LIG Response 15. LIG denies the Staff's allegations above that LIG:

(i)Had actual knowledge of the risk posed by Drawstring Sweatshirts and

(ii)knowingly violated the CPSA. LIG states that the Drawstring Sweatshirts sold by a retailer beginning in March 2006 were reported to the Commission by the retailer, and that the retailer, in cooperation with the Commission, voluntarily recalled them in April 2007. LIG provided information to the retailer in connection with the retailer's report to the Commission. In August 2007, LIG voluntarily reported to the Commission about the Drawstring Sweatshirts it began distributing in July 2007. In August 2007, LIG, in cooperation with the Commission, conducted a voluntary recall of the Drawstring Sweatshirts distributed in July and August 2007. That recall succeeded in recovering all but five of such Drawstring Sweatshirts. Agreement of the Parties 16. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over LIG. 17. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by LIG, or a determination by the Commission, that LIG has knowingly violated the CPSA. 18. In settlement of the Staff's allegations, LIG shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). The civil penalty shall be paid in two

(2)installments as follows: $25,000.00 shall be paid within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement; and $25,000.00 shall be paid within one hundred eighty

(180)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. Each payment shall be by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 19. Upon provisional acceptance of the Agreement, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). In accordance with 16 CFR 11 18.20(f), if the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen

(15)calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the sixteenth

(16th)calendar day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** . 20. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, LIG knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:

(1)An administrative or judicial hearing;

(2)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Order or of the Commission's actions;

(3)a determination by the Commission of whether LIG failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations;

(4)a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law and

(5)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 21. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order. 22. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, LIG and each of its successors and assigns. 23. The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA, and violation of the Order may subject LIG to appropriate legal action. 24. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced. 25. If any provision of the Agreement and the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and LIG agree that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order. 26. Pursuant to section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, the Commission delegated to the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance and Field Operations the authority to act, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, for the Commission under 16 CFR 1118.20 with respect to Staff allegations that any person or firm violated 15 U.S.C. 2068, where the total amount of the settlement involves no more than $100,000. Life is Good, Inc. Dated: 3/17/08. By: Roy Heffem, *Chief Financial Optimist,* Life is Good, Inc., 283-285 Newbury Street, Boston, MA 02115. Dated: 3/17/08. By: Jo Banse, *General Counsel,* Life is Good, Inc., 283-285 Newbury Street, Boston, MA 02115. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Staff. J. Gibson Mullan, Assistant Executive Director, Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Ronald G. Yelenik, *Acting Director,* *Legal Division,* Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Dated: 4/16/08. By: Seth B. Popkin, *Trial Attorney,* Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations. In the Matter of Life is Good, Inc.; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0011 Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Life is Good, Inc. (“LIG”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over LIG, and pursuant to the authority delegated in section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is Ordered, that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is Further Ordered, that LIG shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). The civil penalty shall be paid in two

(2)installments as follows: $25,000.00 shall be paid within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement; and $25,000.00 shall be paid within one hundred eighty

(180)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of LIG to make any of the foregoing payments when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by LIG at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and Provisional Order issued on the 22nd day of April, 2008. By Order of the Commission. Todd A. Stevenson, *Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.* [FR Doc. E8-9265 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-M CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 08-C0009] Seena International, Inc., Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with Seena International Inc., containing a civil penalty of $35,000.00. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 08-C0009, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth B. Popkin, Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone

(301)504-7612. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: April 23, 2008. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. In the Matter of Seena International, Inc.; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0009 Settlement Agreement 1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, Seena International, Inc. (“Seena”) and the staff (“Staff”) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) settle the Staff's allegations set forth below. Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084 (“CPSA”). 3. Seena is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York, with its principal offices located in Yaphank, New York. At all times relevant hereto, Seena sold apparel. Staff Allegations 4. From June to December 2006, Seena imported and sold children's hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings through the hoods (“Drawstring Sweatshirts”). Seena imported 61,714 Drawstring Sweatshirts and sold to retailers and distributors 45,810 of these Drawstring Sweatshirts. 5. Retailers sold Drawstring Sweatshirts to consumers. 6. The Drawstring Sweatshirts are “consumer product[s],” and, at all times relevant hereto, Seena was a “manufacturer” of those consumer products, which were “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12). 7. In February 1996, the Staff issued the Guidelines for Drawstrings on Children's Upper Outerwear (“Guidelines”) to help prevent children from strangling or entangling on neck and waist drawstrings. The Guidelines state that drawstrings can cause, and have caused, injuries and deaths when they catch on items such as playground equipment, bus doors, or cribs. In the Guidelines, the Staff recommends that there be no hood and neck drawstrings in children's upper outerwear sized 2T to 12. 8. In June 1997, ASTM adopted a voluntary standard, ASTM F1816-97, that incorporated the Guidelines. The Guidelines state that firms should be aware of the hazards and should be sure garments they sell conform to the voluntary standard. 9. On May 19, 2006, the Commission posted on its Web site a letter from the Commission's Director of the Office of Compliance to manufacturers, importers, and retailers of children's upper outerwear. The letter urges them to make certain that all children's upper outerwear sold in the United States complies with ASTM F1816-97. The letter states that the Staff considers children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck area to be defective and to present a substantial risk of injury to young children under Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) section 15(c), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c). The letter also notes the CPSA's section 15(b) reporting requirements. 10. Seena reported to the Commission that there had been no incidents or injuries from the Drawstring Sweatshirts. 11. Seena's distribution in commerce of the Drawstring Sweatshirts did not meet the Guidelines or ASTM F1816-97, failed to comport with the Staff's May 2006 defect notice, and posed a strangulation hazard to children. 12. On January 10, 2007, the Commission, in cooperation with Seena, announced a recall of the Drawstring Sweatshirts, informing consumers that they should immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard. 13. Seena had presumed and actual knowledge that the Drawstring Sweatshirts distributed in commerce posed a strangulation hazard and presented a substantial risk of injury to children under FHSA section 15(c)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(1). Seena had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Drawstring Sweatshirts contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required Seena to immediately inform the Commission of the defect and risk. 14. Seena knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission about the Drawstring Sweatshirts as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), and as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected Seena to civil penalties. Seena Response 15. Seena denies the Staff's allegations above that Seena knowingly violated the CPSA. Agreement of the Parties 16. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Seena. 17. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Seena, or a determination by the Commission, that Seena has knowingly violated the CPSA. 18. In settlement of the Staff's allegations, Seena shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. This payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 19. Upon provisional acceptance of the Agreement, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f), if the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen

(15)calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the sixteenth

(16th)calendar day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** . 20. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, Seena knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:

(1)An administrative or judicial hearing;

(2)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Order or of the Commission's actions;

(3)a determination by the Commission of whether Seena failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations;

(4)a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(5)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 21. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order. 22. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, Seena and each of its successors and assigns. 23. The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA, and violation of the Order may subject Seena to appropriate legal action. 24. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced. 25. If any provision of the Agreement and the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and Seena agree that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order. 26. Pursuant to section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, the Commission delegated to the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance and Field Operations the authority to act, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, for the Commission under 16 CFR 1118.20 with respect to Staff allegations that any person or firm violated 15 U.S.C. 2068, where the total amount of the settlement involves no more than $100,000. Seena International, Inc. Dated: March 26, 2008. By: Pankaj Kalia, *Vice President of Operations,* Seena International, Inc., 99 Horseblock Road, P.O. Box 60, Yaphank, NY 11980. Dated: March 28, 2008. By: Todd A. Gabor, Esq. 132 Spruce Street, Cedarhurst, NY 11516, *Counsel to Seena International, Inc.* U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Staff J. Gibson Mullan, *Assistant Executive Director* , Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Ronald G. Yelenik, Acting Director, Legal Division Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Dated: April 16, 2008. By: Seth B. Popkin, Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations. In the Matter of Seena International, Inc.; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0009 Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Seena International, Inc. (“Seena”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Seena, and pursuant to the authority delegated in section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is *Ordered* , that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is *Further ordered* , that Seena shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of Seena to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by Seena at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 22nd day of April, 2008. By Order of the Commission. Todd A. Stevenson, *Secretary.* U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission [FR Doc. E8-9291 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-M CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 08-C0007] The Cayre Group, Ltd., Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally accepted Settlement Agreement with The Cayre Group, Ltd., containing a civil penalty of $40,000.00. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 08-C0007, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth B. Popkin, Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone

(301)504-7612. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: April 23, 2008. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. In the Matter of The Cayre Group, Ltd.; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0007 Settlement Agreement 1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, The Cayre Group, Ltd. (“TCG”) and the staff (“Staff”) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) settle the Staff's allegations set forth below. Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084 (“CPSA”). 3. TCG is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New Jersey, with its principal offices located in New York, New York. At all times relevant hereto, TCG sold apparel. Staff Allegations 4. From July 1 to September 1, 2006, TCG imported and/or distributed in commerce 11,942 Candies brand children's hoodie sweatshirts with drawstrings through the hoods (model 38g041k) (“Drawstring Sweatshirts”). 5. A nationwide retailer sold the Drawstring Sweatshirts to consumers. 6. The Drawstring Sweatshirts are “consumer product[s],” and, at all times relevant hereto, TCG was a “manufacturer” of those consumer products, which were “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12). 7. In February 1996, the Staff issued the Guidelines for Drawstrings on Children's Upper Outerwear (“Guidelines”) to help prevent children from strangling or entangling on neck and waist drawstrings. The Guidelines state that drawstrings can cause, and have caused, injuries and deaths when they catch on items such as playground equipment, bus doors, or cribs. In the Guidelines, the Staff recommends that there be no hood and neck drawstrings in children's upper outerwear sized 2T to 12. 8. In June 1997, ASTM adopted a voluntary standard, ASTM F1816-97, that incorporated the Guidelines. The Guidelines state that firms should be aware of the hazards and should be sure garments they sell conform to the voluntary standard. 9. On May 19, 2006, the Commission posted on its website a letter from the Commission's Director of the Office of Compliance to manufacturers, importers, and retailers of children's upper outerwear. The letter urges them to make certain that all children's upper outerwear sold in the United States complies with ASTM F1816-97. The letter states that the Staff considers children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck area to be defective and to present a substantial risk of injury to young children under Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) section 15(c), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c). The letter also notes the CPSA's section 15(b) reporting requirements. 10. TCG reported to the Commission that there had been no incidents or injuries from the Drawstring Sweatshirts. 11. TCG's distribution in commerce of the Drawstring Sweatshirts did not meet the Guidelines or ASTM F1816-97, failed to comport with the Staff's May 2006 defect notice, and posed a strangulation hazard to children. 12. On September 20, 2006, the Commission, in cooperation with TCG, announced a recall of the Drawstring Sweatshirts, informing consumers that they should immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard. 13. TCG had presumed and actual knowledge that the Drawstring Sweatshirts distributed in commerce posed a strangulation hazard and presented a substantial risk of injury to children under FHSA section 15(c)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(l). TCG had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Drawstring Sweatshirts contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required TCG to immediately inform the Commission of the defect and risk. 14. TCG knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission about the Drawstring Sweatshirts as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), and as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected TCG to civil penalties. TCG Response 15. TCG denies the Staff's allegations above that TCG knowingly violated the CPSA. Agreement of the Parties 16. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over TCG. 17. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by TCG or a determination by the Commission, that TCG has knowingly violated the CPSA. 18. In settlement of the Staff's allegations, TCG shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. Each payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 19. Upon provisional acceptance of the Agreement, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f), if the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen

(15)calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the sixteenth

(16th)calendar day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** . 20. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, TCG knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:

(1)An administrative or judicial hearing;

(2)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Order or of the Commission's actions;

(3)a determination by the Commission of whether TCG failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations;

(4)a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(5)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 21. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order. 22. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, TCG and each of its successors and assigns. 23. The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA, and violation of the Order may subject TCG to appropriate legal action. 24. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced. 25. If any provision of the Agreement and the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable, The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and TCG agree that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order. 26. Pursuant to section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, the Commission delegated to the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance and Field Operations the authority to act, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, for the Commission under 16 CFR 1118.20 with respect to Staff allegations that any person or firm violated 15 U.S.C. 2068, where the total amount of the settlement involves no more than $100,000. The Cayre Group, Ltd. Dated: March 19, 2008. Amin Cayre, *President,* The Cayre Group, Ltd. 1407 Broadway, 41st Floor, New York, NY 10018 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Staff. J. Gibson Mullan, *Assistant Executive Director* , Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Ronald G. Yelenik, *Acting Director* , Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Dated: April 16, 2008. Seth B. Popkin, *Trial Attorney* , Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations. In the Matter of The Cayre Group, Ltd.; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0007 Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between The Cayre Group, Ltd. (“TCG”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff; and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over TCG, and pursuant to the authority delegated in section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is *Ordered* , that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is *Further ordered* , that TCG shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of TCG to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by TCG at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 22nd day of April, 2008. By Order of the Commission: Todd A. Stevenson, *Secretary,* U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission [FR Doc. E8-9277 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-M CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 08-C0005] The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally accepted Settlement Agreement with The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., containing a civil penalty of $50,000.00. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 08-C0005, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth B. Popkin, Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone

(301)504-7612. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: April 23, 2008. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission In the Matter of the Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0005 Settlement Agreement 1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (“NMG”) and the staff (“Staff') of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) settle the Staff's allegations set forth below. Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051—2084 (“CPSA”). 3. NMG is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal offices located in Dallas, Texas. At all times relevant hereto, NMG sold apparel. Staff Allegations 4. From April 2006 to July 13, 2006, NMG sold 147 True Religion fleece hoodies with drawstrings through the hood and neck (“Drawstring Sweatshirts”). 5. NMG sold the Drawstring Sweatshirts to consumers. 6. The Drawstring Sweatshirts are “consumer product[s],” and, at all times relevant hereto, NMG was a “retailer” of those consumer products, which were “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(1), (6), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(l), (6), (11), and (12). 7. In February 1996, the Staff issued the Guidelines for Drawstrings on Children's Upper Outerwear (“Guidelines”) to help prevent children from strangling or entangling on neck and waist drawstrings. The Guidelines state that drawstrings can cause, and have caused, injuries and deaths when they catch on items such as playground equipment, bus doors, or cribs. In the Guidelines, the Staff recommends that there be no hood and neck drawstrings in children's upper outerwear sized 2T to 12. 8. In June 1997, ASTM adopted a voluntary standard, ASTM F1816-97, that incorporated the Guidelines. The Guidelines state that firms should be aware of the hazards and should be sure garments they sell conform to the voluntary standard. 9. On May 19, 2006, the Commission posted on its Web site a letter from the Commission's Director of the Office of Compliance to manufacturers, importers, and retailers of children's upper outerwear. The letter urges them to make certain that all children's upper outerwear sold in the United States complies with ASTM Fl 8 16-97. The letter states that the Staff considers children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck area to be defective and to present a substantial risk of injury to young children under Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) section 15(c), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c). The letter also notes the CPSA's section 15(b) reporting requirements. 10. NMG reported to the Commission that there had been no incidents or injuries from the Drawstring Sweatshirts. 11. NMG's distribution in commerce of the Drawstring Sweatshirts did not meet the Guidelines or ASTM F1816-97, failed to comport with the Staff's May 2006 defect notice, and posed a strangulation hazard to children. 12. On September 14, 2006, the Commission, in cooperation with NMG and the manufacturer, announced a recall of the Drawstring Sweatshirts, informing consumers that they should immediately stop using the Drawstring Sweatshirts. 13. NMG had presumed and actual knowledge that the Drawstring Sweatshirts distributed in commerce posed a strangulation hazard and presented a substantial risk of injury to children under FHSA section 15(c)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(1). NMG had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Drawstring Sweatshirts contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required NMG to immediately inform the Commission of the defect and risk. 14. NMG knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission about the Drawstring Sweatshirts as required by CPSA sections 1 5(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), and as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected NMG to civil penalties. NMG's Response 15. NMG contests and denies the Staff's allegations. 16. NMG specifically denies that the Drawstring Sweatshirts or NMG violated the FHSA and that the Drawstring Sweatshirts contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. NMG sold only 147 units over a three-month period and received no reports of incidents or injury. NMG denies that it violated the reporting requirements of 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), 2068(a)(4). Likewise, NMG denies that any alleged violation of the CPSA or FHSA occurred “knowingly.” 17. NMG has entered into the Agreement for settlement purposes only, to avoid incurring additional expenses and the distraction of litigation. The Agreement and Order do not constitute and are not evidence of any fault or wrongdoing on the part of NMG. Agreement of the Parties 18. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over NMG. 19. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by NMG, or a determination by the Commission, that NMG has knowingly violated the CPSA. 20. In settlement of the Staff's allegations, NMG shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 21. Upon provisional acceptance of the Agreement, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f), if the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen

(15)calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the sixteenth

(16th)calendar day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** . 22. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, NMG knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:

(1)An administrative or judicial hearing;

(2)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Order or of the Commission's actions;

(3)a determination by the Commission of whether NMG failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations;

(4)a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(5)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 23. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order. 24. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, NMG and each of its successors and assigns. 25. The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA, and violation of the Order may subject NMG to appropriate legal action. 26. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced. 27. If any provision of the Agreement and the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and NMG agree that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order. 28. Pursuant to section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, the Commission delegated to the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance and Field Operations the authority to act, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, for the Commission under 16 CFR 1118.20 with respect to Staff allegations that any person or firm violated 15 U.S.C. 2068, where the total amount of the settlement involves no more than $100,000. The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. Dated: April 2, 2008. By: Kim Yee, *Vice President and Assistant General Counsel,* The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., One Marcus Square, 1618 Main Street, Dallas, TX 75201. Dated: 4-3-08. By: Christie Grymes, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, 3050 K Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20007, *Counsel for The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.* U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Staff. J. Gibson Mullan, *Assistant Executive Director,* Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Ronald G. Yelenik, *Acting Director, Legal Division,* Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Dated: 4-16-08. By: Seth B. Popkin, *Trial Attorney, Legal Division,* Office of Compliance and Field Operations. United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission In the Matter of the Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0005 Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (“NMG”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over NMG, and pursuant to the authority delegated in section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is *Ordered,* that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is *Further ordered,* that NMG shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of NMG to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by NMG at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on 22nd day of April, 2008. By Order of the Commission. Todd A. Stevenson, *Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission* . [FR Doc. E8-9270 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-M CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 08-C0006] True Religion Apparel, Inc., Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally accepted Settlement Agreement with True Religion Apparel, Inc., containing a civil penalty of $50,000.00. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by May 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 08-C0006, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth B. Popkin, Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone

(301)504-7612. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: April 23, 2008, Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission In the Matter of True Religion Apparel, Inc.; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0006 Settlement Agreement 1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, True Religion Apparel, Inc. (“TRA”), and the staff (“Staff”) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) settle the Staff's allegations set forth below. Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084 (“CPSA”). 3. TRA is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal offices located in Vernon, California. At all times relevant hereto, IRA sold apparel and accessories. Staff Allegations 4. From March to April 2006, TRA imported and sold to retailers True Religion Brand Jeans fleece hoodies with drawstrings through the hoods (“Drawstring Sweatshirts”). 5. Retailers sold the Drawstring Sweatshirts to consumers. 6. The Drawstring Sweatshirts are “consumer product[s],” and, at all times relevant hereto, TRA was a “manufacturer” of those consumer products, which were “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12). 7. In February 1996, the Staff issued the Guidelines for Drawstrings on Children's Upper Outerwear (“Guidelines”) to help prevent children from strangling or entangling on neck arid waist drawstrings. The Guidelines state that drawstrings can cause, and have caused, injuries and deaths when they catch on items such as playground equipment, bus doors, or cribs. In the Guidelines, the Staff recommends that there be no hood and neck drawstrings in children's upper outerwear sized 2T to 12. 8. In June 1997, ASTM adopted a voluntary standard, ASTM Fl 816-97, that incorporated the Guidelines. The Guidelines state that firms should be aware of the hazards and should be sure garments they sell conform to the voluntary standard. 9. On May 19, 2006, the Commission posted on its Web site a letter from the Commission's Director of the Office of Compliance to manufacturers, importers, and retailers of children's upper outerwear. The letter urges them to make certain that all children's upper outerwear sold in the United States complies with ASTM F 1816-97. The letter states that the Staff considers children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck area to be defective and to present a substantial risk of injury to young children under Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) section 15(c), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c). The letter also notes the CPSA's section 15(b) reporting requirements. 10. TRA reported to the Commission that there had been no incidents or injuries from the Drawstring Sweatshirts. 11. TRA' s distribution in commerce of the Drawstring Sweatshirts did not meet the Guidelines or ASTM F1816-97, failed to comport with the Staff's May 2006 defect notice, and posed a strangulation hazard to children. 12. On September 14, 2006, the Commission, in cooperation with TRA, announced a recall of 150 of the Drawstring Sweatshirts, informing consumers that they should immediately stop using the Drawstring Sweatshirts. 13. TRA had presumed and actual knowledge that the Drawstring Sweatshirts distributed in commerce posed a strangulation hazard and presented a substantial risk of injury to children under FHSA section 15(c)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1274(c)(1). TRA had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the Drawstring Sweatshirts contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required TRA to immediately inform the Commission of the defect and risk. 14. TRA knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission about the Drawstring Sweatshirts, including the 150 referenced above and additional ones, as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), and as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected TRA to civil penalties. TRA Response 15. TRA denies the Staff's allegations above that TRA knowingly violated the CPSA, denies that it unknowingly violated the CPSA, denies any wrongdoing, and states that no lawsuit has been filed against TRA relating to the subject matter of the Agreement. Agreement of the Parties 16. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over TRA. 17. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by TRA, or a determination by the Commission, that TRA has knowingly or unknowingly violated the CPSA. 18. In settlement of the Staffs allegations, TRA shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. Each payment shall be by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 19. Upon provisional acceptance of the Agreement, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f), if the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen

(15)calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the sixteenth

(16th)calendar day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** . 20. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, TRA knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:

(1)An administrative or judicial hearing;

(2)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Order or of the Commission's actions;

(3)a determination by the Commission of whether TRA failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations;

(4)a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(5)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 21. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order. 22. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, TRA and each of its successors and assigns. 23. The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA, and violation of the Order may subject TRA to appropriate legal action. 24. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced. 25. If any provision of the Agreement and the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and TRA agree that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order. 26. Pursuant to section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, the Commission delegated to the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance and Field Operations the authority to act, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, for the Commission under 16 CFR 1118.20 with respect to Staff allegations that any person or firm violated 15 U.S.C. 2068, where the total amount of the settlement involves no more than $100,000. True Religion Apparel, Inc., Dated: 4/2/08, By: Michael Buckley, *President* , True Religion Apparel, Inc. 2263 E. Vernon Avenue, Vernon, CA 90058. Dated: 4/3/08, By: William E. Potts, Jr., Esq., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20036, *Counsel to True Religion Apparel, Inc.* U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Staff, J. Gibson Mullan, *Assistant Executive Director* , Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Ronald G. Yelenik, *Acting Director Legal Division* , Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Dated: 4-16-08, By: Seth B. Popkin, *Trial Attorney* , Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations. United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission In the Matter of True Religion Apparel, Inc.; CPSC Docket No. 08-C0006 Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between True Religion Apparel, Inc. (“TRA”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over TRA, and pursuant to the authority delegated in section 6(d) of the Interim Delegation of Authority ordered by the Commission on February 1, 2008, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is Ordered, that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is Further Ordered, that TRA shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of TRA to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by TRA at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). A Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 22nd day of April 2008. By Order of the Commission: Todd A. Stevenson, *Secretary* , U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E8-9268 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-M CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Corporation is soliciting comments concerning its proposed competition of its Office of Leadership Development and Training (hereinafter `OLDT') cooperative agreement applications. These applications are used by current and prospective grantees to apply for funds to support training and technical assistance to Corporation grantees funded through AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, Lean and Serve and NCCC. Completion of the Grant Application is required to be considered for or obtain a Corporation cooperative agreement to provide training and technical assistance services to Corporation grantees and subgrantees. Copies of the information collection requests can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the addresses section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

(1)By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Leadership Development and Training; Attention Ralph Morales, Acting Associate Director for Administration and Budget, Room 9809; 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525.

(2)By hand delivery or by courier to the Corporation's mailroom at Room 6010 at the mail address given in paragraph

(1)above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

(3)By fax to:

(202)606-3477, Attention Ralph Morales, Acting Associate Director for Budget and Administration.

(4)Electronically through the Corporation's e-mail address system: *rmorales@cns.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralph Morales,

(202)606-6829, or by e-mail at *rmorales@cns.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Corporation is particularly interested in comments that: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (>e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses). Background The Office of Leadership Development and Training Application is completed by applicant organizations interested in providing training and technical assistance services to Corporation grantees and subgrantees to train them in effectively managing their Corporation-funded programs. The application is completed electronically using eGrants, the Corporation's Web-based grants management system. Current Action The Corporation seeks to recompete and revise the current applications. When revised, the application will revise/clarify eGrants instructions to reflect the new, Web-based user interface for eGrants; shorten background information on the Office of Leadership Development and Training and clarify guidance on the cost effectiveness of services provided. The application will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. The Corporation also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on May 31, 2008. *Type of Review:* Renewal. *Agency:* Corporation for National and Community Service. *Title:* Application Instructions Training and Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreements. *OMB Number:* 3045-0105. *Agency Number:* None. *Affected Public:* Current/prospective training and technical assistance providers. *Total Respondents:* 56. *Frequency:* Every three years. *Average Time per Response:* Averages 11.75 hours. Estimated at 16.5 hours for first-time respondents; 7 hours for current providers. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 658 hours. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* None. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* None. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: April 16, 2008. Gretchen Van der Veer, Director, Office of Leadership Development & Training. [FR Doc. E8-9355 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 08-38] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM,

(703)601-3740. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-38 with attached transmittal, policy justification. Dated: April 18, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN29AP08.000 EN29AP08.001 EN29AP08.002 [FR Doc. E8-9146 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY: United States Election Assistance Commission. ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting and Hearing Date and Time: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 10 a.m.—1 p.m. Place: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave., NW., Suite 150, Washington, DC 20005 (Metro Stop: Metro Center). Agenda: The Commissioners will consider the following items: Whether to modify Advisory Opinion 07-003-A regarding Maintenance of Effort

(MOE)funding, pursuant to HAVA Section 254 (a)(7); whether to update the Michigan state instructions on the national voter registration form. Commissioners will receive a briefing regarding HAVA State Plans. Commissioners will hold a fact gathering hearing regarding Iowa's audit appeal, as part of the audit appeal process established by the Commission. The Commission will consider other administrative matters. This Meeting Will Be Open to the Public Person to Contact for Information: Bryan Whitener, Telephone:

(202)566-3100. Thomas R. Wilkey, Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission. [FR Doc. E8-9279 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings: Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project, Rainelle, Greenbrier County, WV AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Record of Decision

(ROD)and Floodplain Statement of Findings. SUMMARY: DOE has decided to implement the Proposed Action alternative, identified as the preferred alternative, in the *Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement* (DOE/EIS-0361; November 2007) (FEIS). That alternative is to provide approximately $107.5 million (up to 50% of the development costs) to Western Greenbrier Co-Generation, LLC

(WGC)through a cooperative agreement under the Clean Coal Power Initiative

(CCPI)Program for a Co-Production Facility to be located at Rainelle in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. This funding will be used by WGC to design, construct and demonstrate a 98 megawatt

(net)power plant and cement manufacturing facility based on an innovative atmospheric-pressure circulating fluidized bed

(CFB)boiler with a compact inverted cyclone to generate electricity and steam by burning approximately 3,000 to 4,000 tons per day of coal refuse from several local sites. DOE considered two overall alternatives: To provide cost-shared funding or not to provide cost-shared funding to WGC's proposed project. In addition, DOE examined a range of implementing options for the power plant site, fuel supply, water supply, limestone supply, means of transportation, and transmission corridors. DOE analyzed in detail the environmental (including socioeconomic) impacts of each of these different options, as well as the economic and environmental benefits related to the reclamation and potential reuse of the coal refuse sites. This ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings have been prepared in accordance with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508) for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021), and DOE's Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR part 1022). ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at *http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documentspub.html* and on the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL)Web site at *http://www.netl.doe.gov* . This ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings will be available on both Web sites in the near future. Copies of the Final EIS, this ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings also may be requested by contacting Mr. Roy G. Spears, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26505; telephone: 304-285-5460; or e-mail: *roy.spears@netl.doe.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about the project or the EIS, contact Mr. Roy G. Spears, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26505; telephone: 304-285-5460 or e-mail: *roy.spears@netl.doe.gov* . For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103; telephone: 202-586-4600; or leave a toll-free message at 800-472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE has prepared this ROD pursuant to CEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA [40 CFR parts 1500-1508] and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR part 1021). This ROD is based on DOE's Final EIS and other program considerations. Background and Purpose and Need for Agency Action The promotion of America's energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy is one of the core components of DOE's mission to discover solutions to power and secure America's future. Coal is the most plentiful energy source in America today. Accordingly, DOE has strived to accelerate deployment of innovative clean coal technologies that can meet near-term energy and environmental goals, reduce risk in the business community to an acceptable level, and provide incentives to the private sector for innovative research and development directed at solving various energy supply problems. Since the early 1970s, DOE and its predecessor agencies have supported research and development programs that include long-term, high business-risk activities for the development of a wide variety of innovative coal technologies through the proof-of-concept stage. On November 5, 2001, the President signed the “Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002,” which established and appropriated initial funding for the CCPI Program (Pub. L. 107-63). Under this Initiative, DOE is required to promote the widespread commercial application of innovative technologies for more efficient and environmentally sustainable uses of coal by the power industry in the United States. This Initiative achieves that goal by co-funding proposed projects that DOE has selected through solicitation and negotiation. DOE issued the first-round CCPI solicitation in March 2002 and received 36 proposals. The Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project was one of eight projects selected in January 2003 for further consideration following a preliminary environmental review. The evaluation criteria that DOE used in the selection process included technical merit of the proposed technology, potential for a successful demonstration of the technology, potential for the technology to be commercialized, and environmental factors. In addition to demonstrating the first commercial application in the United States of a compact, inverted cyclone CFB design, which reduces size, steel requirements, costs and construction time, this project offers a novel approach to converting waste ash into commercial building products while also integrating power generation with remediation of coal refuse piles. A successful demonstration would generate technical, environmental, and financial data to confirm that similar integrated technologies can be implemented at the commercial scale. EIS Process On June 3, 2003, DOE published in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 33111) a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS and to hold a public scoping meeting. DOE held the meeting in Charmco, West Virginia, on June 19, 2003. The public scoping period ended on July 3, 2003. DOE considered all of the comments received in preparing the Draft EIS. On December 1, 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 69562) and DOE's Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the **Federal Register** on December 4, 2006 (71 FR 70371). DOE's Notice of Availability announced a public hearing on the Draft EIS and invited agencies, organizations, and individuals to present oral and written comments. DOE conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIS on January 4, 2007, in Crawley, West Virginia. An informational session was held prior to the hearing for the public to learn more about the proposed project. The public was encouraged to provide comments, either at the hearing or in writing, by January 18, 2007. Twenty people commented at the hearing and 179 people submitted written comments. DOE considered and responded to all public comments in the Final EIS. In November 2007, DOE issued its Final EIS and the EPA published a Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in the **Federal Register** on November 9, 2007 (72 FR 63579). Proposed Action The Proposed Action is for DOE to provide WGC with approximately $107.5 million through a cooperative agreement under the CCPI Program for up to 50% of the cost for a Co-Production Facility, emphasizing a 98 megawatt

(net)CFB that generates electricity and steam, to be located at Rainelle in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. The facility would be designed for long-term commercial operation (at least 20 years) following completion of the cooperative agreement. It is anticipated that DOE's share of project costs would be paid back over a 20-year period following the one-year demonstration period, based on a Repayment Agreement negotiated between DOE and WGC. The proposed power plant, which employs an inverted cyclone combustor, would require less steel than a plant configured with a conventional cyclone, reducing steel costs by approximately 40%. Because the boiler system is shorter and has a smaller footprint, it would take about 10% less time to construct than a conventional cyclone facility. WGC would obtain fuel for the power plant from the Anjean, Joe Knob, Donegan, and Green Valley coal refuse sites in the area for an initial period of 20 years. Before these fuel sources are depleted, WGC would identify additional coal refuse sites in accordance with West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) clean-up priorities. Refuse coal removed from these sites would be beneficiated (washed or otherwise cleaned to increase the energy content by reducing the ash content) in a semi-mobile, relocatable, coal preparation plant. Heavy-haul trucks would transport the fuel on local roads to the power plant site. By processing the fuel near the coal refuse sites, WGC would substantially reduce the volume of truck traffic that otherwise would be generated by the project and also reduce fuel processing and handling activities on the power plant site. The power plant would generate electricity for distribution on the national grid via a new transmission line and corridor. The power plant would also produce an alkaline ash from fuel combustion. WGC would return a portion of the ash to coal refuse piles to facilitate remediation and reclamation efforts at each of the coal refuse sites in accordance with agreements between WGC and the WVDEP. WGC would produce cement from the balance of the ash by combining it with limestone in a coal-fired rotary kiln associated with the power plant. In addition to electricity and cement, the planned plant would co-produce steam and would serve as the anchor tenant for a proposed, environmentally balanced industrial park (“EcoPark”) to be located on an adjacent property in Rainelle. Alternatives DOE pursues the goals of the CCPI Program by co-funding projects owned by non-Federal sponsors. As such, DOE has a more limited role than if the Federal government were the owner and operator of the projects. DOE evaluated CCPI Program applications to determine if they meet the CCPI Program's goals. It is appropriate for DOE to consider the applicant's needs and goals in determining the scope of the EIS ( *i.e.* , identifying the range of reasonable alternatives). Based on the foregoing principles, DOE has identified and analyzed two reasonable alternatives:

(1)Provision by DOE of cost-shared funding for the WGC Project as proposed, subject to conditions ( *e.g.* mitigations), and

(2)a no-action alternative in which DOE would not provide funding for the project. Without funding, DOE assumes that the project would be cancelled. DOE considered and dismissed from further review other alternatives that did not meet the goals and objectives of the CCPI Program. Commenters proposed additional alternatives such as encouraging energy efficiency rather than demonstrating a coal-fired power plant and employing high quality fuel rather than refuse fuel. DOE considered but dismissed these and similar alternatives from further analysis because they would not satisfy the Department's purpose and need. DOE examined numerous implementing options for the power plant site, fuel supply, water supply, limestone supply, materials handling, transportation, and transmission corridor sites. For example, DOE examined three locations for the proposed power plant facility, each of which would change the configuration and size of the power plant footprint. One of the advantages of the inverted cyclone technology is that it reduces the plant footprint, and the resulting reduction of material and construction cost is relevant to DOE's decision to fund or not fund. DOE also examined four different coal refuse sites for fuel supply. These sites vary widely in size and distance from the plant site. DOE examined secondary and tertiary water supply options that would involve varying degrees of surface (river) water and groundwater. The implementing options, in some instances, have distinct environmental impacts. For example, one option for water supply would reduce streamflow in the Meadow River to a greater degree than the other option. The EIS analyzes in detail the environmental impacts of these different options. After considering the range of reasonable implementing options, the potential environmental impacts, and all public comments, DOE concluded in the Final EIS that providing cost-shared funding for WGC's preferred configuration of options is DOE's Preferred Alternative. Analysis of Environmental Impacts *Atmospheric conditions and air quality:* In examining how the construction and operation of the WGC Co-Production Facility could impact air resources in the planning area, DOE reviewed the predictive air dispersion modeling, Class I and Class II Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)analysis, and visibility modeling that were completed by WGC in support of the Permit to Construct, R14-0028, issued to WGC by WVDEP 1 . During construction of the Co-Production Facility and the associated coal preparation plant system, the potential sources of air emissions would be material handling and storage, soil excavation, diesel-fueled construction equipment, and construction worker vehicles. During operations, the potential sources of air emissions would be process equipment (including the CFB and kiln), material handling and storage, and vehicles. The majority of these emissions would be exhaust from the combustor and kiln via a common stack during operations. The Co-Production Facility's emissions would be less than levels specified in the R14-0028 permit, which complies with New Source Performance Standards. 1 In accordance with the West Virginia Air Pollution Control Act (West Virginia Code §§ 22-5-1 *et seq.* ), 45 CSR. 13—Permits for Construction, Modification, Relocation and Operation of Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants, Notification Requirements, Temporary Permits, General Permits and Procedures for Evaluation, and 45 CSR. 14—Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration. Each of the implementing options proposed by WGC would emit similar types and quantities of pollutants. Analyses in the EIS show that emissions of criteria pollutants, when combined with ambient background concentrations of pollutants, would comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition, pursuant to the governing Permit R14-0028, the facility would be equipped with a Continuous Emission Monitoring System to ensure that NAAQS would not be exceeded. To limit the rate at which increased emissions can occur in areas that attain air quality standards, PSD regulations include limits, or increments (“PSD increments”), that the proposed facilities classified as major sources must meet. PSD increments are the maximum allowable concentration increases above a baseline concentration. PSD increments applicable to the proposed project have been established for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and particulate matter (PM 10 ). The Co-Production Facility's emissions of these NAAQS pollutants, namely SO 2 , NO 2 and PM 10 , will contribute to PSD increments in the Class II areas (Class II areas are designated areas in which moderate deterioration, associated with well managed growth, is allowed) that surrounds the proposed WGC plant. These emissions, however, would contribute in a range between 25% and 75% of the allowable increment depending upon the pollutant and associated averaging time. The 24-hour PM 10 emissions in the immediate vicinity of the site would be responsible for the greatest percentage of the PSD increment. In response to public scoping comments and after consulting with WVDEP and Federal Land Managers, DOE analyzed potential impacts at the four nearest Class I areas (Class I areas are designated areas in which the degradation of air quality is to be severely restricted [ *e.g.* , National Park or Wilderness Areas]). These Class I areas (and their distances from Rainelle) are: James River Wilderness Area (74 miles), Otter Creek Wilderness Area (89 miles), Dolly Sods Wilderness Area (102 miles), and Shenandoah National Park (105 miles). A visibility analysis, using methodology requested by Federal Land Managers responsible for the Class I areas, indicated that in the closest Class I areas there would likely be no more than 6 days over a 3-year period when there would be a 5% change in light extinction, and no days with greater than 10% light extinction (thresholds that Federal Land Managers use to determine potential significance). However, meteorological records suggest that these occurrences may be attributable to natural obscuring conditions (such as fog, clouds, and rain). The analyses indicate that, even without accounting for naturally obscuring periods, concentrations of all the criteria pollutants emitted from the Co-Production Facility would have an insignificant impact at the nearest Class I Areas. As a fossil fuel-fired steam electric power plant, the CFB would be among the 28 named source categories listed in section 169 of the Clean Air Act as a major source that has the potential to emit a regulated air pollutant (or precursor) or a hazardous air pollutant in quantities equal to or exceeding listed thresholds. For emissions that could be above a threshold, a Best Available Control Technology

(BACT)analysis was conducted by WGC as part of the permitting process. This analysis resulted in the selection of the following emission control technologies: • Nitrogen Oxides (NO X )—Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction from the combined flow of the CFB and Kiln. • Carbon Monoxide

(CO)and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)—A combination of temperature profile, residence time, turbulence, and excess air levels for controlling CO and VOC emission rates from the combined flow of the CFB/Kiln. • SO 2 —Limestone injection into the CFB for controlling SO 2 emissions from the CFB, and use of a flash dryer absorber for the CFB/Kiln. • Sulfuric Acid (H 2 SO 4 )—Limestone injection into the CFB for controlling SO 2 emissions from the CFB, and use of a flash dryer absorber for the CFB/Kiln. • Particulate matter (PM)—Use of a baghouse for controlling PM emission rates from the combined flow of the CFB/ Kiln. DOE independently reviewed the BACT analysis that WGC conducted to determine how WGC would control emissions of NO X , CO, VOC, SO 2 , H 2 SO 4 , and PM. In addition, in May 2006, the Sierra Club (West Virginia Chapter), West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, and Greenbrier River Watershed Association filed an appeal with the West Virginia Air Quality Board (AQB), challenging WVDEP's issuance of the air permit. The final order for this appeal was issued on February 28, 2007. In it, the AQB affirmed the WVDEP's issuance of the air permit to WGC. According to the final order, the AQB concluded that WGC appropriately conducted the BACT analysis, and WVDEP complied with procedural requirements in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. WGC's planned extraction and processing of coal refuse would emit fugitive dust and WGC would contain these emissions within site boundaries through the use of dust suppression activities in accordance with the West Virginia Code of State Rules

(CSR)38 CSR 2 and 45 CSR 5. WGC would construct and operate the preparation plant in accordance with a WVDEP Class II General Permit G10-C for coal preparation plants and coal handling operations. WVDEP would issue the permit in accordance with 45 CSR 13. Based on test burn analysis conducted for WGC's PSD Permit Application, WGC and DOE concluded that the Co-Production Facility would emit a maximum of 0.014 tons of mercury per year, which is significantly less than the 200 pound (0.1 ton) per year threshold listed in 45 CSR 13. The plant is not anticipated to discharge objectionable odors as regulated by 45 CSR 4. Analysis based on the Seasonal/Annual Cooling Tower Impact model, developed by the Electric Power Research Institute, demonstrated that the cooling tower proposed for the WGC project would not lead to excess fogging, rime ice deposition, plume shadowing, loss of solar energy, or salt and water deposition. The analysis shows that the cooling tower would have minimal adverse air impacts on neighboring properties. Under the Acid Rain Program established by Title IV of the Clean Air Act, utility generating units greater than 25 MW are required to obtain a Phase II Acid Rain Permit from EPA, under which they cannot emit more tons of SO 2 than held in marketable allowances. The proposed Co-Production Facility would have to obtain and comply with such a permit and would be operated in a manner that is consistent with EPA's overall efforts to reduce SO 2 emissions. *CO* 2 *Emissions:* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its Fourth Assessment Report, 2 stated that warming of the earth's climate system is unequivocal, and that warming is very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas

(GHG)concentrations. Emissions of the GHG, CO 2 , from the proposed project (including activities at the coal refuse and preparation plant sites and related trucking activities) would be approximately 0.87 million tons per year (0.79 million metric tons). Emissions of CO 2 resulting from global fossil fuel combustion are estimated to have averaged 28 billion tons (26 billion metric tons) per year during the period 2000 to 2005. 3 Over the 50-year duration of expected commercial operation, the proposed project could release approximately 44 million tons (40 metric tons) of CO 2 . DOE is not aware of any methodology to correlate the CO 2 emissions exclusively from the proposed project to any specific impact on global warming; however, studies such as the IPCC report support the premise that CO 2 emissions from the proposed project, together with global GHG emissions, will very likely have a cumulative impact on global warming. 2 Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers, released in Valencia, Spain, November 17, 2007. 3 Energy Information Agency, *http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf//tablehlco2.xls* . Although not proposed by the applicant, DOE has considered potential measures to mitigate impacts on global climate change by using geologic sequestration to reduce emissions of CO 2 . DOE determined that geologic sequestration is not reasonable for this project. Unlike plants that use integrated gasification combined cycle technology and produce a capturable stream of high-pressure CO 2 in the pre-combustion gasification stage, the proposed project will use a circulating fluidized bed system, and only emit a post-combustion, low pressure, diluted CO 2 stream in the flue gas. Currently, there is no economically viable technology that can capture diluted CO 2 in this low pressure stream. In order to raise its CO 2 to a pressure high enough for capture, the plant would need to use pressurization equipment that would consume so much energy and be so prohibitively expensive to operate that the plant would be economically infeasible. 4 4 For information on the status of various capture technologies, see *http://www.netl.doe.gov/technolgoies/carbon_seq/FAQs/tech-status.html* . In the future, cost-effective energy efficient technology may be available to capture the type of low-pressured CO 2 stream that a CFB plant emits. DOE has established a 2020 goal for the commercial scale operation of large scale plants that can select from a suite of technologies (currently in a conceptual phase) to capture up to 90% of CO 2 emissions and store it with 99% storage permanence (meaning that at most 1% of the stored CO 2 might leak out) at less than a 10% increase in the cost of energy services. At present, however, because CO 2 capture and subsequent sequestration is not a feasible option for the proposed project, DOE is not requiring specific mitigation measures to reduce CO 2 emissions. *Surface Water:* As required by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit, WGC would minimize impacts from discharge of pollutants and storm water on surface waters during construction by implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan. WGC would implement a storm water management pollution prevention plan and a groundwater protection plan based on West Virginia Department of Transportation and WVDEP requirements, thereby minimizing impacts on surface water during operation of the plant. WGC intends to use effluent from the Rainelle Sewage Treatment Plant as the primary source of process water for the facilities. WGC proposed two implementing options to provide supplemental sources of process water. Under the first option, WGC would withdraw groundwater as a secondary source of water supply and withdraw surface water from the Meadow River as a tertiary supply. The plant would withdraw water from the Meadow River intermittently, only during low aquifer conditions. WGC estimates that the Meadow River's streamflow would be reduced by a maximum of approximately 1.6 to 2.0 cubic feet per second

(cfs)at the end of a 25-year period. Under the second implementing option, WGC would withdraw from the Meadow River as a secondary source of water supply. This might reduce base river flows, but the plant would stop withdrawing river water when flows could fall below 60% of the annually or seasonally adjusted average flow. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources has provided base flow thresholds to be maintained in the Meadow River: 178 cfs April through September and 118 cfs October through March. A flow monitoring system would be implemented to alert operators or inspectors when the flows are at or approaching the thresholds. WGC personnel are responsible for the monitoring. WGC will install an electronic monitoring device with a “low flow” alarm, which will provide constant river flow information. Under DOE's preferred alternative, DOE would fund the plant only if it employs surface water as a secondary source and groundwater as a tertiary source ( *i.e.* , operates under the second implementing option). During periods when the plant does not use groundwater for water supply, the local aquifer would recharge and replenish itself. According to the widely used Tenant Method and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources' recently determined base flow thresholds, the WGC plant's withdrawal of river water will leave the water flow high enough to sustain survival of stream habitat. Based on the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources' guidelines, the maximum that WGC would be allowed to withdraw from the river is 2.7 cfs, which represents less than 1% of Meadow River's average annual flow. Withdrawal from the river would be limited to high flow conditions. The WGC plant would reduce streamflow by a maximum of approximately 0.8 cfs at the end of a 25-year period. *Floodplains:* All of the power plant siting options would unavoidably impact the floodplain of Sewell Creek. The preferred option would have the least impact on the floodplain, requiring 16 acres to be filled, resulting in a maximum increase in water elevation for a 100-year flood of 0.48 ft. The other two (non-preferred) options would require up to 20 acres to be filled, resulting in a maximum increase in water elevation for a 100-year flood of up to 0.67 ft. These potential increases in the 100-year flood elevations for Sewell Creek would be less than the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)designated maximum height of 1 ft in the local upstream area. No component of the Proposed Action would impact floodplains at coal refuse sites, limestone supply quarries, or power transmission facilities associated with the proposed project. *Biological Resources (Including Wetlands):* The power plant site has lost most of its original ecological resource value as a result of prior land-disturbing activity. Extensive adjacent acreage of undisturbed upland areas offer higher quality habitat. DOE determined that the project is not expected to impact any protected species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed DOE's habitat assessment report and surveys and confirmed that no federally-listed threatened and endangered species were found in the vicinity of the proposed project, and determined that no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for DOE's preferred alternative. The preferred power plant siting option would impact approximately 0.26 acres of wetlands. The non-preferred power plant options would encroach into significant areas of wetlands and require filling of a meander bend of Sewell Creek. In addition, construction and operation of the proposed transmission line corridor could impact approximately three acres of wetlands. With respect to the proposed transmission line corridor, most of the wetlands impacts would be temporary and the areas would be restored to their pre-existing conditions when construction activities end. Over time, restored wetlands would develop a similar or greater functional capacity compared to pre-disturbance conditions. However, impacts to approximately 0.38 acres of forested wetlands would result in a permanent habitat conversion and a change in wetlands function because post-construction corridor maintenance would result in a scrub-shrub cover type and prevent transitioning into a forested cover type. WGC has submitted a revised wetlands permit application to WVDEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The 0.26 acres of wetlands impacted by the preferred option, or larger acreage impacted by the non-preferred options, in addition to the approximately three acres of wetlands impacted within the transmission line corridor would result in a cumulative wetland impact that exceeds 0.5 acres, and thus necessitated WGC's submission of an Individual Permit application. Both state Section 401 and Federal Section 404 wetlands permit applications discuss temporary and permanent wetlands impacts and best management practices (BMPs), and include a compensatory conceptual wetlands mitigation plan for impacted wetlands. The conceptual wetlands replacement design would be finalized once WVDEP approves the plan. The USACE has decided to evaluate the WVDEP's response regarding compensatory wetlands replacement design before it would issue a jurisdictional determination on wetlands delineated by WGC. The Floodplain Statement of Findings in this ROD (below) contains further information about potential floodplain and wetlands impacts. *Geology and Groundwater:* DOE's groundwater modeling demonstrated that both of the implementing options considered for pumping water from the local aquifer were feasible and would not cause unacceptable levels of drawdown. These implementing options are described in greater detail under *Surface Water* . The Rainelle Water Department separately indicated that the two city wells would be able to safely meet the city water demand under both implementing options. In response to concerns expressed by members of the public during the EIS process about potential impacts on groundwater resulting from leaching of metals in the CFB ash proposed to be used for coal refuse remediation, DOE has conducted a further examination, including a review of case studies. Based on its review, DOE has concluded that CFB ash can be used to remediate coal refuse sites in a manner that does not degrade groundwater resources by leaching of arsenic or other metals. Remedial plans would govern the potential leaching of metals in the context of local conditions at the coal refuse site ( *e.g.* , geology and hydrology). The potential for mobilizing arsenic and other metals would be carefully evaluated as part of the remediation planning efforts overseen by WVDEP, who would direct and supervise the development and implementation of the site-specific reclamation plans. DOE will require that WGC develop plans in a manner that not only is protective of groundwater and surface water resources, but would potentially have a long-term beneficial impact to water resources. *Cultural Resources:* None of the project components associated with the Proposed Action would occur on, or otherwise affect, federally-recognized Native American tribal lands. The West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office (WV SHPO) concurred with the conclusion of a Phase I survey that none of the WGC implementing options for the proposed project would have an effect on any archaeological resources that might exist at the plant site. To date, no other cultural, historic or archaeological resource impacts have been identified at the sites associated with this project. In general, these sites have been extensively disturbed by previous mining-related operations and, as such, DOE does not expect that archaeological resources will be present in the vicinity of the proposed project. DOE conducted and submitted an additional Phase I survey to the WV SHPO in November, 2007, following further refinements to the proposed transmission corridor and water supply facilities. No prehistoric or historic archeological materials were reported in the survey; however, DOE anticipates WV SHPO's comments on the report in the near future and will continue consultation with the WV SHPO in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 review process. *Socioeconomics:* DOE determined that socioeconomic impacts would be predominately beneficial. Construction and operation of the power plant would increase local employment opportunities and provide economic stimulus to area businesses without displacing existing residents or businesses or adversely affecting current trends in population growth and the demand for housing. During construction, the project would likely employ an average of 185 individuals per month over a 29-month period. During the demonstration phase and subsequent commercial operation, the proposed project would employ approximately 126 full-time personnel and would result in approximately 114 new jobs from economic activity triggered by the proposed project. However, due to their close proximity to the proposed power plant, residential properties to the east of and within 1,500 feet of the plant site could decline in value because of temporary impacts to aesthetics, noise, dust emissions, and traffic during construction, and long-term impacts to aesthetics and noise during operations. *Environmental Justice:* DOE determined that the proposed power plant would not have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority or low-income populations. DOE did not identify any minority populations in the potentially affected area. The proportion of minorities in the region affected by the power plant site is substantially below 50%, and is not meaningfully greater than the proportion of minorities in the larger local jurisdictions, county, and state. DOE did, however, identify low-income populations. The general population of western Greenbrier County represents a “low-income population.” In comparison to the state and county, local communities in the proposed project area have relatively large low-income populations. However, the EIS analyses show that there will be no significant impacts on any populations, and DOE has concluded that impacts on low-income populations would not be disproportionately high and adverse. *Land Use:* WGC would develop the proposed project on disturbed land near areas that have historically been used for industrial activities. Potential business opportunities arising from the proposed project could cause land uses surrounding the power plant to change. The three communities sponsoring the project envision the development of the EcoPark industrial park on adjoining vacant land that was previously designated for such use but has not been developed. Once WGC has completed its reclamation work at the degraded coal refuse sites, these sites might be suitable for other uses beneficial to the local communities, county, and state. The development of a transmission line corridor right-of-way would require the clearing of a 206-acre corridor. The route would not traverse populated land areas, and would not cross any parks, trails, or byways. Many of the properties that would be traversed by the new corridor are owned by timber companies that would likely clear-cut the properties prior to WGC's construction of the power line. WGC would compensate landowners for granting an easement. *Community Services and Utilities:* Because the local population has been declining since the 2000 census, currently available public services are adequate for Rainelle. Based on community response to the proposed project, DOE expects that most of the construction workers would be hired locally. The operation of the proposed facility may attract up to 100 employees from larger communities just outside of Rainelle ( *e.g.* , Lewisburg). Thus, DOE anticipates that the proposed power plant would not impose excessive demands on community services and utility systems during construction and operation, and the project would not induce unsupportable development. Construction activities and anticipated injuries may increase the short-term demand on medical services. *Traffic and Transportation:* DOE determined that existing roadways could accommodate the additional traffic volumes during construction and operation of the proposed power plant. The trucking of fuels, limestone, and other materials would not cause delays beyond level of service “C” at any of the intersections studied because it would occur on designated heavy haul routes (“C” represents stable traffic flow; levels beyond “C” ( *i.e.* , levels of service “D” through “F”), signify higher density of traffic flow and increasing degradation of roadway capacity). However, heavy-haul trucks would likely increase travel times on some local roads between the preparation plant sites and the power plant site. *Public Health and Safety:* DOE anticipates that worker safety impacts would track normal Bureau of Labor Statistics for the construction and operation of the power plant, activities at the coal refuse and preparation plant sites, and trucking of fuel and limestone. Worker safety at the proposed facilities would be subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. EIS analyses show that carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to members of the public from routine plant releases would be insignificant. Aqueous ammonia would be stored at the power plant to reduce NO X emissions. A sudden release of aqueous ammonia (whether accidental or caused by an act of sabotage or terrorism) could present a health hazard to people within a 600-ft radius of the power plant; however, there are only two residential properties within the 600-ft radius and WGC plans to purchase these properties. Thereafter, there would be no residents living within the 600-ft radius. On-site workers are present within a 300-ft radius, such that they could be affected in the event of a release. *Noise:* DOE anticipates that the majority of adverse impacts during plant construction, including blasting noise and vibration, would only impact those residential properties located within 1,500 ft east of the plant site and would be temporary and intermittent. Some short-term, intermittent daytime noise impacts would occur during construction activities at other areas associated with the proposed project. In accordance with noise requirements as regulated by the West Virginia Public Service Commission, WGC would incorporate noise attenuation and mitigation measures into the final design that would ensure operational noise levels would remain below a threshold level at each identified receptor site above which noise monitoring would otherwise be required by the Public Service Commission. Nonetheless, to ensure compliance, WGC would monitor noise levels during plant operations. Noise from steam blow-off sources would be temporary and infrequent, occurring only during start-up and maintenance operations. Coal refuse sites and candidate preparation plant sites are located in remote, sparsely populated areas where there has been or still are coal mining activities. Commercial operations at limestone quarries would not change appreciably from baseline conditions. DOE estimates that traffic-related noise during construction and operation will fall below Federal and state impact criteria. *Cumulative Impacts:* Other than commercial activities by private sponsors, there are no known major projects planned by Federal, state, county, or municipal authorities in the WGC area. The principal commercial activities in the planning area include the following: ongoing timber harvesting activities (clear cutting) in the vicinity of the proposed project; ongoing and future surface coal mining and preparation operations at and near the Green Valley and Anjean sites; a proposed wind power generating facility to be located north of the proposed project area by Invenergy Wind, LLC; and the planned EcoPark industrial development to be located adjacent to the WGC plant site. Greenbrier Valley Economic Development Corporation plans to develop the EcoPark on approximately 26 acres of land on the former site of the Meadow River Lumber Company located directly northwest of the WGC plant site across Sewell Creek. The proposed plant would support the EcoPark by providing electricity, steam, and hot water and by producing cement in a kiln for use in the manufacture of construction materials by potential tenants. The EcoPark may include a facility for the production of building products using cement from the kiln, a facility to produce farm-raised tilapia fish, and a commercial greenhouse operation. DOE did not identify significant adverse cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project. Environmentally Preferred Alternative DOE has identified the no-action alternative as environmentally preferred. Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared funding for the proposed project and the project would not be completed. Without the project as a stimulus and anchor, it is doubtful that the planned EcoPark would attract potential tenants. If the project is not constructed, baseline conditions would remain unchanged. No site preparation (grading, clearing of trees and other vegetation) would occur, no employment or transportation of construction workers and operators would occur, coal refuse would not be removed, and no discharges, emissions, or solid wastes would be produced. Hence, DOE would anticipate that no adverse impacts would occur other than adverse impacts from existing conditions. Biological conditions at the coal refuse sites would remain unchanged but any offsetting benefits associated with land reclamation and acid mine water remediation would not be realized. Socioeconomic conditions would remain unchanged, however given the current reduced state of the local economy, employment, and income, the area would lose the potential for stimulus to prevent further decline. Long term environmental benefits ( *e.g.* reclamation of old coal refuse piles, reduction in acid mine drainage) that would be expected from project actions would not be provided under the no-action alternative. Comments Received on the Final EIS DOE received comments on the Final EIS from EPA, Region III, Environmental Programs Branch, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and from the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment (ACEE), Mathias, West Virginia (on behalf of ACEE and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy). EPA stated that on January 17, 2007, they had provided comments on the Draft EIS, that DOE responded to those comments in the Final EIS, and that EPA has no further concerns. EPA further recognized “the growing concerns with CO 2 emissions from coal-fired power plants and Climate Change. Through a number of initiatives, the Federal government, partnerships and programs continue to investigate opportunities to conserve fossil fuels, improve energy efficiency” * * * and it was their expectation that: “The DOE Clean Coal Power Initiative will further promote these national goals.” Comments provided by the ACEE were substantially identical to comments on the Draft EIS previously submitted by ACEE on January 17, 2007, and were addressed in Volume 3 of the Final EIS, “Comments and Responses on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” Nevertheless, DOE reviewed the comments to ensure that the Final EIS adequately addressed the areas of expressed concern. In the Final EIS, DOE provides further information about the areas of expressed concern. For example, as discussed in the Final EIS, to address concerns expressed about potential impacts on surface and groundwater, DOE conducted new aquifer tests that confirm results of earlier studies. DOE also modified its preferred alternative regarding water use as requested by WVDEP to ensure protection of the Meadow River. In addition, the Final EIS contains additional information about the fuel supply sites and potential associated impacts, and responds to other issues raised by ACEE. Decision DOE has decided to provide approximately $107.5 million (representing up to 50% of the development costs) to WGC through a cooperative agreement under the CCPI Program for a Co-Production Facility to be located at Rainelle in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. This funding will be used by WGC to support the design, construction and demonstration of a 98-megawatt

(net)power plant and cement manufacturing facility based on an innovative atmospheric-pressure CFB boiler with a compact inverted-cyclone to generate electricity and steam by burning approximately 3,000 to 4,000 tons per day of coal refuse from several local sites. This action is identified as the preferred alternative in the “Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement” (DOE/EIS-0361) issued in November 2007. Basis for Decision This decision is based on the information contained in the Final EIS and other program considerations. In arriving at its decision, DOE noted the potential for substantial economic benefits to the local community and environmental benefits related to the reclamation and potential reuse of coal refuse sites. Based on the analysis in the Final EIS and the mitigation commitments enforced through the cooperative agreement with WGC, DOE expects that the project will be implemented in an environmentally responsible manner. DOE has concluded that the project will meet DOE's objectives under the CCPI Program by generating technical, environmental, and financial data needed to confirm that similar integrated technologies could be implemented at the commercial scale. Mitigation DOE's decision was made after careful review of the potential environmental impacts, presented in the EIS, and incorporates as mitigation measures and BMPs all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. WGC will implement all of the mitigation measures and BMPs listed in Table 4.19-1 in Section 4.19 (Volume 1) of the EIS, and in the Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment, Appendix M (Volume 2) of the EIS. DOE will verify the environmental impacts predicted in the EIS and the implementation of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures through an Environmental Monitoring Plan, which will be developed as a requirement of DOE's cooperative agreement with WGC. After consideration of engineering and site evaluation and planning measures, compliance with environmental requirements, and application of BMPs, WGC also may implement further mitigation measures. In addition, WGC will comply with state and Federal wetlands permits, which may require additional mitigation, such as compensatory wetlands replacement. As stated above, CO 2 capture and subsequent sequestration is not a viable option for the project; therefore, DOE is not requiring such measures to reduce CO 2 emissions. Although not viewed as a mitigation action, WGC plans to use waste heat from the Co-Production Facility in the planned EcoPark, which would off-set CO 2 emissions that might otherwise be associated with producing energy from the facility. DOE has prepared a Mitigation Action Plan, in accordance with Section 1021.331(a) of the DOE NEPA regulations, to describe how mitigation measures will be planned and implemented. Floodplain Statement of Findings DOE included a Floodplain and Wetland Assessment as Appendix M in Volume 2 of the Final EIS. The assessment and these findings have been prepared in accordance with DOE's regulations “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements,” 10 CFR Part 1022. Portions of the proposed site for the Co-Production Facility unavoidably fall within a 100-year floodplain. A map of the floodplain is shown in Figure 2.2 of Appendix M in Volume 2 of the Final EIS. DOE concluded that the activities associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Co-Production Facility do not involve critical actions ( *e.g.* , storage of highly volatile, toxic, or water-reactive materials), which would present unacceptable risks even if there is a slight chance of flooding and would require a 500-year floodplain evaluation. DOE has concluded that there are no practicable alternatives to some construction in floodplains, and consistent with 10 CFR Part 1022, WGC will design or modify actions to minimize potential harm to floodplains and wetlands. DOE determined that all practicable power plant site layout options would cross into floodplain and wetland areas. DOE evaluated three implementing options including the preferred site layout by WGC. Under each option the power plant site would be graded to rise about 20 feet so that the base elevation would be above the 100-year floodplain elevation. Up to 20 acres of floodplains could be permanently lost (for the preferred site layout, approximately 16 acres of floodplains would be filled). This means that the proposed project will affect a very small area of floodplain, and none of the siting options would result in changes in surface water elevations that would exceed the FEMA designated height of one foot for the 100-year flood event as demonstrated by predictive modeling conducted by DOE. Based on the changes from the layout options proposed by WGC in the water surface elevations, only minor changes are expected for the predicted 100-year flood boundary, with little potential impact to upstream or downstream structures over baseline conditions. Potentially disturbed areas will be restored by WGC to their original grade, where feasible, and planted with native vegetation. WGC will implement BMPs to minimize adverse environmental impacts during construction of road crossings. WGC has prepared and submitted a Federal Section 404 Authorization permit for water resources impacts, including wetlands impacts, and a State Section 401 permit under the Clean Water Act issued by USACE and WVDEP, respectively. DOE estimated that 0.26 acre of wetlands will be potentially impacted at the proposed power plant site by service roads, stockpile areas, and water supply lines. Under one option a cooling water intake structure, pump house, and pipeline would be used to withdraw water from Meadow River. WGC is currently looking at the best locations for these facilities to minimize disturbance of wetlands and floodplains. Prior to construction of a permanent intake structure WGC must obtain a Section 404 Authorization permit from the USACE and Section 401 permit from the WVDEP. The Section 404 Authorization permit is required as a result of water resources impacts, including wetlands impacts. The Water Quality 401 Certification is required to ensure that the project will not violate the state's water quality standards or stream designated uses. Depending upon the final plant design and location of the water supply line from the sewage treatment plant, up to one additional acre of wetlands and 120 linear feet “waters of the U.S.” could be impacted. WGC is in the process of consulting with the USACE concerning the wetland permitting process to identify wetland impacts and methods for avoiding and minimizing impacts and developing suitable forms of wetland mitigation. Under all options for the transmission line corridor from the proposed WGC power plant to the Grassy Falls substation, construction activities would be temporary and localized and would not result in permanent impacts to existing 100-year floodplains. Where the transmission line corridor would cross a stream, new power line poles would be situated at maximum distances so as to not obstruct flood flows. Construction and operation of the transmission line could impact approximately three acres of wetlands, of which 0.38 acres could be permanently impacted as discussed above in *Biological Resources* . No floodplain or wetland impacts are expected as a result of the fuel recovery efforts that would occur at the Anjean, Donegan, Green Valley, and Joe Knob coal refuse sites to be used for fuel supply to the project. Any structures located within the floodplain would be designed in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP)requirements for nonresidential buildings and structures located in special flood hazard areas. The NFIP regulations require vulnerable structures to be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation or to be watertight. In accordance with 10 CFR part 1022, DOE will ensure through the cooperative agreement that WGC implements measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of actions in a floodplain or wetlands, including but not limited to, minimum grading requirements, runoff controls, design and construction constraints. Whenever possible, WGC will avoid disturbing floodplains and wetlands and will minimize impacts to the extent practicable, if avoidance is not possible. Impacts to floodplains and wetlands will be minimized through the implementation of engineering design standards and BMPs (as described above under Mitigation, these measures are contained in Appendix M (Volume 2) of the EIS). In addition, WGC will comply with state and Federal wetlands permits, which may require additional mitigation as well as compensatory wetland replacement. Issued in Washington, DC, on this 23rd day of April, 2008. James A. Slutz, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy. [FR Doc. E8-9329 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1864-079-MI & WI] Upper Peninsula Power Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment April 22, 2008. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the proposed lake level amendment for the bond Falls Project, located in the Ontonagon River Basin in Ontonagon and Gogebic Counties, Michigan and Vilas County, Wisconsin, and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA). A copy of the Draft EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The Draft EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (P-1864) excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202)502-8659. Any comments should be filed by May 27, 2008, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project name and project number (P-1864) on all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “eFiling” link. For further information, contact Monica Maynard at

(202)502-6013. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9298 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [RT01-99-000, RT01-99-001, RT01-99-002 and RT01-99-003; RT01-86-000, RT01-86-001 and RT01-86-002; RT01-95-000, RT01-95-001 and RT01-95-002; RT01-2-000, RT01-2-001, RT01-2-002 and RT01-2-003; RT01-98-000; RT02-3-000] Regional Transmission Organizations; Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, et al.; New York Independent System Operator, Inc., et al.; PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.; PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; ISO New England, Inc.; New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing April 21, 2008. Take notice that PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and ISO New England, Inc. have posted on their internet Web sites information updating their progress on the resolution of RTO seams. Any person desiring to file comments on this information should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such comments should be filed on or before the comment date. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* May 13, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9300 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL08-56-000] New Brunswick Power Transmission Corp., New Brunswick System Operator, Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc., Complainants v. ISO New England, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint April 21, 2008. Take notice that on April 18, 2008, New Brunswick Power Transmission Corporation, New Brunswick System Operator, and Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc. (collectively, Complainants), pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and Rule 206 of Practice and Procedures of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 385.206, hereby file this complaint against ISO New England, Inc. (ISO-NE). Complainants state that this complaint is in response to the ISO-NE unilateral decision to arbitrarily limit the transfer capabilities at the New Brunswick/New England external interface, which, for the reasons set forth in the complaint, is unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call

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

(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 8, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9301 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No: PL07-2-000] Composition of Proxy Groups for Determining Gas and Oil Pipeline Return on Equity; Policy Statement Issued April 17, 2008. *Before Commissioners:* Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. 1. On July 19, 2007, the Commission issued a proposed policy statement concerning the composition of the proxy groups used to determine gas and oil pipelines' return on equity

(ROE)under the Discounted Cash Flow

(DCF)model. 1 Historically, in determining the proxy group, the Commission required that pipeline operations constitute a high proportion of the business of any firm included in the proxy group. However, in recent years, there have been fewer gas pipeline corporations that meet that standard, in part because of the greater trend toward Master Limited Partnerships

(MLPs)in the gas pipeline industry. Additionally, there are no oil corporations available for use in the oil pipeline proxy group. These trends have made the MLP issue one of particular concern to the Commission and are the reason that the Commission issued the Proposed Policy Statement. 2 1 *Composition of Proxy Groups for Determining Gas and Oil Pipeline Return on Equity,* 120 FERC ¶ 61,068

(2007)(Proposed Policy Statement). 2 After an initial round of comments and reply comments, the Commission concluded that it required additional comment on the issue of the growth rates of MLPs. After notice to this effect and the receipt of a round of initial and reply comments, staff held a technical conference involving an eight member panel on January 23, 2008 that was transcribed for the record. Comments and reply comments were filed thereafter. 2. After review of an extensive record developed in this proceeding, the Commission concludes:

(1)MLPs should be included in the ROE proxy group for both oil and gas pipelines;

(2)there should be no cap on the level of distributions included in the Commission's current DCF methodology;

(3)the Institutional Brokers Estimated System

(IBES)forecasts should remain the basis for the short-term growth forecast used in the DCF calculation;

(4)there should be an adjustment to the long-term growth rate used to calculate the equity cost of capital for an MLP; and

(5)there should be no modification to the current respective two-thirds and one-third weightings of the short- and long-term growth factors. Moreover, the Commission will not explore other methods for determining a pipeline's equity cost of capital at this time. The Commission also concludes that this Policy Statement should govern all gas and oil rate proceedings involving the establishment of ROE that are now pending before the Commission, whether at hearing or in a decisional phase at the Commission. I. Background A. The DCF Model 3. The Supreme Court has stated that “the return to the equity owner should be commensurate with the return on investments in other enterprises having corresponding risks. That return, moreover, should be sufficient to assure confidence in the financial integrity of the enterprise, so as to maintain its credit and to attract capital.” 3 Since the 1980s, the Commission has used the DCF model to develop a range of returns earned on investments in companies with corresponding risks for purposes of determining the ROE to be awarded natural gas and oil pipelines. 3 *FPC* v. *Hope Natural Gas Co.,* 320 U.S. 591 (1944). *Bluefield Water Works* & *Improvement Co.* v. *Public Service Comm'n,* 262 U.S. 679 (1923). 4. The DCF model was originally developed as a method for investors to estimate the value of securities, including common stocks. It is based on the premise that “a stock's price is equal to the present value of the infinite stream of expected dividends discounted at a market rate commensurate with the stock's risk.” 4 With simplifying assumptions, the DCF model results in the investor using the following formula to determine share price: 4 *CAPP* v. *FERC,* 254 F.3d 289, 293

(2001)( *CAPP* ). P = D/(r−g) where P is the price of the stock at the relevant time, D is the current dividend, r is the discount rate or rate of return, and g is the expected constant growth in dividend income to be reflected in capital appreciation. 5 5 *Id. National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.,* 51 FERC ¶ 61,122, at 61,337 n.68 (1990). *Ozark Gas Transmission System,* 68 FERC ¶ 61,032, at 61,104 n.16. (1994). 5. Unlike investors, the Commission uses the DCF model to determine the ROE (the “r” component) to be included in the pipeline's rates, rather than to estimate a stock's value. Therefore, the Commission solves the DCF formula for the discount rate, which represents the rate of return that an investor requires in order to invest in a firm. Under the resulting DCF formula, ROE equals current dividend yield (dividends divided by share price) plus the projected future growth rate of dividends: r = D/P + g 6. Over the years, the Commission has standardized the inputs to the DCF formula as applied to interstate gas and oil pipelines. The Commission averages short-term and long-term growth estimates in determining the constant growth of dividends (referred to as the two-step procedure). Security analysts' five-year forecasts for each company in the proxy group (discussed below), as published by IBES, are used for determining growth for the short term. The long-term growth is based on forecasts of long-term growth of the economy as a whole, 6 as reflected in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP which are drawn from three different sources. 7 The short-term forecast receives a two-thirds weighting and the long-term forecast receives a one-third weighting in calculating the growth rate in the DCF model. 8 6 *Northwest Pipeline Company,* 79 FERC ¶ 61,309, at 62,383

(1997)(Opinion No. 396-B). *Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company,* 79 FERC ¶ 61,311, at 62,389

(1997)( *Williston I), aff'd, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.* v. *FERC,* 165 F.3d 54, 57 ( *DC* Cir. 1999) ( *Williston* v. *FERC* ). 7 The three sources used by the Commission are Global Insight: *Long-Term Macro Forecast—Baseline (U.S. Economy 30-Year Focus* ); Energy Information Agency, *Annual Energy Outlook;* and the Social Security Administration. 8 *Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.* , 84 FERC ¶ 61,084, at 61,423-4 (Opinion No. 414-A), reh'g denied, 85 FERC ¶ 61,323, at 62,266-70

(1998)(Opinion No. 414-B), *aff'd sub nom. North Carolina Utilities Commission* v. *FERC* , 203 F.3d 53 (DC Cir. 2000) (unpublished opinion). *Northwest Pipeline Co.* , 88 FERC ¶ 61,057, *reh'g denied* , 88 FERC ¶ 61,298 (1999), *aff'd CAPP* v. *FERC* , 254 F.3d 289 (DC Cir. 2001). 7. Most gas pipelines are wholly-owned subsidiaries and their common stocks are not publicly traded. This is also true for some jurisdictional oil pipelines. Therefore, the Commission must use a proxy group of publicly traded firms with corresponding risks to set a range of reasonable returns for both natural gas and oil pipelines. For both oil and gas pipelines, after defining the zone of reasonableness through development of the appropriate proxy group for the pipeline, the Commission assigns the pipeline a rate within that range or zone, to reflect specific risks of that pipeline as compared to the proxy group companies. 9 The Commission has historically presumed that existing pipelines fall within a broad range of average risk. A pipeline or other litigating party has to show highly unusual circumstances that indicate anomalously high or low risk as compared to other pipelines to overcome the presumption. 10 9 *Williston* v. *FERC,* 165 F.3d at 57 ( *citation omitted* ). 10 *Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.,* 90 FERC ¶ 61,279, at 61,936 (2000). 8. The Commission historically required that each company included in the proxy group satisfy the following three standards. 11 First, the company's stock must be publicly traded. Second, the company must be recognized as a natural gas or oil pipeline company and its stock must be recognized and tracked by an investment information service such as Value Line. Third, pipeline operations must constitute a high proportion of the company's business. Until 2003, the Commission's policy was that the third standard could only be satisfied if a company's pipeline business accounted for, on average, at least 50 percent of a company's assets or operating income over the most recent three-year period. 12 11 *Id.* at 61,933. 12 *Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company,* 104 FERC ¶ 61,036, at P 35 n.46

(2003)( *Williston II* ). 9. However, in recent years fewer corporations have satisfied the Commission's standards for inclusion in the gas and oil pipeline proxy groups. Mergers and acquisitions have reduced the number of publicly traded corporations with natural gas pipeline operations. Most of the remaining corporations are engaged in such significant non-pipeline business that their pipeline business accounts are significantly less than 50 percent of their assets or operating income. At the same time, there has been a trend toward MLPs owning natural gas pipelines. This trend has been even more pronounced in the oil pipeline industry, with the result that there are now no purely oil pipeline corporations available for inclusion in the oil pipeline proxy group and virtually all traded oil pipeline equity interests are owned by MLPs. Thus, for both oil and gas pipeline rate cases, the composition of the proxy group has become a significant issue, and the central question is whether, and how, to include MLPs in the proxy group. B. The MLP Business Model 10. MLPs consist of a general partner, who manages the partnership, and limited partners, who provide capital and receive cash distributions, but have no management role. The units of the limited partners are traded on public exchanges, just like corporate stock shares. In order to be treated as an MLP for Federal income tax purposes, an MLP must receive at least 90 percent of its income from certain qualifying sources, including natural resource activities. Natural resource activities include exploration, development, mining or production, processing, refining, transportation, storage and marketing of any mineral or natural resource, including gas and oil. 13 13 *See* Wachovia Securities, *Master Limited Partnerships:* *A Primer* , November 10, 2003, ( *Wachovia Primer 1* ) at 1, 3-4, reproduced in full in Docket No. OR96-2-012, Ex. SEP ARCO-22 and also in *Kern River Gas Transmission Company* , Docket No. RP04-274-000, Ex. No. BP-19 filed October 25, 2005; J.P. Morgan, *Industry Analysis, Energy MLPS* , dated March 28, 2002 ( *J.P. Morgan 2002 Energy MLPs* ) at 5-6, reproduced in full in Docket No. OR92-8-025, Ex. No. SWST-18, filed October 20, 2005; Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC, Equity Research Department, *Master Limited Partnerships: Primer 2nd Edition, A Framework for Investment* dated August 23, 2005 ( *Wachovia 2nd Primer* ) at 8-9, reproduced in full in Docket No. RP06-72-000 at Ex. S-36, filed May 31, 2006); Coalition of *Publicly Traded Partnerships, Publicly Traded Partnerships: What they are and how they work* (undated) ( *Publicly Traded Partnerships* ) at 1-3, reproduced in full in Docket No. RP06-72-000 at Ex. S-35, filed May 31, 2006, and Docket No. OR96-2-012, Ex. No. BP-19, filed October 25, 2005; CAPP Reply Comments, Attachment A at 2-3; APGA Additional Comments dated December 21, 2007. 11. MLPs generally distribute most available cash flow to the general and limited partners in the form of quarterly distributions. At their inception, MLPs establish agreements between the general and limited partners, which define cash flow available for distribution and how that cash flow is to be divided between the general and limited partners. Most MLP agreements define “available cash flow” as

(1)net income (gross revenues minus operating expenses) plus

(2)depreciation and amortization, minus

(3)capital investments the partnership must make to maintain its current asset base and cash flow stream. 14 Depreciation and amortization may be considered a part of “available cash flow,” because depreciation is an accounting charge against current income, rather than an actual cash expense. Thus, depreciation does not reduce the MLP's current cash on hand. The MLP agreement may provide for the general partner to receive increasingly higher percentages of the overall distribution if it raises the quarterly distribution. This gives the general partner incentives to increase the partnership's business and cash flow. 15 14 The definition of available cash may also net out short term working capital borrowings, the repayment of capital expenditures, and other internal items. 15 *Wachovia Primer 1* at 6-7; *J.P. Morgan 2002 Energy MLPs* at 5, 14; *Wachovia 2nd Primer* at 9, 15-19. 12. The general partner has discretion not to distribute the entire amount of available cash flow for the proper exercise of the business, to create reserves for capital expenditures, for the payment of debt, and for future distributions. However, pipeline MLPs have typically distributed 90 percent or more of available cash flow. As a result, the MLP's cash distributions normally include not only the operating profit component of “available cash flow,” but also the depreciation component. This means that, in contrast to a corporation's dividends, an MLP's cash distributions generally exceed the MLP's reported earnings. The pipeline MLP's ability to distribute a high percentage of available cash flows reflects the stable cash flows underpinning its businesses. 16 16 *J.P. Morgan 2002 Energy MLPs* at 11-13; *Wachovia 2nd Primer* at 24-25; Enbridge Initial Comments Attachment A, Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC, MLPs: *Safe to Come Back Into the Water (Wachovia MLPs)* dated August 20, 2007, at 2-4. 13. Because of their high cash distributions, MLPs have financed capital investments required to significantly expand operations or to make acquisitions through debt or by issuing additional units rather than through retained cash, although the general partner has the discretion to do so. These expansions financed through external debt are intended to provide a return equal to the cost of the capital plus some additional return for the existing unit holders, *i.e.* , it is accretive. Thus, the return on any newly issued units is expected to be sufficiently high to avoid dilution of the current distributions to the existing unit holders. 17 17 *Id.* 14. MLPs may also provide significant tax advantages to their unit holders. Some MLPs allocate depreciation, amortization, and tax credits to the limited partners and away from the general partner. In some cases, the limited partner may have no net taxable income reported on the income tax information document (the K-1) the limited partner receives from the partnership each year, a pattern that may continue for years. In that case, the limited partner will not pay any taxes on the cash received from the partnership in the year of the distribution. To the extent a limited partner is allocated items of depreciation, credit, or losses that exceed the limited partner's ownership percentage, income taxes will be due on the difference when the unit is sold. However, this may not occur for many years. Over time the real cost of the future taxes declines while the future return of any tax savings that is reinvested increases. This can significantly increase the return to the investor over the holding period of the limited partnership unit. 18 18 *See* PSCNY Initial Comments at 12-13 and Attachment 1 thereto at 2; *Wachovia Primer* at 4-5; *Publicly Traded Partnerships* at 2-3; *Wachovia 2nd Primer* at 1, 5, 20-22; *J.P. Morgan 2002 Energy MLPs* at 18-19. 15. Moreover, distributions in excess of earnings are not taxed as long as the limited partner has a tax basis. Rather, the limited partner's tax basis is reduced and again any taxes are deferred until the unit is sold. By this tax deferral, the cash flow distributed in excess of earnings can be made available for reinvestment much earlier than would be the case of a corporate share. 19 This reduces the limited partner's risk because the limited partner's cash basis in the unit is reduced, but the distribution would not normally reduce the market price of the unit nor, if the firm has access to external capital, would this necessarily reduce its long term growth potential. 19 *Id.* C. The Recent Cases on the Shrinking Proxy Group 1. Natural Gas Pipeline Cases 16. The Commission first addressed the problem of the shrinking natural gas pipeline proxy group in *Williston II* , 104 FERC ¶ 61,036 at P 34-43. In that NGA section 4 rate case, the Commission relaxed the requirement that natural gas business account for at least 50 percent of the corporation's assets or operating income. Instead, the Commission approved the pipeline's proposal to use a proxy group based on the corporations listed in the Value Line Investment Survey's list of diversified natural gas firms that own Commission-regulated natural gas pipelines, without regard to what portion of the company's business comprises pipeline operations. The proxy group approved in that case included four corporations that satisfied the Commission's historic standards 20 and five corporations with less pipeline business and more local distribution business than the Commission had previously allowed. The Commission set Williston's ROE at the median of this proxy group. 20 The Commission noted that two of those four companies were in the process of merging so that in the future there would be only three pipeline corporations that satisfied our historic proxy group standards. *Williston II* , 104 FERC ¶ 61,036 at P 35. 17. The Commission next addressed the proxy group issue in a 2004 order in *Petal Gas Storage, LLC,* 97 FERC ¶ 61,097 (2001), *reh'g granted in part and denied in part* , 106 FERC ¶ 61,325

(2004)( *Petal* ). In that case, a jurisdictional storage company with market-based rates had applied for a certificate under NGA section 7 to construct pipeline facilities to transport gas from its existing storage facility to a new interconnection with Southern Natural Gas Co. The Commission found that Petal was not a new entrant in the jurisdictional gas transportation business, but was simply expanding its existing business and had not shown that it faced any unusual risks. Ordinarily in such circumstances the Commission would use the pipeline's own currently approved ROE for its existing services in determining an initial incremental rate for the expansion. However, because Petal had market-based rates for its existing services, there was no such currently approved ROE to use. Therefore, the Commission calculated the initial rate for Petal's expansion using the same median ROE which it had approved in *Williston* , which was the most recent litigated gas pipeline section 4 rate case. 18. When the Commission next addressed the proxy group issue, in *High Island Offshore System, LLC (HIOS)* , 21 and *Kern River Gas Transmission Company* (Opinion No. 486), 22 the *Williston II* proxy group had shrunk to six corporations. Moreover, the Commission found that two of those corporations should be excluded from the proxy group on the ground that their financial difficulties had lowered their ROEs to such a low level as to render them unrepresentative. 23 This left only four corporations eligible for the proxy group under the standards adopted in *Williston II* , three of whom derived more revenue from the distribution business than the pipeline business. The two pipelines contended that, in these circumstances, the Commission should include natural gas pipeline MLPs in the gas pipeline proxy group. They asserted that MLPs have a much higher percentage of their business devoted to pipeline operations than most of the corporations eligible for the proxy group under *Williston II* , and therefore are more representative of the risks faced by pipelines. 21 110 FERC ¶ 61,043, *reh'g denied* , 112 FERC ¶ 61,050 (2005). 22 117 FERC ¶ 61,077 (2006), *reh'g pending.* 23 *HIOS* , 110 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 118. Opinion No. 486, 117 FERC ¶ 61,077 at P 140-141. 19. In *HIOS* and Opinion No. 486, the Commission rejected the proposals to include MLPs in the proxy group, and approved proxy groups using the four corporations still available under the *Williston II* approach of basing the proxy group on the Value Line Investment Survey's group of diversified natural gas corporations that own Commission-regulated pipelines. In *HIOS* , the Commission set the pipeline's ROE at the median of the four-corporation proxy group. In Opinion No. 486, the Commission took the same general approach as in *HIOS* , but set the pipeline's ROE 50 basis points above the median to account for the fact its pipeline operations have a higher risk than its distribution business. 24 24 *Id* . at P 171-176. 20. In rejecting the proposals to include MLPs in the proxy group in both cases, the Commission made clear that it was not making a generic finding that MLPs cannot be considered for inclusion in the proxy group if a proper evidentiary showing is made. 25 However, the Commission pointed out that data concerning dividends paid by the proxy group members is a key component in any DCF analysis, and expressed concern that an MLP's cash distributions to its unit holders may not be comparable to the corporate dividends the Commission uses in its DCF analysis. In Opinion No. 486, the Commission explained its concern as follows: 25 *Id* . at P 147. *See* also HIOS, 110 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 125. Corporations pay dividends in order to distribute a share of their earnings to stockholders. As such, dividends do not include any return *of* invested capital to the stockholders. Rather, dividends represent solely a return *on* invested capital. Put another way, dividends represent profit that the stockholder is making on its investment. Moreover, corporations typically reinvest some earnings to provide for future growth of earnings and thus dividends. Since the return on equity which the Commission awards in a rate case is intended to permit the pipeline's investors to earn a profit on their investment and provides funds to finance future growth, the use of dividends in the DCF analysis is entirely consistent with the purpose for which the Commission uses that analysis. By contrast, as Kern River concedes, the cash distributions of the MLPs it seeks to add to the proxy group in this case include a return *of* invested capital through an allocation of the partnership's net income. While the level of an MLP's cash distributions may be a significant factor in the unit holder's decision to invest in the MLP, the Commission uses the DCF analysis solely to determine the pipeline's return on equity. The Commission provides for the return of invested capital through a separate depreciation allowance. For this reason, to the extent an MLP's distributions include a significant return of invested capital, a DCF analysis based on those distributions, without any adjustment, will tend to overstate the estimated return on equity, because the 'dividend' would be inflated by cash flow representing return of equity, thereby overstating the earnings the dividend stream purports to reflect. 26 26 Opinion No. 486, 117 FERC ¶ 61,077 at P. 149-150. 21. The Commission stated that it could nevertheless consider including MLPs in the proxy group in a future case, if the pipeline presented evidence addressing these concerns. The discussion in the order suggested that such evidence might include some method of adjusting the MLPs' distributions to make them comparable to dividends, a showing that the higher “dividend” yield of the MLP was offset by a lower long-term growth projection, or some other explanation why distributions in excess of earnings do not distort the DCF results for the MLP in question. 27 However, the Commission concluded that Kern River had not presented sufficient evidence to address these issues, and that the record in that case did not support including MLPs in the proxy group. 27 Proposed Policy Statement at P 10-11 22. In addition, Opinion No. 486 pointed out that the traditional DCF model only incorporates growth resulting from the reinvestment of earnings, not growth arising from external sources of capital. 28 Therefore, the Commission stated that if growth forecasted for an MLP comes from external capital, it is necessary either

(1)to explain why the external sources of capital do not distort the DCF results for that MLP or

(2)propose an adjustment to the DCF analysis to eliminate any distortion. 28 *Id.* at P 152. 2. Oil Pipeline Cases 23. In some oil pipeline rate cases decided before *HIOS* and Opinion No. 486, the Commission included MLPs in the proxy group used to determine oil pipeline return on equity on the ground that there were no corporations available for use in the oil proxy group. 29 In those cases, no party raised any issue concerning the comparability of an MLP's cash distribution to a corporation's dividend. However, that issue did arise in the first oil pipeline case decided after *HIOS* and Opinion No. 486, which involved SFPP's Sepulveda Line. 30 The Commission approved inclusion of MLPs in the proxy group in that case on the grounds that the included MLPs in question had not made distributions in excess of earnings. The order found these facts sufficient to address the concerns expressed in *HIOS* and Opinion No. 486. 29 *SFPP, L.P.* , 86 FERC ¶ 61,022, at 61,099 (1999). 30 *SFPP, L.P.* , 117 FERC ¶ 61,285

(2006)(SFPP Sepulveda Order), *rehearing pending* . D. Court Remand of Petal and HIOS 24. Both Petal and HIOS appealed the Commission's orders in their cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court considered the appeals together, and it vacated and remanded the proxy group rulings in both cases. 31 The court emphasized that the Commission's “proxy group arrangements must be risk-appropriate.” 32 The court explained that this means that firms included in the proxy group should face similar risks to the pipeline whose ROE is being determined, and any differences in risk should be recognized in determining where to place the pipeline in the proxy group range of reasonable returns. 31 *Petal Gas Storage, LLC* v. *FERC,* 496 F.3d 695 (DC Cir. 2007) (Petal v. FERC). 32 *Petal* v. *FERC,* 496 F.3d at 697, quoting *Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers* v. *FERC,* 254 F.3d 289 ( *DC* Cir. 2001). 25. The court recognized that changes in the gas pipeline industry compel a change in the Commission's traditional approach to determining the proxy group, and the court stated that “controversy about how it should change has been bubbling up in a number of recent cases,” citing both *Williston II* and Opinion No. 486. But the court found that the cases on appeal “seem[] to represent an arrival point of sorts for the Commission,” pointing out that Opinion No. 486 had reversed an administrative law judge for deviating from the *HIOS* proxy group. 33 33 Opinion No. 486 reversed the ALJ's inclusion of the two financially troubled pipelines in the proxy group. 26. The court held that the Commission had not shown that the proxy group arrangements it approved in *Petal* and *HIOS* were risk-appropriate. The court pointed out that the Commission had rejected the inclusion of MLPs in the proxy group on the ground that MLP distributions, unlike dividends, might provide returns of equity as well as returns on equity. While stating that this proposition is not “self-evident,” the court accepted it for the sake of argument. Nonetheless, the court stated that nothing in the Commission's decision explained why the companies selected by the Commission for inclusion in the proxy group are risk-comparable to HIOS. The court stated that when the goal is a proxy group of comparable companies, it is not clear that natural gas companies with highly different risk profiles should be regarded as comparable. 27. The court further stated that in placing Petal and HIOS in the middle of the proxy group in terms of return on equity, the Commission expressly relied on the assumption that pipelines generally fall into a broad range of average risk as compared to other pipelines. However, the court stated, this assumption is decisive only given a proxy group composed of other pipelines. Thus, the court reasoned that if gas distribution companies generally face lower risk than gas pipelines, 34 a risk-appropriate placement would be at the high end of the group. The court stated that the Commission erred by failing to explain how its proxy group arrangements were based on the principle of relative risk. 34 The court noted that this seems likely. 28. Therefore, the court vacated the Commission's orders with respect to the proxy group issue. The court stated that on remand, it did not require any particular proxy group arrangement, but stated that the overall arrangement must make sense in terms of the relative risk and in terms of the statutory command to set just and reasonable rates that are commensurate with returns on investments in other enterprises having corresponding risks. II. The Proposed Policy Statement 29. A month before the court's decision in *Petal* v. *FERC,* the Commission reached a similar conclusion that its proxy group arrangements for gas and oil pipelines must be reexamined. Accordingly, on July 19, 2007, the Commission issued a Proposed Policy Statement, in which it proposed to modify its policy to allow MLPs to be included in the proxy group. The Proposed Policy Statement found that: Cost of service ratemaking requires that firms in the proxy group be of comparable risk to the firm whose equity cost of capital is being determined in a particular rate proceeding. If the proxy group is less than clearly representative, this may require the Commission to adjust for the difference in risk by adjusting the equity cost-of-capital, a difficult undertaking requiring detailed support from the contending parties and detailed case-by-case analysis by the Commission. Expanding the proxy group to include MLPs whose business is more narrowly focused on pipeline activities would help provide a more representative proxy group. 35 35 Proposed Policy Statement, 120 FERC ¶ 61,068 at P 17. 30. However, the Commission proposed to cap the cash distribution used to determine an MLP's return under the DCF method at the MLP's reported earnings. The Commission found that this was necessary to exclude that portion of an MLP's distributions constituting return of equity. The Commission provides for the return *of* equity through a depreciation allowance. Therefore, the Commission stated that the cash flows used in the DCF analysis should be limited to those which reflect a return on equity. The concern was the pipeline could double recover its depreciation expense. The Commission also proposed to require a showing that the MLP has had stable earnings over a multi-year period, so as to justify a finding that it will be able to maintain the current level of cash distributions in future years. The Proposed Policy Statement found that these requirements should render the MLP's cash distribution comparable to a corporation's dividend for purposes of the DCF analysis. 31. Under the Proposed Policy Statement, the Commission would leave to individual cases the determination of which specific MLPs and corporations should be included in the proxy group. The Commission proposed to apply its final policy statement to all gas and oil cases that have not completed the hearing phase as of the date the Commission issues its final policy statement. The Commission stated that it would consider on a case-by-case basis whether to apply the final policy statement in cases that have completed the hearing phase. III. The Record in the Policy Statement Proceeding A. Pre-Technical Conference Comments 32. Twenty-two initial comments and thirteen reply comments were filed in response to the Proposed Policy Statement 36 and fall into two categories:

(1)Those of gas and oil pipelines and the related trade associations (Pipeline Interests), 37 and

(2)those of gas and oil producers and shippers, public and municipal utilities, state public service commissions, and related trade associations (Customer Interests). 38 Two comments were also submitted by individuals in their business or personal capacity. 39 36 Comments related to the technical conference are discussed *infra* and are characterized as conference comments or conference reply comments. 37 The Pipeline Interests include: the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL); El Paso Corporation (El Paso); Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (Enbridge); the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA); MidAmerican Energy Pipeline Group (MidAmerican); the National Association of Publicly Traded Partnerships (NAPTP); Panhandle Energy Pipelines (Panhandle); Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC (Spectra); TransCanada Corporation (TransCanada); and Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston). 38 The Customer Interests include: The American Gas Association (AGA); the America Public Gas Association (APGA); the Air Transport Association of America; the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP); Indicated Shippers (consisting of Area Energy, LLC, Anadarko E&P Company LP, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Chevron USA Inc., Coral Energy Resources LP, Occidental Energy Marketing Inc., and Shell Rocky Mountain Production, LLC); the Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA); the Process Gas Consumers Group; the Public Service Commission of New York (PSCNY); Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro); the Northern Municipal Distributors Group

(NMDG)and the Midwest Region Gas Task Force Association filing jointly; and the Society for the Preservation of Oil Shippers (Society). 39 The individual comments include Crowley Energy Consulting, supporting the Customer Interests, and Barry Gleicher, supporting the Pipeline Interests. 33. The comments focus on three issues:

(1)Whether MLPs should be included in the gas pipeline proxy group at all;

(2)whether the proposed cap on the MLP cash distributions used in the DCF analysis is necessary or adequate; and

(3)whether the short- and long-term growth component of the DCF model should be modified given the financial practices of MLPs. Secondary points include the potential distorting effects of: MLP tax treatment, the large payouts by MLPs, the general partner's incentive distribution rights (IDRs), and the relative returns to the limited and general partners. 34. All parties recognize that MLPs are the only available entities for inclusion in the oil pipeline proxy group. The Pipeline Interests also all assert that the Commission correctly proposed to include MLPs in the gas pipeline proxy group. In contrast, most of the Customer Interests assert that there are enough corporations available for inclusion in the gas pipeline proxy group and that there is no need to include MLPs. 35. Both the Pipeline and Customer Interests question the proposed earnings cap on MLP distributions, with the Pipeline Interests asserting the cap is unnecessary and the Customer Interests asserting the cap should be lower. The Pipeline Interests assert that an MLP's share price reflects investors' projection of all cash flows it will receive from the MLP, including distributions in excess of earnings. Therefore, any cap on the distributions while still using a dividend yield reflecting the full share price would lead to distorted results. 40 The Customer Interests agree that the adjustment to MLP distributions is necessary to remove a double count attributed to depreciation, but they also uniformly assert that the proposed adjustment is inadequate to compensate for a wide range of financial factors that distinguish MLPs from Schedule C corporations. 40 AOPL initial comments at 8, 10; INGAA initial comments at 13-14; Spectra initial comments at 4; NAPTP initial comments at 4; NAPTP initial comments at 4. 36. On the growth rate issue, the Pipeline Interests in their initial comments generally agree that, if MLPs have greater distributions than a corporation, then the MLP may have less growth potential than a corporation. However, they argue that this fact does not require any additional adjustment, since any lower growth potential would be reflected in a reduced IBES growth forecast. The Pipeline Interests also state that distributions in excess of earnings do not prevent reinvestment or organic growth. They assert that pipeline MLPs have ready access to capital markets given their stable cash flows and the projected expansion of the pipeline system, which can be the basis for organic growth. 41 41 AOPL comments at 21-24 and attachments; Enbridge Energy reply comments at 5; INGAA comments at 22-24; TransCanada reply comments at 8-10. 37. In contrast, the Customer Interests assert that MLPs have significantly lower growth potential than corporations due to their distributions in excess of earnings, particularly over the long term. 42 They cite studies by established investment firms suggesting that the long term growth potential of MLPs is less than the long term growth factor now included in the DCF model. Moreover, they argue that given the high level of MLP distributions and declining opportunities for acquisitions with high returns, MLP growth must now come from investment of external funds in projects that will enhance organic growth of existing business lines. 43 42 APGA reply comments at 11-15; CAPP initial comments at 1; CAPP reply comments at 6-7, and attachment at 3-4; NYPSC initial comments at 19-21, 23, including attachments of financial materials from major investment houses; NYPSC reply comments at 4-7; Tesoro reply comments at 25-27. 43 *Id.* 38. Some of the Customer Interests further argue that there are inadequate investment opportunities to support capital investment, and in the relatively near future the present level of MLP distributions will be maintained only by borrowing or issuing additional limited partners' units. 44 Therefore, they argue, sustainability of MLP growth is a major issue that must be examined in rate proceedings as this implies a lower equity cost-of-capital component in the pipeline's rate structure. 45 The Customer Interests also assert that the Commission's traditional DCF model has never permitted the inclusion of externally generated funds in the growth component of the model. Thus, to the extent the IBES projections include such external funds, they assert that this compromises the forecasts. 44 Crowley Energy Consultant initial comments; Society at 5-6. 45 *Id.* 39. Finally, NGSA urge the Commission to initiate a new proceeding to consider alternatives to the DCF methodology for determining gas pipeline ROEs. AGA requests a technical conference to discuss the issues further, which as noted, the Commission granted with regard to the growth factors. 46 Two commenters assert that any change in policy should apply prospectively and should not apply to proceedings for which the hearing record is completed, *e.g.* , the *Kern Rive* r proceeding. 47 46 AGA initial comments at 8. 47 *Id.* at 8, 25; NGSA initial comments at 3, 11. B. Technical Conference and Post-Technical Conference Comments 40. After review of the initial comments summarized above, the Commission issued a supplemental notice on November 15, 2007, requesting additional comments solely on the issue of MLP growth rates, and establishing a technical conference to discuss that issue. The technical conference was held on January 23, 2008. The Commission concluded that supplementing the record before the Commission could resolve the issue of how to project MLP growth rates assuming that the Commission ultimately decides to permit the use of MLPs in the proxy group. The Commission focused the technical conference on the appropriate method for determining MLP growth and, in particular, that which should be used if the Commission did not cap the distributions used to determine the dividend yield. Thus, whether to include MLPs in the proxy group or to limit the distributions to earnings were not issues before the technical conference. The technical conference was transcribed for use in the record herein. 41. Thirteen parties submitted comments in response to the November 15 notice, on three main topics:

(1)The short-term growth component;

(2)the long-term growth component; and

(3)the weighting of these two components. 48 Of these, eight parties requested to participate on the panels and the Commission accepted all of the individuals proffered by these parties. 49 To summarize, two of the panelists represented parties that continued to assert that MLPs should not be included in the ROE proxy group. 50 More consistent with the premise of the conference, three panelists stated that there needed to be an adjustment to the long term GDP component the Commission currently uses in its DCF model. 51 Two stated that MLPs would grow at a slower rate than corporations in the long-term phase of growth. However, six other panelists asserted that an MLP as a whole could grow as fast as a corporation in the terminal phase, but most conceded that the use of incentive distribution rights

(IDRs)52 would cause the limited partnership interests to grow at slower rate than the MLP as a whole. 53 In addition, three panelists questioned the reliability of the IBES forecasts for use in developing the short-term projection 54 and one stated that the longer term growth component of the formula should be weighted at no greater than 10 percent. 55 48 APGA, AOPL, CAPP, Enbridge, INGAA, MidAmerica, NAPTP, NGSA, PSNYC, State of Alaska, Tesoro, TransCanada, and Williston. 49 Professor J. Peter Williamson on behalf of the Association of Oil Pipelines, Mr. J. Bertram Solomon on behalf of the American Public Gas Association, Mr. Michael J. Vilbert on behalf of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, Mr. Park Shaper and Mr. Yves Siegel on behalf of the National Association of Publicly Traded Partnerships, Mr. Patrick Barry on behalf of the Public Service Commission of New York, Mr. Thomas Horst on behalf of the State of Alaska, and Mr. Paul Moul on behalf of TransCanada Corporation. 50 PSCNY and APGA. CAPP, NGSA, and Tesoro supported this position but did not participate on the panel. 51 PSCNY, APGA, and State of Alaska as well as the NGSA. 52 As discussed further below, an incentive distribution provision in an MLP partnership agreement provides for an increasing large percentage of distributions to the general partner as the cash distributions per limited partnership share increase over time. The maximum incentive distribution to the general partner varies with the partnership agreement, but may be as high as 47 percent. 53 Two spoke for NAPTP and one each for AOPL, INGAA, the State of Alaska, and TransCanada. Williston, Enbridge, and MidAmerican also asserted that there is no reason to conclude the growth would not at least equal GDP. They did not speak to the issue of the limited partner growth rate that might be lower as a result of the incentive distributions to the general partner. 54 APGA, PSCNY, and State of Alaska. 55 TransCanada, Additional Comments dated December 21 at 12. IV. Discussion 42. Based on its review of all the comments and the record of the technical conference, the Commission is adopting the following policy concerning the composition of the natural gas pipeline and oil pipeline proxy groups:

(1)Consistent with the Proposed Policy Statement, the Commission will permit MLPs to be included in the proxy group for both gas and oil pipelines;

(2)the proposed earnings cap on the MLPs' distributions will not be adopted; and

(3)the Commission will use the same DCF analysis for MLPs as for corporations, except that the long-term growth projection for MLPs shall be 50 percent of projected growth in GDP. A. Whether To Include MLPs in the Gas and Oil Pipeline Proxy Groups 1. Comments 43. The first issue is whether to include MLPs in the proxy group used to determine a pipeline's return on equity. No commenter contests the Commission's statement that, in oil pipeline proceedings, MLPs are the only firms available for inclusion in the proxy group. 56 In addition, the Pipeline Interests all assert that the Commission correctly proposed to include MLPs in the gas pipeline proxy group. They agree with the Commission that this will result in a more representative proxy group that reflects long-term trends within the gas pipeline industry and assert that the resulting returns will encourage further investment in both the gas and oil pipeline industries. Including MLPs in the proxy group would reduce the need for difficult adjustments to projected equity returns to accommodate differences in risk among the different types of firms that might reasonably be included in the proxy group. 56 AOPL initial comments at 5. Tesoro initial comments at 2. *See also* Society initial comments addressing the possible inclusion of oil pipeline MLPs in the proxy group. 44. In contrast, most of the commenters representing the Customer Interests assert that there are enough corporations available for inclusion in the gas pipeline proxy group that there is no need to include MLPs. They further argue that the differences between the MLP and corporate business model render any use of MLPs inconsistent with the DCF model. APGA expressly states that the Commission should abandon the Proposed Policy Statement. 57 57 APGA initial comments at 14. 45. The NMDG asserts that the Commission has not established that there is any reason to issue the Policy Statement or to relieve a pipeline applicant of the burden of establishing why any MLPs should be included in the proxy group. In this vein, Indicated Shippers assert that the Commission should consider alternative procedures for defining the proxy group, and that the improvement in El Paso Natural Corporation's and the William Company's financial situation and the creation of the Spectra Group suggest that the corporate gas proxy group is becoming more representative. 46. Finally, NGSA urges the Commission to initiate a new proceeding to consider alternatives to the DCF methodology for determining gas pipeline ROEs. NGSA generally supports including MLPs in the proxy group, subject to adjustments, as a means of continuing to use the DCF method on a temporary basis. But it argues that a better long-term solution to determining gas pipeline ROEs would be to stop using the DCF method, and instead adopt a risk premium approach to determining ROE. It asserts that the risk premium approach is used in Canada and does not require adjustments to account for variations in corporate structure. 58 INGAA states in its reply comments that the DCF methodology is not necessarily the only financial model that may be used, and asks the Commission to clarify that parties may propose other approaches in individual rate cases. 59 58 NGSA initial comments at 13-15. 59 INGAA reply comments at 18. 2. Discussion 47. As the Commission pointed out in the proposed policy statement, the Supreme Court has held that “the return to the equity owner should be commensurate with the return on investment in other enterprises having corresponding risks. That return, moreover, should be sufficient to assure confidence in the financial integrity of the enterprise, so as to maintain its credit and to attract capital.” 60 In order to attract capital, “a utility must offer a risk-adjusted expected rate of return sufficient to attract investors.” 61 In other words, the utility must compete in the equity markets to obtain capital. 60 *FPC* v. *Hope Natural Gas Co.* , 320 U.S. 591, 603 (1044). 61 *CAPP* , 254 F.3d at 293. 48. The Commission performs a DCF analysis of publicly-traded proxy firms to determine the return on equity that markets require a pipeline to give its investors in order for them to invest their capital in the pipeline. As the court explained in *Petal Gas Storage, LLC* v. *FERC* , the purpose of the proxy group is to “provide market-determined stock and dividend figures from public companies comparable to a target company for which those figures are unavailable. Market-determined stock figures reflect a company's risk level and when combined with dividend values, permit calculation of the ‘risk-adjusted expected rate of return sufficient to attract investors.' ” 62 It is thus crucial that the firms in the proxy group be comparable to the regulated firm whose rate is being determined. In other words, as the court emphasized in *Petal* , the proxy group must be “risk-appropriate.” 63 62 *Petal* , 496 F.3d at 697, quoting *Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers* v. *FERC* , 254 F.3d 289 ( *DC* Cir. 2001). 63 *Id.* 6. 49. The Commission continues to believe that including MLPs in the gas and oil proxy groups will, as required by *Petal* , make those proxy groups more representative of the business risks of the regulated firm whose rates are at issue. While there has been some modest expansion of the number of publicly-traded diversified natural gas companies that could be included in the proxy group, this does not change one basic fact. This is that more and more gas pipeline assets are being transferred to publicly-traded MLPs, whose business is narrowly focused on pipeline activities. As a result, these MLPs are likely to be more representative of predominantly pipeline firms than the diversified gas corporations still available for inclusion in a proxy group. As such, including MLPs in the gas pipeline proxy group should render the proxy group more “risk-appropriate,” consistent with *Petal* . Moreover, MLPs are the only publicly traded ownership form for oil pipelines and are the most representative group for determining the equity cost of capital for oil pipelines. 50. As the court also emphasized in *Petal* , when a proxy group is less than clearly representative, there may be a need for the Commission to adjust for the difference in risk by adjusting the equity cost-of-capital, a difficult undertaking requiring detailed support from the contending parties and detailed case-by-case analysis by the Commission. Expanding a proxy group to include MLPs whose business is more narrowly focused on pipeline activities should help minimize the need to make adjustments, because the proxy group should be more representative of the regulated firms whose rates are at issue. 51. While this Policy Statement modifies Commission policy to permit MLPs to be included in the proxy group, the Commission is making no findings at this time as to which particular corporations and/or MLPs should be included in the gas or oil proxy groups. The Commission leaves that determination to each individual rate case. In order to assist the Commission in determining the most representative possible proxy group in those cases, the parties and other participants should provide as much information as possible regarding the business activities of each firm they propose to include in the proxy group, including their recent annual SEC filings and investor service analyses of the firms. This information should help the Commission determine whether the interstate natural gas or oil pipeline business is a primary focus of the firm and whether investors view an investment in the firm as essentially an investment in that business. While the Commission is not precluding use of diversified corporations or MLPs in the proxy group, the probable difference in the risk of the natural gas pipeline business and the risk profile of a diversified gas corporation with substantial local distribution activities has been highlighted by the parties and specifically recognized by the court in *Petal* . 64 64 *Id.* at 6-7. 52. As discussed further below, the Commission recognizes that there are significant differences in the cash flows to investors and growth rates of corporations and MLPs. However, as discussed below, the Commission believes that those issues may be accounted for in a correctly performed DCF analysis, and therefore these differences do not preclude inclusion of MLPs in the proxy group. 53. Finally, the Commission has concluded that it will not explore other methods of determining the equity cost of capital at this time. The DCF model is a well established method of determining the equity cost of capital, 65 and other methods such as the risk premium model have not been used by the Commission for almost two decades. In the Commission's judgment, the uncertainty that would be created by reopening its procedures to include other approaches outweighs any limitations in its current pragmatic approach to the financial characteristics of MLPs. Therefore the alternatives suggested by certain of the parties will not be pursued further here. Nothing submitted at the January 23rd technical conference warrants different conclusions. 65 See *Illinois Bell Telephone Co.* v. *FCC* , 988 F.2d 1254, 1259 n. 6 (DC Cir. 1993), stating, “The DCF method `has become the most popular technique of estimating the cost of equity, and it is generally accepted by most commissions. Virtually all cost of capital witnesses use this method, and most of them consider it their primary technique.' ” *quoting J. Bonbright et al., Principles of Public Utility Regulation* 318 (2d ed. 1988). B. The Proposed Adjustment to MLP Cash Distributions 1. Comments 54. Both the Pipeline and Customer Interests attack the proposed earnings cap on MLP distributions, with the Pipeline Interests asserting the cap is unnecessary and the Customer Interests asserting the cap should be lower. The Pipeline Interests assert that there is no need to adjust the distributions included in the DCF model. They argue that investors include all cash flows that are generated by an MLP in applying a DCF model and do not distinguish between a return of investment and a return on investment 66 since depreciation is an accounting concept that is used to calculate an MLP's earnings that is not relevant to determining the cash flows included in a DCF analysis. 67 The Pipeline Interests further assert that an unadjusted DCF calculation does not result in the double recovery of the depreciation component of an MLP's cost-of-service. 68 66 AOPL initial comments at 16, 18; Spectra Energy initial comments at 14; NAPTP initial comments at 3. 67 INGAA initial comments at 5-6, 15-18; NAPTP initial comments at 4-5; MidAmerican initial comments at 5; Panhandle initial comments at 3 and attachment; Williston initial comments at 11. 68 INGAA initial comments at 15-17 and 20-21. 55. Moreover, the Pipeline Interests assert that, because all parts of the DCF model are linked, if the distribution component is reduced, this will necessarily affect the growth component of the model. They assert that any adjustment limiting the distributions used to earnings will result in below market returns to investors and thus any such adjustment is arbitrary. 69 As an alternative, they suggest that if an MLP's distributions are unrepresentative, it is wiser to exclude that MLP from the sample as an outlier. 70 They further assert there have been corporations in the proxy group that have distributed dividends in excess of earnings for years and the Commission has never required an adjustment. 71 They claim that in any event there are practical problems with an earnings cap because earnings are reported quarterly (unlike distributions which are reported monthly) and such reports are unedited and may require seasonal adjustments. 72 69 AOPL initial comments at 8, 10; INGAA initial comments at 13-14; Spectra initial comments at 4; PAPTP initial comments at 4. 70 INGAA initial comments at 13; Spectra Energy initial comments at 5, 19-20. 71 INGAA initial comments at 18; MidAmerica initial comments at 6. 72 AOPL initial comments at 24-25; Spectra Energy initial comments at 17-18. 56. The Customer Interests support the Commission's initial conclusion that an adjustment to MLP distributions is necessary to remove a double count attributed to depreciation, but they also uniformly assert that the proposed adjustment is inadequate to compensate for a wide range of financial factors that distinguish MLPs from Schedule C corporations. Thus, they assert that further adjustments to the distributions should be made to reflect the tax advantages that flow to MLPs, 73 the alleged distortions that result from incentive distributions to the general partner, 74 and the fact that distributions may also include cash derived from the sale of assets, bond issues, and the issuance of further limited partnership units. 75 Several also assert that for an MLP's distribution to be comparable to that of a corporation, the percentage of the MLP's distribution included in the DCF model should be no higher than the percentage of earnings corporations typically include in their dividend payments, or about 60 percent. 76 Finally, to the extent that INGAA and others assert that depreciation is not a direct source of cash flow for distribution, the Customer Interests cite to investor literature and MLP filings with the SEC disclosure that state exactly the opposite. 77 73 Crowley Energy at 2; Indicated Shippers initial comments at 24; PSCNY initial comments at 12-13; Society initial comments, *passim* . 74 APGA at 7-8; Crowley Energy at 2; Indicated Shippers comments at 24; NGSA at 6; Society initial comments *passim* . 75 Crowley Energy initial comments; Society, *passim* ; Tesoro reply comments at 26. 76 CAPP initial comments at 3, 6; Indicated Shippers initial comments at 23; PSCNY initial comments at 6; Tesoro initial comments at 15. 77 APGA initial comments at 11; CAPP reply comments at 3-4; NGSA reply comments at 9-10; Tesoro reply comments at 19-21. 2. Discussion 57. The Commission concludes that a proposed earnings cap on the MLP distributions that would be included in the DCF model should not be adopted. On further review, the Commission concludes that its concern with the distinction between return on capital and return of capital improperly conflates cost-of-service rate-making techniques with the market-driven DCF method used for determining the pipeline's cost of obtaining capital in the equity markets. This is inconsistent with the DCF model's internal structure. 58. The fundamental premise of the DCF model is that a firm's stock price should equal the present value of its future cash flows, discounted at a market rate commensurate with the stock's risk. No commenter seriously contends that an investor would distinguish between cash flows attributable to return on capital, and those attributable to return of capital, in performing a DCF analysis. In short, under the DCF model, all cash flows, whatever their source, contribute to the value of stock. The Commission agrees that, since the DCF model uses the total unadjusted cash flows to determine a stock's value, it is theoretically inconsistent to use lower adjusted cash flows when using the DCF model to determine the return required by investors purchasing the stock. 59. More specifically, the investor first determines what risk should be attributed to a prospective investment and the related return that would be required in order to make the investment. For example, the investor may conclude that the minimum return from the investment must be 10 percent on equity. The investor then looks at the total cash flows from all sources over time, including the current distribution (or dividend) and its projected growth. The DCF model yields a price for the share that reflects the present value of those cash flows at the discount rate. 60. In contrast, the Commission solves the DCF formula for the return required by the investor, not the price of the stock. This results in the Commission calculating the proxy firm's ROE as the sum of

(1)the proxy firm's dividend yield and

(2)the projected growth rate. The Commission determines dividend yield by dividing the proxy firm's cash distribution (or dividend) by its current stock price. As the court in *Petal* pointed out, both the stock price and distribution (or dividend) figures of the proxy firms are market-determined. Moreover, an investor's projection of the MLP's growth prospects would be affected by the actual level of its distributions, with distributions in excess of earnings generally perceived as reducing the growth projection because less cash flow is available for reinvestment in the firm. 78 The pipeline industry generally acknowledged this fact in earlier rate proceedings as well as in this proceeding, or at least until its later phases. 79 As illustrated in Appendix B to this Policy Statement, a DCF analysis using market-determined inputs for each of the variables in the DCF formula appropriately determines, consistent with *Petal* , the percentage return on equity a pipeline must offer in the equity market in order to attract investors, whether the proxy firms are corporations or MLPs. 78 Because a corporation typically retains a portion of its earnings, general financial theory suggests that it is able to use internally generated funds to obtain a higher growth rate. An MLP's higher level of distributions theoretically produces a lower projected growth rate. In fact, the most recent IBES projections for the four corporations included in the gas pipeline proxy group in Appendix A average 10.5 percent, while the IBES growth projections for the six MLPs average only 6.67 percent. 79 *See* AOPL Initial Comments, Williamson Aff. at 6-7; AOPL Reply Comments at 6-7; Panhandle Initial Comments, Attachment dated August 30, 2007, *Analysis of the Use of MLPs in the Group of Proxy Companies Used For Determining Gas and Oil Pipeline Return on Equity* at 10-11; *Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC* , Docket No. RP06-614-000, Ex. TW-56 filed September 29, 2006, at 23-24; *High Island Offshore System, LLC* , Docket No. RP96-540-000, Ex. HIO-73 filed August 26, 2006 at 28-29; *Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc, et al.* v. *SFPP, L.P.* , Docket No. OR96-2-012, Ex. SEP SFPP-56 dated February 14, 2005 at 9-10; *Mojave Pipeline Company* , Docket No. RP07-310-000, Ex. MPC-70 dated February 2, 2007 at 28-32 (including tables and charts on the relative growth rates of corporations and MLPs); *Kern River Gas Transmission Company* , Docket No. RP04-274-000, Ex. KR-107 at 17. 61. If the Commission were to cap the distribution used to determine an MLP's dividend yield at below the market-determined level, but use the actual market price of the MLP's publicly traded units and a growth projection reflecting the actual level of distributions, the DCF analysis would fail to achieve its intended purpose of determining the return the equity market requires in order to justify an investment in the pipeline. That is because there would be a mismatch among the inputs the Commission used for the variables in the DCF formula. The DCF analysis presumes that the market value of an MLP's units is a function of the entire present and future cash flow provided by an investment in those units. Given this interlocking nature of the variables in the DCF formula, INGAA and the other pipeline commenters are correct that limiting the distribution input to earnings, while using market values for the other inputs to the DCF formula, would result in the calculation of a return below that implied in the share price. 80 80 The earnings cap on the distribution would artificially reduce an MLP's dividend yield below that assumed by the investor in valuing the stock. Adding the artificially reduced dividend yield to a growth projection that reflects the MLP's reduced growth prospects due to its high actual distributions would inevitably result in an ROE lower than that actually required by the market. 62. In addition, use of a proxy MLP's full distribution in determining ROE will not cause a double recovery of the depreciation component included in the pipeline's cost-of-service rates. In a rate case, the Commission determines the dollar amount of the ROE component of the cost-of-service of the pipeline filing the rate case by multiplying

(1)the percentage return on equity required by the market by

(2)the actual rate base of the pipeline in question. Having found that use of a proxy MLP's full distribution is necessary for the DCF analysis to accurately determine the percentage return on equity required by the equity markets, it necessarily follows that the same percentage should be used in determining the dollar amount of the ROE component of the pipeline's cost of service. Awarding the pipeline an ROE allowance based on that percentage of its own rate base will give the pipeline an opportunity to provide its investors with the return on their investment required by the market. Such an ROE allowance does not implicate the separate depreciation allowance the Commission also includes in a pipeline's cost of service to provide for return of investment. 63. The Commission therefore concludes that it is not analytically sound to cap the distributions to be included in the DCF model by the MLP's earnings. As discussed below, the record is more convincing that if any adjustment is required, this issue centers on the projected growth of the MLPs. Given this, it is not necessary to discuss the appropriate level for any earnings cap. 64. Having concluded that an earnings cap adjustment would be inappropriate, the Commission also concludes that it is not necessary to address the long term sustainability of MLPs as a whole, or those of the particular MLP whose rates are under review. As has been discussed, the DCF model has two components. One is the cash distribution in the current period and the second is the discounted value of the anticipated growth in that distribution. The increase in distribution is driven by the anticipated growth in earnings that generates the cash to be used for the distribution. If projected earnings suggest that the distribution cannot be sustained, this will be reflected in the projected cash flow for the firm and ultimately the MLP unit price. 81 In this regard, some MLPs will inevitably do better and others not as well, and from the Commission's point of view, this will be reflected in the required rate of return developed by the DCF model. 81 The investor requires a minimum return that reflects the perceived risk of the investment. Thus, if the cash flows decline, so will the price of the stock assuming the percentage return required remains the same. 65. For this reason, as the Pipeline Interests suggest, if an MLP's financial condition or growth rate is outside the norm for the industry, or is unrepresentative, the best way to deal with this issue is to exclude that particular MLP from the proxy group sample, just as the Commission has done with unrepresentative diversified gas corporations. Finally, the Commission has previously held that the issue of whether MLPs are an appropriate investment vehicle for the pipeline industry as a whole is a matter that is best left for Congress, the body that authorized MLPs in the first instance. Thus the Commission will not address that issue, or the appropriateness of the tax deferral aspects of MLPs further in this proceeding. 82 Nothing presented at the technical conference warrants different conclusions. 82 *See SFPP, L.P.* , 121 FERC ¶ 61,240, at P 20-61

(2007)for an extensive discussion of these income tax allowance and tax deferral policy issues relating to MLPs. Moreover, any tax advantages are normally reflected in the MLP unit price. See also INGAA Reply Comments at 12-13; MidAmerica, Reply Comments at 4-5; AOPL Reply Comments at 11-12; Tr. 121-22; AOPL Post-Technical Conference Comments at 14. 66. The Commission now turns to the issue of how to project the growth rates of MLPs. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds that the differences between MLPs and corporations, and particularly the MLPs' lower growth prospects due to their distributions in excess of earnings, are appropriately accounted for in the growth projection component of the DCF model. C. The Short-Term Growth Component 67. This section of the Policy Statement discusses whether changes should be made to the short-term growth component of the DCF model. For the short-term growth estimate the Commission currently uses security analysts' five-year forecasts for each company in the proxy group, as published by IBES. IBES is a service that monitors the earnings estimates on over 18,000 companies of interest to institutional investors. More than 850 firms contribute data to IBES to be used in its projections and the information is provided on a subscription basis. 1. Comments 68. The Pipeline Interests support the continued use of five-year IBES forecasts for short-term growth projections in the DCF model with regard to MLPs. In general, they argue that, while no growth forecast is perfect, IBES provides the best available information regarding what investors expect in companies. They state that IBES estimates are unbiased and publicly available. They add that since IBES estimates are company-specific, they already adjust for any differences among the entities analyzed, including whether the company is organized as an MLP or corporation. 69. For example, NAPTP supports the IBES estimates because the various items that may affect the growth rate expected by the market, such as the effect of IDRs to the general partner, are already factored into IBES projections. 83 Williston Basin argues that since IBES data is drawn from many financial analysts, and since the information is widely accepted in the financial industry, use of IBES helps reduce subjectivity when estimating appropriate short-term growth forecasts. 84 TransCanada acknowledges that IBES may underestimate short-term growth for MLPs, but argues that modifying IBES would only further understate short-term growth rates and compound any problems brought on by trying to estimate growth for MLPs. 85 The AOPL similarly argues that studies have shown that IBES estimates understate short-term growth rates for MLPs and therefore the growth projections are conservative. 86 83 NAPTP, Initial Technical Conference Comments at 3. 84 Williston, Additional Comments dated December 21 at 2. 85 TransCanada, Additional Comments dated December 21 at 12-13. 86 AOPL, Initial Technical Conference Comments at 5, Williamson Post-Technical Conference Aff. at 3, 8. 70. However, certain parties recommend that the Commission discontinue using IBES estimates for MLPs to project short-term growth rates in its DCF model. These parties argue there is considerable uncertainty of whether the individual forecasts IBES is reporting reflect earnings growth or distribution growth. The State of Alaska asserts that IBES growth estimates of distributions per share are incomplete and unreliable for use in the DCF calculation. It argues that there are not a sufficient number of stock analysts providing IBES with distribution per share growth estimates to get a reliable estimate for the purposes of calculating the cost of equity for pipeline companies. Speaking for the State of Alaska, Dr. Thomas Horst notes that of the 37 gas and oil companies he examined data for, there was not a single case where IBES received two or more estimates of distributions per share growth rates. 87 87 State of Alaska, Reply Comments dated February 20 at 5. 71. APGA states that through communications with personnel at Thompson Financial, the owner of IBES and the publisher of its forecasts, it verified that the five-year analysts' growth rate projections reported by IBES for MLPs are projections of earnings per unit, and not distributions per unit. 88 PSCNY also considers IBES projections unreliable, since they do not account for such parameters as IDRs. It questions whether analysts can truly estimate MLP growth beyond two years. It also questions whether lower earnings retention necessarily would translate into lower short-term IBES growth rates relative to corporations. 89 CAPP expresses concerns that the analysts that produce IBES growth estimates continue to be concentrated within the same financial institutions that also underwrite the securities of the subject companies, invest in those securities, and furnish other financial services to the subject enterprises 90 and also notes the uncertainty of whether the forecasts are for earnings or distributions. 91 88 APGA, Reply Technical Conference Comments at 5-6. 89 NYPSC Initial Technical Conference Comments at 5-6. 90 CAPP Supplemental Comments dated December 21 at 3-4. 91 CAPP Initial Technical Conference Comments at 7. 72. However AOPL maintains that historical records confirm that what analysts actually report to IBES is distribution growth. It adds that Yves Siegel, Wachovia's representative, confirmed that Wachovia provides projected MLP distribution growth to IBES, and not earnings growth. 92 NAPTP asserts that, for projecting the short-term growth rates of MLPs, the Commission should use analysts' forecasts of growth in the MLP's distributable cash flow for all of its equity holders and that, while not perfect, this is the best information that is available. 93 92 AOPL Initial Technical Conference Comments at 4-5. 93 NAPTP Post-Technical Conference Comments at 1-3. 2. Discussion 73. The Commission's longstanding policy is to use security analysts' five-year growth forecasts as reported by IBES to determine the short-term growth rates for each proxy company. In *Opinion No 414-A,* 94 the Commission explained that the growth rate to be used in the DCF model is the growth rate expected by the market. Thus, the Commission seeks to base its growth projections on “the best evidence of the growth rates actually expected by the investment community.” 95 Moreover, the Commission stated, the growth rate expected by the investment community is not, quoting a Transco witness, “necessarily a correct growth forecast; the market may be wrong. But the cost of common equity to a regulated enterprise depends upon what the market expects not upon precisely what is going to happen.” 96 94 85 FERC ¶ 61,323 at 62,268-9. 95 *Id.* at 62,269. 96 *Id.* 74. The Commission held that the IBES five-year growth forecasts for each company in the proxy group are the best available evidence of the short-term growth rates expected by the investment community. It cited evidence that

(1)those forecasts are provided to IBES by professional security analysts,

(2)IBES reports the forecast for each firm as a service to investors, and

(3)the IBES reports are well known in the investment community and used by investors. The Commission has also rejected the suggestion that the IBES analysts are biased and stated that “in fact the analysts have a significant incentive to make their analyses as accurate as possible to meet the needs of their clients since those investors will not utilize brokerage firms whose analysts repeatedly overstate the growth potential of companies.” 97 97 *Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.,* 90 FERC ¶ 61,279, at 61,932 (2000). 75. Based on the comments, the Commission concludes that the IBES five-year growth forecasts should also be used for any MLP included in the proxy group. While the Commission recognizes that there may be some statistical limitations to the IBES projections, the record here demonstrates that it remains the best and most reliable source of growth information available. IBES publishes security analysts' five-year growth forecasts for MLPs in the same manner as for corporations. No party questions the Commission's findings in past cases that investors rely on the IBES projections in making investment decisions, because they are widely available and generally reflect the input of a number of financial analysts. Also, since IBES projections are company-specific, they should already adjust for any differences among the entities analyzed, including any reduced growth prospects investors expect due to the fact an MLP makes distributions in excess of earnings. In fact, the most recent IBES projections for the seven MLPs included in the gas pipeline proxy group in Appendix A, Table 1, average 6.86 percent, while the IBES growth projections for the four corporations average 10.75 percent. Thus, those MLP growth projections are about 400 basis points below those for the corporations. 76. As discussed above, several parties assert that the security analysts' five-year growth forecasts appear generally to be forecasts of growth in earnings, rather than distributions. They point out that the relevant cash flows for the DCF model are the MLP's distributions to the limited partners, and therefore the growth projections used in the DCF analysis should be growth in distributions, not earnings. Despite these concerns, the Commission again concludes that the IBES short-term growth projections provide the best estimate of short-term growth rates for MLP distributions. Professor J. Peter Williamson, on behalf of AOPL, reviewed historical IBES five-year growth forecasts for five oil pipeline MLPs since the mid-1990s. IBES had published five to nine growth forecasts for each of the MLPs, with a total of 39 forecasts. Williamson compared each of these 39 forecasts to the MLP's actual growth in earnings and distributions during the subsequent five-year period. He found that 29 of the 39 IBES five-year forecasts, or 74 percent, were closer to the actual average distribution growths over that time span than the actual earnings growths. In his study, Williamson also found that historical records fail to support any claims that the IBES forecasts are biased or tend to overstate future growth. 98 In fact, 22 of the 39 forecasts were lower than the actual distribution growth, and 17 were higher. Thus, far from showing a pattern of overestimating actual growth in distributions, the IBES growth projections underestimated growth in distributions 56 percent of the time, a conservative result. Accordingly, regardless of whether financial analysts stated they are reporting projected earnings growth or projected distribution growth for MLPs, the Commission finds the five-year growth rates that IBES reports are acceptable since they closely approximate distribution growth for MLPs, which is the short-term input for the DCF model. 98 AOPL, Post-Technical Conference Comments, Williamson Aff. at 2-6. 77. As noted, the State of Alaska expresses concerns that there are an insufficient number of stock analysts providing IBES with estimates which are expressly identified at forecasts of MLP distribution per share growth to obtain reliable short-term growth projections for MLPs. At the technical conference, Mr. Horst presented a chart showing the number of IBES report counts for 37 oil and gas pipeline companies—both corporations and MLPs. The chart breaks the analyst report counts down into earnings reports and distribution reports. It shows that analysts made an average of 3.1 earnings reports for each MLP and an average of 0.8 distribution reports for each MLP. 99 However, as discussed above, Williamson's analysis of a historical period suggests that actual MLP growth in the short term tracks IBES earnings projections better than distribution projections. Moreover, Mr. Horst's averages include many smaller, less frequently traded MLPs and thus understate the number of analysts that are likely to follow the larger, more established pipeline MLPs likely to be included in a proxy group. The Commission therefore concludes that the number of reports made by analysts for oil and gas companies MLPs is acceptable for use in the DCF model. 99 State of Alaska, Comments dated December 21, Second Horst Aff. at 4-5; Reply Comments dated February 20 at 5, Third Horst Aff. at 16-17, 21. 78. Some of the Customer Interests are agreeable to the continued use of IBES forecasts, but only under certain conditions. Specifically, PSCNY contends that, should the Commission continue to use IBES forecasts in its DCF model, any MLP the Commission allows in a proxy group must be market-tested and representative of a natural gas pipeline company. PSCNY contends that IBES would be acceptable if the MLP is tracked by Value Line, has been in operation for at least five years as an MLP, and derives 50-percent of its operating income from, or has 50 percent of its assets devoted to, interstate natural gas transportation operations. PSCNY also contends that the Commission should exclude MLPs from proxy groups when their growth projections are illogical or anomalous. 100 100 PSCNY Supplemental Comments dated Dec. 21 at 3-5. 79. The Commission agrees in principle with PSCNY's position that IBES forecasts should only be used for an MLP that is tracked by Value Line, has been in operation for at least five years as an MLP, and derives at least 50 percent of its operating income from, or 50 percent of its assets devoted to, interstate operations. Thus, when developing its proxy group, a pipeline should select MLPs that are well established and have assets that are predominantly gas and oil pipelines. Such pipelines are those most likely to have risk comparable to the pipeline seeking to justify its rates. However, there may be particular MLPs that do not satisfy these criteria, but are still appropriate for inclusion in the proxy group. The pipeline must justify including such an MLP in its proxy group. Thus, while the Commission encourages pipelines to follow the guidelines suggested by PSCNY, it will not make them a condition of including a particular MLP in the proxy group. As suggested by the parties, the Commission will continue to exclude an MLP from the proxy groups if its growth projection is illogical or anomalous. 80. Two parties state that, should the Commission continue to use IBES projections to estimate short-term growth rates in its DCF model for MLPs, it must modify the estimated rates. Tesoro states that, if the Commission makes no adjustments to dividend distributions of MLPs, it should significantly reduce its IBES short-term growth estimates to recognize the fact that an MLP cannot indefinitely sustain its operations when distributions consistently exceed earnings. It argues that, if the Commission caps MLP distributions at earnings, it would still have to reduce IBES rates in order to recognize the fact that proxy group members would not be reinvesting retained earnings in ongoing operations, thereby achieving lower growth rates. Tesoro only recommends no adjustments to short-term growth estimates if the Commission caps distributions at a level below earnings, offering 65-percent of earnings as an example. 101 101 Tesoro, Comments on Growth dated December 21 at 3-4, 5-7. 81. The State of Alaska recommends that if a pipeline company's distributions per share exceed its earnings per share (as is frequently the case with pipeline MLPs), then the expected growth rate of the pipeline's distributions per share should be adjusted to equal

(1)the expected growth of its earnings per share, multiplied by

(2)the ratio of the pipeline's earnings per share to its distributions per share. According to Alaska, if a pipeline company distributes more cash than its current earnings, then the projected growth in earnings per share should also be adjusted by the ratio of the pipeline's earnings per share to its distributions per share. 102 102 State of Alaska, Comments dated Dec. 21 at 3-4; Second Horst Aff. at 2-3, 5-11. 82. The Commission rejects these proposals by Tesoro and the State of Alaska. As already discussed, to the extent investors expect an MLP's distributions in excess of earnings to reduce its growth prospects, that fact should be reflected in the IBES five-year growth projections themselves, without the need for any further adjustment. MLPs must publicly report their earnings and distribution levels. Therefore, the security analysts are aware of the degree to which each MLP is making distributions in excess of earnings. The security analysts presumably take that information, together with all other available information concerning the MLP, into account when making their projections. Moreover, these proposals would have a similar effect as capping the distributions used to calculate dividend yield at or below the level of the MLP's earnings. For the reasons previously discussed, the Commission finds that any cap on an MLP's distributions used in the DCF model at a level below the actual distribution is inconsistent with the basic operation of the DCF model. Thus, using a straight IBES five-year projection without modification presents the best method of estimating an MLP's short-term growth rate. 83. APGA further suggests revising IBES growth rates by averaging them with the comparable growth forecasts reported by Zacks Investment. It states that this averaging could help remove anomalous or outlying growth rates. It offers as an example, on December 10, 2007, IBES projected a five-year growth rate of 7.60 percent for Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (KMEP), whereas Zacks Investment projected a 33.70 percent growth rate for that company. APGA argues that the Commission should also use Value Line reports to test the reasonableness of projected growth rates for MLPs. 103 103 APGA, Additional Comments dated Dec. 21 at 3, 9-10. 84. The Commission will not require that IBES growth rates be averaged with the corresponding company's growth rates as reported for Zacks Investment at this time, or that Value Line reports be used to test the reasonableness of projected growth rates for MLPs. Finally, PSCNY requests that the Commission clarify that Thomson Financial Data posted on Yahoo.com may be used in the DCF formula, since Thomson Financial owns IBES. 104 The Commission clarifies that the growth projections to be used in the DCF model are those reported by IBES. If they are the same growth projections posted by Thomson Financial Data on Yahoo.com, then they are acceptable for the DCF model. 104 PSCNY, Supplemental Comments dated Dec. 21 at 5. D. The Long Term Growth Component 1. Comments 85. At this point the critical issue is whether the long term growth component of the Commission's DCF methodology should be modified in determining the equity cost of capital for an MLP. As has been discussed, for more than a decade the Commission has required that projected long-term growth in GDP be used as the corporate long term (terminal) growth component of the DCF calculation. The discussion at the technical conference disclosed four general positions. The AOPL, 105 NAPTP, 106 INGAA, 107 and TransCanada 108 asserted that the use of long term GDP is equally applicable to MLPs as to corporations. 109 However, the APGA, 110 PSCNY, 111 and the State of Alaska 112 all made suggestions for a reduction to the GDP growth projection to reflect the different retention and investment practices of MLPs. 113 In a different vein, INGAA suggested the use of the average of the projected long term inflation rate and projected long term GDP as a proxy for the lower growth rate of the limited partnership interests, but only if the Commission concluded that some reduction in the MLP long term growth rate was warranted. 114 NAPTP further argued that there must be an upward adjustment of the limited partnership growth rate to reflect the equity cost of capital of the limited and general partners, and thus that of the entire firm. 115 105 AOPL, Post-Technical Conference Comments at 7-9, 13. 106 NAPTP Additional Comments dated Dec. 21 at 1, 10-11; Post-Technical Conference Comments at 4-8. 107 INGAA, Additional Initial Comments dated Dec. 21 at 2-3; Post-Technical Conference Reply Comments at 3-6. 108 TransCanada Post-Technical Comments at 2-5. 109 MidAmerican and Williston supported this position. 110 APGA Additional Comments dated Dec. 21 at 4, 7-8; Initial Post-Technical Comments at 2, J. Bertram Solomon Aff. at 4-8. 111 PSCNY, Supplemental Comments dated Dec. 21 at 5, 8-9 and appended Prepared Statement of Patrick J. Barry for the January 23, 2008 Technical Conference; Initial Post-Technical Conference Comments at 14-16. 112 State of Alaska, Comments dated Dec. 21 at 3-4 and Second Horst Aff. at 3, 5-7. Reply Comments dated February 20, 2008 at 6. 113 NGPA and Tesoro also supported a lower long term growth rate for MLPs. 114 INGAA Additional Initial Comments dated Dec. 21 at 3-4 and Vilbert Report attached thereto, *passim* . 115 NAPTP Reply Comments dated Sept. 19 at 2-4; Additional Comments dated Dec. 21 at 9-12. 86. The Pipeline Interests also generally assert that an MLP's terminal growth can be at least equal to that of a corporation, and perhaps exceed it. They assert that MLPs are able to raise external capital in a tax efficient manner. Because an MLP does not retain cash it does not immediately need and can distribute without the tax penalty, it is under less pressure to invest idle capital. Rather, an MLP can wait until sounder investment opportunities are available and pursue them more discreetly, which results in a more consistent return from the projects selected. 116 Moreover, while the computation is very complicated, the tax-deferral aspects of MLP limited partnership interest normally result in a higher per unit price when issued and thus a lower cost of equity capital to the issuing MLP. For these reasons the Pipeline Interests conclude that MLPs should readily find profitable investment opportunities despite their lower retention ratios. 117 116 NAPTP Post-Technical Conference Comments at 9; TransCanada Post Technical Conference Comments at 8-9. 117 NAPTP, *id* . 2, 5-6. TransCanada, *id* . 87. The Pipeline Interests further assert that the record demonstrates that MLPs have a long term history of growing distributions and an overall growth rate that has at times been higher than that of corporations. 118 They cite to the example of KMEP in particular and that KMEP has been able to grow its distributions in good or poor financial environments. 119 They therefore conclude that there is no reason to conclude that MLPs cannot continue to grow at least as fast as corporations or that the relatively high distribution growth rate for the industry as a whole will not be sustained. 120 However, INGAA concedes that even if an MLP as a whole can grow as fast as a corporation, the limited partnership interests would grow less rapidly than the MLP as a whole because of the IDRs 121 most MLPs have granted their general partners. 122 The Pipeline Interests also argue that investors will not invest in enterprises that have a projected growth rate that is less than GDP and that such firms are likely to fail. 123 118 NAPTP Additional Comments dated Dec. 21 at 4-8. 119 NAPTP Additional Comments dated December 21 at 8. 120 NAPTP and Post-Technical Conference Comments at 11-12 AOPL Post-Technical Conference at 9-10 and Williamson Post Technical Conf. Aff. Ex. at 1 and 2. 121 IDRs operate as follows. Most MLP agreements provide that the limited partners own 98 percent of the equity when the firm is first created and the general partner 2 percent. Thus, given a distributable cash of $1,000, the limited partners would obtain $980 (98 percent) and the general partner $20.00 (2 percent). The partnership agreement also provides that as the total cash available for distribution increases, a greater share goes to the general partner, including that which would be available in liquidation. For example, the partnership agreement may provide that once distributable cash is $3,000, the general partner will receive 2 percent based on its partnership interest and 48 percent based on the IDRs. At that point the limited partners' share of the distribution is $1,500 (50 percent) and the general partner's share is also $1,500 (50 percent). Thus, while the limited partners' distribution has grown in the relevant time frame (by 50 percent), it has not grown as fast as it would have absent the general partner's IDR. Absent the IDR the general partner's share would only be $60. Since a proportionately smaller share of future value flows to the limited partners in the initial years, the projected long term growth rate for a limited partnership interest will be lower. Therefore the limited partnership interests have lower return than that of the general partner. 122 INGAA Additional Initial Comments dated December 21 at 5; TransCanada. 123 AOPL, Post-Technical Comments at 7-8. TransCanada, Additional Comments dated Dec. 21 at 2, 4-5. 2. Discussion a. Should the MLP long-term growth projection be lower than projected growth in GDP? 88. As discussed in the previous section, in determining the appropriate growth projections to use in its DCF analysis, the Commission seeks to approximate the growth projections investors would rely upon in making their investment decisions. This principle applies equally to the long-term growth projection, as to the short-term growth projection. When the Commission first established its policy of basing the long-term growth projections on projected growth in GDP in Opinion No. 396-B and *Williston I,* the Commission stated in both cases, “The purpose of using the DCF analysis in this proceeding is to approximate the rate of return an investor would reasonably expect from a pipeline company.” 124 The Commission found, “the record shows that Merrill Lynch and Prudential Bache do not attempt to make long-term growth projections for specific industries or companies in doing DCF analyses. Instead they use the long-term growth of the United States economy as a whole as the long-term growth forecast for all firms, including regulated businesses.” 125 The Commission thus relied heavily on evidence concerning investment house long-term growth projections in deciding to base its long-term growth projections for corporations that were properly included in the proxy group on the long-term growth of GDP. In affirming this aspect of *Williston I,* the DC Circuit similarly relied on the fact that the record “demonstrated that major investment houses used an economy-wide approach to projecting long-term growth * * * and that existing industry-specific approaches reflected investor expectations and many unfounded economic assumptions.” 126 124 Opinion No. 396-B, 79 FERC ¶ 61,309 at 62,383. *Williston I,* 79 FERC at 62,389. 125 Opinion No. 396-B, 79 FERC ¶ 61,309 at 62,382. *Williston I,* 79 FERC ¶ 61,311 at 62,389. As the Commission pointed out in a subsequent case, the exhibits in both the Opinion No. 396-B proceeding and *Williston I,* describing Prudential Bache's methodology stated that it used a lower long-term growth projection for electric utilities, because of their high payout ratios. *System Energy Resources, Inc.,* 92 FERC ¶ 61,119, at 61,445 n.23 (2000). 126 *Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.* v. *FERC,* 165 F.3d 54 ( *DC* Cir. 1999). 89. Consistent with this precedent, the key question in deciding what long-term growth projection the Commission should use in its DCF analysis of MLPs is whether investors expect MLP long-term growth rates to be less than projections of growth in GDP. The record established here shows that at least two major investment houses project terminal growth rates for MLPs that are notably lower than the current 4.43 percent projected growth in GDP. Citicorp Smith Barney (Citicorp) 127 projects a 1 percent terminal growth rate for pipeline MLPs. Wachovia projects terminal growth rates for individual MLPs that vary from zero to 3.5 percent. 128 The Wachovia projection for each MLP which the Commission is likely to include in a proxy group 129 is for a 2.5 percent terminal growth rate. 130 The Pipeline Interests did not submit any evidence of a major investment house projecting long-term growth rates for MLPs equal to or above the growth in GDP. Thus, applying the same approach as that in Opinion No. 396-B and *Williston I,* the record supports a finding that investors project MLP growth rates significantly below the growth in GDP. 127 Society, Reply Comments at 11, citing: *Citicorp Master Limited Partnership Monitor and Reference Book,* Citigroup Investment Research (March 2007) at 28, Figure 24. 128 Comments of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., Attachment A, Wachovia Equity Research Paper dated August 20, 2007 at 9-12; Wachovia Equity Research dated January 30, 2008, *MLP Outlook 2008: Cautious Optimism* at 39-44. 129 These are the MLPs listed in Tables 1 and 2. 130 NAPTA, in its Post-Technical Conference Comments, provided a publication by Morgan Stanley Research which, among other things, reported on our January 23, 2008 technical conference. That publication, at page 3, states, “At Morgan Stanley, we assume an MLP will increase its cash flow—1.5%-3.0% per year beyond 2012. Importantly we make the same assumption in forecasting long-term growth for our C-Corp companies.” *Pipeline MLPs: What's in the Pipeline,* Morgan Stanley Research at 3. These projections are also less than the current projection of 4.43 percent long-term growth in the economy as a whole. However, we give greater weight to the Citigroup and Wachovia publications, because those publications include specific long-term growth projections for individual MLPs, whereas the Morgan Stanley publication simply sets forth a general range it uses without specifying how that range is distributed among individual firms. Also, the Citigroup and Wachovia analyses were not issued in response to the technical conference. 90. To counter this conclusion, the Pipeline Interests argue that these lower figures reflect the investment houses' desire to use “conservative” estimates in order to prevent unrealistic investor expectations. However, as discussed above, the Commission has found in earlier cases that investment houses try to give the most accurate information to their investors. In any event, it is appropriate for the Commission to use growth estimates that reflect the investment houses' view of what investors should realistically expect from an investment in an MLP. Moreover, the fact that some MLPs have grown rapidly in the past does not mean necessarily that they will maintain the same growth rate in the future. In fact, KMEP's projected growth rate is expected to drop in future years. 131 This record also demonstrates that a rate of long term growth is dependent on the base years selected. Thus, the Customer Interests focus on more recent years to show that the growth rate has slowed for many MLPs. 132 131 APGA, Post-Technical Conference Reply Comments, Solomon Aff. at 4. 132 APGA, Post-Technical Conference Reply Comments at 4-5 and attached Solomon Aff. at 4-9. 91. The Pipeline Interests also argue that investors will not invest in entities with a projected long term growth rate that is less than the long-term growth in GDP. 133 However, the fact is that, despite major investment houses advising their clients that MLPs will have long-term growth rates below GDP, investors have continued to invest in MLPs, and in increasing amounts through 2007. Historically this was true even though the Commission's analyses continue to indicate that the IBES five-year growth projections for MLPs are lower than those for corporations. 134 133 TransCanada, Additional Comments at 5; AOPL Post-Technical Conference Comments at 8. 134 See Appendix A, which displays in part the comparative corporate and MLP short term growth projections. *Cf.* PSCNY Post Technical Conference Comments at 7-8. 92. At bottom, the key financial assumption advanced by the Pipeline Interests is that MLPs and corporations have equal access to capital. However, the Customer Interests advance credible reasons why MLPs may not have as ready access to capital markets in the future given the MLPs' unique financial structure. This would reduce the total capital pool available to the MLPs, thus reducing their growth prospects. These include a greater exposure to interest rate risk, 135 the increased cost of capital that a high level of IDRs imposes on an MLP, 136 and lower future returns from either acquisitions or organic investments as the MLP industry matures. 137 This latter point is of greater importance to MLPs because they are limited by law to a narrower range of investment opportunities than a schedule C corporation. These arguments suggest why the long term forecasts by investment houses investors rely on could conclude that the long term growth rate for MLPs would be less than the long term GDP the Commission uses for corporations. Each addresses the consistency of investment opportunities and as such consistency of access to capital markets that MLPs are dependent on to maintain long term growth. 135 Indicated Shippers Initial Comments at 21, citing Citicorp Smith Barney; AGPA Reply Comments at 5; Wachovia August 20, 2007 Report, *supra,* at 1-2; 136 PSCNY Supplemental Comments at 3, n. 8 and Initial Post-Technical Conference Comments at 12. 137 PSCNY Initial Post-Technical Conference Comments at 9-10 and cited Value Line attachments; Reply Comments at 5-6 citing Merrill Lynch, n. 16. 93. In particular, the Commission concludes that corporations

(1)have greater opportunities for diversification because their investment opportunities are not limited to those that meet the tax qualifying standards for an MLP and

(2)are able to assume greater risk at the margin because of less pressure to maintain a high payout ratio. It is a corporation's higher retention ratio that allows this greater flexibility. This is consistent with the fact that Prudential Bache projected the long-term growth rates of electric utilities to be less than that of the economy as a whole because of their greater dividend payouts and lower retention ratios. 138 Therefore, investors would quite reasonably conclude that MLP long term growth rates would be lower than that of tax paying corporations, because MLPs have fewer opportunities to participate in the broad economy that underpins the Commission's current use of long-term growth in GDP. 138 *System Energy Resources, Inc.,* 92 FERC ¶ 61,119, at 61,445 n. 23 (2000). 94. Thus, while it is true that the Commission uses GDP as a proxy for long term growth, the point here is not whether some firms, including MLPs may have a growth rate that is more or less than the proxy over time. The issue is whether MLPs have the same relative potential as the corporate based economy that has been the basis for the Commission's assumption that a mature firm will grow at the same rate as the economy as a whole. For the reasons stated, the Commission concludes that the collective long term growth rate for MLPs will be less than that of schedule C corporations regardless of the past performance of MLPs the Pipeline Interests have inserted in the record. b. What specific projection should be used for MLPs? 95. We now turn to the issue of exactly what long-term growth projection below GDP should be used in MLP pipeline rate cases. As the Commission recognized when it established its policy of giving the long-term growth projection only one-third weight, while giving the short-term growth projection two-thirds weight, “long-term growth projections are inherently more difficult to make, and thus less reliable, than short-term projections.” 139 Thus, as the Commission has stated with respect to the other aspects of its long-term growth projection policy, the Commission is “required to choose from among imperfect alternatives” 140 in deciding what specific long-term growth projection should be used for MLPs. 139 *Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.,* 84 FERC ¶ 61,084, at 61,423 (1998). 140 *Northwest Pipeline Corp.,* 88 FERC ¶ 61,298, at 61,911 (1999). 96. The technical conference panelists advanced four methods of determining long-term growth projections for MLPs which are less than the growth in GDP. After reviewing all four, the Commission adopts the APGA proposal to use a long-term growth projection for MLPs equal to 50 percent of long term GDP. 141 At present, that proposal results in a long-term growth projection of 2.22 percent. This is within the range of long-term growth projections used by investment houses for MLPs discussed in the preceding section. For example, Wachovia projects terminal growth rates for individual MLPs that vary from zero to 3.5 percent, 142 and its projection for each MLP which the Commission is likely to include in a proxy group is for a 2.5 percent terminal growth rate. 143 Therefore, in light of the inherent difficulty of projecting long-term growth, the 50 percent of GDP proposal would appear to result in a long-term growth projection that falls within any reasonable margin of error for such projections, while giving recognition to the fact that investors expect MLPs' long-term growth to be less than that of GDP. 144 141 APGA Additional Comments dated Dec. 21 at 2-3, 8; Outline for the Presentation of Bertrand Solomon on the Behalf of APGA dated January 23, 2008 at 3; Initial Post-Technical Conference Comments. J. Bertrand Solomon Aff. at 3-4, 6-7 and supporting exhibits. 142 Comments of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., Attachment A, Wachovia Equity Research Paper dated August 20, 2007 at 9-12; Wachovia Equity Research dated January 30, 2008, *MLP Outlook 2008: Cautious Optimism* at 39-44. 143 The Commission will not use the specific long-term MLP growth projections of the investment houses to determine the cost of equity for specific firms for the same reasons we have not done so with respect to the projections of long-term growth in GDP the Commission uses for corporations. As the Commission explained in *Michigan Gas Storage Co.,* 87 FERC ¶ 61,038, at 61,162-5

(1999)and *Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.,* 87 FERC ¶ 61,264, at 62,005-6 (1999), there is no evidence as to how the investment house figures were derived which limits their utility in determining the cost of equity for an individual firm. However, as here, the Commission has relied on the perceptions of the investment community in developing a generic long term growth rate. See also Opinion No. 396-B, 79 FERC ¶ 61,309 at 62,384. 144 As the *DC* Circuit stated with respect to our choice of the relative weighting of the short- and long-term growth projections, the choice of the long-term growth component is also an exercise “hard to limit by strict rules.” *CAPP* v. *FERC,* 254 F.3d at 290. 97. The Commission also concludes that the other three proposed methods of projecting MLP long-term growth rates all have flaws justifying their rejection. The State of Alaska and the NYPSC propose methods which would result in varying long-term growth projections for each MLP, based upon financial information for each of the MLPs to be included in a proxy group. These proposals are contrary to the Commission's policy of using a single long-term growth projection for all corporations, based on the fact that it is not possible to make reliable company-by-company long-term growth projections. 145 The State of Alaska and NYPSC have provided no basis to conclude that they have provided a more reliable way to make long-term growth projections for individual MLPs. Their difficulty in doing so reinforces the Commission's traditional practice in this regard. 145 Opinion No. 396-B, 79 FERC ¶ 61,309 at 62,382. 98. The State of Alaska suggests adjusting the GDP long term growth projection used for each MLP based on its current positive or negative retention ratio. 146 Thus, if an MLP's retention ratio was positive, then 100 percent of long term growth in GDP would be used. If the retention ratio was less than one, then the long term growth in GDP would be reduced accordingly. This theory essentially caps the long term growth rate at the earnings of the entities involved. As such, it suffers from the same weakness as the original proposal to cap the distribution component included in the model at earnings. Consistent with the premise of the DCF model that a stock is worth the present value of all future cash flows to be received from the investment, investors base their DCF analyses on the MLP's entire cash distributions, including projected cash flows generated by external investments, which to date is the bulk of the investment for the MLP model. In addition, because MLPs rely substantially on external capital to finance growth, the fact one MLP currently pays out more of its earnings than another MLP does not necessarily mean that the first MLP's long-term growth prospects are less than the second MLP's. Moreover, Alaska's proposed method assumes each MLP's current retention ratio will continue indefinitely into the future, without any support for the accuracy of such an assumption. 146 State of Alaska, Comments dated December 21 at 3-4 and Second Horst Aff. at 3, 5-7. Reply Comments dated February 20, 2008 at 6. 99. The NYPSC recommends use of a modified form of the sustainable growth model the Commission uses to determine electric return on equity. 147 Under that method, the Commission determines growth based on a formula under which growth = br + sv, where b is the expected retention ratio, r is the expected earned rate of return on common equity, s is the percent of common equity expected to be issued annually as new common stock, and v is the equity accretion rate. The br component of this formula projects a utility's growth from the investment of retained earnings, and the sv component estimates growth from external capital raised by the sale of additional units. The NYPSC would assume zero growth from investment of retained earnings (the br component) and then base the long-term growth projection for each MLP on projected growth from external capital resulting from the sv component of the br + sv formula. 147 PSCNY, Supplemental Comments dated Dec. 21 at 5, 8-9 and appended Prepared Statement of Patrick J. Barry for the January 23, 2008 Technical Conference; Initial Post-Technical Conference Comments at 14-16. 100. A fundamental problem with this approach is that the Commission has consistently held that the br + sv formula only produces a projection of short-term growth, similar to the IBES projections. 148 This follows from the fact that the inputs used in the formula are all drawn from Value Line data and projections reaching no more than five years into the future. In addition, there would be great uncertainties in projecting any of the inputs to the formula, such as the retention ratio, the amount and timing of equity sales, and the projected price of the sale for any longer period. Moreover, setting the br component at zero assumes that an MLP can only grow through the use of external capital. This does not reflect accurately the retention and investment flexibility vested in an MLP's general partners or the fact that some MLPs may reinvest a fairly high proportion of the free cash available. Therefore this methodology does not appropriately adjust the long term GDP component that the Commission now uses for corporations. 148 *See Southern California Edison Co.,* 92 FERC ¶ 61,070, at 61,262-3 (2000). 101. Finally, INGAA provided a complex model designed to calculate the equity cost of capital for an MLP as a whole. 149 This model was developed by Mr. Vilbert and attempts to calculate the equity cost of capital for both the limited and the general partners. At their inception, MLPs establish agreements between the general and limited partners, which define how the partnership's cash flow is to be divided between the general and limited partners. Such agreements give the general partners IDRs, which provide for them to receive increasingly higher percentages of the overall distribution, if the general partners are able to increase that distribution above defined levels. The INGAA model recognizes that, as a result of these incentive distribution rights, a DCF analysis of the MLP as a whole should

(1)include higher projected growth rates for the general partner interest than for the limited partner interest and

(2)a correspondingly higher value for general partner interests than the MLP units which would, in turn, reduce the general partner's current “dividend” yield. However, since there are relatively few publicly traded general partner interests, in most cases the estimated equity cost of capital for the general partner can only be derived through various assumptions that markup the limited partner's cost of capital. 149 INGAA, Additional Initial Comments dated Dec. 21 at 4-5 and *Report on the Terminal Growth Rate for MLPs for Use in the DCF Model* by Michael J. Vilbert dated December 21, 2007 (Vilbert Report), particularly at 10. 102. INGAA drew two significant conclusions from Mr. Vilbert's analysis. First, application of the Commission's existing DCF methodology solely to the limited partner interest in the MLP would generate returns relatively close to those that would be required to reflect the growth rate, and cost of equity capital, for the MLP as a whole. Second, if the Commission remains concerned that a DCF analysis using data solely for the limited partner interest, 150 together with a long-term growth rate equal to the growth in GDP, may overstate the appropriate return based on the limited partners' projected growth, the long-term growth projection could be adjusted by averaging projected long term GDP and the projected long term inflation rate. 151 The latter would have to be updated regularly to test its accuracy. 150 In such a DCF analysis the dividend yield would be calculated by dividing the distribution to the limited partner by the limited partner share price. 151 INGAA Additional Initial Comments dated Dec. 21 at 4-6; Vilbert Report at 18-19. 103. Mr. Horst, the witness for the State of Alaska, responded that the INGAA model was mathematically correct, but that the model's assumptions about the rate of growth and incentive distributions were open to question and the results would overstate the equity for the MLP as a whole. 152 INGAA filed a reply to Mr. Horst's arguments by Mr. Vilbert that first calculates the actual DCF values for eight publicly traded general partner interests. 153 Mr. Vilbert then compares the resulting value of the general partner interests for the same eight firms generated by the model. The results calibrate more closely to the eight market samples than the analysis produced by Mr. Horst but, like Mr. Horst's analysis, tend to overstate the value of the general partner interest. 152 State of Alaska, Reply Comments dated February 20, 2008 at 6 and Third Horst Aff. at 6-15. 153 INGAA, Post-Technical Supplemental Comments dated March 12, 2008 at 2-4 and Vilbert Aff. attached thereto, *passim.* The Commission will accept INGAA's March 12 filing because INGAA had no earlier opportunity to reply to the material contained in the State of Alaska's February 20, 2008 filing. 104. The Commission will not use the INGAA model for several reasons. First, the internal operations of the model are relatively opaque, and the model appears to have a relatively wide range of error. Second, as the court stated in *Petal Gas Storage, LLC* v. *FERC,* 154 the purpose of the proxy group is to “provide market-determined stock and dividend figures from public companies comparable to a target company for which those figures are unavailable.” While INGAA used eight publicly traded general partner interests to test the validity of the model, most of those interests are not related to MLPs that have been proffered in rate proceedings before the Commission. In the absence of such market-determined figures for the general partner interest of the MLPs to be included in the proxy group, use of the INGAA model would necessarily entail deriving an estimated equity cost of capital for the general partner through various assumptions that markup the limited partner's cost of capital. In these circumstances, use of the INGAA model would be inconsistent with the purpose of the proxy group of providing a fully market-based estimated cost of capital. 154 496 F. 3d 695 at 699. 105. INGAA alternatively suggested that the returns from the current methodology be reduced somewhat to reflect the admittedly lower growth rate of a MLP's limited partnership interests. However, its proposal to do that by averaging GDP growth projections with the Federal Reserve's target inflation rate appears to have no analytical basis. Therefore, INGAA's recommendations will not be accepted here. 155 155 See AOPL Post-Technical Comments at 3-4, which suggest that the complexity of Mr. Vilbert's model and the use of its assumption indicate that it is more appropriate to rely on the limited partners' distributions in a DCF analysis. 106. Based upon the above discussion, the Commission concludes that the long term growth component for an MLPs equity cost of capital should be 50 percent of long term GDP, rather than the full long term GDP currently used for corporations. c. Proposed upward adjustments to the long term component 107. NAPTP asserted that the Commission should increase rather than decrease the long term growth component used to determine an MLP's equity cost of capital to reflect the general partner component of an MLP's equity. 156 It asserts that equity cost of capital must be determined for the MLP as a whole, not just for the limited partners. NAPTP asserts that the return, and hence the projected growth rate, must generate sufficient cash flows to support the IDRs provided the general partner under most MLP agreements. To this end, it marked up the growth rate of the limited partners to reflect the portion of the equity effectively controlled by the general partner through its IDRs. Thus, if the growth rate for the limited partners was 10 percent and the general partner received a total of 50 percent of the distributions, the growth rate for the general partner could be as high as 20 percent. The Shipper Interest partners argued that this only rewarded the general partner for its excessive distributions and would inordinately increase the MLPs equity cost of capital. 156 NAPTP Additional Comments dated Dec. 21 at 3-4. 108. Both INGAA's witness Vilbert and the State of Alaska's witness Horst rejected the NAPTP approach on mathematical grounds. Both argue that the gross-up fails to properly value the general partner's interest at multiples that reflect the general partner interest's relative risk to that of the limited partners. 157 Furthermore, Vilbert argues that the general partner's risk, while always greater than that of the limited partner, declines as the MLP matures and the general partner's share of distributions increases. 158 As this occurs, the growth rate of the general partner's interest slows and approaches that of the limited partner. Failure to adjust for both facts means that the general partner's interest is undervalued using the NAPTP method, thus overstating the yield, and thus the return, that would be incorporated in the DCF model. As such, the NAPTP approach is inappropriate. 157 State of Alaska, Reply Comments dated February 20, 2008 at 6 and Third Horst Aff. at 2, 4-5. 158 INGAA, Post-Technical Supplemental Comments dated March 12, 2008 at 2-4 and Vilbert Aff. at 6-12. 109. The Commission agrees that the NAPTP method is mathematically and conceptually flawed. Moreover, it has the same basic limitation as the INGAA model in that there is simply not enough publicly generated, transparent information at this time to support developing an equity cost of capital for the MLP as a whole. INGAA likewise attempted to develop an approach that would reflect the growth rate, and the return, of the MLP as a whole. The Commission has previously concluded that this approach has too many practical limits. Therefore the Commission will not pursue this issue further here. E. The Weighting of the Growth Components 110. The third issue is whether to change the weighting of the short-term and long-term components now used in the Commission's DCF model. As has been discussed, the Commission's existing policy is to provide two-thirds of the weight to the short-term component and one-third to the long-term component. TransCanada suggested changing the weighting, so that the 90 percent of the weight should be to the short-term component. 159 MidAmerica recommended the use of a single stage model and abandoning the long-term component completely. 160 However, these suggestions received no support from the other parties and would serve to increase the overall returns by sharply diminishing or eliminating the long-term component of the DCF. 159 TransCanada, Reply Comments at 13-14; Additional Comments dated December 21 at 9-12. 160 MidAmerican Response to Request for Additional Comments dated December 21 at 9-11. 111. As discussed in the previous section, the Commission's longstanding policy is that the growth component of the DCF analysis of gas and oil proxy companies must include a projection of long-term growth, and the court affirmed that policy in *Williston I* . As the Commission has explained in numerous orders, the DCF methodology requires that a long-term evaluation be taken into account. In the preceding section, the Commission has fully discussed why the long-term growth projection for MLPs should be 50 percent of projected long-term growth of GDP. 112. The Commission established its policy of giving the long-term growth projection one-third weight, while the short-term growth projection is given two-thirds weight, in *Opinion Nos. 414-A* . The Commission explained its weighting policy as follows: While determining the cost of equity nevertheless requires that a long-term evaluation be taken into account, long-term projections are inherently more difficult to make, and thus less reliable, than short-term projections. Over a longer period, there is a greater likelihood for unanticipated developments to occur affecting the projection. Given the greater reliability of the short-term projection, we believe it appropriate to give it greater weight. However, continuing to give some effect to the long-term growth projection will aid in normalizing any distortions that might be reflected in short-term data limited to a narrow segment of the economy. 161 161 Opinion No. 414-A, 84 FERC at 61,423. The court affirmed this policy in *CAPP* v. *FERC* , 162 stating that “in an exercise so hard to limit by strict rules, it would likely be difficult to show that the Commission abused its discretion in the weighting choice.” 162 254 F.3d at 289. 113. The need to normalize any distortions that may be reflected in short-term data limited to a narrow segment of the economy applies equally to the IBES five-year growth projections for MLPs as for corporations. At the same time, the two-thirds weighting for the short-term growth projections recognizes their greater reliability. Moreover, TransCanada does not establish why the MLP short-term growth projections should be accorded a greater weight than that of corporations. In fact, as was discussed in the previous section, the record reasonably shows that investment houses include a long-term growth component in their DCF analyses of MLPs, and use a long-term growth projection that is lower than the projected long-term growth in GDP. Therefore the Commission will not modify the two-thirds to one-third ratio it now uses in its DCF model and will apply that ratio to all pending cases. V. Pending Proceedings 114. The procedural issue here is whether this Policy Statement should be applied to all proceedings that are now before the Commission for which the ROE issue has not been resolved with finality. NGSA asserts that any new policy should apply only prospectively and not to cases now pending before the Commission. Indicated Shippers take the same position, asserting that application of the Policy Statement to pending proceedings would be administratively inefficient and would materially delay instituting new rates in the *Kern River* proceeding, which is now before the Commission on rehearing. Indicated Shippers further argue that in *Kern River* the Commission addressed and rejected the use of MLPs without some adjustment to reflect the fact that MLP distributions involve both a return of and return on equity. They also argue that there would be no inequity because Kern River could always file a new section 4 rate case if the existing proceeding proved unsatisfactory. Finally, Indicated Shippers assert that a policy change should not be applied retroactively because it does not have the force of law 163 and because policy statements are considered “statements issued by the agency to advise the public prospectively of the manner in which the agency proposes to exercise a discretionary power.” 164 163 *Citing Consolidated Edison of New York, et al.* , v. *FERC* , 315 F.3d 316, 323-24 ( *DC* Cir. 2003) ( *Consolidated Edison* ). 164 *Citing American Bus Assn.* v. *ICC* , 627 F.2d 525, 529 ( *DC* Cir. 1980). 115. MidAmerica answered that the Policy Statement must be applied to all pending cases and *Kern River* in particular for two reasons. It states that in *Petal* the court both seriously questioned the Commission's analysis regarding MLPs and held that it was improper to include an entity of higher risk (a pipeline) and one of lower risk, such as a diversified natural gas company, in the same sample without adjusting the returns. MidAmerica argues that application of the *Williston* doctrine 165 requires that it be given an opportunity to address the return on equity issue further. This is particularly the case since the court suggested applying the upper end of the range of reasonableness as a way of compensating for the difference in risk. MidAmerica asserts that application of either this suggestion or use of the unadjusted MLP sample Kern River advanced at hearing would result in the same return on equity. 165 *See Williston Basis Interstate Pipeline Co.* v. *FERC* , 165 F.3d 54 ( *DC* Cir. 1999) ( *Williston* ). MidAmerica cites to the related administrative proceeding, *Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.* , 104 FERC ¶ 61,036 (2003), but the principles are the same. The cited Commission case was in response to the remand in cited court decision. 116. The Commission concludes that the instant Policy Statement must be applied to all proceedings now pending at hearing before an ALJ or before the Commission for which the ROE issue has not been resolved with finality. In *Petal* v. *FERC* , the court vacated and remanded the Commission's orders on the ROE issue in both *Petal* and *HIOS* . In both those cases, the Commission applied its current policy of using a proxy group based on the corporations listed in the Value Line Investment Survey's list of diversified natural gas firms that own Commission-regulated natural gas pipelines, without regard to what portion of the company's business comprises pipeline operations. The court found that the Commission had not shown that the proxy group arrangements used in those cases were risk-appropriate. In this Policy Statement we have reexamined our proxy group policy in light of the *Petal* v. *FERC* remand as well as current trends in the gas and oil pipeline industries, and determined we must modify our policy as discussed above. Therefore, because the Commission's current proxy group policies as applied in prior cases have not withstood court review, the Commission cannot and will not apply them in currently pending cases in which there has been no final determination of ROE issues. *The Commission orders:*

(A)The Commission adopts the Policy Statement and supporting analysis contained in the body of this order.

(B)This Policy Statement is effective the date issued and shall apply to all oil and gas pipelines then pending before the Commission in which there has been no final determination of ROE issues. By the Commission. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. Appendix A Table 1.—DCF Analysis for Selected Corporations and MLPs Owning Jurisdictional Natural Gas Pipelines [Six-month period ended 03/31/2008, in percent] Company

(1)6-mos. avg dividend yield

(2)IBES (03/08)

(3)Growth rate (“g”) GDP (1/22/08)

(4)Composite

(5)Adjusted dividend yield

(6)Estimated cost of equity Spectra Energy Corp 3.65 6 4.43 5.48 3.75 9.23 El Paso Corp 0.96 11 4.43 8.81 1.00 9.81 Oneok Partners, LP 6.66 5 2.22 4.07 6.80 10.87 Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP 6.29 6 2.22 4.74 6.44 11.18 Oneok, Inc 3.10 10 4.43 8.14 3.23 11.37 TC Pipelines, LP 7.46 5 2.22 4.07 7.61 11.68 TEPPCO Partners, LP 7.31 6 2.22 4.74 7.48 12.22 Spectra Energy Partners 5.00 10 2.22 7.41 5.18 12.59 Enterprise Products Partners, LP 6.45 8 2.22 6.07 6.64 12.71 Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP 6.69 8 2.22 6.07 6.89 12.96 Williams Companies 1.17 16 4.43 12.14 1.24 13.38 Column

(1)is taken from individual company analysis. Column

(2)is taken from I/B/E/S Monthly Summary Data, U.S. Edition. Column

(3)is calculated from three sources: BA, Global Insight, and SSA. Column

(4)= Column(2)* 2/3 + Column(3)* 1/3 . Column

(5)= Column(1)*(1 + 0.5*Column(4)). Column

(1)6-mos. avg dividend yield

(2)IBES (03/08)

(3)Growth rate (“g”) 50% GDP (1/22/08)

(4)Composite

(5)Adjusted dividend yield

(6)Estimated cost of equity Buckeye Partners, LP 6.72 5 2.22 4.07 6.86 10.93 Magellan Midstream Partners, LP 6.16 6 2.22 4.74 6.30 11.04 NuStar Energy, LP 7.07 6 2.22 4.74 7.24 11.98 TEPPCO Partners, LP 7.31 6 2.22 4.74 7.48 12.22 Plains All American Pipelines, LP 6.74 7 2.22 5.41 6.93 12.33 Enbridge Energy Partners, LP 7.58 6 2.22 4.74 7.76 12.50 Enterprise Products Partners, LP 6.45 8 2.22 6.07 6.64 12.71 Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP 6.69 8 2.22 6.07 6.89 12.96 Column

(1)is taken from individual company analysis. Column

(2)is taken from I/B/E/S Monthly Summary Data, U.S. Edition. Column

(3)is calculated from three sources: BA, Global Insight, and SSA. Column

(4)= Column(2)* 2/3 + Column(3)* 1/3 . Column

(5)= Column(1)*(1 + 0.5*Column(4)). Column

(6)= Column(4) + Column(5). Note: This Appendix is for illustrative purposes only and does not prejudge what would be an appropriate proxy group for use in individual proceedings. Appendix B In this Appendix, we illustrate with a simplified numerical example why a DCF analysis using a proxy MLP's full distribution, including any return of equity, does not lead to the award of an excess ROE in a pipeline rate case or the double recovery of depreciation. In this example, we compare the results of a DCF analysis for two firms included in a proxy group, one a corporation and the other an MLP. We initially assume that the theoretical basis of the DCF methodology is sound. In other words, the DCF formula will lead to valid results for investors in pricing shares and returns. We further assume that each proxy firm engages only in jurisdictional interstate natural gas pipeline business. Therefore, each proxy firm charges cost-of-service rates determined by the Commission in the proxy firm's last rate case. We also assume that the Commission awarded the same 10 percent ROE to each proxy firm in its last rate case. Based on these assumptions and the additional facts set forth below illustrating the typical differences between corporations and MLPs, we first set forth the DCF analysis an investor would perform to determine the value of the corporation's stock and the MLP's limited partner units. We then assume, consistent with the underlying premise of the DCF model, that the results of the investor's DCF analysis represent the actual share prices of the two proxy firms. Using those share prices, we then apply the DCF formula used in rate cases to determine the ROEs of the two proxy firms. As illustrated below, that DCF analysis arrives at the same 10 percent ROE for the proxy MLP, as for the proxy corporation, despite the fact the MLP's distribution includes a return of equity. Thus, the inclusion of return of equity in the MLP's distribution does not improperly distort the rate case DCF analysis. Assumed Facts The proxy corporation's rate base is $100. In its last rate case, the Commission awarded the proxy corporation an ROE of 10 percent, and found that its depreciable life is 25 years. So the proxy corporation's cost of service includes $10 for ROE, and $4 for depreciation. We assume that in its most recent year of operations, the corporation actually collected those amounts from its customers, and paid a dividend of $6.50, i.e., a dividend equal to 65 percent of its annual earnings. The corporation thus retains $7.50 in cash flow, which it reinvests the following year. This reflects the fact that corporations typically pay out less than earnings in their dividends. We also assume that the corporation's composite growth rate is 8 percent. The facts with respect to the MLP are the same, with two exceptions. First, the MLP paid its unit holders a distribution of $13, i.e., a distribution equal to 130 percent of earnings. The remaining $1 is distributed to the general partner of the MLP. Second, the MLP's composite growth rate is only 5 percent. DCF Analysis of Proxy Corporation As discussed at P 2 of the notice, an investor uses the following DCF formula to determine share price (with simplifying assumptions): D/(ROE−g) = P where P is the price of the stock at the relevant time, D is the current dividend, ROE is the discount rate or rate of return, and g is the expected constant growth in dividend income to be reflected in capital appreciation. Using that formula, investors would determine the rational stock price for the proxy corporation as follows: $6.50 dividend/(ROE of .10−growth of .08) = Stock Price of $325 That is, investors would sell shares at a price above $325, and buy shares until the price reached $325. In a rate case for another pipeline, the Commission will determine the ROE of the proxy firm by solving the above formula for ROE, instead of share price. This rearranges the formula so that: D/P + g = ROE Using that formula and assuming the proxy corporation's actual stock price is $325, the Commission would determine the proxy corporation's ROE as follows: $6.50 dividend/$325 stock price + growth of .08 = ROE of .10 Therefore, if the corporation was included in the proxy group for purposes of determining another firm's ROE in a new rate case, we would find, under the assumed facts, that the proxy corporation has the same 10 percent ROE as we awarded in its last rate case. DCF Analysis of Proxy MLP We now go through the same exercise for the proxy MLP to determine whether its distribution in excess of earnings distorts its DCF analysis so as to improperly inflate its ROE. Using the D/ (ROE − g) = P formula described above, investors would determine the proxy MLP's share price as follows: $13 distribution/ (ROE of .10 − growth of .05) = Share price of $260 Assuming that the actual price of units in the proxy MLP is $260, we now determine the ROE of the proxy MLP, using the DCF formula used in rate cases (D/P + g = ROE). Under that formula, we would calculate the proxy MLP's ROE as follows: $13 distribution/$260 unit price + growth of .05 = ROE of .10 Therefore, if the MLP was included in the proxy group for purposes of determining another firm's ROE in a new rate case, we would, under the assumed facts, reach the same result as we reached for above proxy corporation: That the proxy MLP has the same 10 percent ROE as we awarded in its last rate case. By contrast, if the Commission capped the proxy MLP's distribution at its $10 in earnings but continued to use the $260 share price, the ROE calculated for the proxy MLP would be only about 8.8 percent, and thus less than the 10 percent ROE the Commission awarded the proxy MLP in its last rate case and less than the results for the proxy corporation: $10 distribution/$260 unit price + growth of .05 = ROE of .088 Conclusion As shown by the above illustrative calculations, an MLP may be included in the proxy group and its full distribution used in the DCF analysis without distorting the results. This is because the level of an MLP's distributions affects both its share price and its projected growth rate. The MLP's inclusion of a return of equity in its distribution causes its share price to be higher than it otherwise would be and its growth rate to be lower. These facts offset the effect of the higher distribution on the DCF calculation of the MLP's ROE. Indeed, capping the MLP's distribution at earnings would lead to a distorted result. This is because there would be mismatch between the market-determined share price, which reflects the actual, higher uncapped distribution, and the lower earnings-capped distribution. [FR Doc. E8-9186 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No.: 12478-002] Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Project, LLC; Notice of Draft License Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment

(PDEA)and Request for Preliminary Terms and Conditions April 21, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* Major Project—Existing Dam. b. *Project No.:* 12478-002. c. *Date Filed:* April 14, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Project, LLC. e. *Name of Project:* Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Sun River River, near the Towns of Fairfield and August, Teton and Lewis and Clark Counties, Montana. The project would occupy 132.4 acres of Forest Service lands within the Lewis and Clark National Forest, 15 acres of lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and 69.9 acres of lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)—825(r) h. *Applicant Contact:* Steven C. Marmon, 3633 Alderwood Avenue, Bellingham, WA 98225, 360-738-9999. i. *FERC Contact:* Matt Cutlip, 503-552-2762, *matt.cutlip@ferc.gov* j. *Status of Project:* With this notice the Commission is soliciting

(1)preliminary terms, conditions, and recommendations on the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA), and

(2)comments on the Draft License Application. k. *Deadline for filing comments:* July 11, 2008. All comments on the Preliminary DEA and Draft License Application should be sent to the addresses noted above in Item (h), with one copy filed with FERC at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All comments must include the project name and number and bear the heading Preliminary Comments, Preliminary Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, or Preliminary Prescriptions. Comments and preliminary recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the“e-Filing” link. l. A copy of the draft application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202)502-8659. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Company, LLC has electronically distributed a copy of the Preliminary DEA and Draft License Application to interested entities and parties. Copies of these documents are available for review at the following locations: Greenfields Irrigation District, 105 W. Central Ave. Fairfield, MT 59436; Lewis & Clark Library, Augusta Branch, 205 Main Street Augusta, MT 59410; Choteau Public Library, 17 Main Avenue North, Choteau, MT 59422; Great Falls Public Library, 301 2nd Avenue North, Great Falls, MT 59401; Lewis & Clark Public Library, 120 South Last Chance Gulch, Helena, MT 59601; or by calling Steve Marmon at 360-738-9999, or by e-mailing *smarmon@whitewatereng.com.* m. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Montana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9302 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF08-8-000] Northwest Pipeline GP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Colorado Hub Connection Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues April 21, 2008. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment

(EA)that will discuss the potential environmental impacts of the planned Colorado Hub Connection Project (CHC). This project would involve the construction and operation of about 29 miles of natural gas pipeline and related facilities by Northwest Pipeline GP

(NWP)in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. The EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the planned project. Your input will help determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on May 21, 2008. Details on how to submit comments are provided in the “Public Participation” section of this notice. This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned project and to encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. If you are a landowner receiving this Notice, you may be contacted by a NWP representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed pipeline facilities. NWP would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement to cover the easement, damages that may occur during construction, and any other issues raised by the landowner. The FERC encourages pipeline companies to acquire as much of the right-of-way

(ROW)as possible by negotiation with the landowners. If the FERC approves the project, that approval will convey with it the right of eminent domain to secure easements for the facilities. Eminent domain is intended for use when easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement. In such instances, NWP could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). Summary of the Proposed Project NWP plans to construct and operate the following facilities: • about 27.5 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline lateral, extending from NWP's interstate pipeline system in Douglas Creek south of Rangely on the west to the planned White River Hub and Enterprise Products Operating LLC's (Enterprise) Meeker Gas Processing Plant near Piceance Creek and Meeker on the east; • interconnections with the White River Hub system, the Enterprise Plant, and NWP's system; and • appurtenant facilities (including pressure regulation, metering, a mainline valve, and future pig launching/receiving facilities). 1 1 A pipeline “pig” is a device to clean or inspect the interior of a pipeline. A pig launcher/receiver is an aboveground facility where pigs are inserted or retrieved from the pipeline. The CHC would provide shippers with about 445 million dekatherms of natural gas transportation capacity per day from the planned White River Hub to NWP's mainline system. The general location of the planned facilities is shown in appendix 1. 2 2 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the **Federal Register** . Copies of all appendices are available on the Commission's *Web site* at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call

(202)502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the “Additional Information” section of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps of the planned facilities should be made directly to NWP. Land Requirements Construction of the CHC would disturb about 480 acres overall, including the planned pipeline ROW and three aboveground facility sites (333.5 acres), temporary extra work areas along the ROW (71.4 acres), upgrades to existing access roads (up to 5 acres), and the use of seven existing contractor/pipe storage/rail offloading industrial yards (70.3 acres). Following construction, operation of the planned facilities would permanently affect about 185 acres of land, composed entirely of pipeline ROW and the aboveground facilities at each end of the pipeline. The remaining acreage disturbed during construction would be restored (as closely as practicable) to previous conditions and uses. NWP would use a 100-foot-wide ROW during construction, but maintain either a 75-foot or 50-foot-wide permanent ROW (on private or federally administered lands, respectively) during facility operation. On the west end of the pipeline in Douglas Creek, the planned Philadelphia Creek Pressure Regulating Station and access drive would require about 0.23 and 0.41 acre, respectively. On the east end near Piceance Creek, interconnections with the Meeker Gas Processing Plant and White River Hub would require a single site (adjacent to the Gas Plant) with a short access road totaling about 1.1 acres of permanent disturbance. The third aboveground facility, a mainline valve (located immediately adjacent to a block valve owned by Enterprise) and short access road, would be sited entirely within the permanent ROW. The EA Process We 3 are preparing this EA to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires the FERC to take into account the environmental impact that could result if it authorizes NWP's planned CHC. As the lead federal agency for preparation of the EA, we are asking other federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. Any agency that would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided below. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)has already requested cooperating-agency status and will be assisting us in the scoping, analysis, and preparation of the EA. The EA will be used by both the FERC and the BLM (Agencies) to satisfy our NEPA requirements and support our respective decisions. 3 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects. NEPA also requires the FERC to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice, we are also requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received will be considered during the preparation of the EA. The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings: • geology and soils; • water resources and wetlands; • land use, recreation, and visual quality; • cultural resources; • vegetation and wildlife (including threatened and endangered species and species of special concern); • air quality and noise; • reliability and safety. We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the CHC or portions of the project, where necessary, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, local libraries and newspapers, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. For this project, we have initiated our NEPA review prior to receiving a formal application from NWP. The purpose of our “pre-filing” review process is to involve interested stakeholders early in the project planning, and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. A pre-filing docket number (PF08-8-000) has been established to place information filed by NWP and related documents issued by the FERC into the public record. Once a formal application is filed with the FERC, a new docket number will be established. To ensure your comments are received and considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the “Public Participation” section below. Known Environmental Issues The western end of the planned pipeline terminates within the Canyon Pintado National Register Historic District and adjacent to an associated recreation site. Appropriate consultation and mitigation would be developed to avoid potential impacts. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the planned project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Agencies. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal and alternatives to the proposal, including alternative routes and aboveground facility sites, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded: • Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426; • Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 1, PJ-11.1; • Reference Docket No. PF08-8-000; and • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before May 21, 2008. Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or protests to this proceeding. See Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, § 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “eFiling” link and the link to the User's Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your computer's hard drive. Before you can file comments you will need to create an account by clicking on “Login to File” and then “New User Account.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.” In addition, there is a “ *Quick Comment* ” option available, which is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project. The *Quick-Comment User Guide* can be viewed at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/quick-comment-guide.pdf.* Quick Comment does not require a FERC eRegistration account; however, you will be asked to provide a valid e-mail address. All comments submitted under either eFiling or the Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the specified docket. Environmental Mailing List As described above, we may publish and distribute the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving an EA for review and/or comment, please return the Mailing List Return Mailer form (appendix 2). If you do not return the Return Mailer, you will be taken off the mailing list. All individuals who provide written comments will remain on our environmental mailing list for this project. Additional Information Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, then on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to *www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Any public meetings or site visits scheduled for this proposed project will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. Finally, NWP has established an Internet Web site for this project at *http://www.coloradohubconnection.com/.* The Web site includes a project overview, status, and answers to frequently asked questions. You can also request additional information by calling NWP at 1-877-547-5304. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9303 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER08-731-000; Docket Nos. ER08-632-000, ER08-632-001] DC Energy Texas, LLC; DC Energy California, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order April 22, 2008. DC Energy Texas, LLC (DC Texas) and DC Energy California, LLC (DC California) filed applications for market-based rate authority, with accompanying rate schedules. The proposed market-based rate schedules provide for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. DC Texas and DC California also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, DC Texas and DC California requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by DC Texas and DC California. On April 22, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the request for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by DC Texas and DC California, should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2007). The Commission encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is May 22, 2008. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, DC Texas and DC California are authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of DC Texas and DC California, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of DC Texas' and DC California's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)

(iii)and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9299 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-149-000] Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization April 21, 2008. Take notice that on April 15, 2008, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket No. CP08-149-00, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to construct and operate a new point of receipt to receive revaporized liquefied natural gas

(LNG)from Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC (KMLP), located in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call toll-free,

(866)208-3676 or TTY,

(202)502-8659. Specifically, Columbia Gulf proposes to design and construct three 20-inch side taps and various appurtenant facilities on its existing Line Nos. 100, 200, and 300, including electronic flow measurement and telemetry, overpressure protection equipment, and approximately 300 feet of interconnecting pipeline of varying size. Columbia Gulf estimates the cost of construction to be $980,000, with all costs associated with the facilities to be reimbursed by KMLP. Columbia Gulf states that the new point of interconnection will provide Columbia Gulf with the ability to receive up to 1,500 MMcf/d of revaporized LNG from KMLP into Columbia Gulf's natural gas pipeline system. Columbia Gulf asserts that the addition of this interconnect will have no significant impact of Columbia Gulf's peak day or annual deliveries. Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Fredric J. George, Lead Counsel, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, P. O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 at

(304)357-2359 or fax

(304)357-3206. Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act

(NGA)(18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)

(iii)and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9304 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Nuclear Security Administration [PBS-N04] Finding of No Significant Impact; Modernization of Facilities and Infrastructure for the Non-Nuclear Production Activities Conducted at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Kansas City Plant Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-1592) AGENCY: General Services Administration and National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: The General Services Administration

(GSA)and the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA)issue this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on their proposal to relocate certain non-nuclear component production and procurement activities to a smaller, more efficient and flexible facility. This FONSI is based on the General Services Administration/National Nuclear Security Administration “Modernization of Facilities and Infrastructure for the Non-Nuclear Production Activities Conducted at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Kansas City Plant Environmental Assessment” (EA), DOE/EA-1592, April 21, 2008. The EA was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 *et seq.* ), regulations implementing NEPA issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 C.F.R. Parts 1500—1508), and the NEPA implementing procedures of GSA (ADM 1095.1F) and the Department of Energy (10 C.F.R. Part 1021). The selected alternative is for GSA to procure the construction of a new facility at the intersection of Botts Road and Missouri Highway 150 in Kansas City, Missouri. GSA would lease the facility on NNSA's behalf, and NNSA would move its operations from the Bannister Federal Complex to the new facility, and conduct production and procurement operations for electrical and mechanical non-nuclear components there (the phrase “electrical and mechanical” non-nuclear components, as used in the EA and this FONSI, also includes electronics, electromechanical parts, and engineered materials such as plastics, ceramics, glass, polymers and foams). The NNSA's Kansas City Plant

(KCP)performs these activities for NNSA, Department of Energy

(DOE)programs, and other federal agencies (“work for others”). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information, including an electronic copy of the EA, FONSI, Mitigation Action Plan, and other supporting NEPA documents, will be made available on the following Web site: *http://www.gsa.gov/kansascityplan* t. The EA and FONSI will also be made available at: *http://eh.doe.gov/nepa* . Requests for copies of the EA and FONSI may be sent to: Carlos Salazar, General Services Administration, 1500 East Bannister Road, Room 2191 (6PTA), Kansas City, MO 64131. Requests for copies of the EA and FONSI may also be made by calling

(816)823-2305 or via e-mail to *NNSA—KC@gsa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The GSA and NNSA issued a Notice of Intent

(NOI)on May 1, 2007 in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 72, No 83, page 23822) informing the public of the proposed action and inviting public comments on the scope of the EA. The NOI also stated that a public scoping meeting would be held in Kansas City, on May 23, 2007. A total of 97 people signed in at the public meeting. Fourteen written comments were submitted and 24 speakers provided comments that were transcribed for the record. Everyone who requested to speak was provided the opportunity to do so. Additional public comments were received by mail and email during the scoping period, which ended on May 30, 2007. Approximately 500 people provided comments during the public scoping process. All comments were considered during the preparation of the draft EA. A copy of the transcript from the scoping meeting is available on the GSA website by following the “NEPA library” link ( *www.gsa.gov/kansascityplant* ). On December 10, 2007, the GSA and NNSA issued a Notice of Availability

(NOA)of the draft EA in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 72, No 236, page 69690) informing the public that the draft EA was available for review and comment. The NOA stated that the deadline for submission of public comments was January 14, 2008. An electronic copy of the draft EA and other supporting documents were posted on the GSA website. An electronic copy of the draft EA was also posted on the DOE website. On January 14, 2008, the GSA and NNSA notified the public through the website that they were extending the public comment period until January 30, 2008. On January 17, 2008, the federal agencies issued a Notice of Extension of Comment Period in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 73, No 12, page 3256) informing the public of the extension. More than 250 public comments on the draft EA were submitted to GSA and NNSA. After considering all the comments received as a result of the public review process, including those received after the formal comment period closed, GSA and NNSA have made significant revisions to the EA, including the analysis of additional alternatives outside of the Kansas City area ( *i.e.* at NNSA's Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California). Because the draft EA only analyzed alternatives in the State of Missouri, in December 2007, the GSA and NNSA specifically requested the State of Missouri to review and comment on the draft EA (although other states had the opportunity to comment through the public comment process). On April 4, 2008, the GSA and NNSA provided a pre-approval review copy of the EA, containing the analysis of additional alternatives outside of the Kansas City area, to the States of Missouri, New Mexico, and California, and requested comments by April 18, 2008. Comments were received by this date from Missouri. These comments were considered in preparing the final EA and FONSI. Based on the analysis in the EA and after considering all the comments received as a result of the review process, the GSA and NNSA have concluded that no information has been made available that is inconsistent with a finding of no significant impact. **PURPOSE AND NEED:** The KCP produces and procures electrical and mechanical non-nuclear components for nuclear weapons; these constitute approximately 85 percent of all the components in a nuclear weapon. As a result of consolidation activities undertaken over the last 15 years by the Department of Energy, the remaining operations at KCP are essential and do not duplicate operations at other sites in the nuclear weapons complex. KCP occupies a large and aging industrial complex in Kansas City located on a site contiguous with GSA facilities. Despite the reductions and consolidations that followed a 1996 decision to downsize KCP's facilities and operations, the current plant is still much larger than NNSA requires, primarily due to continuing reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile and outsourcing of some fabrication activities. The cost of operating KCP is increasing because of its age and size. **DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION:** NNSA and GSA propose to relocate NNSA's KCP operations to a new facility that NNSA would operate to produce and procure electrical and mechanical non-nuclear components. The proposed facility would be smaller and designed for rapid reconfiguration to improve efficiency and provide flexibility in meeting changing requirements and demands. It would be at least 50% smaller than the current facility, resulting in reduced maintenance and energy costs while improving the responsiveness and facility utilization for the supply of electrical and mechanical non-nuclear components. The proposed action considered in the EA consists of the construction and subsequent operation of such a facility. **Selected Alternative (Alternative 5):** The selected alternative is for GSA to procure the construction of a new facility and for NNSA to relocate to and operate the facility for production and procurement of electrical and mechanical non-nuclear components. The new facility would be located on approximately 185 acres at the intersection of Missouri Highway 150 and Botts Road in Kansas City, Missouri, about eight miles south of the existing plant. The proposed facility would cover up to 1.4 million rentable square feet and provide up to 2,900 surface parking spaces (for a total of about 45 acres). GSA has issued a Solicitation for Offers to the real estate development community; the successful developer would partner with GSA and NNSA to design and construct a facility that meets NNSA's needs. GSA would lease the facility on NNSA's behalf and NNSA would move its operations from the Bannister Federal Complex to the new facility and conduct production and procurement operations for electrical and mechanical non-nuclear components there. **Alternatives:** In addition to the selected alternative (Alternative 5) and the “No Action” Alternative (Alternative 1), which evaluates continuing operations in the existing Kansas City Plant facilities, the EA evaluates the following alternatives: Alternative 2: Under this alternative, the existing GSA office and warehouse space (Buildings #1 and #2) located on the western portion of the Bannister Federal Complex would be renovated. NNSA's operations would relocate to the renovated facility. Alternative 3: This alternative consists of renovation of the existing GSA office space (Building #2) and demolition of the existing GSA warehouse (Building #1) and the small outbuildings located north of the existing GSA warehouse. A new manufacturing, laboratory, and warehouse facility would be constructed adjacent to the renovated office space. Alternative 4: This alternative consists of demolishing the existing GSA office and warehouse spaces (Buildings #1 and #2) and the small outbuildings located north of the existing GSA warehouse. Following demolition, new office and manufacturing facilities would be constructed on GSA's portion of the Bannister Federal Complex. Alternative 6: This alternative evaluates moving KCP's operations to Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM (SNL/NM). For this alternative, two options are evaluated:

(1)a new construction option, in which a new facility covering approximately 1.4 million square feet would be constructed and operated similar to the selected alternative; and

(2)a reuse/new construction option consisting of existing space in SNL/NM facilities and a smaller new facility. Alternative 7: This alternative evaluates moving KCP's operations to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California. Under this alternative, a new 1.4 million square foot facility would be constructed and operated similar to the selected alternative. Alternative 8: This alternative evaluates moving KCP's operations to Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico. For this alternative, two options are evaluated:

(1)a new construction option, in which a new 1.4 million square foot facility would be constructed and operates similar to the selected alternative; and

(2)a reuse/new construction option consisting of existing facilities and a smaller new facility. **ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE:** Based on the analysis in the EA, the selected alternative would not have a significant effect on the human environment within the meaning of NEPA. The term “significantly” and the significance criteria are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)regulations for implementing NEPA at 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. **Beneficial and Adverse Impacts (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(1)):** The selected alternative would provide a smaller facility designed for rapid reconfiguration to improve efficiency and provide flexibility in meeting changing requirements and demands. Maintenance and energy costs would be reduced, while the responsiveness and facility utilization for the supply of electrical and mechanical non-nuclear components to NNSA would be improved. The analysis indicates that there will not be any significant adverse impacts from implementing the selected alternative (EA Section 5.3). **Public Health and Safety (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(2)):** **Air Emissions (EA Section 5.3.6):** During site preparation, construction, and road improvements the use of heavy equipment would generate combustion engine exhaust containing air pollutants associated with diesel combustion (nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). Similar air emissions would be generated from delivery vehicles bringing supplies and equipment to the construction site and from construction workers commuting in their personal vehicles. Emissions from site preparation and construction would be short-term, sporadic, and localized (except for emissions associated with the personal vehicles of construction workers and vehicles transporting construction materials and equipment). The quantities of air pollutants produced by vehicles and equipment associated with construction would not be a substantial contribution to the total emissions from mobile sources already operating in the area and would not adversely affect local air quality. Construction activities could increase the potential for fugitive dust ( *i.e.* airborne particulate matter that escapes from a construction site) from earthwork and other construction vehicle movement. Not all of the area available for construction would be under construction at any one time. Control measures for lowering fugitive dust emissions (i.e. water or chemical dust suppressants) would be implemented to prevent offsite emissions. Construction activities would be in accordance with permits from local, state and federal jurisdictions and would not significantly impact public health and safety. The total estimated annual air emissions from operating a new NNSA facility at the selected site are expected to be 12.8 tons, consisting of approximately 10.4 tons of NOx, SOx and CO from the boilers and process heaters, 2.0 tons of VOCs from electronic component solvent spray cleaning operations, and 0.4 tons of VOCs from painting operations. This is approximately 28% less than the annual air emissions from the current facility, and would not significantly impact public health and safety. **Noise:** At 400 feet from the construction site, construction noise would range from 55-85 dBA. Given that the distance from the site boundary to the nearest business or residence is greater than 400 feet, there would be no significant noise impacts as a result of construction activities, except for a small increase in traffic noise levels from construction employees and material shipments, and short-term increases in noise levels at or near the site boundary from site preparation and infrastructure construction activities such as driveway construction and site grading. Noise from operations is expected to be similar to those from existing operations and would be far enough away from offsite areas that its contribution to offsite noise levels would be small. Noise from the selected alternative would not significantly impact public health and safety (EA Section 5.3.8). **Solid Waste:** Waste generation resulting from the selected alternative is not expected to significantly impact public health and safety (EA Section 5.3.5). Construction activities are expected to generate approximately 6,890 cubic yards of non-hazardous solid waste. The hazardous waste disposal rate from operations is anticipated to be approximately 26,000 lbs/year, a 30% reduction from current operations at the Bannister Federal Complex due to process improvements and outsourcing. Non-hazardous waste is also expected to experience a similar reduction (to approximately 1.6 million lbs/year) due to the smaller operations and reduced facility refurbishments. Low-level radioactive waste generation is projected to be consistent with current generation rates of approximately 40 lbs per year. All waste materials would be transported off-site for disposal in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. The number of shipments may be reduced compared to current operations at the Bannister Federal Complex due to the reduction in waste generation. **Groundwater:** The proposed facility design does not include the use of underground storage tanks, and all proposed above-ground storage tanks would be constructed with secondary containment. Industrial facilities would be constructed and managed to ensure materials (raw, intermediate and final product, and wastes) and activities are completely sheltered from stormwater. Adverse impacts to groundwater from proposed site operations are not anticipated (EA Section 5.3.2). **Unique characteristics of the geographical area (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(3)):** **Prime Farmland:** Though currently used for agricultural purposes, the location of the selected alternative is identified as part of an “urbanized area” on Census Bureau maps and is not considered prime farmland (EA Section 5.3.1). **Impact to Wetlands:** Based upon a preliminary jurisdictional waters determination, non-jurisdictional wetlands and potential jurisdictional tributaries and wetlands exist onsite. Mitigation of impacts to non-jurisdictional wetlands will take place in accordance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and to jurisdictional waters in accordance with the Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting process, which requires avoidance of wetlands impacts, minimization of potential impacts on wetlands, and compensation for any remaining unavoidable impacts. A wetland assessment was completed in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 1022, Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements, based on a conservative impact scenario. NNSA found that no practicable alternative to locating the action in the wetland is available. Therefore, the wetland assessment considered specific constraints and provisions for mitigation that will be placed on the developer of the site through both the Section 404 permit and the contract with GSA. Although the actual impacts cannot be precisely quantified until a site plan is finalized, impacts to the site are expected to be less than assessed in this analysis of the conservative scenario. The contract issued by GSA will require the developer to address the management of any wetlands (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) on the site in accordance with Executive Order 11990 and Section 404 permitting. The appropriate federal agency will ensure that mitigation commitments are maintained during operation of the facility. The GSA submitted a Section 404 permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on April 1, 2008, based on a conservative impact scenario. Under this scenario, the proposed action would impact, permanently, 0.099 acres (3,655 linear feet (l.f.)) of intermittent tributaries, 0.097 acres (3,440 l.f.) of ephemeral tributaries, and 1.24 acres of wetlands. In the permit application, a conceptual Mitigation Plan was proposed for the permanently impacted intermittent and ephemeral tributaries (7,095 l.f., 0.2 acres) and the 1.24 acres of permanently impacted wetlands. The features of the plan include: On-site Stream Mitigation: The credits required to offset impacts would be generated by on-site riparian buffer enhancement of 952 l.f. of intermittent tributary and 494 l.f. of ephemeral tributary. The corridor would be 50-feet wide on each side of the tributaries. Enhancement activities would include nuisance species control, deed restrictions, 10 to 50 percent plantings, native grass seeding, timber thinning, maintenance, and monitoring. The remaining credits would, in part, be done through relocation and restoration of some tributaries and would include in-stream features and minimum 50-foot-wide riparian buffer. Off-Site Stream Mitigation: Any remaining stream credits would be mitigated for by identifying an off-site mitigation project and/or enrollment into a USACE-approved in-lieu fee program. Wetland Mitigation: Wetland impacts would be mitigated on-site by 1.24 acres of in-kind wetland creation or restoration. On-site created wetlands would be deed restricted. Based on the small relative size of the wetlands (less then 1.5 acres combined) and the requirements imposed by the Section 404 permitting process, the impact to wetlands would not be significant (EA Section 5.3.3). **Degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4)):** The analysis in the EA indicates that the selected alternative will result in no significant impacts in the quality of the human environment. The vast majority of public comment focused on nuclear weapons policy and procedural issues. Only a small number of comments were received regarding the potential environmental impacts of the preferred alternative. These comments are addressed in Appendix B, Issue Analysis of Public Comments, including: Issue #6, Workforce Reductions; Issue #11, Stormwater Quality; Issue #12, Air Quality, Issue #13, Health and Safety; Issue #15, Transportation; Issue #16, Hazard Analysis; Issue #18(d), Building 50 Characterization; Issue #18(e), Potential Groundwater Impacts with Onsite Alternatives; and Issue #18(g), Environmental Justice. **Uncertain or unknown risks to the human environment (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(5)):** No chemicals have been identified that would be a risk to members of the public from construction activities associated with a new non-nuclear facility. The KCP is considered a low-hazard industrial facility and operations at the KCP involve hazards of the type and magnitude routinely encountered in industry and generally accepted by the public. Intentional destructive acts at the proposed new facility (e.g. terrorism, internal sabotage) would have a low potential to impact security, public health and safety. There are no uncertain or unknown risks associated with implementing the selected alternative (EA Section 5.3). **Precedent for future actions (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(6)):** The selected alternative does not set a precedent for future actions. **Cumulatively significant impacts (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7)):** There would be no significant cumulative impacts associated with implementing the selected alternative: Growth in the area of the preferred alternative site is expected to change the character of the surrounding area from generally open/agricultural with sporadic industrial, to more industrial. This growth has been anticipated and is desired by local and state governments. The selected alternative is consistent with this transition in land use but the proposal would not be a primary, or significant, contributor to the overall change in land use (EA Section 5.3.10). Commercial development currently ongoing and planned in the area of the selected option will likely result in an increase in daily traffic on Missouri Highway 150 and adjacent roadways, to which the selected alternative would contribute. Due to the small contribution of traffic flow to the area attributed to the selected alternative, the proposed action will not be a primary or significant contributor to the overall change in traffic patterns or road use. Furthermore, the Missouri Department of Transportation and the City of Kansas City, Missouri, are currently working on road improvement projects in the site vicinity which will mitigate the increased projected traffic load resulting from development in the area (EA Section 5.3.10). Development in the area of the selected alternative may result in an increase of stormwater runoff into the Little Blue River Watershed. For the selected alternative, the City of Kansas City is responsible for stormwater management, planning, and permitting, and all individual developers in the area of the selected site are required by code to mitigate impacts of stormwater runoff and adhere to local building codes for storm drainage systems and facilities. The developer will also be required to incorporate design features to maintain or restore predevelopment hydrology pursuant to Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Cumulative stormwater impacts are not considered to be a significant environmental impact (EA Section 5.3.10). **Effect on historical or cultural resources (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(8)):** A Cultural Resource Assessment did not identify specific areas of concern within the selected site, and no previously recorded archeological sites are located within the project area. In the event that items of archeological significance are found during site excavation, the developer would be directed to stop the excavation in the vicinity of the find and notify the GSA Contracting Officer immediately so that the government can coordinate with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office officer. The developer would be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws with regard to archeological findings. No adverse impacts to historical or cultural resources are expected as a result of the selected alternative (EA Section 5.3.7). **Effect on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(9)):** The majority of the 185 acres located at the selected site are currently developed for agricultural usage (with scattered stands of trees and vegetated areas). There are no records of species or habitats of federal or state conservation concern within one mile of the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to occupy the site. The selected alternative would not have an effect on threatened or endangered species or critical habitat (EA Section 5.3.4). **Violation of Federal, State, or local law (40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(10)):** The selected alternative would not violate any federal, state of local laws imposed for the protection of the environment. DETERMINATION: NNSA adopts the EA as a basis for its decision-making.In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act; GSA Order ADM 1095.1F, implementing the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 C.F.R. 1500-1508); and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 1021); and based on the analysis in Environmental Assessment DOE/EA—1592, GSA and NNSA find that the Modernization of Facilities and Infrastructure for the Non-Nuclear Production Activities Conducted at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Kansas City Plant Project is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required and GSA and NNSA are issuing this FONSI for the Proposed Action. Key stipulations set forth in the Environmental Assessment include the following measures that will be implemented to reduce any impacts the selected alternative may have on the quality of the human environment: Adherence to commitments outlined in the Mitigation Action Plan. The Mitigation Action Plan contains mitigation and monitoring commitments for the project, including commitments set (or that would be set) in any permits. As details of specific mitigation actions are developed, or as additional mitigation measures necessary to produce the results committed to by GSA or NNSA are identified, the Mitigation Action Plan will be updated. *General Services Adminstration:* **APPROVED BY:** Dated: April 21, 2008. Bradley M. Scott, Regional Administrator, GSA Region 6. and Dated: April 21, 2008. Steve C. Taylor, Manager, NNSA, Kansas City Site Office. [FR Doc. E8-9322 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-CG-S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Parker-Davis Project-Rate Order No. WAPA-138 AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Formula Rates for Firm Electric and Transmission Service. SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) is proposing modifications to the rate methodology used to develop Parker-Davis Project (P-DP) firm electric and transmission service formula rates. The modifications to the rate methodology will change the allocation factors used to apportion certain expenses between generation and transmission revenue requirements. The firm electric and transmission service rates resulting from the rate methodology modifications are equal to current rates and will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repayment of required investment within the allowable period. Western is also proposing changes to the current billing practices for P-DP long-term firm transmission service. Under the proposed billing changes, customers will be required to pay for long-term firm transmission service one month in advance of service. Western will prepare a brochure that provides detailed information on the modifications and proposed firm electric and transmission service formula rates. Current formula rates under Rate Schedules PD-F6, PD-FT6, PD-FCT6, and PD-NFT6 expire September 30, 2008. The proposed formula rates under Rate Schedules PD-F7, PD-FT7, PD-FCT7, and PD-NFT7 are scheduled to become effective on October 1, 2008, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2013. Publication of this **Federal Register** notice begins the formal process for the proposed formula rates. DATES: The consultation and comment period will begin today and will end May 29, 2008. Western will accept written comments any time during the consultation and comment period. The proposed action constitutes a minor rate adjustment as defined by 10 CFR part 903. As such, Western has determined it is not necessary to hold a public information or public comment forum. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: J. Tyler Carlson, Regional Manager, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, e-mail *carlson@wapa.gov.* Written comments may also be faxed to

(602)605-2490, attention: Jack Murray. Western will post information about the rate process on its Web site at *http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/RateAdjust/Main.htm.* Western will post official comments received via letter, fax, and e-mail to its Web site after the close of the comment period. Western must receive written comments by the end of the consultation and comment period to ensure they are considered in Western's decision process. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jack Murray, Rates Manager, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, telephone

(602)605-2442, e-mail *jmurray@wapa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the current rate methodology, formula rates for P-DP firm electric and transmission service are recalculated annually and designed to recover annual project costs, including interest expense, and make repayment of required investment within the allowable period. Costs that are readily identifiable as supporting either generation or transmission functions are directly allocated to generation or transmission revenue requirements. All other costs are apportioned between generation and transmission revenue requirements based on cost allocation factors. Current cost allocation factors include Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, Capitalized Movable Equipment (CME), labor hours devoted to billing, and historic project investment. Western is proposing to modify the current rate methodology by eliminating the CME, labor hours devoted to billing, and historic project investment cost allocation factors. Western also proposes implementing a cost allocation factor that is the ratio of the number of customers receiving firm electric or transmission service to the total number of customers. At this time, the firm electric and transmission service rates resulting from the proposed modifications to the rate methodology are equal to current rates and will provide sufficient revenue to recover generation and transmission revenue requirements. During informal discussions prior to the commencement of this rate adjustment process, Western received a request from customers to modify the billing practices for P-DP long-term firm transmission service. In the request, the customers noted that payments for firm electric service are required one month in advance of service and suggested that all parties be subject to the same billing terms and conditions. Current billing practices for P-DP long-term firm transmission service allow customers to pay after the fact, usually one month after service is provided. In response to this request, Western is proposing changes to billing practices so that customers will be required to pay for P-DP long-term firm transmission service one month in advance of service. This requirement is incorporated into Rate Schedule PD-FT7. Rate Schedules PD-F6, PD-FT6, PD-FCT6, and PD-NFT6 were approved under Rate Order No. WAPA-75 for the period beginning November 1, 1997, and ending September 30, 2002. 1 These rate schedules were extended through September 30, 2004, by the approval of Rate Order No. WAPA-98 on September 13, 2002. 2 These rate schedules were extended again through September 30, 2006, by the approval of Rate Order No. WAPA-113 approved on September 2, 2004. 3 These rate schedules were extended again through September 30, 2008, by Rate Order No. WAPA-131 approved on September 22, 2006. 4 1 WAPA-75 was approved by the Deputy Secretary of Energy on November 18, 1997 (62 FR 63150), and confirmed and approved by FERC on a final basis on March 10, 1998, in Docket No. EF98-5041-000 (82 FERC 62164). 2 WAPA-98 was approved by the Secretary of Energy on September 13, 2002 (67 FR 60655), and filed with FERC for informational purposes only, and docketed by FERC on September 24, 2002, in Docket No. EF02-5041-000. 3 WAPA-113 was approved by the Deputy Secretary of Energy on September 2, 2004 (69 FR 55429), and filed with FERC for informational purposes only, and docketed by FERC on September 3, 2004, in Docket No. EF04-5042-000. 4 WAPA-131 was approved by the Deputy Secretary of Energy on September 22, 2006 (71 FR 57941), and filed with FERC for informational purposes only, and docketed by FERC on September 22, 2006, in Docket No. EF06-5042-000. Legal Authority The proposed modifications to the rate methodology described above constitutes a minor rate adjustment. Western has determined that it is not necessary to hold a public information or public comment forum for this proposed minor rate adjustment as defined by 10 CFR part 903. After review of public comments and possible amendments or adjustments, Western will recommend the Deputy Secretary of Energy approve the proposed formula rates on an interim basis. Western is establishing firm electric and transmission service rates for P-DP under the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152); the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)); and other acts that specifically apply to the project involved. By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated:

(1)The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator;

(2)the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and

(3)the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand or to disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Existing Department of Energy

(DOE)procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985. Availability of Information All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents that Western initiates or uses to develop the proposed rates are available for inspection and copying at the Desert Southwest Customer Service Regional Office located at 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, AZ. Many of these documents and supporting information are also available on Western's Web site at *http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/RateAdjust/Main.htm.* Ratemaking Procedure Requirements Environmental Compliance In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures and Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021), Western has determined this action is categorically excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Determination Under Executive Order 12866 Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required. Timothy J. Meeks, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-9332 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-QAR-2008-0222; FRL-8558-1] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submissions for OMB Review; Comment Request; Proposed Collection and Comment Request for the Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulation; EPA ICR No. 1601.07; OMB Control No. 2060-0249 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an Information Collection Request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2009. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0222, by one of the following methods: *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*

(202)566-9744. • *Mail:* Agency Information Collection Request Activities: Proposed Collection and Comment Request for the Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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-2008-0222. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes 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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://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 *http://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. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Agency Information Collection Request Activities: Proposed Collection and Comment Request for the Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations 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 additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.eps.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Shao-Hang Chu, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, (C539-04) , Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:

(919)541-5382; fax number:

(919)541-0824; e-mail address: *chu_shao-hang@epagov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What information is EPA particularly interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

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

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

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

(iv)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. II. What information collection activity does this apply to? *Affected Entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are all outer continental shelf sources except those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude (near the border of Florida and Alabama). For sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries, the requirements are the same as those that would be applicable if the source were located in the corresponding onshore area (COA). In states affected by this rule, state boundaries extend three miles from the coastline, except off the coast of the Florida Panhandle, where the state's boundary extends three leagues (about nine miles) from the coastline. *Title:* Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations, EPA ICR Number 1601.07 and OMB Control Number 2060.0249, expiration date: January 31, 2009. *Abstract:* Sources located beyond 25 miles of states' boundaries are subject to Federal requirements (implemented and enforced solely by EPA) for Prevention of Significant Deterioration, New Source Performance Standards, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Standards, the Federal operating permit program, and the enhanced compliance and monitoring regulations. Before any agency, department, or instrumentality of the Federal Government engages in, supports in any way, provides financial assistance for, licenses, permits, approves any activity, that agency has the affirmative responsibility to ensure that such action conforms to the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)for the attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* ) requires that all Federal actions conform with the SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Depending on the type of action, the Federal entities must collect information themselves, hire consultants to collect the information or require applicants/sponsors of the Federal action to provide the information. The type and quantity of information required will depend on the circumstances surrounding the action. First, the entity must make an applicability determination. If the source is located within 25 miles of the state's seaward boundaries as established in the regulations, the requirements are the same as those that would be applicable if the source were located in the COA. State and local air pollution control agencies are usually requested to provide information concerning regulation of offshore sources and are provided opportunities to comment on the proposed determinations. The public is also provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed determinations. *Burden Statement:* Burden means the total time; effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 549 hours per response. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated Total Number of Potential Respondents:* 49. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 62. *Frequency of Response:* Annual. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 34,038. *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* $1,858,350, which includes $0 annualized capital startup costs, $17,886 O&M costs, and$1,840,064 in annual labor costs. III. What is the next step in the process for this ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Dated: April 17, 2008. Jenny N. Edmonds, Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. [FR Doc. E8-8960 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-M FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Meeting Agency Holding the Meeting: Federal Maritime Commission. Time and Date: April 30, 2008—9:30 a.m. Place: 800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC. Status: Part of the Meeting will be held in Open Session and the remainder of the meeting will be held in Closed Session. Matters To Be Considered: Open Session 1. FMC Meetings Processes/Procedures. 2. 2007 Annual Employee Survey. 3. OIG Semiannual Report to the Congress covering the period October 1, 2007—March 31, 2008. 4. Docket No. 06-05— *Verucci Motorcycles LLC* v. *Senator International Ocean LLC* Closed Session 1. Internal Administrative Practices and Personnel Matters. 2. Direction to Staff Regarding Budget Hearing Committee Requests. 3. FMC Agreement No. 201178—Los Angeles/Long Beach Port ITerminal Operator Administration and Implementation Agreement. *Contact Person For More Information:* Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary,

(202)523-5725. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9280 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-M FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 23, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia** (Michael E. Collins, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521: *1. Integrity Bancshares, Inc.* ; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Integrity Bank, both of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. **B. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland** (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566: *1. Whitaker Bank Corporation of Kentucky* , Lexington, Kentucky; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of State Financial Services, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of State Bank and Trust, both of Harrodsburg, Kentucky. **C. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis** (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034: *1. Twin Lakes Bancshares, Inc.* ; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Twin Lakes Community Bank, both of Flippin, Arkansas, and Bank of Salem, Salem, Arkansas. *2. First National Corporation of Wynne* , Wynne, Arkansas; to acquire 35 percent of the voting shares of Twin Lakes Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Twin Lakes Community Bank, both of Flippin, Arkansas, and also indirectly acquire voting shares of Bank of Salem, Salem, Arkansas. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 23, 2008. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Associate Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc.E8-9241 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Voluntary Testing and Enrollment for a New Method of Submitting Applications, Notices, and Other Requests for Regulatory Authorization AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) proposes to implement an electronic system for the submission of applications, notices, and other requests for regulatory authorization to the Federal Reserve System by insured depository institutions, bank holding companies (BHCs), foreign banking organizations (FBOs), other entities, individuals, or groups (collectively, filers) under the Federal Reserve Act, Bank Holding Company Act, Bank Merger Act, Change in Bank Control Act, the International Banking Act of 1978, and the Federal Reserve's regulations implementing these statutes. As a part of this process the Federal Reserve would implement an authentication system to authorize filers and their designated agents to access the Electronic Applications system (E-Apps) and submit filings. To identify any unresolved issues with (E-Apps), the Federal Reserve proposes to establish a testing program involving a limited number of filers that would be willing to provide written and oral feedback regarding the authentication and testing processes. DATES: *Pilot Phase Timeframe:* Second and Third Quarters 2008. *System Enrollment and Implementation Phase Timeframe:* Beginning Fourth Quarter 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Sexton, Manager (202-452-3009) or Vaishali Sack, Supervisory Financial Analyst (202-452-5221), Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Michelle Shore, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (“TDD”) only, contact

(202)263-4869. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Federal Reserve is developing an electronic system for the submission of applications, notices, and other requests for regulatory authorization (collectively, filings) by filers to the Federal Reserve. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998

(GPEA)generally requires federal executive agencies to use electronic forms and electronic filings to conduct official business with the public when practicable. The Federal Reserve, which complies with GPEA, has elected to provide a web-based system for the electronic submission of filings, in order to reduce substantially the Federal Reserve's reliance on its current, paper-based submission processes. This electronic system, E-Apps, is currently under development. Although the use of E-Apps would be voluntary for filers, the Federal Reserve anticipates that the electronic submission of filings through E-Apps would reduce the burden filers experience with current requirements for paper-based submissions. Therefore, filers who voluntarily choose to submit filings through E-Apps would save the time and expense associated with photocopying and mailing or otherwise filing copies. In order to provide sufficient assurances of authentication, data integrity, data confidentiality and non-repudiation, and sufficient security for the information transmitted in filed documents, filers and their designated agents must be authenticated to access E-Apps and submit filings to the Federal Reserve. Filers or their designated representatives (employees or agents) who elect to submit filings through E-Apps will be required to first obtain digital certificates from the Federal Reserve. The process for requesting certificates will be similar to the process currently in place for using certain financial services provided by the Federal Reserve. Information, forms, and instructions regarding the certificate request process will be available on the Federal Reserve's public Web site ( *http://www.federalreserve.gov/* ). II. Testing and Enrollment This notice announces the voluntary testing and mandatory enrollment for E-Apps. Enrollment is mandatory only if the filer elects to use the E-Apps system. As discussed below, the testing and enrollment will be conducted in two phases: The Pilot phase and the System Enrollment and Implementation phase. The Federal Reserve anticipates that the phases will be conducted according to the following schedule: The Pilot phase would be conducted for approximately two months during the second quarter of 2008. The System Enrollment and Implementation phase would begin in the fourth quarter of 2008 with Enrollment and continue with Implementation beginning in the first quarter of 2009. As part of the testing, each participating filer would be expected to enroll in E-Apps. The Federal Reserve would issue digital certificates to properly documented subscribers. • *Pilot Phase:* This phase would begin approximately in June 2008 and would be conducted for two months. The Pilot phase would include approximately twenty filers and subscribers (individuals who are authorized to submit filings on behalf of filers) as voluntary participants. Participants in the Pilot phase would access the E-Apps system and would submit at least one filing through the E-Apps system on behalf of each filer. The Federal Reserve would distribute filing instructions to each participating filer and subscriber and provide assistance as necessary. Pilot phase participants would be asked to provide written and oral feedback regarding the certificate and filing processes, the E-Apps system, and any customer support they receive during the Pilot phase. The comments and recommendations received from the participants would be analyzed to identify issues. The Pilot phase, along with the feedback, would help the Federal Reserve identify any unresolved issues with the E-Apps system before the System Enrollment and Implementation Timeframe. • *System Enrollment and Implementation Phase:* Enrollment in the E-Apps System would be available for all filers and their designated representatives (employees or agents) beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008, and would be mandatory for filers who want to submit filings to the Federal Reserve through E-Apps. Filers and subscribers that participated in the Pilot phase would be able to submit filings using the certificates previously issued to them. All other filers and their designated representatives would be required to submit the appropriate paperwork and follow the digital certificate request procedures outlined above. Implementation of the E-Apps System would begin in the first quarter of 2009. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 24, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-9326 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Title:* Application Requirements for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Model Plan. *OMB No.:* 0970-0075. *Description:* States, including the District of Columbia, Tribes, tribal organizations and territories applying for LIHEAP block grant funds must submit an annual application (Model Plan) that meets the LIHEAP statutory and regulatory requirements prior to receiving Federal funds. A detailed application must be submitted every 3 years. Abbreviated applications may be submitted in alternate years. There have been no changes in the Model Plan. *Respondents:* State Governments, Tribal Governments, Insular Areas, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours Detailed Model Plan 65 1 1 65 Abbreviated Model Plan 115 1 .33 38 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours* 103. *Additional Information:* Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* *OMB Comment:* OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: April 23, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-9278 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Title:* Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System for title IV-B and title IV-E. OMB No.: 0980-0267. *Description:* Section 479 of title IV-E of the Social Security Act (the Act) directs States to establish and implement an adoption and foster care reporting system. Federal regulations at 45 CFR 1355.40 sets forth the requirements of section 479 of the Social Security Act for the collection of uniform, reliable information on children who are under the responsibility of the State title IV-B/IV-E agency for placement, care, and adoption. The respondents are child welfare agencies in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The data collected will inform State/Federal policy decisions, program management, and responses to Congressional and Departmental inquiries. Specifically, the data are used for short/long-term budget projections, trend analysis, child and family service reviews, and to target areas for improved technical assistance. The data will provide information about foster care placements, adoptive parents, length of time in care, delays in termination of parental rights and placement for adoption. *Respondents:* State Child Welfare Agencies. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours AFCARS 52 2 3,005 312,513 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 312,513. *Additional Information:* Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* *OMB Comment: * OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: April 23, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-9293 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Advisory Council on Migrant Health AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS. ACTION: Correction of meeting place. SUMMARY: The Health Resources and Services Administration published a meeting notice for the National Advisory Council on Migrant in the **Federal Register** of April 2, 2008 (73 FR 17991). The meeting place has changed. Correction In the **Federal Register** issue of April 2, 2008, (73 FR 17991), 1st column, change the meeting place to: *Place:* Holiday Inn San Juan, 8020 Tartak Street, Isla Verde, PR 00979, Telephone:

(787)625-9000, Fax:

(787)253-9007. Dated: April 23, 2008. Alexandra Huttinger, Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination. [FR Doc. E8-9333 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Request for Public Comment: 60-Day Proposed Information Collection: Behavioral Health Preventive Care Assessment Focus Group Guide AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which requires 60 days for public comment on proposed information collection projects, the Indian Health Service

(IHS)is publishing for comment a summary of a proposed information collection to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review. *Proposed Collection: Title:* 0917-NEW, “Behavioral Health Preventive Care Assessment Focus Group Guide.” *Type of Information Collection Request:* Three-year approval of this new information collection, 0917-NEW, “Behavioral Health Preventive Care Assessment Focus Group Guide.” *Form(s):* None. *Need and Use of Information Collection:* The IHS goal is to raise the health status of the American Indian and Alaska Native people to the highest possible level by providing comprehensive health care and preventive health services. To support the IHS mission, IHS uses the Government Performance Act

(GPRA)to assess quality of care among its Federal, Urban, and Tribal health programs. The IHS has been largely successful in meeting GPRA targets for selected clinical performance measures at the national level. However, there is significant variability in performance among IHS and Tribal service units. Until this time, IHS has not undertaken any comprehensive studies to evaluate the reasons for that variability or the factors that contribute to high quality care at the local level. The IHS has three GPRA measures relating to behavioral health, a high priority for the Agency and one of the IHS Director's Initiatives. This study will focus on these three GPRA behavioral health measures: Depression Screening in adults age 18 and over, Domestic/Intimate Partner Violence screening in women ages 14-15, and Alcohol Screening (to prevent Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) in women ages 15-44. Tribal programs voluntarily report their GPRA results quarterly and annually for national reporting. GPRA data collected for these three behavioral health measures includes: the number of patients eligible for a screening (denominator), number of eligible patients who receive a screening (numerator), and the resulting screening rate (percentage). IHS has developed a methodology to identify superior and poor performers on these measures in both Tribal and Federal sites using fiscal year 2005, 2006, and 2007 GPRA performance results. IHS will convene focus groups with employees at 17 of these programs (7 IHS and 10 Tribal) in order to identify the factors contributing to (and when appropriate, the barriers preventing) the provision of high quality behavioral health care at the local level. These focus groups will allow employees to provide detailed data regarding program practices, screening and documentation procedures, initiatives, resources, and other factors relating to the provision of behavioral health preventive care at their health program. A total of two to three focus groups, organized by occupational specialty, will be convened at each program. Using the Chronic Care Model and Institute of Medicine recommendations, IHS will analyze the information collected during these site visits, along with background information that is publicly available (e.g., information found on clinic web pages), on other qualitative and quantitative features of individual programs, such as staffing and funding levels, community demographics, and organizational structure, to develop a behavioral health preventive care model relevant to the unique system of IHS delivery. *Affected Public:* Individuals. *Type of Respondents:* Tribal employees at Tribal health programs. The table below provides: Types of data collection instruments, Estimated number of respondents, Number of responses per respondent, Annual number of responses, Average burden hour per response, and Total annual burden hour(s). Data collection instrument(s) Number of respondents Responses per respondent Total annual response Burden hour per response * Annual burden hours Administrators/Supervisor Focus Group Guide 30 1 30 2 60 Provider Focus Group Guide 30 1 30 2 60 Behavioral Health Provider Focus Group Guide 15 1 15 2 30 Data Entry Focus Group Guide 15 1 15 2 30 Total 90 180 There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report. *Request for Comments:* Your written comments and/or suggestions are invited on one or more of the following points:

(a)Whether the information collection activity is necessary to carry out an agency function;

(b)whether the agency processes the information collected in a useful and timely fashion;

(c)the accuracy of the public burden estimate (the estimated amount of time needed for individual respondents to provide the requested information);

(d)whether the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates are logical;

(e)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and

(f)ways to minimize the public burden through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. *Send Comments and Requests for Further Information:* Send your written comments, requests for more information on the proposed collection, or requests to obtain a copy of the data collection instrument(s) and instructions to: Ms. Chris Rouleau, IHS Reports Clearance Officer, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP 450, Rockville, MD 20852-1627; call non-toll free

(301)443-5938; send via facsimile to

(301)594-0899; or send your e-mail requests, comments, and return address to: *Christina.Rouleau@ihs.gov* . *Comment Due Date:* Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication. Dated: April 18, 2008. Robert G. McSwain, Acting Director, Indian Health Service. [FR Doc. E8-9258 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Tribal Self-Governance Program Negotiation Cooperative Agreement; Correction ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The Indian Health Service published a document in the **Federal Register**

(FR)on March 31, 2008. The document contained three errors. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Johnson, Office of Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 240, Rockville, MD 20852, Telephone

(301)443-1982. (This is not a toll-free number.) Correction In the **Federal Register** of March 31, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-6428, on page 16871, in the second column, under III. Eligibility Information, 3. Other Requirements, Letter C., change Friday April 25, 2008 to Tuesday, May 6, 2008, and in the following sentence change April 25, 2008 to May 6, 2008; and on page 16874, in the second column, first paragraph, change *matthew.johnson@ihs,gov* to *matthew.johnson@ihs.gov* . Dated: April 18, 2008. Robert G. McSwain, Acting Director, Indian Health Service. [FR Doc. E8-9250 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Tribal Self-Governance Program Planning Cooperative Agreement; Correction ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The Indian Health Service published a document in the **Federal Register**

(FR)on March 31, 2008. The document contained four errors. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Johnson, Office of Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 240, Rockville, MD 20852, Telephone

(301)443-1982. (This is not a toll-free number.) Correction In the **Federal Register** of March 31, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-6406, on page 16874, in the second column, correct the Funding Announcement Number to read: HHS-2008-IHS-TSGP-0002; page 16875, in the first column, Under III. Eligibility Information, 3. Other Requirements, Letter B., change Friday April 25, 2008 to Tuesday, May 6, 2008, and in the following sentence change April 25, 2008 to May 6, 2008; and on page 16878, in the first column, first paragraph, change *matthew.johiison@ihs.gov* to *matthew.johnson@ihs.gov* . Dated: April 18, 2008. Robert G. McSwain, Acting Director, Indian Health Service. [FR Doc. E8-9246 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing. ADDRESSES: Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications. Assay for Identification of Influenza-Neutralizing Antibodies *Description of Technology:* Development of effective vaccines against influenza, especially pandemic or avian, is a subject of intense current research efforts. The efficacy of these vaccines has historically been assessed using hemagglutination inhibition

(HAI)assays. However, HAI assays are limited in their utility by lack of standardization amongst laboratories. The NIH is pleased to offer the subject technology, a system to quantitate virus neutralization and entry. This system utilizes pseudotyped lentiviral vectors that mimic properties of the influenza virus. Experimental use of this system has shown an increase in sensitivity more than ten times that achieved with HAI assays. This standardized system can allow influenza vaccine candidates to be evaluated and compared, which can be a critical step in identifying the best product forward. *Applications:* Quick, high-throughput, sensitive and quantitative measure of neutralizing antibodies for vaccine development; Identification of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. *Advantages:* Standardized assay, unlike currently utilized assays; Generation of comparable data for various vaccine candidates. *Development Status:* Comparative data against current standard available. *Inventors:* Gary Nabel and Zhi-yong Yang (NIAID). *Patent Status:* U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/993,378 filed 11 Sept 2007 (HHS Reference No. E-323-2007/0-US-01). *Licensing Status:* Available for exclusive or non-exclusive licensing. *Licensing Contact:* Susan Ano, Ph.D.; 301-435-5515; *anos@mail.nih.gov.* Influenza Vaccines, Therapeutics, and Monoclonal Antibodies *Description of Technology:* Concerns about a potential influenza pandemic and its prevention are a regular part of health news, with bird (avian) influenza (prominently including H5N1 strains) being a major concern. Vaccination is one of the most effective ways to minimize suffering and death from influenza. Currently, there is not an effective way to vaccinate against avian influenza without knowing what subtype and strain will circulate. Described here are two technologies with application to development of vaccines against influenza as well as therapeutics and monoclonal antibodies. One technology provides for development of potentially broadly protective influenza vaccines, while the other seeks to improve immune response to the vaccine through increased receptor affinity. The first technology offers candidate DNA vaccines that were primarily designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies to target H5N1, H1N1, H3N2 and other subtypes of influenza. The candidate vaccines express H/HA or neuramidase (N/NA) protein that has been codon optimized and/or modified at the protease cleavage site. The modified genes could be used in DNA vaccines, in viral vectors, recombinant proteins/particles or combination. Exemplary animal studies use proprietary expression systems that increase protein expression relative to commonly used alternatives. This invention potentially provides a vaccine strategy for controlling influenza epidemics, including avian flu, should it cross over to humans; the 1918 strain of flu; and seasonal flu strains. In addition, this invention is designed to lead to a combination vaccine to provide a broadly protective vaccine. The second technology relates to H5N1 influenza vaccine candidates in which mutations have been introduced to increase affinity of the hemagglutinin (H or HA) for the sialic acid receptor found in humans, which have a different sialic acid linkage than the corresponding avian receptor. These mutations could therefore result in a higher immune response in vaccines, producing a more robust response than other H5N1 vaccine candidates that retain their avian receptor preferences. These mutations also changed antibody-sensitivity of the vaccine candidates. The H5 modifications can be expressed from DNA or adenoviral vectors, or the proteins themselves can be administered. Additionally, these mutated HAs can be used to develop therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. The technology describes three

(3)unique monoclonal antibodies that react with wild-type H5, wild-type H5 and mutant HA equivalently, and the mutant HA, respectively. *Applications and Advantages:* Influenza vaccine for pandemic or epidemic application; Therapeutic antibodies; Potential for combination vaccine for broad protection, removing need for seasonal strain monitoring; DNA vaccines are easy to produce and store; No risk of reversion to pathogenic strain as with live-attenuated virus vaccines. *Development Status Highlights:* Phase I clinical trial active for DNA vaccine candidate encoding H5, Indonesian strain (VRC-AVIDNA-036-00VP); Animal (mouse) data available; Codon optimized for expression in human cells. *Publications:* 1. Certain aspects of this technology were published in: WP Kong *et al.* Protective immunity to lethal challenge of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus by vaccination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006 Oct 24;103(43):15987-15991. 2. GJ Nabel. Gene-based influenza vaccines: a look to the future. Presentation to World Health Organization (WHO), February 2007; available online at *http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/influenza/160207_Nabel.pdf* . *Inventors:* Gary J. Nabel *et al.* (VRC/NIAID). *Patent Status:* PCT patent application, serial number PCT/US2007/004506 (publication number WO 2007/100584), filed 16 Feb 2007 with priority to 16 Feb 2006 (HHS Reference No. E-116-2006/1-PCT-01). PCT patent application, serial number PCT/US2007/081002, filed 10 Oct 2007 with priority to 10 Oct 2006 (HHS Reference No. E-306-2006/4-PCT-01). *Related Technology:* U.S. Patent No. 7,094,598 issued 22 Aug 2006 (HHS Reference No. E-241-2001/1-US-01) and associated foreign rights (proprietary expression system with CMV/R promoter). *Licensing Status:* Available for non-exclusive or exclusive licensing. *Licensing Contact:* Susan Ano, PhD; 301-435-5515; *anos@mail.nih.gov.* Polypeptides for Eliciting Neutralizing Antibodies Against HIV *Description of Technology:* The technology describes conjugate polypeptide compositions that are designed to elicit antibody response against HIV. The peptides are conjugates of one gp41 capable of forming a stable coiled-coil structure and another gp41 capable of forming an alpha-helical structure. These structural elements of gp41 were identified as important for playing a role in HIV-1 cell entry. Compositions that elicit neutralizing antibodies against HIV have been elusive to date, but the subject technology may be important in realizing that goal. *Applications:* HIV vaccines; Neutralizing antibodies against HIV. *Development Status:* Animal (rabbit and/or guinea pig) data available. *Inventors:* Carol Weiss (FDA). *Patent Status:* U.S. Patent 7,311,916 issued 28 Dec 2007 (HHS Reference No. E-212-2001/0-US-11). *Licensing Status:* Available for non-exclusive licensing. *Licensing Contact:* Susan Ano, PhD; 301-435-5515; *anos@mail.nih.gov.* *Collaborative Research Opportunity:* The FDA/CBER Laboratory of Immunology is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate, or commercialize this technology. Please contact Carol Weiss at *carol.weiss@fda.hhs.gov* for more information. Dated: April 21, 2008. David Sadowski, Deputy Director,Division of Technology Development and Transfer,Office of Technology Transfer,National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. E8-9257 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory Study Section, June 5, 2008, 8 a.m. to June 6, 2008, 5 p.m., One Washington Circle Hotel, One Washington Circle, Washington, DC, 20037 which was published in the **Federal Register** on April 4, 2008, 73 FR 18539-18542. The meeting will be held one day only June 6, 2008. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public. Dated: April 21, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9158 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Integrative Physiology of Obesity and Diabetes Study Section, May 29, 2008, 8 a.m., to May 30, 2008, 3 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, which was published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2008, 73 FR 20696-20698. The meeting will be held one day only, May 29, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public. Dated: April 21, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9160 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group,Cognitive Neuroscience Study Section. *Date:* May 27, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue,Bethesda, MD 20814. *Contact Person:* Judith A. Finkelstein, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5178, MSC 7844,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-435-1249, *finkelsj@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review Group,Molecular Neuropharmacology and Signaling Study Section. *Date:* May 29, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* The Jurys Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, DC 20036. *Contact Person:* Deborah L. Lewis, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1224, *lewisdeb@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, *Member Conflict:* Biological Rhythms and Sleep. *Date:* May 29, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Edwin C. Clayton, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5095C, MSC 7844,Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)402-1304, *claytone@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, The Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Member Conflict. *Date:* May 29, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892(Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* Jay Joshi, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5184, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1184, *joshij@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Musculoskeletal, Oral And Skin Sciences Integrated Review Group Skeletal Biology Development and Disease Study Section. *Date:* June 1-3, 2008. *Time:* 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Renaissance M Street Hotel,1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *Contact Person:* Priscilla B. Chen, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4104, MSC 7814,Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1787, *chenp@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Neural Drug Discovery. *Date:* June 2, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *Contact Person:* Mary Custer, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4148, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301)435-1164, *custerm@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, BDCN-N

(02)M: Member Conflict Special Emphasis Panel. *Date:* June 2, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892(Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* Suzan Nadi, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5217B, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1259, *nadis@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group, Genomics, Computational Biology and Technology Study Section. *Date:* June 3-4, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Churchill Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009. *Contact Person:* Barbara J. Thomas, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2218, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0603, *bthomas@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, S1O Study Section Panel. *Date:* June 4-5, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892(Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* Jonathan Arias, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5170, MSC 7840,Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2406, *ariasj@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, *RFA-HD-07-1 01:* Evaluating the Health Benefits of Workplace Policies/Practices Phase II. *Date:* June 4, 2008. *Time:* 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892(Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* Valerie Durrant, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3148, MSC 7770,Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-3554, *durrantv@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Vision Technologies. *Date:* June 4, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* George Ann McKie, DVM, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1124, MSC 7846,Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1049, *mckiegeo@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Cardiovascular Sciences Integrated Review Group, Clinical and Integrative Cardiovascular Sciences Study Section. *Date:* June 5-6, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW., Washington, DC 20005. *Contact Person:* Russell T. Dowell, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4128, MSC 7814,Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1850, *dowellr@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel BTSS Member Conflict. *Date:* June 6, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Roberto J. Matus, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, MSC 7854,Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-2204, *matusr@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, NIH Rapid Access to Interventional Development Pilot Review. *Date:* June 10-11, 2008. *Time:* 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892(Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* James J. Li, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5148, MSC 7844,Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2417, *lijames@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review Group, Synapses, Cytoskeleton and Trafficking Study Section. *Date:* June 11-12, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications, *Place:* Hilton Alexandria Old Town Hotel, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. *Contact Person:* Jonathan K. Ivins, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040A, MSC 7806,Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)594-1245, *ivinsj@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior Integrated Review Group,Risk, Prevention and Intervention for Addictions Study Section. *Date:* June 11-12, 2008. *Time:* 6 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Arts Club of Washington, 2017 I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. *Contact Person:* Gayle M. Boyd, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3141, MSC 7808,Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-9956, *gboyd@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group, Biomedical Computing and Health Informatics Study Section. *Date:* June 12, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817. *Contact Person:* Bill Bunnag, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, MSC 7854,Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1177, *bunnagb@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review Group, Biophysics of Neural Systems Study Section. *Date:* June 12, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hotel Lombardy, 2019 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20006. *Contact Person:* Geoffrey G. Schofield, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator,Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040-A, MSC 7850,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-435-1235, *geoffreys@csr.nih.gov.* *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Name of Committee:* Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group, Host Interactions with Bacterial Pathogens Study Section. *Date:* June 12-13, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007. *Contact Person:* Marian Wachtel, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3208, MSC 7858,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-435-1148, *wachtelm@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Musculoskeletal, Oral And Skin Sciences Integrated Review Group, Skeletal Muscle and Exercise Physiology Study Section. *Date:* June 12-13, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* The Westin St. Francis, 335 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. *Contact Person:* Richard J. Bartlett, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4110, MSC 7814,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-435-6809, *bartletr@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group. *Date:* June 12,2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817. *Contact Person:* Bill Bunnag, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, MSC 7854,Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1177, *bunnagb@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology Study Section. *Date:* June 13-14, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Sir Francis Drake Hotel, 450 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. *Contact Person:* Syed M. Amir, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6172, MSC 7892,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-435-1043, *amirs@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Health of the Population Integrated Review Group, Biostatistical Methods and Research Design Study Section, *Date:* June 13, 2008, *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* George Washington University Inn.824 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *Contact Person:* Ann Hardy, DRPH, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3158, MSC 7770,Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-0695, *hardyan@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR-07-018: Health Literacy. *Date:* June 13, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015. *Contact Person:* Karen Lechter, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3128, MSC 7759,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-496-0726, *lechterk@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, SMEP Overflow and Skeletal Muscle Small Business Applications. *Date:* June 13, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* The Westin St. Francis, 335 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. *Contact Person:* Richard J. Bartlett, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health,6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4110, MSC 7814,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-435-6809, *bartletr@csr.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 22, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9284 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Small Grants Program for Cancer Epidemiology. *Date:* June 19-20, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* The Legacy Hotel & Meeting Centre, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. *Contact Person:* Joyce C. Pegues, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIH National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 7149, Bethesda, MD 20892-8329, 301-594-1286, *peguesj@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 21, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9287 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center for Research Resources; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Center for Research Resources Initial Review Group; Comparative Medicine Review Committee; CMRC—Parent Meeting 2008. *Date:* June 5, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. *Contact Person:* John R. Glowa, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, National Center for Research Resources, or National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1078, Msc 4874, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0807, *glowaj@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel; Biotechnology Review 2008. *Date:* June 11-12, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20814. *Contact Person:* Steven Birken, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, National Center for Research Resources, or National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1078, Msc 4874, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0815, *birkens@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel; Southwest NPRC. *Date:* June 23-25, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Doubletree Hotel San Antonio, 37 NE Loop 410, San Anotnio, TX. *Contact Person:* Carol Lambert, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Review,National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1 Dem. Plaza, Room 1076, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0814, *lambert@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel; RCMI Special Emphasis Panel. *Date:* June 26, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. *Contact Person:* Mohan Viswanathan, PhD, Deputy Director, Office of Review, NCRR, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1084, MSC 4874, 1 Democracy Plaza, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0829, *mv10f@nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 22, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9275 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel; LRP Teleconference. *Date:* May 8, 2008. *Time:* 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Keith Mckenney, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, NHGRI, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-594-4280, *mckenneyk@mail.nih.gov.* This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 22, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9276 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel Review of AA-3 Member Conflict Applications. *Date:* July 29, 2008. *Time:* 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5635 Fishers Lane, 3039, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Abraham P. Bautista, PhD, Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, RM 3039, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-9737, *bautista@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.89 1 Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 21, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9152 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Applications on Alcohol, Liver Injury, Anti-Retroviral Therapy in HIV/HCV (RFA AA O8-013/14). *Date:* July 28, 2008. *Time:* 1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Abraham P. Bautista, PHD, Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm 3039, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-9737, *bautista@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 21, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9154 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel. Review of AA-1 Member Conflict Applications. *Date:* July 17, 2008. *Time:* 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5635 Fishers Lane, 3039, Rockville, MD 30852 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Abraham P. Bautista, PHD, Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm 3039, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-9737, *bautista@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 21, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9156 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; PREDICT. *Date:* May 16, 2008 *Time:* 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard,Rockville, MD 20852(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* David I. Sommers, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities,National Institute of Mental Health,National Institutes of Health,6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6154, MSC 9609,Bethesda, MD 20892-9606,301-443-7861, *dsommers@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Prefrontal cortex RFA review panel. *Date:* May 20, 2008. *Time:* 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard,Rockville, MD 20852(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Megan Libbey, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities,National Institute of Mental Health, NIH,Neuroscience Center,6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6148, MSC 9609,Rockville, MD 20852,301-402-6807, *libbeymmail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Eating Disorder Interventions. *Date:* May 28, 2008. *Time:* 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard,Rockville, MD 20852(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* David I. Sommers, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities,National Institute of Mental Health,National Institutes of Health,6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6154, MSC 9609,Bethesda, MD 20892-9606,301-443-7861, *dsommers@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Insomnia Treatment. *Date:* June 27, 2008. *Time:* 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard,Rockville, MD 20852(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* David I. Sommers, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities,National Institute of Mental Health,National Institutes of Health,6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6154, MSC 9609,Bethesda, MD 20892-9606,301-443-7861, *dsommers@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 21, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9162 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review of R21s. *Date:* June 4, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Jonathan Horsford, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, NIDCR,45 Center Drive, 4AN-24E,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-594-4859, *horsforj@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel. *Date:* June 16, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Jonathan Horsford, PhD, Scientific Review Officer NIDCR, 45 Center Drive, 4AN-24E,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-594-4859, *horsforj@mail.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel. *Date:* July 30, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Jonathan Horsford, PhD, Scientific Review Officer NIDCR, 45 Center Drive, 4AN-24E,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-594-4859, *horsforj@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 21, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9164 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Drug Interactions. *Date:* May 15, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Gerald L. McLaughlin, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator,Office of Extramural Affairs,National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS,Room 220, MSC 8401,6101 Executive Blvd. Bethesda, MD 20892-8401,301-402-6626, *gm145a@nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; NIDA L Conflicts. *Date:* June 2, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue,Bethesda, MD 20814. *Contact Person:* Meenaxi Hiremath, PhD, Health Scientist Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs,National Institute on Drug Abuse,National Institutes of Health, DHHS,6101 Executive Blvd., Suite 220, MSC 8401,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-402-7964, *mh392g@nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; NIDA-E Conflicts. *Date:* June 4, 2008. *Time:* 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Jurys Washington Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, DC 20036. *Contact Person:* Jose F. Ruiz, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs,National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH,6101 Executive Blvd., Rm. 213, MSC 8401,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-451-3086, *ruizjf@nida.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; NIDA-F Conflicts. *Date:* June 4, 2008. *Time:* 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Jury Washington Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, DC 20036. *Contact Person:* Jose F. Ruiz, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs,National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH,6101 Executive Blvd., Rm. 213, MSC 8401,Bethesda, MD 20892,301-451-3086, *ruizjf@nida.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Center Review Committee. *Date:* July 21-23, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street, NW., Washington DC 20037. *Contact Person:* Rita Liu, PhD, Associate Director, Office of Extramural Affairs,National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS,Room 212, MSC 8401,6101 Executive Boulevard,Bethesda, MD 20892-8401,301.435.1388, *rliu@nida.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Program Projects Review Committee. *Date:* July 22, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *Contact Person:* Rita Liu, PhD, Associate Director, Office of Extramural Affairs,National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS,Room 212, MSC 8401,6101 Executive Boulevard,Bethesda, MD 20892-8401,301.435.1388, *rliu@nida.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Center Review. *Date:* July 23-24, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *Contact Person:* Rita Liu, PHD, Associate Director, Office of Extramural Affairs,National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS,Room 212, MSC 8401,6101 Executive Boulevard,Bethesda, MD 20892-8401,301.435.1388, *rliu@nida.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 22, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9283 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Primary Immuno-Deficiencies. *Date:* May 19, 2008. *Time:* 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive 3121, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Paul A. Amstad, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program,Division of Extramural Activities,DHHS/National Institutes of Health/NIAID,6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616,Bethesda, MD 20892-7616,301-402-7098, *pamstad@niaid.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Helper T Cell Immunity. *Date:* May 28, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817(Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Paul A. Amstad, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program,Division of Extramural Activities,DHHS/National Institutes of Health/NIAID,6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616,Bethesda, MD 20892-7616,301-402-7098, *pamstad@niaid.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: April 22, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-9285 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Development of Cancer Therapeutics in Humans AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to practice the inventions embodied in PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US07/083027 and foreign equivalents thereof, entitled “Smoothened Polypeptides and Methods of Use” [HHS Ref. No. E-014-2007/0]; PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US07/083772 and foreign equivalents thereof, entitled “Self-Assembling Nanoparticles Composed of Transmembrane Peptides and Their Application for Specific Intra-Tumor Delivery of Anti-Cancer Drugs” [HHS Ref. No: E-256-2006/0]; and U.S. Patent No. 7,105,488, and foreign equivalents thereof, entitled “G Protein-Coupled Receptor Antagonists” [HHS Ref. No: E-290-1997/0] to Calidris Therapeutics which is registered in Japan. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America. The prospective exclusive licensed territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to peptidomimetic drugs for the treatment of cancer as claimed in the Licensed Patent Rights. These cancers may be limited to multiple myeloma, colon, lung, melanoma, liver, breast, prostate, ovarian, pancreatic cancers, ALL, AML, NHL, rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma, osteosarcoma and medulloblastoma. With respect to the GPCR technology, the exclusive license field of use may be limited to antagonists of the GPCR CXCR4. DATES: Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before June 30, 2008, will be considered. ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Jennifer Wong, Technology Licensing Specialist, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone:

(301)435-4633; Facsimile:

(301)402-0220; E-mail: *wongje@mail.nih.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The first technology describes inhibitors Smoothened protein (SMO), a receptor involved in the Hedgehog/Patched (HH/PTCH) pathway. HH/PTCH is a common pathway involved in proliferative disorders including cancer and psoriasis. The technology is directed towards several synthetic peptides (including all-D analogs) corresponding to specific region of the SMO protein. Experiments *in vitro* demonstrate that they potentially suppress the growth of cancer cells and inhibit the expression of the HH/PTCH pathway genes. Due to their high hydrophobic properties, these peptide inhibitors can be easily formulated for specific intratumor delivery or topical creams for skin disorders. The second technology relates to peptides corresponding to transmembrane domains of a number of integral membrane proteins. These peptides spontaneously self-assemble in aqueous solutions into stable and remarkably uniform nanoparticles. The nanoparticles of the current invention are fully synthetic, and their surfaces can be engineered to provide specific binding to cell surface receptors over-expressed on tumor cells. Thus, they are even more specific for tumor targeting. Nanoparticles constructed from transmembrane domains of certain receptors and transporters have biological activities of their own and inhibit metastasis or drug resistance thus sensitizing tumors to therapy. Hydrophobic drugs can be easily entrapped inside the nanoparticles, which not only solve the problem of drug insolubility under physiological conditions, but also generate a form of a drug that concentrates in tumors due to enhanced permeability and retention effects. The third technology relates to GPCRs. GPCRs are a large family of transmembrane receptors involved in the regulation of physiological activities. The inventors have found that if a peptide consisting of one of the GPCR transmembrane regions has a charged amino acid on the extracellular side and if said peptide is brought into contact with a cell with same GPCR, the GPCR function is disrupted. The inventors have developed inhibitory GPCR CXCR4 peptides. CXCR4 plays a significant role in cancer development as it is involved in tumor cell proliferation, migration, and metastasis. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within sixty

(60)days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. April 21, 2008. David Sadowski, Deputy Director, Division of Technology Development and Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. E8-9286 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Method To Treat Psoriasis in Humans AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to practice the inventions embodied in U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/855,422 and PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US07/083027 and foreign equivalents thereof, entitled “Smoothened Polypeptides and Methods of Use” [HHS Ref. No. E-014-2007/0], to Lee's Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., which is located in Hong Kong, China. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America. The prospective exclusive licensed territory may be Asia and the field of use may be limited to the use of Licensee's proprietary delivery formulation for the treatment of psoriasis as claimed in the Licensed Patent Rights. DATES: Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before June 30, 2008 will be considered. ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Jennifer Wong, Technology Licensing Specialist, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone:

(301)435-4633; Facsimile:

(301)402-0220; E-mail: *wongje@mail.nih.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The technology describes inhibitors Smoothened protein (SMO), a receptor involved in the Hedgehog/Patched (HH/PTCH) pathway. HH/PTCH is a common pathway involved in proliferative disorders including cancer and psoriasis. The technology is directed towards several synthetic peptides (including all-D analogs) corresponding to specific region of the SMO protein. Experiments *in vitro* demonstrate that they potentially suppress the growth of cancer cells and inhibit the expression of the HH/PTCH pathway genes. Due to their high hydrophobic properties, these peptide inhibitors can be easily formulated for specific intratumor delivery or topical creams for skin disorders. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within sixty

(60)days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Dated: April 21, 2008. David Sadowski, Deputy Director, Division of Technology Development and Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. E8-9254 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2008-N0047; 10120-1113-0000-C4] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews for 70 Species in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and the Pacific Islands AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, initiate 5-year status reviews for 70 species in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and the Pacific Islands under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We request any new information on these species that may have a bearing on their classification as endangered or threatened. Based on the results of these 5-year reviews, we will determine whether these species are properly classified under the Act. DATES: We must receive your information no later than June 30, 2008. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time. ADDRESSES: See “Public Solicitation of New Information” section for instructions on how to submit information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For species-specific information, contact the appropriate individual named in the “Public Solicitation of New Information” section, below. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at

(800)877-8337 for TTY assistance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Why Are 5-Year Reviews Conducted? Under the Endangered Species Act

(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), we maintain a List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants

(List)at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. Then, on the basis of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether or not any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered. These actions must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available. Delisting a species is considered only if such data substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons:

(1)The species is extinct;

(2)the species is recovered; and/or

(3)the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)). Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process (i.e., a proposed rule, public comment period, and final rule). Regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing those species under active review. This notice announces our active review of the 70 species listed in Table 1. Table 1.—Species for Which We Are Initiating a Status Review To Determine if They Are Appropriately Listed Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Common name Scientific name Status Current range Final listing rule ANIMALS Akepa, Hawaii (honeycreeper) *Loxops coccineus coccineus* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)35 FR 16047; 10/13/1970 Akiapola‘au (honeycreeper) *Hemignathus munroi* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)32 FR 4001; 03/11/1967 Coot, Hawaiian *Fulica americana alai* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)35 FR 16047; 10/13/1970 Creeper, Hawaii *Oreomystis mana* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)40 FR 44149; 10/28/1975 Megapode, Micronesian *Megapodius laperouse* Endangered U.S.A. (MP), Palau 35 FR 8491; 06/02/1970 Millerbird, Nihoa (old world warbler) *Acrocephalus familiaris kingi* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)32 FR 4001; 03/11/1967 Moorhen, Hawaiian common *Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)32 FR 4001; 03/11/1967 Shearwater, Newell’s Townsend's *Puffinus auricularis newelli* Threatened U.S.A.

(HI)40 FR 44149; 10/28/1975 Stilt, Hawaiian *Himantopus mexicanus knudseni* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)35 FR 16047; 10/13/1970 Swiftlet, Mariana gray *Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschi* Endangered U.S.A. (GU, MP) 49 FR 33881; 08/27/1984 White-eye, Rota bridled *Zosterops rotensis* Endangered U.S.A.

(MP)69 FR 3022; 01/22/2004 PLANTS ‘Akoko *Euphorbia haeleeleana* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53108; 10/10/1996 Alani *Melicope pallida* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 Alani *Melicope quadrangularis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 Awiwi *Centaurium sebaeoides* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)56 FR 55770; 10/29/1991 Awiwi *Hedyotis cookiana* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 ‘Ae *Zanthoxylum hawaiiense* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 10305; 03/04/1994 Bluegrass, Hawaiian *Poa sandvicensis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)57 FR 20580; 05/13/1992 Bluegrass, Mann’s *Poa mannii* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 56330; 11/10/1994 Gentner's fritillary *Fritillaria gentneri* Endangered U.S.A. (CA, OR) 64 FR 69195; 12/10/1999 Fern, pendant kihi *Adenophorus periens* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 56333; 11/10/1994 Haha *Cyanea koolauensis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53089; 10/10/1996 Haha *Cyanea recta* Threatened U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53070; 10/10/1996 Haha *Cyanea remyi* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53070; 10/10/1996 Ha‘iwale *Cyrtandra limahuliensis* Threatened U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 Heau *Exocarpos luteolus* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 Iliau, dwarf *Wilkesia hobdyi* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)57 FR 27859; 06/22/1992 Ischaemum, Hilo *Ischaemum byrone* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 10305; 03/04/1994 Kaulu *Pteralyxia kauaiensis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 Koki‘o *Kokia kauaiensis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53070; 10/10/1996 Koki‘o ke‘oke‘o *Hibiscuswaimeaessp. hannerae* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53070; 10/10/1996 Kolea *Myrsine linearifolia* Threatened U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53070; 10/10/1996 Kuahiwi laukahi *Plantago princeps* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 56333; 11/10/1994 Kuawawaenohu *Alsinidendron lychnoides* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53089; 10/10/1996 Laulihilihi *Schiedea stellarioides* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53089; 10/10/1996 Lo‘ulu *Pritchardia napaliensis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53070; 10/10/1996 Mahoe *Alectryon macrococcus* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)57 FR 20772; 05/15/1992 Mapele *Cyrtandra cyaneoides* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53070; 10/10/1996 Ma‘oli‘oli *Schiedea apokremnos* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)56 FR 49639; 09/30/1991 Ma‘oli‘oli *Schiedea kealiae* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53089; 10/10/1996 Naupaka, dwarf *Scaevola coriacea* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)51 FR 17971; 05/16/1986 Na‘ena‘e *Dubautia latifolia* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)57 FR 20580; 05/13/1992 Nehe *Lipochaeta fauriei* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 Nehe *Lipochaeta waimeaensis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 No common name *Abutilon eremitopetalum* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)56 FR 47686; 09/20/1991 No common name *Bonamia menziesii* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 56333; 11/10/1994 No common name *Chamaesyce halemanui* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)57 FR 20580; 05/13/1992 No common name *Diplazium molokaiense* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 49025; 09/26/1994 No common name *Gouania meyenii* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)56 FR 55770; 10/29/1991 No common name *Hesperomannia lydgatei* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)56 FR 47695; 09/20/1991 No common name *Mariscus pennatiformis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 56333; 11/10/1994 No common name *Munroidendron racemosum* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 No common name *Poa siphonoglossa* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)57 FR 20580; 05/13/1992 No common name *Remya kauaiensis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)56 FR 1450; 01/14/1991 No common name *Remya montgomeryi* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)56 FR 1450; 01/14/1991 No common name *Schiedea helleri* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53070; 10/10/1996 No common name *Schiedea membranacea* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53070; 10/10/1996 No common name *Schiedeaspergulinavar. leiopoda* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 No common name *Schiedeaspergulinavar. spergulina* Threatened U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 9304; 02/25/1994 No common name *Silene hawaiiensis* Threatened U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 10305; 03/04/1994 No common name *Silene lanceolata* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 No common name *Spermolepis hawaiiensis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 56333; 11/10/1994 No common name *Stenogyne bifida* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Oha *Delissea rivularis* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53070; 10/10/1996 O‘ha wai *Clermontia lindseyana* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 10305; 03/04/1994 Ohai *Sesbania tomentosa* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)59 FR 56333; 11/10/1994 Pu‘uka‘a *Cyperus trachysanthos* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)61 FR 53108; 10/10/1996 Rough popcornflower *Plagiobothrys hirtus* Endangered U.S.A.

(OR)65 FR 3866; 01/25/2000 Spalding's catchfly *Silene spaldingii* Threatened U.S.A. (ID, MT, OR, WA) 66 FR 51597; 10/10/2001 Uhiuhi *Caesalpinia kavaiense* Endangered U.S.A.

(HI)51 FR 24672; 07/08/1996 What Information Do We Consider in the Review? A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider data that has become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as: • Species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; • Habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability; • Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species; • Threat status and trends (see five factors under heading “How Do We Determine Whether a Species is Endangered or Threatened?”); and • Other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods. How Do We Determine Whether a Species Is Endangered or Threatened? Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors: A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; C. Disease or predation; D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Our assessment of these factors is required, under section 4(b)(1) of the Act, to be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. What Could Happen As a Result of This Review? If we find information concerning the 70 species listed in Table 1 indicating that a change in classification is warranted, we may propose to:

(a)Reclassify the species from threatened to endangered;

(b)reclassify the species from endangered to threatened; or

(c)remove the species from the List. If we find that a change in classification is not warranted, the species will remain on the List and retain its current status. Public Solicitation of New Information To ensure that these 5-year reviews are complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we solicit new information from the public, governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, environmental entities, industry, and any other interested parties concerning the status of the species in Table 1. If you wish to provide information, submit your comments and materials to the Field Supervisors at the appropriate Fish and Wildlife Office listed below. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. For the species under review, submit information and direct species-specific questions to the addresses and individuals as follows: Gentner's fritillary and rough popcornflower Send information to: Field Supervisor, Attention: 5-Year Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266, or to *FW1OR5yearReview@fws.gov.* Questions: Rollie White, 503-231-6179. Spalding's catchfly Send information to: Field Supervisor, Attention: 5-Year Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368, Boise, ID 83709, or to *FW1SRBOcomment@fws.gov.* Questions: Susan Burch, 208-378-5243. Species in Hawaii, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Territory of Guam Send information to: Field Supervisor, Attention: 5-Year Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-122, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850, or to *pifwo-5yr-review@fws.gov.* Questions: Marilet A. Zablan, 808-792-9400. Completed and Active Reviews A list of all species under active 5-year review, for which the Pacific Region of the Service is the lead region, including those we are initiating under this Notice, are available at: *http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/5yearactive.html.* Completed 5-year reviews, for which the Pacific Region of the Service is the lead region, are available at: *http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/5yearcomplete.html.* Authority: This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: March 21, 2008. Renne R. Lohoefener, Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-9198 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-IA-2008-N0096; 96300-1671-0000-P5] Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for permit. SUMMARY: The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and/or marine mammals. DATES: Written data, comments or requests must be received by May 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Endangered Species The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq* .). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). *Applicant:* IUCN Iguana Specialist Group, Escondido, CA, PRT-836457. The applicant requests a permit to renew their permit to import biological samples from the following species: Cyclura carinata bartschi, Cyclura carinata carinata, Cyclura collei, Cyclura cornuta, Cyclura cychlura, Cyclura nubila, Cyclura pinguis, Cyclura ricordi, Cyclura rileyi, Cyclura stejnegeri, and Cyclura lewisi for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant for a five-year period. *Applicant:* Oral E. Micham, Woodlake, CA, PRT-178000. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Richard R. Albro, The Woodlands, TX, PRT-178002. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Gerald L. Bridges, Chelsea, MI, PRT-178717. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* John K. Bennet, Bozeman, MT, PRT-178718. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Bret E. Fuller, Sunnyvale, CA, PRT-179257. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Eldon R. Bell, San Angelo, TX, PRT-178716. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Robin G. Fiske, Conroe, TX, PRT-180473. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one cape mountain zebra ( *Equus zebra zebra* ) taken from a ranch in the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Endangered Marine Mammals and Marine Mammals The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered marine mammals and/or marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing endangered species (50 CFR part 17) and/or marine mammals (50 CFR part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director. *Applicant:* Catherine L. Foy, Foy Marine Consulting, Kodiak, AK, PRT-167514. The applicant requests a permit to harass up to 200 northern sea otters, *Enhydra lutris kenyoni* , from the threatened population of the species in Chiniak Bay near Kodiak Island, Alaska, through boat-based surveying for the purpose of scientific research to evaluate the impact of bringing the runway safety areas at Kodiak Airport into compliance with the current standards. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , the Division of Management Authority is forwarding copies of the above application to the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors for their review. *Applicant:* Larry R. Steiner, Otego, NY, PRT-180289. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* Mark R. Beeler, Hubertus, WI, PRT-180359. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* Stephen D. Hornady, Grand Island, NE, PRT-180363. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* Kevin L. Reid, Albuquerque, NM, PRT-180365. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* James M. Mazur, Sheridan, WY, PRT-180664. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. Dated: April 11, 2008. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E8-9294 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of a new information collection. SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we will submit to OMB a new information collection request

(ICR)for approval of the paperwork requirements for the National Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach and Research Program (NLRSEORP). To submit a proposal for the NLRSEORP three standard OMB forms and project narrative must be completed and submitted via Grants.gov. This notice provides the public an opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of these forms. The forms are available at *http://www07.grants.gov/agencies/approved_standard_forms.jsp* . DATES: Submit written comments by June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this information collection to the Department of the Interior, USGS, via: • *E-mail* *atravnic@usgs.gov.* Use Information Collection Number 1028-NEW, NLRSEORP in the subject line. • *FAX:*

(703)648-7069. Use Information Collection Number 1028-NEW, NLRSEORP in the subject line. • Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; USGS Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, Reston, VA 20192. Please reference Information Collection 1028-NEW, NLRSEORP in your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Cecere at 703-648-5551. Copies of the forms can be obtained at no cost at *http://www.reginfo.gov* , or by contacting the USGS clearance officer at the phone number listed below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* National Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach and Research Program (NLRSEORP). *OMB Control Number:* 1028-NEW NLRSEORP *Form Number:* Standard Form 424 Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424A Budget Information Non-Construction Programs, and Standard Form 424B Assurances, Non-Construction Programs, and Project narrative guidance posted on Grants.gov. *Abstract:* Respondents are submitting proposals to acquire funding for a National (U.S.) program to promote the uses of space-based land remote sensing data and technologies through education and outreach at the State and local level and through university based and collaborative research projects. Technologies of interest include multispectral and hyper-spectral electro-optical, thermal, and radar. Although most activities are anticipated to occur at the State and local levels, a national coordination effort is necessary to ensure a standardized approach and to ensure a consistent quality of information. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We intend to release the project abstracts and primary investigators for awarded/funded projects only. *Frequency:* Annually. *Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:* Approximately 10 proposals are submitted by individuals involved in the area of geospatial science. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 10. *Annual burden hours:* 240. *Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:* We estimate the public reporting burden averages 16 to 24 hours per response. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, developing the proposal, and completing and reviewing the information. *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden:* We have not identified any “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this collection of information. *Public Disclosure Statement:* The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. *Comments:* Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to:

(a)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful;

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

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

(d)minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. To comply with the public consultation process, we publish this **Federal Register** notice announcing that we will submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day public comment period. *USGS Information Collection Clearance Officer:* Alfred Travnicek, 703-648-7231. Dated: April 21, 2008. Bruce Quirk, Program Coordinator, Land Remote Sensing Program, U.S. Geological Survey. [FR Doc. E8-9197 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4311-AM-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [MT-924-1430-FQ; SDM 94312] Public Land Order No. 7705; Withdrawal of National Forest System Land To Preserve Cave Resources Adjacent to Jewel Cave National Monument; South Dakota; Correction AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Correction. SUMMARY: In Public Land Order No. 7705, 73 FR 21151-21152, published April 18, 2008, as FR Doc. E8-8410, make the following correction: On page 21151, column 1, in T. 4 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 6, lots 3 and 4 should read “excluding that portion withdrawn by PLO 2965”. Dated: April 22, 2008. Cindy Staszak, Chief, Branch of Land Resources. [FR Doc. E8-9318 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service [Docket No. MMS-2008-MRM-0019] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection, Comment Request AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of an extension of a currently approved information collection (OMB Control Number 1010-0162). SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, we are inviting comments on information collection request

(ICR)that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. This ICR concerns the paperwork requirements in the regulations under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO). This ICR is titled “Accounts Receivable Confirmations.” DATES: Submit written comments on or before *June 30, 2008.* ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by the following methods: • Electronically go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* In the “Comment or Submission” column, enter “MMS-2008-MRM-0019” to view supporting and related materials for this ICR. Click on “Send a comment or submission” link to submit public comments. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. All comments submitted will be posted to the docket. • Mail comments to Hyla Hurst, Regulatory Specialist, Minerals Management Service, Minerals Revenue Management, P.O. Box 25165, MS 302B2, Denver, Colorado 80225. Please reference ICR 1010-0162 in your comments. • Hand-carry comments or use an overnight courier service. Our courier address is Building 85, Room A-614, Denver Federal Center, West 6th Ave. and Kipling Blvd., Denver, Colorado 80225. Please reference ICR 1010-0162 in your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hyla Hurst, telephone

(303)231-3495, or e-mail *hyla.hurst@mms.gov.* You may also contact Hyla Hurst to obtain copies, at no cost, of

(1)the ICR,

(2)any associated forms, and

(3)the regulations that require the subject collection of information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Accounts Receivable Confirmations. *OMB Control Number:* 1010-0162. *Bureau Form Number:* None. *Abstract:* The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary, under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 1923), the Indian Mineral Development of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-382—Dec. 22, 1982), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353), is responsible for managing the production of minerals from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collecting royalties and other mineral revenues from lessees who produce minerals, and distributing the funds collected in accordance with applicable laws. The Secretary has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. The MMS performs the minerals revenue management functions and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's trust responsibility for Indian lands. Public laws pertaining to mineral revenues are on our Web site at *http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/PublicLawsAMR.htm* . When a company or an individual enters into a lease to explore, develop, produce, and dispose of minerals from Federal or Indian lands, that company or individual agrees to pay the lessor a share in an amount or value of production from the leased lands. The lessee is required to report various kinds of information to the lessor relative to the disposition of the leased minerals. Such information is generally available within the records of the lessee or others involved in developing, transporting, processing, purchasing, or selling of such minerals. The information collected includes data necessary to ensure that the royalties are accurately valued and appropriately paid. Every year, under CFO, the Department's Office of Inspector General, or its agent (agent), audits the Department's financial statements. The Department's goal is to receive an unqualified opinion. Accounts receivable confirmations are a common practice in the audit business. Due to continuously increasing scrutiny on financial audits, third-party confirmation on the validity of MMS financial records is necessary. Companies submit financial information on Form MMS-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance (OMB Control Number 1010-0140, expires November 30, 2009) and on Form MMS-4430, Solid Minerals Production and Royalty Report (OMB Control Number 1010-0120, expires December 31, 2010). As part of CFO audits, the agent requests, by a specified date, third-party confirmation responses confirming that MMS accounts receivable records agree with royalty payor records, for the following items: customer identification; royalty/invoice number; payor-assigned document number; date received; original amount reported; and remaining balance due MMS as of a specified date. In order to meet this requirement, MMS must mail letters on MMS letterhead, signed by the Deputy Associate Director for Minerals Revenue Management, to royalty payors selected by the agent at random, asking them to confirm back to the agent the accuracy and/or validity of selected royalty receivable items and amounts. Verifying the amounts reported and the balances due requires time for research and analysis by payors. This collection does not require proprietary, trade secret, or other confidential information not protected by agency procedures. No items of a sensitive nature are collected. The requirement to respond is voluntary. The MMS is requesting OMB's approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge the duties of the office. Failure to collect this information could be considered a scope limitation for CFO audits. *Frequency:* Annually. *Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:* 125 Federal and Indian oil and gas and solid mineral royalty payors. *Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:* 32 hours. We estimate that each response will take 15 minutes for payors to complete. *Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour Cost” Burden:* We have identified no “non-hour cost” burden associated with the collection of information. *Public Disclosure Statement:* The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. *Comments:* Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA Section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to:

(a)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful;

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

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

(d)minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting “non-hour cost” burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. If you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased:

(i)Before October 1, 1995;

(ii)to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection;

(iii)for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or

(iv)as part of customary and usual business or private practices. We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our ICR submission for OMB approval, including appropriate adjustments to the estimated burden. We will provide a copy of the ICR to you without charge upon request. The ICR also will be posted at *http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm* . *Public Comment Policy:* We will post all comments in response to this notice at *http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm* . We also will make copies of the comments available for public review, including names and addresses of respondents, during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. *MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer:* Arlene Bajusz

(202)208-7744. Dated: April 23, 2008. Richard J. Adamski, Acting Associate Director for Minerals Revenue Management. [FR Doc. E8-9331 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service [Docket No. MMS-2008-MRM-0018] Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index Zone AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of major portion prices for calendar year 2006. SUMMARY: Final regulations for valuing gas produced from Indian leases, published August 10, 1999, require MMS to determine major portion prices and notify industry by publishing the prices in the **Federal Register** . The regulations also require MMS to publish a due date for industry to pay additional royalty based on the major portion prices. This notice provides the major portion prices for the 12 months of 2006. DATES: The due date to pay additional royalties based on the major portion prices is June 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Barder, Indian Oil and Gas Compliance and Asset Management, MMS; telephone

(303)231-3702; FAX

(303)231-3755; e-mail to *John.Barder@mms.gov;* or Larry Gratz, Indian Oil and Gas Compliance and Asset Management, MMS; telephone

(303)231-3427; FAX

(303)231-3755; e-mail to *Larry.Gratz@mms.gov. Mailing address:* Minerals Management Service, Minerals Revenue Management, Compliance and Asset Management, Indian Oil and Gas Compliance and Asset Management, P.O. Box 25165, MS 396B2, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 1999, MMS published a final rule titled “Amendments to Gas Valuation Regulations for Indian Leases,” (64 FR 43506) with an effective date of January 1, 2000. The gas regulations apply to all gas production from Indian (tribal or allotted) oil and gas leases, except leases on the Osage Indian Reservation. The rule requires that MMS publish major portion prices for each designated area not associated with an index zone for each production month beginning January 2000, along with a due date for additional royalty payments. See 30 CFR 206.174(a)(4)(ii) (2007). If additional royalties are due based on a published major portion price, the lessee must submit an amended Form MMS-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance, to MMS by the due date. If additional royalties are not paid by the due date, late payment interest, under 30 CFR 218.54, will accrue from the due date until payment is made and an amended Form MMS-2014 is received. The table below lists the major portion prices for all designated areas not associated with an index zone. The due date is 60 days after the publication date of this notice. Gas Major Portion Prices ($/MMBtu) for Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index Zone MMS-designated areas Jan 2006 Feb 2006 Mar 2006 Apr 2006 Blackfeet Reservation 10.17 7.12 6.07 5.38 Fort Belknap 6.36 6.15 5.95 5.99 Fort Berthold 7.45 6.44 5.37 5.47 Fort Peck Reservation 9.89 7.96 7.57 6.07 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 10.03 7.24 6.57 6.03 Rocky Boys Reservation 7.05 5.66 5.01 4.74 Ute Allotted Leases in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 8.61 6.59 6.40 5.95 Ute Tribal Leases in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 8.66 6.45 5.54 5.07 May 2006 Jun 2006 Jul 2006 Aug 2006 Blackfeet Reservation 5.60 4.78 4.82 5.14 Fort Belknap 5.91 5.86 5.69 6.11 Fort Berthold 5.05 5.15 5.23 5.87 Fort Peck Reservation 6.97 6.35 6.70 7.07 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 6.22 5.22 5.59 6.49 Rocky Boys Reservation 4.17 4.27 4.22 4.85 Ute Allotted Leases in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 5.49 4.92 4.64 5.31 Ute Tribal Leases in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 4.99 4.19 4.43 5.21 Sep 2006 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006 Blackfeet Reservation 5.26 3.69 5.73 6.63 Fort Belknap 5.79 5.78 6.20 6.13 Fort Berthold 4.56 4.88 6.62 6.41 Fort Peck Reservation 5.91 4.72 6.72 7.89 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 6.62 4.20 6.58 6.71 Rocky Boys Reservation 3.40 4.27 5.67 5.23 Ute Allotted Leases in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 4.65 2.80 5.57 5.28 Ute Tribal Leases in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 4.08 2.30 5.65 5.39 For information on how to report additional royalties due to major portion prices, please refer to our Dear Payor letter dated December 1, 1999, on the MMS Web site at *http://www.mrm.mms.gov/ReportingServices/PDFDocs/991201.pdf.* Dated: February 28, 2008. Walter D. Cruickshank, Acting Associate Director for Minerals Revenue Management. [FR Doc. E8-9338 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Paul H. Karshner Memorial Museum, Puyallup, WA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Paul H. Karshner Memorial Museum, Puyallup, WA. The human remains were removed from an area of the Nez Perce Reservation, ID. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Paul H. Karshner Memorial Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington and Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs does not exert control over the human remains in this notice. In 1935, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from the Nez Perce Reservation, ID. The human remains were donated by Lester Davis in 1935. It is unknown how Mr. Davis acquired the human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Mr. Davis was known to have collected Native American objects. This donation was one of three recorded donations found in the museum's inventory book. According to museum records, the human remains are identified as Native American. Based on museum records and donor information, the human remains are reasonably believed to be Native American. The geographical area that the human remains were removed from was the Nez Perce Reservation. The Western Idaho area is known to be aboriginal lands for the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. Officials of the Paul H. Karshner Museum reasonably believe the human remains are Native American and most likely culturally affiliated with the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. Officials of the Paul H. Karshner Memorial Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(910), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Paul H. Karshner Memorial also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes it to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Stephen Crowell, Paul H. Karshner Memorial Museum, 309 4th St., NE., Puyallup, WA 98372, telephone

(253)841-8748, before May 29, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains to the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. Paul H. Karshner Memorial Museum is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington and Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho that this notice has been published. Dated: March 10, 2008. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPR Program. [FR Doc. E8-9149 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. SUMMARY: The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council (Council) was established by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-320)

(Act)to receive reports and advise federal agencies on implementing the Act. In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Reclamation announces that the Council will meet as detailed below. Dates and Location: The Council will conduct a meeting at the following time and location: Thursday, May 29, 2008—Montrose, Colorado—The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Express Hotel and Suites, 1391 S. Townsend Avenue. The meeting will begin at 8 a.m., recess at approximately 10 a.m., and may reconvene the following day. ADDRESSES: The meeting of the Council is open to the public. Any member of the public may file written statements with the Council before, during, or up to 30 days after the meeting either in person or by mail. To the extent that time permits, the Council chairman will allow public presentation of oral comments at the meeting. To allow full consideration of information by Council members, written notice must be provided to Mr. Kib Jacobson, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 6107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1147; telephone

(801)524-3753; facsimile

(801)524-3826; e-mail at: *kjacobson@uc.usbr.gov* at least five

(5)days prior to the meeting. Any written comments received prior to the meeting will be provided to Council members at the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kib Jacobson, telephone

(801)524-3753; facsimile

(801)524-3826; e-mail at: *kjacobson@uc.usbr.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss and take appropriate actions regarding the following:

(1)Legislation included in the Farm Bill to amend the Salinity Control Act, Public Law 93-320, to create the Basin States Program;

(2)election of officers;

(3)frequency of Council meetings; and

(4)other items within the jurisdiction of the Council. Public Disclosure Before including your name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: March 25, 2008. Dave Sabo, Acting Regional Director—UC Region, Bureau of Reclamation. [FR Doc. E8-9053 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1105-0052] Civil Division; Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Extension of a currently approved collection; Claims Under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act The Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until June 30, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-0146. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of this information collection:

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

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Claims Under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection:* Form Number: N/A. DOJ Component: Civil Division.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Individuals or households. *Abstract:* Information is collected to determine whether an individual is entitled to compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* It is estimated that there will be 2,000 respondents annually, and each respondent will require 2.5 hours to complete the information collection.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* There are an estimated 5,000 total annual burden hours associated with this collection. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. April 23, 2008. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-9036 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-12-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation [OMB Number 1110-0043] Criminal Justice Information Services Division; National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section; Agency Information Collection Activities: Existing Collection, Comments Requested ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Approval of a existing collection; The Voluntary Appeal File

(VAF)Brochure. The Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services

(CJIS)Division's National Instant Criminal Background Check System

(NICS)Section will be submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(304)625-7540. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Approval of an Existing Collection.

(2)*Title of the Form:* The Voluntary Appeal File

(VAF)Brochure.

(3)*Agency Form Number, if any, and the applicable component of the department sponsoring the collection:* *Form Number:* 1110-0043. *Sponsor:* Criminal Justice Information Services

(CJIS)Division of the FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ).

(4)*Affected Public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Any individual requesting entry into the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services

(CJIS)Division's National Instant Criminal Background Check System

(NICS)Section's Voluntary Appeal File (VAF). *Brief Abstract:* Under 28 CFR, § 25.9(b)(1), (2), (3), the NICS must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions within 24 hours of the Federal Firearm Licensee

(FFL)being notified of the transaction's proceed status. If a potential purchaser is delayed or denied a firearm, then successfully appeals the decision, the NICS Section cannot retain a record of the overturned appeal or the supporting documentation. If the record cannot be updated, the purchaser continues to be delayed or denied, and if that individual appeals the decision, the documentation must be resubmitted for every subsequent purchase. As such, the Voluntary Appeal File

(VAF)was mandated to be created and maintained by the NICS Section for the purpose of preventing future lengthy delays or erroneous denials of a firearm transfer. An individual wishing to request entry into the VAF may obtain a VAF brochure from the NICS Section, an FFL, or the NICS Section Web site at the Internet address: *http://www.fbi.gov/programs/nics/index.htm* .

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* It is estimated that 12,500 individuals will request entry into the VAF. It takes an average of 5 minutes to read and complete all areas of the application, an estimated 2 hours for the process of fingerprinting including travel, and 25 minutes to mail the form for a total of 2.5 hours estimated burden to the respondent.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* The number of persons requesting entry into the VAF is estimated to be 12,500 individuals. The time it takes each individual to complete the process is 2.5 hours. The total public burden hours is 12,500 respondents multiplied by 2.5 hours which equals 31,250 total burden hours. If additional information is required, contact: Ms. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: April 23, 2008. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-9031 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Extension of the Approval of Information Collection Requirements ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection: Employee Polygraph Protection Act Regulations 29 CFR part 801. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mr. Steve Andoseh, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone

(202)693-0373, fax

(202)693-1451, *E-mail andoseh.steven@dol.gov.* Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or E-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA), 29 U.S.C. 2001 *et seq.,* prohibits most private employers from using any lie detector tests either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment. *See* 29 CFR 801.1(a). Federal, State and local government employers are exempted from the Act. *Id.* EPPA section 7 contains several limited exemptions authorizing polygraph tests under certain conditions, including testing:

(1)By the Federal Government of experts, consultants or employees of Federal contractors, to name a few, engaged in national security intelligence or counterintelligence functions [29 U.S.C. 2006(b)-(c); 29 CFR 801.11];

(2)of employees the employer reasonably suspects of involvement in a workplace incident resulting in economic loss or injury to the employer's business [29 U.S.C. 2006(d); 29 CFR 801.12];

(3)of some current and prospective employees of certain firms authorized to manufacture, distribute or dispense controlled substances [29 U.S.C. 2006(f); 29 CFR 801.13]; and

(4)of some prospective employees of private armored car, security alarm and security guard firms [29 U.S.C. 2006(e); 29 CFR 801.14]. The DOL's Wage and Hour Division may assess civil money penalties of up to $10,000 per violation against employers who violate any EPPA provision. *See* 29 U.S.C. 2005(a); 29 CFR 801.40(a)(2). EPPA section 5 requires the Secretary of Labor to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the Act and to require the recordkeeping necessary or appropriate for administration of the Act. *See* 29 U.S.C. 2004(a); 29 CFR 801.1(a), 801.30. Appendix A of Regulations 29 CFR part 801 contains a written statement setting forth both the examinee's and employer's legal rights for use in satisfying the EPPA section 8(b)(2)(d) disclosure requirement. Employers may use optional Form WH-1481 to provide this notice. This information collection is currently approved for use through October 31, 2008. II. Review Focus The DOL is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The DOL seeks approval for the extension of this currently approved information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to ensure that individuals subjected to polygraph testing are afforded the rights and protections contained in the EPPA. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* Employee Polygraph Protection Act. *OMB Number:* 1215-0170. *Agency Number:* WH-1481. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, farms. *Total Respondents:* 328,000. *Total Annual Responses:* 328,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* Varies from 1 minute to 30 minutes, depending on the notice. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 68,738. *Frequency:* On occasion (recordkeeping, reporting, third-party disclosure). *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: April 24, 2008. Steve Andoseh, Acting Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-9308 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-27-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Extension of the Approval of Information Collection Requirements ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection: Miner's Claim for Benefits Under the Black Lung Benefits Act (CM-911), and Employment History (CM-911a). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mr. Steven M. Andoseh, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone

(202)693-0373, fax

(202)693-1451, *E-mail andoseh.steven@dol.gov.* Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or E-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 as amended by the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977 and subsequent amendments, 30 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.,* provides for the payment of benefits to a coal miner who is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis (black lung disease) and to certain survivors of the miner who died due to pneumoconiosis. A miner who applies for black lung benefits must complete the CM-911 (application form). The completed form gives basic identifying information about the applicant and is the beginning of the development of the black lung claim. The applicant must complete a CM-911a at the same time the black lung application form is submitted. This form when completed is formatted to render a complete history of employment and helps to establish if the miner currently or formerly worked in the nation's coal mines. The person filing for benefits must have worked in the nation's coal mines or be a survivor of a coal miner as described under Title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, in order for benefits to be pursued. This information collection is currently approved for use through September 30, 2008. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Department of Labor seeks the approval for the extension of this currently approved information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to determine eligibility for black lung benefits. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection of information. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Titles:* Miner's Claim for Benefits Under the Black Lung Benefits Act; Employment History. *OMB Number:* 1215-0052. *Agency Numbers:* CM-911; CM-911a. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Average Time per Responses:* 42 minutes. *Total Respondents:* 7,500. *Total Annual Responses:* 7,500. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 5,250. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $1,449.00. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: April 24, 2008. Steve Andoseh, Acting Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-9309 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CK-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2008-0013] Announcement of a Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) and ACCSH Work Groups AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor. ACTION: Announcement of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) and ACCSH Work Groups. SUMMARY: ACCSH will meet May 15-16, 2008, in Washington, DC. ACCSH Work Groups will meet May 13-14, 2008. DATES: *ACCSH Meeting:* ACCSH will meet from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Thursday, May 15, 2008, and from 8:30 a.m. to noon, Friday, May 16, 2008. *ACCSH Work Groups:* ACCSH Work Groups will meet May 13-14, 2008. *Submission of comments, requests to speak to ACCSH and requests for special accommodation:* Comments, requests to speak and requests for special accommodation must be submitted (postmarked, sent, received) by May 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: *ACCSH Meeting:* ACCSH will meet in Room N-3437A-D at the U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. *ACCSH Work Group Meetings:* ACCSH Work Groups will meet in Rooms N-3437A-D at the U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. *Submission of comments, requests to speak at the ACCSH meeting and requests for special accommodation:* Interested parties may submit comments, requests to speak and requests for special accommodation by mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, courier service, telephone (requests for special accommodations only), FAX (if submission does not exceed 10 pages), or e-mail to Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1999; FAX

(202)693-1635; e-mail *chatmon.veneta@dol.gov* . *Instructions:* All submissions and requests to speak must include the Agency name and the docket number for this meeting (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0013). Because of security-related procedures, submissions by regular mail may result in a significant delay in their receipt. All submissions, including personal information, are placed in the public docket without change and may be available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions you about submitting certain personal information such as social security numbers and birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, requests to speak and requests for public accommodation, see the Public Participation information in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For press inquiries:* Ms. Jennifer Ashley, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1999. *For general information about ACCSH and ACCSH meetings:* Mr. Michael Buchet, OSHA, Directorate of Construction, Room N-3468, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2020; e-mail *buchet.michael@dol.gov* . * For information about submitting comments or requests to speak to ACCSH, and for special accommodations for the meeting: * Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1999; e-mail *chatmon.veneta@dol.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACCSH Meeting ACCSH will meet May 15-16, 2008, in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public. ACCSH is authorized to advise the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health in the formulation of standards affecting the construction industry and on policy matters arising in the administration of the safety and health provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 3701, 3704) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 *et seq.* ). (See also, 29 CFR 1911.10 and 1912.3). The agenda for this meeting includes: • ACCSH's consideration of and recommendations on the following proposed rules: ○ Porta Count Respirator Fit Test Protocol; ○ Clarification of Remedy for Violation of Requirements To Provide Personal Protective Equipment and Train Employees; • Construction Standards Update—OSHA, Directorate of Construction (DOC); • Mast Climbing Scaffold Investigations, Lessons Learned—OSHA, Office of Engineering Services, DOC; • Cooperative Programs Update—OSHA Challenge, Voluntary Protection Program, and recent construction partnerships—OSHA, Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs; • Consultation data discussion—OSHA, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis; and • Construction Update—NIOSH, Construction Coordinator. All ACCSH meetings, as well as those of its Work Groups, are open to the public. Individuals needing special accommodations for the ACCSH meeting or ACCSH Work Group meetings should contact Ms. Chatmon by May 1, 2008 (see ADDRESSES section). ACCSH meetings are transcribed and detailed minutes of the meetings are prepared. Meeting transcripts and minutes are included in the official record of ACCSH meetings. ACCSH Work Groups In conjunction with the ACCSH meeting, the following ACCSH Work Groups will meet: • Diversity—9 to 11:30 a.m., May 13, 2008; • Trenching—9 to 11:30 a.m., May 13, 2008; • Multilingual—1 to 3:30 p.m., May 13, 2008; • ROPS (Rollover Protective Systems)—1 to 3:30 p.m., May 13, 2008; • Focused Inspection Initiative—9 to 11:30 a.m., May 14, 2008; • Residential Fall Protection—9 to 11:30 a.m., May 14, 2008; • Silica—9 to 11:30 a.m., May 14, 2008; • OTI (OSHA Training Institute)—1 to 3:30 p.m., May 14, 2008. For additional information on ACCSH Work Group meetings or participating in them, please contact Mr. Michael Buchet at the address above or look on the ACCSH page on OSHA's Web page at *http://www.osha.gov* . Public Participation *Submission of written comments and requests to address ACCSH* . Interested parties may request to make oral presentations to ACCSH by notifying Ms. Veneta Chatmon at the address above by May 1, 2008. The request must state the amount of time desired, the interest the presenter represents (e.g., organization name), if any, and a brief outline of the presentation. Requests to address the committee may be granted at the ACCSH Chair's discretion and as time permits. Attendees and interested parties may also submit written data, views, or comments, preferably with 20 copies, to Ms. Chatmon at the address above by May 1, 2008. Submissions, including personal information provided, will be posted without change at *http://www.regulations.gov* , the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting certain personal information such as birth dates and social security numbers. Because of security-related procedures, submissions by regular mail may result in a significant delay in their receipt. For more information about security procedures for making submissions, please contact Ms. Chatmon (see ADDRESSES section) or the OSHA Docket Office at Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2350 (TTY number

(877)889-5627). The Department of Labor's and OSHA Docket Office's normal business hours are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t. OSHA will provide the submissions to ACCSH members and will include submissions in the official record of the meeting. *Access to the official record of ACCSH meetings, including Work Group reports* . To read or download submissions or the official record of this ACCSH meeting, go to Docket No. OSHA-2008-0013 at *http://www.regulations.gov* . The official meeting record and all submissions for this meeting are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some documents (e.g., copyrighted materials) are not publicly available to read or download through *http://www.regulations.gov* . The official record and all submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. *Meeting security procedures:* Although ACCSH meetings, including Work Group meetings, are open to the public, anyone attending meetings at the U.S. Department of Labor will be required to pass through Building Security at the Visitors' Entrance at 3rd and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20210, in order to be admitted to the building. Attendees must have valid government issued photo identification and should allow extra time for the security process. *Authority and Signature:* Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by section 7 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656), section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 3701 *et seq.* ), 29 CFR 1911 and 1912, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159). Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2008. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-9267 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-031)] Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. SUMMARY: The invention listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, has been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and is available for licensing. DATES: April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Padilla, Patent Counsel, Ames Research Center, Code 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; telephone

(650)604-5104; fax

(650)604-2767. NASA Case No. ARC-15995-1: Photogrammetric Recession Imaging Of An Ablating Surface. Dated: April 23, 2008. Keith T. Sefton, Deputy General Counsel,Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E8-9359 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-032)] Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. SUMMARY: The invention listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, has been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and is available for licensing. DATES: April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaprice L. Harris, Attorney Advisor, Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Code 500-118, Cleveland, OH 44135; telephone

(216)433-5754; fax

(216)433-6790. NASA Case No. LEW-18248-1: Cellular Reflectarray Antenna. Dated: April 23, 2008. Keith T. Sefton, Deputy General Counsel,Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E8-9360 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-033)] Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below, assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. DATES: April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan A. Geurts, Patent Counsel,Goddard Space Flight Center, Mail Code 140.1, Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001; telephone

(301)286-7351; fax

(301)286-9502. NASA Case No. GSC-14993-1: Systems, Methods, And Apparatus Of A Space Communication File Transfer System; NASA Case No. GSC-15317-1: Field Reactive Amplification Controlling Total Adhesion Loading (FRACTAL); NASA Case No. GSC-15353-1: A Compact Magic-T Using Microstrip-Slotline Transitions; NASA Case No. GSC-15184-1: Three-Dimensional Range Imaging Apparatus And Method; NASA Case No. GSC-15301-1: Flash Drive Memory Apparatus And Method; NASA Case No. GSC-15304-1: Digital Memory Storage Hub; NASA Case No. GSC-15172-1: System And Method For Transferring Cargo Containers In Space; NASA Case No. GSC-15303-1: Information Capturing Method; NASA Case No. GSC-15338-1: Method for Non-Destructive Evaluation Of Thermal Protection System Materials And Other Materials Via Ultraviolet Spectroscopy; NASA Case No. GSC-15328-1: Systems, Methods And Apparatus Of A Nitinol Valve; NASA Case No. GSC-15024-1: Neutron Imaging Camera, Process And Apparatus For Detection Of Special Materials; NASA Case No. GSC-15027-2: Interferometric Polarization Control; NASA Case No. GSC-15027-3: Interferometric Polarization Control. Dated: April 23, 2008. Keith T. Sefton, Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E8-9363 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-034)] Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below, assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. DATES: April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James J. McGroary, Patent Counsel,Marshall Space Flight Center, Mail Code LS01, Huntsville, AL 35812; telephone

(256)544-0013; fax

(256)544-0258. NASA Case No. MFS-32324-1: Orbital Foamed Material Extruder; NASA Case No. MFS-32471-1: Self-Contained, Controlled Liquid Metal Feed System; NASA Case No. MFS-32588-1: Electrochemical And Mechanical Polishing And Shaping System And Method; NASA Case No. MFS-32402-1: Position Sensing For Rotor In Hybrid Stepper Motor; NASA Case No. MFS-32521-1: Ring-Laser Gyroscope System Using Dispersive Element(s); NASA Case No. MFS-32311-1: Method And System For Identifying And Authenticating An Object; NASA Case No. MFS-32497-1: Eliminating Crystals In Non-Oxide Optical Fiber Preforms And Optical Fibers. Dated: April 23, 2008. Keith T. Sefton, Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E8-9364 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-035)] Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and are the subjects of patent applications that have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. DATES: April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark W. Homer, Patent Counsel, NASA Management Office—JPL, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Mail Stop 180-200, Pasadena, CA 91109; telephone

(818)354-7770. NASA Case No. DRC-007-022: Multicam Network Camera System; NASA Case No. DRC-008-014: Improved Ram Booster; NASA Case No. NPO-42466-1: Swept Frequency Laser Metrology System; NASA Case No. NPO-44914-1: Magnetically Conformed, Variable Area Discharge Chamber for Hall Thruster, and Method; NASA Case No. NPO-44765-1: Ultrasonic/Sonic Rotary-Hammer Drill; NASA Case No. NPO-43801-1: Diffractive Optical Element of Optimized Diffractive Order for a Solar Concentrator; NASA Case No. NPO-43348-1: Precise Delay Measurement Through Combinatorial Logic; NASA Case No. NPO-43020-1: Carbon Nanotube Composite and Method of Making. Dated: April 23, 2008. Keith T. Sefton, Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E8-9365 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-036)] Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. DATES: April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward K. Fein, Patent Counsel, Johnson Space Center, Mail Code AL, Houston, TX 77058-8452; telephone

(281)483-4871; fax

(281)483-6936. NASA Case No. MSC-24215-1: Inflatable Nested Toroid Structure; NASA Case No. MSC-23881-1: Two-Axis Joint Assembly And Method; NASA Case No. MSC-24263-1: Impact Detection System; NASA Case No. MSC-22939-3: Externally Triggered Microcapsules; NASA Case No. MSC-23988-1: Micro-Organ Device. Dated: April 23, 2008. Keith T. Sefton, Deputy General Counsel,Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E8-9367 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-037)] Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. DATES: April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda B. Blackburn, Patent Counsel, Langley Research Center, Mail Code 141, Hampton, VA 23681-2199; telephone

(757)864-3221; fax

(757)864-9190. NASA Case No. LAR-17480-1: Method Of Calibrating A Fluid-Level Measurement System; NASA Case No. LAR-17402-1: Wholly Aromatic Liquid Crystalline Polyetherimide (LC-PEI) Resins; NASA Case No. LAR-17455-1: A Carbon Nanotube Film Electrode And An Electroactive Device Fabricated With The Carbon Nanotube Film Electrode And A Method for Making Same; NASA Case No. LAR-17151-2: Thin Metal Film System To Include Flexible Substrate And Method Of Making Same; NASA Case No. LAR-17447-1: Multi-Functional Annular Fairing For Coupling Launch Abort Motor To Space Vehicle; NASA Case No. LAR-17330-1: Composite Panel With Reinforced Recesses; NASA Case No. LAR-17327-1: Apparatus, Method And Program Storage Device For Determining High-Energy Neutron/Ion Transport To A Target Of Interest; NASA Case No. LAR-17478-1: Aircraft Wing For Over-the-Wing Mounting Of Engine Nacelle; NASA Case No. LAR-17365-1: Boundary-Layer-Ingesting Inlet Flow Control System; NASA Case No. LAR-17488-1: Wireless Sensing System For Non-Invasive Monitoring Of Attributes Of Contents In A Container; NASA Case No. LAR 17321-1: Composite Insulated Conductor; NASA Case No. LAR 17231-1: Variable Focal Point Optical Assembly Using Zone Plate And Electro-Optic Material; NASA Case No. LAR17325-1: Method Of Performing Computational Aeroelastic Analyses. Dated: April 23, 2008. Keith T. Sefton, Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E8-9368 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-038)] Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. DATES: April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Heald, Patent Counsel, Kennedy Space Center, Mail Code CC-A, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899; telephone

(321)867-7214; fax

(321)867-1817. NASA Case No. KSC-12697-2: A New Approach For Achieving Flame Retardancy While Retaining Physical Properties In A Compatible Polymer Matrix; NASA Case No. KSC-12697-3: A New Approach For Achieving Flame Retardancy While Retaining Physical Properties In A Compatible Polymer Matrix; NASA Case No. KSC-13088: Improved Thermal Reactivity Of Hydrogen Sensing Pigments In Manufactured Polymer Composites; NASA Case No. SSC-00247: Monitoring Method And Apparatus Using Asynchronous, One-Way Transmission From Sensor To Base Station. Dated: April 23, 2008. Keith T. Sefton, Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E8-9369 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Business and Operations Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting: *Name:* Business and Operations Advisory Committee (9556). *Date/Time:* May 29, 2008; 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EST). May 30, 2008; 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. (EST). *Place:* National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 375. *Type of Meeting:* Open. *Contact Person:* Joan Miller, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230

(703)292-8200. *Purpose of Meeting:* To provide advice concerning issues related to the oversight, integrity, development and enhancement of NSF's business operations. Agenda May 29, 2008 P.M.: Welcome/Introductions; Human Capital Strategic Plan; FY08 Budget Implications and FY09 Budget Highlights; Office of Information and Resource Management Update; Committee Discussion; Meeting with NSF Director; Chief Information Officer Update. May 30, 2008 A.M.: Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management Update; Business System Review Subcommittee Update; Presentation and Discussion—Stewardship Goals and Performance Measures; Presentation—NSB Task Force on Cost Sharing; Presentation—Research.gov; Committee Discussion/Wrap-Up. Dated: April 24, 2008. Susanne Bolton, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-9354 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials; Meeting Notice The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) will hold its 189th meeting on May 20-22, 2008, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Tuesday, May 20, 2008, Room T-2B3 *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW&M Chairman* (Open)—The Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. *8:35 a.m.-5 p.m.: Discussion of ACNW&M Letter Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss the proposed ACNW&M letter report on the effects of Low Radiation Doses, Science and Policy. Wednesday, May 21, 2008, Room T-2B1 *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW&M Chairman* (Open)—The Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. *8:35 a.m.-5 p.m.: Discussion of ACNW&M Letter Reports* (Open)—The Committee will continue to discuss the proposed ACNW&M letter report on the effects of Low Radiation Doses, Science and Policy. Thursday, May 22, 2008, Room T-2B1 *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW&M Chairman* (Open)—The Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. *8:35 a.m.-5 p.m.: Discussion of ACNW&M Letter Reports* (Open)—The Committee will continue to discuss the proposed ACNW&M letter report on the effects of Low Radiation Doses, Science and Policy. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW&M meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54693). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Dr. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone 301-415-6805), between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET), as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW&M Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW&M office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW&M meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Dr. Dias as to their particular needs. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefore can be obtained by contacting Dr. Dias. ACNW&M meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at *pdr@nrc.gov* , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System

(PARS)component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* or *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw* (ACNW&M schedules and agendas). Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW&M meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW&M meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS/ACNW&M Audio Visual Assistant (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Dated: April 23, 2008. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-9314 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Meeting; Las Vegas, NV *Board Meeting:* May 29, 2008—Las Vegas, Nevada; The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will meet to discuss the U.S. Department of Energy's Total System Performance Assessment of a proposed repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Pursuant to its authority under section 5051 of Public Law 100-203, at 8 a.m. on Thursday, May 29, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will meet in Las Vegas, Nevada, to discuss the U.S. Department of Energy's

(DOE)total system performance assessment

(TSPA)of the proposed repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. TSPA is a comprehensive computational analysis used by DOE for assessing the ability of the potential repository to provide long-term isolation and containment of radionuclides. The Board was charged in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 with conducting an independent review of the technical and scientific validity of DOE activities related to implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, including disposing of, packaging, and transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The meeting, which will be open to the public, will be held in the Chancellor I Room of the Embassy Suites Convention Center Hotel; 3600 Paradise Road; Las Vegas, Nevada 89169;

(tel)702-893-8000;

(fax)702-893-0708. A block of rooms has been reserved under “NWTRB” at the meeting hotel, and the telephone number for reservations is 888-243-9146. To receive the meeting rate, please make your reservations no later than May 2. The agenda will be on the World Wide Web at *http://www.nwtrb.gov* and will be available on request approximately one week before the meeting date. Board Chairman B. John Garrick will call the meeting to order. Dr. Garrick's opening remarks will be followed by an overview of DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program activities and plans. The balance of the agenda will be devoted to a discussion of the models, assumptions, and results of the TSPA that will be submitted by DOE to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of an application for authorization to begin construction of a Yucca Mountain repository. Time will be set aside at the end of the day for public comments. Those wanting to speak are encouraged to sign the public comment register at the check-in table. Although written comments of any length may be submitted for the public record, a time limit may have to be imposed on individual remarks. Transcripts of the meeting will be available on the Board's Web site, by e-mail, on computer disk, and on a library-loan basis in paper format from Davonya Barnes of the Board's staff no later than June 23, 2008. For more information, contact Karyn Severson, NWTRB External Affairs: 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300, Arlington, VA 22201-3367,

(tel)703-235-4473,

(fax)703-235-4495. Dated: April 22, 2008. William D. Barnard, Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. [FR Doc. E8-9226 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-AM-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57702; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-48] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Handling of Odd-lot Orders on the CBOE Stock Exchange April 23, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 22, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one effecting a change in an existing order-entry or trading system pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(5) thereunder, 4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(5). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to change CBOE Stock Exchange (“CBSX”) Rule 52.8, which governs the handling of odd-lot orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's principal office, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.cboe.com* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise CBSX Rule 52.8, which governs the handling of odd-lot orders. Currently, a marketable odd-lot order received by CBSX is executed against the best price being displayed by CBSX Market-Makers. As proposed, an odd-lot order (including the odd-lot portion of a mixed-lot order) received by CBSX would be displayed to CBSX Traders for a period of time not to exceed one second as determined by CBSX. The exposure would also include information regarding the applicable NBBO price for that product. Responses to trade against the odd-lot order could be submitted only at the applicable NBBO price or better and would have to be for the full size of the odd-lot order. The first CBSX Trader to respond would trade against the odd-lot order. If no responses are received, then the order would trade against the best price being displayed by a CBSX Market-Maker. If the odd-lot order has a limit price that is not marketable, it would be entered into an odd-lot order book, where CBSX Traders may submit orders to trade against resting interest. A final feature of the proposal is that odd-lot order senders would be able to specify that, if an NBBO execution is not attainable, the order should be cancelled. The Exchange believes this new method for handling odd-lot orders will result in better executions for odd-lots orders. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 5 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 6 in particular in that, by offering opportunities for price improvement for odd-lot orders, it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated this proposal as effecting a change in an existing order-entry or trading system that:

(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)does not have the effect of limiting the access to or availability of the system, thereby qualifying this proposal for filing under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 7 and Rule 19b-4(f)(5) thereunder, 8 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(5). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File No. SR-CBOE-2008-48 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-48. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-48 and should be submitted on or before May 20, 2008. 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9305 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57701; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-20] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt Listing Rules Relating to Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities April 23, 2008. I. Introduction On February 14, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to adopt generic listing standards for Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities. On March 14, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 24, 2008. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57505 (March 14, 2008), 73 FR 15550. II. Description of the Proposal The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) 4 to adopt new generic listing standards, pursuant to which the Exchange would be able to list and trade Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities without Commission approval under Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. 5 The Exchange also proposes to make conforming changes to Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) to extend its application to Futures-Linked Securities and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities that are composed in part of Commodity, Currency, or Futures Reference Assets (as defined herein). 4 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) currently sets forth the Exchange's generic listing standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked Securities, and Currency-Linked Securities. *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6). Equity Index-Linked Securities are securities that provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of an underlying index or indexes of equity securities (“Equity Reference Asset”). Commodity-Linked Securities are securities that provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of one or more physical commodities or commodity futures, options or other commodity derivatives or Commodity-Based Trust Shares (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201), or a basket or index of any of the foregoing (“Commodity Reference Asset”). Currency-Linked Securities are securities that provide for the payment at maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of one or more currencies, or options or currency futures or other currency derivatives or Currency Trust Shares (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.202), or a basket or index of any of the foregoing (“Currency Reference Asset”). As a result of the proposed rule change, “Index-Linked Securities,” which currently include Equity Index-Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked Securities, and Currency-Linked Securities, will also include, by definition, Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities. 5 Rule 19b-4(e)(1) under the Act provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act (17 CFR 240.19b-4(c)(1)), if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)), the SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivatives securities product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class. *See* 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). The Exchange represents that any securities it lists and/or trades pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e)(1) and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6), as amended, will satisfy the proposed standards set forth therein. The Exchange states that within five business days after commencement of trading of any such security under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6), as amended, the Exchange will file a Form 19b-4(e). 6 6 *See* 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e)(2)(ii); 17 CFR 249.820. Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities are securities that provide for the payment at maturity based on the performance of one or more indexes or portfolios of debt securities that are notes, bonds, debentures, or evidence of indebtedness that include, but are not limited to, U.S. Department of Treasury securities (“Treasury Securities”), government-sponsored entity securities (“GSE Securities”), municipal securities, trust preferred securities, supranational debt and debt of a foreign country or subdivision thereof, or a basket or index of any of the foregoing (collectively, “Fixed Income Reference Asset”). Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, like other Index-Linked Securities, will be subject to the general criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(A) for initial listing. For the initial listing of a series of Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, the Fixed Income Reference Asset must either:

(1)Have been reviewed and approved for the trading of options, Investment Company Units (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)), or other derivatives by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 7 and rules thereunder and the conditions set forth in the Commission's approval order continue to be satisfied, or

(2)meet the following requirements: 8 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 8 The Exchange notes that the quantitative standards for Fixed Income Reference Assets are substantially similar to those set forth under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) relating to fixed income securities underlying Investment Company Units. *See* Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). • Components of the Fixed Income Reference Asset that, in the aggregate, account for at least 75% of the dollar weight of the Fixed Income Reference Asset must each have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more; • A component of the Fixed Income Reference Asset may be a convertible security, however, once the convertible security component converts to the underlying equity security, the component is removed from the Fixed Income Reference Asset; • No component of the Fixed Income Reference Asset (excluding Treasury Securities and GSE Securities) will represent more than 30% of the dollar weight of the Fixed Income Reference Asset, and the five highest dollar weighted components in the Fixed Income Reference Asset will not, in the aggregate, account for more than 65% of the dollar weight of the Fixed Income Reference Asset; • An underlying Fixed Income Reference Asset (excluding one consisting entirely of exempted securities) 9 must include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers; and 9 The Exchange notes that, for purposes of this standard, “exempted securities” refers to Treasury Securities and GSE Securities, as defined in proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(iv). • Component securities that, in the aggregate, account for at least 90% of the dollar weight of the Fixed Income Reference Asset must be from one of the following:

(1)Issuers that are required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Act; 10 or

(2)issuers that have a worldwide market value of outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more; or

(3)issuers that have outstanding securities that are notes, bonds, debentures, or evidence of indebtedness having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion; or

(4)exempted securities, as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Act; 11 or

(5)issuers that are a government of a foreign country or a political subdivision of a foreign country. 10 15 U.S.C. 78m; 15 U.S.C. 78o(d). 11 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12). With respect to any series of Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, the value of the Fixed Income Reference Asset must be widely disseminated to the public by one or more major market vendors at least once per business day. In addition, the Exchange will commence delisting or removal proceedings if: 12 12 The Exchange notes that the continued listing standards for each of Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities are substantially similar to those standards currently applicable to other Index-Linked Securities. • Any of the initial listing criteria for Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities are not continuously maintained; • The aggregate market value or the principal amount of the Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities publicly held is less than $400,000; • The value of the Fixed Income Reference Asset is no longer calculated or available and a new Fixed Income Reference is substituted, unless the new Fixed Income Reference Asset meets the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6); or • Such other event shall occur or condition exists that, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. Futures-Linked Securities Futures-Linked Securities are securities that provide for the payment at maturity based on the performance of an index of

(1)futures on Treasury Securities, GSE Securities, supranational debt and debt of a foreign country or a subdivision thereof, or options or other derivatives on any of the foregoing, or

(2)interest rate futures or options or derivatives on the foregoing (collectively, “Futures Reference Asset”). Futures-Linked Securities will also be subject to the general criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(A) for initial listing. An issue of Futures-Linked Securities must meet one of the initial listing standards set forth below: • The Futures Reference Asset to which the security is linked shall have been reviewed and approved for the trading of Futures-Linked Securities or options or other derivatives by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 13 and rules thereunder and the conditions set forth in the Commission's approval order, including with respect to comprehensive surveillance sharing agreements, continue to be satisfied; or 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). • The pricing information for components of a Futures Reference Asset must be derived from a market which is an Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) member or affiliate member or with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. A Futures Reference Asset may include components representing not more than 10% of the dollar weight of such Futures Reference Asset for which the pricing information is derived from markets that do not meet the specified foregoing requirements; provided, however, that no single component subject to this exception exceeds 7% of the dollar weight of the Futures Reference Asset. In addition, an issue of Futures-Linked Securities must meet both of the following initial listing criteria: • The value of the Futures Reference Asset must be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Core Trading Session (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34); 14 and 14 *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (generally describing the three trading sessions of the Exchange to include the Opening Session, from 4 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time or “ET,” Core Trading Session, from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and Late Trading Session, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. ET). • In the case of Futures-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the indicative value of the subject Futures-Linked Securities must be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Core Trading Session. The Exchange will commence delisting or removal proceedings if: • Any of the initial listing criteria for Futures-Linked Securities are not continuously maintained; • The aggregate market value or the principal amount of the Futures-Linked Securities publicly held is less than $400,000; • The value of the Futures Reference Asset is no longer calculated or available and a new Futures Reference Asset is substituted, unless the new Futures Reference Asset meets the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6); or • Such other event shall occur or condition exists which, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. Multifactor Index-Linked Securities Multifactor Index-Linked Securities are securities that provide for payment at maturity based on the performance of any combination of two or more Equity Reference Assets, Commodity Reference Assets, Currency Reference Assets, Fixed Income Reference Assets, or Futures Reference Assets (collectively, the “Multifactor Reference Asset,” and together with Equity Reference Assets, Commodity Reference Assets, Currency Reference Assets, Fixed Income Reference Assets, and Futures Reference Assets, collectively, the “Reference Assets”). In addition, a Multifactor Reference Asset may include as a component a notional investment in cash or a cash equivalent based on a widely accepted overnight loan interest rate, London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), Prime Rate, or an implied interest rate based on observed market spot and foreign currency forward rates. The Exchange states that, for purposes of a notional investment as a component of a Multifactor Reference Asset, a long LIBOR weighting would represent a leverage charge offsetting long positions in the underlying Reference Assets. Multifactor Index-Linked Securities will be subject to the general criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(A) for initial listing. In addition, for a series of Multifactor Index-Linked Securities to be appropriate for listing, each component of the Multifactor Reference Asset must either:

(1)Have been reviewed and approved for the trading of options, Investment Company Units, or other derivatives under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 15 and rules thereunder and the conditions set forth in the Commission's approval order continued to be satisfied; or

(2)meet the applicable requirements for initial and continued listing set forth in the relevant section of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6). In addition, an issue of Multifactor Index-Linked Securities must meet both of the following initial listing criteria: 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). • The value of the Multifactor Reference Asset must be calculated and widely disseminated to the public on at least a 15-second basis during the time the Multifactor Index-Linked Security trades on the Exchange; and • In the case of Multifactor Index-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the indicative value of the Multifactor Index-Linked Securities must be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the time the Multifactor Index-Linked Securities trade on the Exchange. The Exchange will commence delisting or removal proceedings if: • Any of the initial listing criteria for Multifactor Index-Linked Securities are not continuously maintained; • The aggregate market value or the principal amount of the Multifactor Index-Linked Securities publicly held is less than $400,000; • The value of the Multifactor Reference Asset is no longer calculated or available and a new Multifactor Reference Asset is substituted, unless the new Multifactor Reference Asset meets the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6); or • Such other event shall occur or condition exists that, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. Information Circular Upon evaluating the nature and complexity of each Fixed Income Index-Linked Security, Futures-Linked Security, or Multifactor Index-Linked Security, the Exchange represents that it will prepare and distribute, if appropriate, an Information Circular to ETP Holders 16 describing the product. Accordingly, the Information Circular will disclose the particular structure and corresponding risks of a Fixed Income Index-Linked Security, Futures-Linked Security, or Multifactor Index-Linked Security traded on the Exchange. In particular, the Information Circular will set forth the Exchange's suitability rule that requires ETP Holders recommending a transaction in Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, or Multifactor Index-Linked Securities:

(1)To determine that such transaction is suitable for the customer (NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a)); and

(2)to have a reasonable basis for believing that the customer can evaluate the special characteristics, and is able to bear the financial risks, of such transaction. In addition, the Information Circular will reference the requirement that ETP Holders must deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Index-Linked Securities prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction. The Information Circular will also note that all of the Exchange's equity trading rules will be applicable to trading in Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities. Finally, the Information Circular will discuss the risks involved in trading such securities during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions 17 when an updated indicative value or Reference Asset value, as applicable, will not be calculated or publicly disseminated. 16 ETP Holder refers to a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other organization in good standing that has been issued an Equity Trading Permit or “ETP.” An ETP Holder must be a registered broker or dealer pursuant to Section 15 of the Act. *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(n). 17 *See supra* note 14. Surveillance The Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products (including Index-Linked Securities) to monitor trading in Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of such securities in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. The Exchange's current trading surveillance focuses on detecting when securities trade outside their normal patterns. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations. The Exchange may also obtain information via ISG from other exchanges who are members or affiliate members of ISG. 18 In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. 18 The Exchange notes that not all of the instruments underlying Index-Linked Securities may trade on exchanges that are members or affiliate members of ISG. Trading Halts If the indicative value or Reference Asset value applicable to a series of Index-Linked Securities is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day on which the interruption first occurs. If such interruption persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. Firewall Procedures Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities, like other Index-Linked Securities, will be subject to the firewall requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(C). The firewall requirements provide that, if the value of an Index-Linked Security is based in whole or in part on an index that is maintained by a broker-dealer, the broker-dealer shall erect a “firewall” around the personnel responsible for the maintenance of the underlying index or who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the index, and the index shall be calculated by a third party who is not a broker-dealer. Furthermore, as provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(C), any advisory committee, supervisory board, or similar entity that advises an index licensor or administrator or that makes decisions regarding the index or portfolio composition, methodology, and related matters must implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the applicable index or portfolio. Commentary .01 The Exchange has also proposed conforming changes to Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) relating to the obligations of an Exchange ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker in order to extend its application to Futures-Linked Securities and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities to the extent that such securities are composed, in part, of Commodity, Currency, or Futures Reference Assets. 19 19 The Exchange states that Equity Index-Linked Securities and Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities are not explicitly included in Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2(j)(6) because such securities are already subject to the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.26 (Limitations on Dealings). III. Discussion and Commission's Findings After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 20 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 21 which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 20 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). A. Generic Listing Standards for Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities To list and trade Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, or Multifactor Index-Linked Securities, the Exchange currently must file a proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act 22 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 23 However, Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by an SRO will not be deemed a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4(c)(1) if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, the SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivative securities product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class. 22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 23 17 CFR 240.19b-4. The Commission has previously approved generic listing standards pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) for Investment Company Units based on the performance of fixed income securities and notes that such standards are substantially similar to those proposed to be applicable to Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities. 24 In addition, with respect to the proposed generic listing standards for Multifactor Index-Linked Securities, the Commission has previously approved generic listing standards pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) for Investment Company Units based on the performance of a combination of assets. 25 The Commission also notes that the proposed generic standards applicable to Futures-Linked Securities are substantively identical to those currently applicable to Commodity-Linked Securities with respect to the pricing information for the respective underlying assets. 26 Lastly, the Commission notes that the proposed continued listing standards for each of Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities are substantively identical to those standards currently applicable to other Index-Linked Securities. 27 24 *See* Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) (setting forth the generic listing and trading standards for Investment Company Units based on fixed income securities); *see supra* note 8 and accompanying text. 25 *See* Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) (setting forth the generic listing and trading standards for Investment Company Units based on a combination of assets representing equity and fixed income securities and requiring that each index or portfolio of equity or fixed income component securities separately satisfy its own applicable generic criteria for listing and trading pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e)). 26 *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(II); *see also infra* note 38 and accompanying text. 27 *See supra* note 12. In approving these securities for Exchange trading, the Commission considered applicable Exchange rules that govern their trading. The Commission believes that generic listing standards for Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities should fulfill the intended objective of Rule 19b-4(e) and allow securities that satisfy the proposed generic listing standards to commence trading without the need for public comment and Commission approval. 28 The Exchange's ability to rely on Rule 19b-4(e) to list and trade Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities that meet the applicable requirements and minimum standards should reduce the time frame for bringing these securities to market and thereby reduce the burdens on issuers and other market participants, while also promoting competition and making such securities available to investors more quickly. 28 The Commission notes that the failure of a particular product or index to comply with the proposed generic listing standards under Rule 19b-4(e), however, would not preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, requesting Commission approval to list and trade a particular series of Index-Linked Securities. B. Listing and Trading Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities Taken together, the Commission finds that the proposal contains adequate rules and procedures to govern the listing and trading of Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) on the Exchange. Products listed and traded under the proposed generic standards will be subject to the full panoply of NYSE Arca Equities rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of equity securities on the Exchange. The listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(A), which set forth criteria applicable to all Index-Linked Securities, will apply to Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities under the proposed rule change. 29 With respect to Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, the definition of Fixed Income Reference Asset includes the same types of fixed income securities that may underlie Investment Company Units under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). 30 In addition, the Exchange's proposed eligibility criteria for Fixed Income Reference Assets, which are substantively identical to the criteria applicable to fixed income-based Investment Company Units, include, among other things, minimum standards relating to original principal amount outstanding for each component of the Fixed Income Reference Asset, maximum concentration limits for each such component, and minimum number of non-affiliated issuers of such components. 31 The Commission believes that these requirements should help to ensure that the underlying components of a Fixed Income Reference Asset are adequately capitalized, sufficiently liquid, and diversified. In addition, the Fixed Income Reference Asset must be widely disseminated to the public by one or more major market vendors at least once per business day. 29 *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(A) (providing, among other things, minimum tangible net worth requirements of each issuer of Index-Linked Securities, and minimum distribution and holder, principal amount/market value, and term thresholds for each issuance of such securities). 30 *Compare* proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(iv) with Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). 31 *See supra* note 8. In the case of Futures-Linked Securities, the underlying asset must either be an index of

(1)futures on Treasury Securities, GSE Securities, supranational debt and debt of a foreign country or a subdivision thereof, or options or other derivatives on any of the foregoing, or

(2)interest rate futures, or options on, or derivatives of, such interest rate futures. In addition, as with Commodity Reference Assets, Futures Reference Assets to which Futures-Linked Securities are linked must either have been reviewed and approved for trading by the Commission or the pricing information of their underlying components must be derived from certain required sources, subject to exceptions. 32 These requirements should help to ensure that the components comprising a Futures Reference Asset are adequately transparent and subject to rules and standards of applicable exchanges that trade such components and that the Exchange is able to obtain information with respect to disruptions in, or unusual trading of, such components. 33 To enhance the transparency of such Futures-Linked Securities, the proposal also would require

(1)the value of the Futures Reference Asset to be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Core Trading Session,

(2)in the case of Futures-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the indicative value of such securities to be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Core Trading Session. 32 *See infra* note 38 and accompanying text. 33 *See id.* In the case of Multifactor Index-Linked Securities, the Multifactor Reference Asset may be comprised of any combination of two or more Reference Assets and a notional investment in cash or a cash equivalent based on a widely accepted overnight loan interest rate, LIBOR, Prime Rate, or an implied interest rate based on observed market spot and foreign currency forward rates. As stated earlier, the Commission notes that the proposed generic standards applicable to Multifactor Index-Linked Securities are substantially similar to those standards applicable to Investment Company Units that are based on a combination of equity and fixed income securities in that each underlying Reference Asset must satisfy its own applicable minimum criteria and standards for the listing and trading of a series of Multifactor Index-Linked Securities. In addition, under the proposed rule change,

(1)the value of the Multifactor Reference Asset must be calculated and widely disseminated on at least a 15-second basis during the time such securities trade on the Exchange, and

(2)in the case of Multifactor Index-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the indicative value must be calculated and widely disseminated on at least a 15-second basis during the time such securities trade on the Exchange. The Exchange has also developed continued listing criteria that would require it to commence delisting or removal proceedings in circumstances that make further dealings in Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities inadvisable. 34 The Commission notes that such standards are substantively identical to those continued listing standards currently applicable to other Index-Linked Securities, and the Commission believes that such delisting criteria should help ensure the maintenance of fair and orderly markets for such securities. The Commission further notes that, under the proposal, if the indicative value or Reference Asset value applicable to a series of Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities is not disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day on which the interruption first occurs; however, if the interruption persists past the trading day on which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. Such provisions relating to trading halts currently apply to Index-Linked Securities, and the Commission believes that the trading halt requirements promote the availability of key information for the benefit investors and other market participants. 35 34 *See* proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(6)(B)(IV)(3), 5.2(j)(6)(B)(V)(2), and 5.2(j)(6)(B)(VI)(3) (providing that the Exchange will commence delisting or removal proceedings for any series of Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities, respectively, if:

(a)Any of the applicable initial listing criteria are not continuously maintained;

(b)the aggregate market value or the principal amount of the applicable security publicly held is less than $400,000;

(c)the value of the applicable Reference Asset is no longer calculated or available and a new Reference Asset is substituted, unless such new Reference Asset meets the applicable requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6); and

(d)such other event shall occur or condition exists that, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings inadvisable). 35 *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(E). Lastly, the Commission notes that the proposal would make conforming changes to Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) relating to the obligations of an Exchange ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker. 36 Specifically, the proposal would extend the application of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) to Futures-Linked Securities and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities, to the extent such securities are composed, in part, of Commodity, Currency, or Futures Reference Assets. The Commission believes that this proposal should deter conflicts of interest and the use of material, non-public information with respect to ETP Holders that engage in transactions that involve Futures-Linked Securities and certain Multifactor Index-Linked Securities and the relevant components that underlie such securities. 37 36 *See* Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) (setting forth, among other things, restrictions on dealings of ETP Holders acting as registered Market Makers, requirements relating to restrictions to the flow of material, non-public information, and obligations relating to the maintenance of certain accounts and books and records). 37 *See supra* note 19. C. Surveillance The Commission notes that Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities would be subject to the Exchange's existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products (including Index-Linked Securities). The Exchange has represented that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of Index-Linked Securities listed pursuant to these proposed generic listing standards in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. In addition, the Commission notes that, with respect to the proposed Fixed Income-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities, the Exchange has represented that it will be able to obtain information from those markets that are full members or affiliate members of the ISG and that the Exchange has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. The Commission further notes that, for Futures-Linked Securities, the pricing information for components of a Futures Reference Asset must be derived from a market that is an ISG member or affiliate member or with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, subject to certain exceptions. 38 38 *See* proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(V)(1)(b) (providing that the Futures Reference Asset may not include components representing more than 10% of the dollar weight of such Futures Reference Asset for which the pricing information is derived from markets that are neither ISG members or parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange and that no such single component may exceed 7% of the dollar weight of the Futures Reference Asset). D. Information Circular The Exchange has represented that, upon evaluating the nature and complexity of each Fixed Income Index-Linked Security, Futures-Linked Security, and Multifactor Index-Linked Security, it will prepare and distribute, as appropriate, an Information Circular to ETP Holders describing the product, the particular structure of the product, and the corresponding risks of the Index-Linked Security traded on the Exchange. In addition, the Information Circular will set forth the Exchange's suitability requirements with respect to recommendations in transactions in Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities to customers and the prospectus delivery requirements for such products. The Information Circular will also identify and describe the Exchange's trading rules governing the trading of Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities and will discuss the risks involved in trading such securities during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated indicative value or Reference Asset value, as applicable, will not be calculated or publicly disseminated. 39 39 *See supra* note 14. E. Firewall Procedures Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities, like other Index-Linked Securities, will be subject to the existing firewall requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(C). The firewall requirements provide that, if the value of an Index-Linked Security is based in whole or in part on an index that is maintained by a broker-dealer, the broker-dealer shall erect a “firewall” around the personnel responsible for the maintenance of the underlying index or who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the index, and the index shall be calculated by a third party who is not a broker-dealer. Furthermore, as provided in existing NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(C), any advisory committee, supervisory board, or similar entity that advises an index licensor or administrator or that makes decisions regarding the index or portfolio composition, methodology, and related matters must implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the applicable index or portfolio. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 40 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2008-20), as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and it hereby is, approved. 40 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 41 41 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9320 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57699; File No. SR-CHX-2008-02] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Bylaws Relating to the Definition of a Public Director April 23, 2008. I. Introduction On February 26, 2008, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend the definition of “Public Director” in the Exchange's Bylaws. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 17, 2008. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57464 (March 11, 2008), 73 FR 14286. II. Description of the Proposal The Exchange's Bylaws currently define a “Public Director” as a director who

(i)is not a participant, or an officer, managing member, partner or employee of an entity that is a participant,

(ii)is not an employee of CHX or any of its affiliates;

(iii)is not a broker or dealer or an officer or employee of a broker or dealer; or

(iv)does not have any other material business relationship with

(a)CHX Holdings, Inc., CHX, or any of their affiliates, or

(b)any broker or dealer. 4 4 *See* Article II, Section 2(b) of the Exchange's Bylaws. The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of “Public Director.” 5 Specifically, the Exchange proposes to exclude from the definition of “Public Director,” a director who

(1)is a broker or dealer that is registered under the Act;

(2)is an officer or employee of a broker or dealer that is registered under the Act; or

(3)has any other material business relationship with CHX Holdings Inc. (“CHX Holdings”) or CHX or any of their affiliates, or any broker or dealer that is registered under the Act. 6 Thus, the proposed rule change may permit a person to serve as a Public Director if he or she is a foreign broker or dealer or an officer or employee of such a foreign broker or dealer, 7 provided that such person has no material business relationship with CHX Holdings or CHX or any of their affiliates or with any broker or dealer that is registered under the Act, and meets the other criteria of the Exchange's definition of Public Director. 5 *See* proposed Article II, Section 2(b)(iii) and 2(b)(iv) of the Exchange's Bylaws. 6 *See id.* 7 Section 15(a) of the Act generally requires that any broker or dealer using the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce must register as a broker-dealer with the Commission, unless it is subject to an applicable exception or exemption. 15 U.S.C. 78o(a)(1). III. Discussion After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 9 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). The Commission believes that CHX's proposed change to the definition of “Public Director” is similar to the director independence standards approved by the Commission for another self-regulatory organization. 10 The Commission also notes that, although a broker or dealer that is not registered under the Act, or an officer or employee of such broker or dealer, no longer would be categorically prohibited from serving as a Public Director on CHX's board of directors, the Exchange must still determine, before any such person is nominated for a Public Director position, that such person otherwise meets the Exchange's definition of Public Director. 10 *See* Independence Policy of the NYSE Euronext Board of Directors, Independence Qualifications, Section 1(c), which provides that, in considering the independence of a director, the board must consider whether the director has any relationships or interests in any non-member broker-dealers that are registered under the Act, in addition to other criteria. The Commission notes that the New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Market, Inc., and NYSE Regulation, Inc. apply the Independence Policy of NYSE Euronext to their respective boards. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55293 (February 14, 2007), 71 FR 8033 (February 22, 2007). IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 11 that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2008-02) be, and hereby is, approved. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9334 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57697; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-32] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Minor Rule Plan April 22, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 18, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On April 17, 2008, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NYSE Arca through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities” or the “Corporation”), proposes to amend Rule 10.12 (Minor Rule Plan) (“MRP”) and other related rules that underlie the minor rules violations, including Rules 5.2(b)(1) (Applications to List), 6.1 (Adherence to Law), 6.15 (Miscellaneous Prohibitions), 6.18 (Supervision), and 9.2(c) (Customer Records). The text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE Arca's principal office, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Minor Rule Plan fosters compliance with applicable rules and also helps to reduce the number and extent of rule violations committed by ETP Holders and associated persons. The Corporation's enforcement staff has found that the MRP is particularly useful in reducing both the number and extent of rule violations because Rule 10.12 enables staff to promptly impose a limited but meaningful financial penalty soon after the violations are detected. The prompt imposition of a financial penalty helps to quickly educate and improve the conduct of ETP Holders who have engaged in inadvertent or otherwise minor violations of the Corporation's rules, particularly those who may not pay attention to mere warnings that they are violating Exchange rules. By promptly imposing a meaningful financial penalty for such violations, the MRP helps such ETP Holders focus on correcting their conduct before it gives rise to more serious enforcement action. The last amendments to Rule 10.12 were approved in 2004. 3 Since then, new and altered patterns of activity by ETP Holders, as well as numerous additions and amendments to other Exchange rules, have created the need for numerous additions and updates to the MRP and underlying rules, as described in greater detail below. The changes are designed to update Rule 10.12 to encompass appropriate new types of violations, as well as to update or otherwise correct existing MRP provisions and further clarify the circumstances in which use of the MRP is appropriate. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50356 (September 13, 2004), 69 FR 56259 (September 20, 2004) (SR-PCX-2004-29). The MRP will continue to be used for inadvertent and occasional rule violations. Serious violations of Exchange rules will continue to be addressed through formal enforcement action. Rule 10.12—Minor Rule Plan Rule 10.12(e)—Minor Rule Plan The Corporation proposes to clarify that any person or organization found in violation of a minor rule under Rule 10.12 is not required to report such violation on SEC Form BD or Form U-4. Rule 10.12(f)—Minor Rule Plan The Corporation seeks to amend Rule 10.12(f) to remove the provision stating that the Business Conduct Committee (“BCC”) shall review “each citation” of the MRP citation. When the NYSE Arca equity rules were first drafted based upon the NYSE Arca options rules, this provision was not removed. The provision should have been removed because there is no such concept of “floor citations” under the equity rules. As a result, the Exchange seeks to correct 10.12(f) now and remove the provision from the rule. 10.12(g)—Minor Rule Plan: Minor Trading Rule Violations; 10.12(h)—Minor Rule Plan: Record Keeping and Other Minor Rule Violations The Corporation proposes to amend Rule 10.12(g) to add several minor violations related to trading rule violations and subsection

(h)related to record keeping and other violations. Corporation staff frequently encounters inadvertent or otherwise minor violations of certain trading rules, including Rules 6.2(g), 6.15(b), 7.20(a), 7.23(a)(1), 7.29, 7.30, and 7.38(c), and certain recordkeeping and other rules, including Rules 2.16(b), 2.21, 2.23, 2.24, 5.2(b)(1), 6.3, 6.17, 6.18, and 9.2. Such minor violations do not give rise to formal enforcement action. However, staff believes that it can further enhance compliance with these rules by imposing MRP fines, which will draw ETP Holders' attention to the need for improved compliance by promptly imposing meaningful but limited financial penalties for violations. 10.12(i)—Minor Rule Plan: Recommended Fine Schedule The Corporation proposes to change the procedure set forth in the MRP fine schedules to escalate MRP fine levels in cases involving multiple instances of the same offense. This change will enhance the fair administration of the MRP in the context of higher speed and volume of electronic trading on the NYSE Arca Marketplace. Currently, the MRP Recommended Fine Schedule sets forth an initial MRP fine for a “First Violation,” as well as a higher level for a “Second Violation” and a still higher level for a “Third Violation.” This escalation plan, which predates the widespread use of electronic trading on the Exchange, has led to several difficulties when applied to the much greater speed and volume of electronic trading. First, while the fine escalation is meant to deter repeat offenses, it often fails to deliver this effect, because Permit Holders engaged in the high speed and volume of electronic trading can frequently incur “second” and “third” offenses before they are sanctioned or even notified of the initial violation. For the same reason, these Permit Holders complain that it is unfair for them to incur escalated fine levels for second and third violations before they learn of their first violations. Additionally, the current fine schedule does not allow an MRP sanction for any more than three violations. In some cases, this is appropriate, but in other cases, it makes sense to impose an MRP fine for the fourth violation as for the first three. The MRP can best assist the Exchange's regulatory and enforcement efforts if it provides Exchange officials with discretion to determine how to address particular instances of multiple violations, rather than implicitly requiring formal enforcement action whenever there are more than three violations. To address these concerns, the Exchange proposes to modify the Recommended Fine Schedules in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.12(i) so that MRP fines are escalated based not on the number of “violations,” but upon the number of times the Exchange has imposed one or more MRP fines upon a Permit Holder for the violation of a particular rule. The three current column headers in the Fine Schedules that specify different fine levels for first, second, and third “violations” will be replaced with “First Level,” “Second Level,” and “Third Level.” With this change, the Fine Schedule will continue to specify the fine to be imposed for each violation, but the first time a Permit Holder is fined under the MRP for the violation of a given rule, the fine for each violation will be imposed at the “First Level,” whether there is one or more than one such violation. Example Due to a systems breakdown that goes undiscovered for an entire afternoon, an ETP Holder with no previous rules violations executes three sell orders on the Exchange that are not properly labeled “short,” as required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.16(b). Under the current MRP Fine Schedule in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.12(i)(1), the ETP Holder would be charged under the MRP with a first violation fine of $500, as well as a second violation fine of $1,000, and a third violation fine of $2,500, for a total MRP fine of $4,000. The escalation for the second and third offenses would be imposed under the current Fine Schedule even though all the violations occurred in the same afternoon, and the second and third violations occurred before the ETP Holder became aware of the first violation. By contrast, under the proposed Fine Schedule, the fines no longer escalate based upon the number of offenses, but instead based on the number of times the ETP Holder has been fined for the same offense. Because the ETP Holder here had not previously been fined for violations of Rule 7.16, the ETP Holder would receive the “First Level” of $500 per violation for each of the three violations, for a total MRP fine of $1,500. If the ETP Holder were later fined again under the MRP for more such violations, the fine for each violation would then be $1,000. This proposed new procedure for escalating MRP fines is largely the same as the escalation procedure specified by the New York Stock Exchange in its “List of Exchange Rule Violations and Fines” for imposing summary fines pursuant to NYSE Rule 476A. It will continue to be the case that nothing in the MRP will require the imposition of a MRP fine when Exchange enforcement officials believe that repeat violations or other aggravating factors warrant formal enforcement action. Other Changes to Rule 10.12(i) The fines for the proposed minor rule violations in subsections

(g)and

(h)are reflected in the Recommended Fine Schedule in Rule 10.12(i). NYSE Arca Equities staff believes that the proposed fines are fair in relation to the scope and occurrence of the MRP violation by an ETP Holder. The Corporation has also proposed to amend Rule 10.12(i)(2) to include a new footnote 2. Rule 2.21 (employee registration) requires ETP Holders to pay certain fees to the Corporation. Footnote 2 permits the Corporation to require violators of Rule 2.21 to remit all fees that it should have paid to the Exchange pursuant to compliance with Rule 2.21. The Corporation has based this proposed amendment upon a similar provision of the Boston Stock Exchange's MRP for violation of trade-through rules, which was recently approved by the Commission. 4 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55606 (April 10, 2007), 72 FR 19221 (April 17, 2007) (approving SR-BSE-2006-11). NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.21 requires an ETP Holder to continually disclose to the Corporation through the registration process the ETP Holder's personnel who are responsible for trading decisions on behalf of the ETP Holder. By requiring such disclosure, Rule 2.21, like the trade-through rules, substantially protects the Corporation's ability to regulate its marketplace and help ensure marketplace integrity. Corporation staff proposes to include the back-payment of registration fees in addition to a MRP fine so that the MRP can effectively deter ETP Holders from trying to save money and effort by not registering their appropriate personnel. In addition to the changes proposed to the MRP, the Corporation also proposes the following related changes. Rule 5.2(b)(1)—Notification Requirements for Offering of Securities The Corporation proposes amendments to correct a scrivener's error that was inadvertently created when the NYSE Arca Rules were updated to replace the obsolete term “Member” with the replacement term “ETP Holder.” The intended reference in this rule, however, is to all members of a syndicate, which is related to compliance with Regulation M, so we propose to reinsert the correct term “members.” Rule 6.1—Adherence to Law and Good Business Practices The proposed rule change clarifies the language of the newly designated Rule 6.1(a) by substituting the word “just” for “fair.” The Corporation proposes to adopt Rule 6.1(b) and make violations of the rule eligible for MRP disposition. New subsection

(b)to Rule 6.1 would require all ETP Holders, their associated persons, and other participants to adhere to the principles of good business practice in the conduct of their business operations. This Rule is patterned on the current NYSE Rule 401(a). Like NYSE Rule 401(a), it encompasses miscellaneous conduct that is inconsistent with the maintenance of a fair and orderly marketplace or that otherwise violates good business practices without also showing the bad faith or unethical conduct that have been found to be essential elements of “conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade,” as that standard has been clarified in decisions such as *In re. Calvin David Fox* . 5 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48731, 81 SEC Docket 1511-31 (October 31, 2003). Rule 6.15—Miscellaneous Prohibitions The Corporation proposes to add a subsection

(c)that will expressly prohibit transactions in a security that involves no change in beneficial ownership, commonly known as “wash trades.” This filing also proposes to make violation of the wash trade prohibition eligible for disposition through an MRP fine. Exchange Market Regulation has observed a trend toward increasing amounts of wash trading. Much of this trading may be unintentional or otherwise resulting from circumstances that do not rise to the level of prearranged trading or other purposeful market manipulation. However, even inadvertent wash trading can create an exaggerated or otherwise false appearance of trading activity in the affected securities. The Corporation proposes to halt this trend by expressly prohibiting wash trading. By also including this violation among those eligible for disposition through MRP fines, Exchange Market Regulation and Enforcement will have the flexibility to impose appropriate fine levels based upon the particular circumstances of each individual case. Rule 6.18—Supervision The Corporation proposes to amend Rule 6.18 to remove language that limits the reach of its supervisory rules. The current language of Rule 6.18(b) provides that only ETP Holders for whom the Corporation is the Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”) are subject to its supervisory requirements. The amendment removes the language limiting the scope of the rule so that all ETP Holders regardless of DEA are subject to maintaining systems to supervise activities of their associated persons and the operations of their businesses. As noted above, this filing also proposes to make minor violations of Rule 6.18 eligible for disposition through an MRP fine. Exchange Market Regulation frequently encounters “minor” supervisory failures by Permit Holders, *i.e.* , supervisory failures whose consequences have not yet risen to a level justifying formal enforcement action, but which could have serious consequences if not remedied. By making such failures eligible for MRP fines, Exchange Market Regulation and Enforcement will have a greater ability to encourage ETP Holders to correct their supervisory problems before they lead to more serious violations. To further enhance the ability of the Exchange to use the MRP to improve Permit Holder supervisory procedures and overall compliance on a prospective basis, the filing proposes to add a new footnote 1 to the MRP Fine Schedule that will allow Exchange enforcement staff, as part of an MRP disposition of certain supervisory-related offenses, not only to impose a monetary fine, but also to require the violator to make specified changes to its supervisory or other compliance procedures. This will enable Exchange enforcement staff to negotiate, as part of an MRP disposition of a supervisory violation, a requirement that the violator undertake certain remedial measures to ensure that such violations do not recur, as is already done in some formal enforcement actions for such offenses. Rule 7.38(c)—Odd and Mixed Lots—Prohibitions The Corporation proposes to delete language in the current subsection

(c)of Rule 7.38 that presently defines all odd-lot violations to be conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade. The Corporation believes that this change keeps Rule 7.38(c) consistent with current Commission caselaw because many violations of Exchange odd-lot rules do not necessarily involve the bad faith or unethical conduct, which has been determined to be required for a finding of “conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade,” as that standard has been clarified by the Commission in decisions such as *In re. Calvin David Fox* . 6 This and other changes in this filing would also permit minor odd-lot violations to be disposed of through the MRP. 6 *See id.* Rule 9.2(c)—Customer Records The Corporation proposes to change Rule 9.2(c) by adding the single word “current,” to clarify and reiterate the obligation that firms with customer accounts must not only keep records of their customer accounts, but also keep them current. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 7 in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

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

(ii)as to which Amex consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-32 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-32. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE Arca. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-32 and should be submitted on or before May 20, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9289 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57700; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-42] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To List and Trade Shares of Three Exchange-Traded Funds of the NETS Trust April 23, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 15, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On April 22, 2008, NYSE Arca submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. NYSE Arca filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NYSE Arca proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the following funds of the NETS Trust (“Trust”): NETS BEL 20 Index Fund (Belgium), NETS AEX-index Fund (The Netherlands) and NETS PSI 20 Index Fund (Portugal). The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the following funds under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Exchange's listing standards for Investment Company Units (“ICUs”): 5 NETS BEL 20 Index Fund (Belgium), NETS AEX-index Fund (The Netherlands) and NETS PSI 20 Index Fund (Portugal) (each a “Fund,” and collectively, the “Funds”). 5 An Investment Company Unit is a security that represents an interest in a registered investment company that holds securities comprising, or otherwise based on or representing an interest in, an index or portfolio of securities (or holds securities in another registered investment company that holds securities comprising, or otherwise based on or representing an interest in, an index or portfolio of securities). *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)(A). Each Fund is an “index fund” that seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of a particular index (its “Underlying Index” or “Index”). The NETS TM BEL 20® Index Fund (Belgium) seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of publicly traded securities listed on Euronext Brussels, as represented by the BEL 20. The NETS TM AEX-index® Fund (The Netherlands) seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of publicly-traded securities in the aggregate in the Dutch market, as represented by the AEX-index. The NETS TM PSI 20® Index Fund (Portugal) seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of publicly-traded securities in the aggregate in the Portuguese market, as represented by the PSI 20®. The Exchange submits this proposed rule change because the Underlying Index for each Fund does not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .01(a)(B) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) applicable to listing of ICUs based on international or global indexes or portfolios. The Underlying Indexes meet all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .01(a)(B)(3). 6 The Exchange represents that:

(1)Except for Commentary .01(a)(B)(3) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Shares of the Funds currently satisfy all of the generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3);

(2)the continued listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) applicable to ICUs shall apply to the Shares; and

(3)the Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act 7 for the initial and continued listing of the Shares. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares will comply with all other requirements applicable to ICUs including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the Index value and Intraday Indicative Value, the rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and the Information Bulletin to ETP Holders, as set forth in prior Commission orders approving the generic listing rules applicable to the listing and trading of ICUs. 8 6 Specifically, each of the Underlying Indexes fails to meet the requirement that the five most heavily weighted component stocks shall not exceed 60% of the weight of the Index. As of March 7, 2008, the five most heavily weighted component stocks represented 62.1%, 60.4% and 62.9% of the Index weight for each of the BEL 20, AEX-index, and PSI 20, respectively. 7 17 CFR 240.10A-3. 8 *See, e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55621 (April 12, 2007), 72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86) (order approving generic listing standards for ICUs based on international or global indexes); 44551 (July 12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July 19, 2001) (SR-PCX-2001-14) (order approving generic listing standards for ICUs and Portfolio Depositary Receipts); and 41983 (October 6, 1999), 64 FR 56008 (October 15, 1999) (SR-PCX-98-29) (order approving rules for listing and trading of ICUs). E-mail from Michael Cavalier, Associate General Counsel, NYSE Euronext, to Edward Cho, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated April 23, 2008. Detailed descriptions of the Funds, the Underlying Indexes, procedures for creating and redeeming Shares, transaction fees and expenses, dividends, distributions, taxes, and reports to be distributed to beneficial owners of the Shares can be found in the Trust's Registration Statement 9 or on the Web site for the Funds ( *http://www.netsetfs.com* ), as applicable. 9 *See* the Trust's Registration Statement on Form N-1A, dated February 13, 2008 (File Nos. 333-147077 and 811-22140). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange states that written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change:

(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and

(3)by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 13 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange can list and trade the Shares immediately. The Exchange states that the proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest and does not impose any significant burden on competition. The Exchange also believes that the proposal is non-controversial because, although each of the Underlying Indexes fails to meet the requirements set forth in Commentary .01(a)(B)(3) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) by small amounts (2.1%, 0.4%, and 2.9%), the Shares currently satisfy all of the other applicable generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), and will be subject to all of the continued listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) applicable to ICUs. Additionally, the Exchange represents that the Shares will comply with all other requirements applicable to ICUs. 14 14 *See supra* note 8 and accompanying text. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 15 Given that the Shares comply with all of the NYSE Arca Equities generic listing standards for ICUs (except for narrowly missing the requirement relating to the five highest weighted components of the respective Index), the listing and trading of the Shares by NYSE Arca does not appear to present any novel or significant regulatory issues or impose any significant burden on competition. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing. 15 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 16 16 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on April 22, 2008, the date on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-42 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-42. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-42 and should be submitted on or before May 20, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9321 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57703; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-31] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Changes to Phlx's Governing Documents in Connection With the Acquisition of Phlx by the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. April 23, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 21, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to:

(1)Amend the Exchange's Restated Certificate of Incorporation (“Certificate of Incorporation”), By-Laws, and Rules of the Board of Governors (“Rules”), and adopt certain Rules to reflect changes in connection with the proposed acquisition of the Exchange by The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. now known as The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (“NASDAQ OMX”); and

(2)update certain language and make other minor, technical amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Rules. The Exchange also requests Commission approval for an affiliation between the Exchange and certain broker-dealer subsidiaries of the NASDAQ OMX, as described herein. The Exchange requests that the proposed rule change become operative upon consummation of the Nasdaq OMX Merger. 3 3 Telephone conversation between Cynthia Hoekstra, Vice President, Phlx, and Richard Holley III, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, on April 23, 2008. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.Phlx.com/exchange/phlx_rule_fil.htm* . The text of Exhibits 5A through 5C of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/phlx.shtml* ). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C, below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On November 7, 2007, NASDAQ OMX announced that it had entered into an agreement with the Exchange pursuant to which NASDAQ OMX would acquire all of the outstanding capital stock of the Exchange. In connection with this acquisition, Pinnacle Merger Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX, would be merged with and into the Exchange, with the Exchange surviving the merger (“NASDAQ OMX Merger”). 4 As a result of the NASDAQ OMX Merger, all of the Exchange's common stock would be owned by NASDAQ OMX; Phlx shareholders would receive cash consideration for their shares and would not retain any ownership interest in the Exchange. 4 The NASDAQ OMX Merger is defined as the merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX with and into the Exchange, with the Exchange as the surviving corporation, in connection with the acquisition of the Exchange by NASDAQ OMX. *See* proposed By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(ii). Thereafter, NASDAQ OMX would operate the Exchange as a wholly-owned subsidiary. The Exchange would continue to be registered as a national securities exchange, with separate Rules, membership rosters, and listings, distinct from the rules, membership rosters, and listings of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the “NASDAQ Exchange”). Additionally, the Exchange would continue to be a separate self-regulatory organization (“SRO”). The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Certificate of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Rules to reflect NASDAQ OMX's proposed ownership of the Exchange. Most of the amendments reflect the Exchange's new ownership structure and some are designed to conform Phlx's governance provisions to those that are currently applicable to the NASDAQ Exchange. These revised governance provisions collectively regulate the Exchange and its directors, officers, and employees in light of its ownership by NASDAQ OMX, and, among other things, are designed to preserve the Exchange's independent Board of Governors (“Board”). a. Stock Specifically, Article SECOND of the Certificate of Incorporation would be updated to reflect the address of the Exchange's registered office. Article FOURTH would be amended to:

(1)Reduce the amount of Common Stock that the Exchange has authority to issue to 100 shares;

(2)eliminate the designation of Class A and Class B Common Stock; 5 and

(3)reduce the amount of Preferred Stock that the Exchange has authority to issue to 100 shares. Of the 100 shares of Preferred Stock that may be issued, there would continue to be one share that is designated as Series A Preferred Stock. 6 5 *See* similar changes to current Exchange By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(d). 6 The one authorized share of Series A Preferred stock is currently issued and outstanding, and held by the Trust pursuant to the Trust Agreement. *See* By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(ee) and proposed Section 1-1(mm). At this time, there are no other outstanding shares of Preferred Stock. The single share of Series A Preferred stock is held by the Trust for the purpose of electing those “Designated Governors” voted for by Phlx Members as provided in By-Law Articles I and III. Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, the Holder of the Series A Preferred Stock is required to elect the nominees for Governor elected by the Members. The NASDAQ OMX Merger would not result in a transfer of ownership of the Series A Preferred Stock. All of the authorized shares of Common Stock shall be issued and outstanding, and shall initially be held by NASDAQ OMX. The Exchange would not issue additional Preferred Stock, other than the existing one share of Series A Preferred Stock, unless the resolution(s) providing for the issuance of such Preferred Stock has been filed with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Act 7 and the rules promulgated thereunder. Additionally, Common Stock and Preferred Stock (including the Series A Preferred Stock) may not be transferred or assigned, in whole or in part, to any entity, unless such transfer shall be filed with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Act 8 and the rules promulgated thereunder. 9 7 15 U.S.C. 78s. 8 *Id* . 9 *See* proposed Certificate of Incorporation, Article FOURTH, and proposed By-Law Article XXIX, Section 29-4. Additional changes to the Certificate of Incorporation are being proposed in connection with Common Stock dividend rights, 10 voting rights, 11 required notice by stockholders to the Exchange of Common Stock ownership in excess of certain thresholds, 12 ownership concentration limits, 13 and automatic conversion of Class A Common Stock. 14 These changes are being made to delete language customarily applicable to non-public companies with several stockholders, which is no longer necessary because NASDAQ OMX would become the sole holder of Common Stock. 10 *See* proposed Article FOURTH, (c)(ii). 11 *See* proposed Article FOURTH, (c)(iii). 12 *See* Article FOURTH, (c)(iv). 13 *See* Article FOURTH, (c)(v). 14 *See* Article FOURTH, (c)(vi). b. Board With respect to the composition of the board of directors, the Exchange's Board is currently composed of the Chairman of the Board, who is the individual holding the office of the Chief Executive Officer of the Exchange, and 22 other Governors, consisting of two Governors who are Member Governors, one Governor who is a Philadelphia Board of Trade® (“PBOT”) 15 Governor, six Governors who are Stockholder Governors, 12 Governors who are Independent Governors, and one Governor who is the Vice-Chairman of the Board. 16 The Exchange proposes to amend the current composition of the Board so that the number and qualifications of the Governors would be fixed from time to time by the Board in accordance with the By-Laws. The Board would be composed of a majority of Independent Governors. 17 Specifically, the Board would include one Governor who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Exchange, one Governor who is the Vice-Chair of the Board, 18 one PBOT Governor, 19 one Member Governor, 20 one Stockholder Governor, 21 and a number of Designated Independent Governors. 22 The Designated Governors ( *i.e.* , Designated Independent Governors, the Member Governor, and the PBOT Governor) 23 are intended to comply with the requirement in Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, 24 which requires that the rules of an exchange assure a fair representation of its members in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs and provide that one or more directors shall be representative of issuers and investors and not be associated with a member of an exchange, broker, or dealer (the “fair representation requirement”). The Designated Independent Governors, together with the Member Governor and the PBOT Governor, would equal at least 20% of the total number of Governors. All remaining Governors would be Independent Governors. A Governor would be permitted to fill only one position on the Board. 15 The Philadelphia Board of Trade® is Phlx's futures exchange subsidiary, and at this time, would continue to operate as such after the NASDAQ OMX merger. 16 *See* By-Law Article IV, Section 4-1. 17 *See* proposed Certificate of Incorporation Article SIXTH and By-Law Article IV, Section 4-1. “Independent Governor” would continue to be defined as a Governor who is a person affirmatively determined by the Board as having no Material Relationship with the Exchange or any affiliate of the Exchange, any Member of the Exchange or any affiliate of such Member, or any issuer of securities that are listed or traded on the Exchange or a facility of the Exchange. *See* By-Law, Article I, Sections 1-1(f), 1-1(o) and (p). 18 The Vice-Chair would continue to be an individual who, anytime within the prior three years, has been a Member primarily engaged in business on the Exchange's equity market or equity options market or who is a general partner, executive officer (vice-president or above) or a Member associated with a Member Organization primarily engaged in business on the Exchange's equity market or equity options market. *See* By-Law Article V, Section 5-3. 19 A PBOT Governor would continue to be defined as a Governor who is a member of PBOT and is duly elected to fill the one vacancy on the Board allocated to the PBOT Governor. *See* By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(aa). 20 A Member Governor would continue to be defined as a Governor who is a Member or a general partner or an executive officer (vice-president and above) of a Member Organization and is duly elected to fill the vacancy on the Board allocated to the Member Governor. *See* By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(u). 21 A Stockholder Governor is defined as a Governor who is an officer, director (or a person in a similar position in business entities that are not corporations), designee or an employee of a holder of Common Stock or any affiliate or subsidiary of such holder of Common Stock and is duly elected to fill the vacancy on the Board allocated to the Stockholder Governor. *See* By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(hh), and Article IV, Section 4-1 and proposed language in Certificate of Incorporation Article SIXTH. 22 “Designated Independent Governors” would continue to be defined as those Independent Governors who are elected by the holder of the Series A Preferred Stock in accordance with Article SIXTH of the Certificate of Incorporation. *See* By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(f). 23 The term “designated” refers to a governor who is elected by the Holder of Series A Preferred Stock to reflect the vote of the Members. *See also* proposed changes to Article FOURTH of the Exchange's Certificate of Incorporation and By-Law Article I, Sections 1-1(e) and (f). 24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). In terms of the election process, the Designated Governors would be elected by the vote of the holder of the Series A Preferred Stock ( *i.e.* , the “Trust”) in accordance with the results of the vote of Members conducted under By-Law Article III. All other Governors ( *i.e.* , Independent Governors, Vice-Chair, Chief Executive Officer, and Shareholder Governor) would be elected by a plurality vote of the holder of Common Stock ( *i.e.* , NASDAQ OMX). All Governors would be elected for terms of one year as recommended by NASDAQ OMX to conform with its understanding of current corporate best practices by allowing frequent review of the performance of all Governors. 25 25 Currently, Phlx Governors are divided into three classes. Each such class is constituted by election or appointment each year to serve for three years and until their successors are elected and qualify. Except for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board, Governors do not serve more than two consecutive full three-year terms. *See* By-Law Article IV, Section 4-3. Article SIXTH would also be amended to provide that Governors, other than Designated Governors, may be removed with or without cause by vote of the holder of the Common Stock ( *i.e.* , NASDAQ OMX). This change would reflect the Exchange's proposed status as a wholly-owned subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX. Provisions governing the removal of Designated Governors would be simplified to make it clear that such removal may be made with or without cause but requires a vote of Member Organization Representatives under By-Law Article III. A new Article SEVENTH would provide that the stockholders ( *i.e.* , NASDAQ OMX) may act by unanimous written consent, again reflecting the Exchange's proposed status as a wholly-owned subsidiary. c. By-Laws The proposed amendments to the By-Laws include changes to conform to changes proposed for the Certificate of Incorporation, such as the simplification of the Exchange's capital structure and restrictions on stock transfer and the changes to the composition of the Board described above. With regard to the composition of the Board immediately following a closing of the NASDAQ OMX Merger, amended By-Law Article IV, Section 4-3 would provide that the directors of Pinnacle Merger Corporation, Inc. (the “Merger Subsidiary”), the wholly-owned subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX that would be merged with and into the Exchange through the NASDAQ OMX Merger, would become the Board of Governors of the Exchange immediately after the effective time of the NASDAQ OMX Merger. The directors of the Merger Subsidiary would satisfy the compositional requirements of the Exchange Board contained in the proposed By-Laws, as determined by NASDAQ OMX. The Designated Governors serving immediately after the effective time of the NASDAQ OMX Merger would consist of certain directors of the Merger Subsidiary who had been serving as Designated Governors of the Exchange immediately before the effective time of the NASDAQ OMX Merger, as selected by NASDAQ OMX. Article III, Section 3-3(a), Removal of Designated Governors, currently provides that Designated Governors may be removed only for cause, unless a majority of the Board recommends that one or more Designated Governors be removed in accordance with Section 4-4 of the By-Laws, in which case such Designated Governor(s) may be removed without cause. In either case, removal of the Designated Governor requires a vote by Member Organization Representatives at an annual or special meeting. As proposed to be amended, Section 3-3 would provide that Designated Governors may be removed, with or without cause, only by vote of Member Organization Representatives at an annual or special meeting. 26 26 A special meeting could be called by Members or the Board. *See* By-Law Article III, Section 3-2(b). Article IV, Section 4-4, Duties and Powers, provides that in the event of the refusal or failure of any Governor to discharge his duties or for any reason deemed sufficient by the Board, the Board may, by the affirmative vote of a majority of Governors then in office, recommend to the Stockholders (and in the case of a Designated Governor, the Members) that such Governor be removed and call a special meeting of the Stockholders 27 (and, in the case of a Designated Governor, a special meeting of the Members and Member Organizations and subsequently a special meeting of the holder of the Series A Preferred Stock, who shall be required to vote in accordance with Article SIXTH of the Certificate of Incorporation and the Trust Agreement) for the purpose of voting on such removal. The Exchange believes that the process set forth in Article IV, Section 4-4, remains an appropriate and suitable process for the Board to address the refusal or failure of a Governor elected by the Members to discharge his duties. Thus, in all cases, authority to remove Designated Governors would rest with the Members pursuant to Section 3-3, but the Board could recommend removal and call a special meeting under Section 4-4. 27 This action may also be taken without a meeting. *See* proposed By-Law Article XXVIII, Section 28-13 (providing for Stockholder action without a meeting). Article IV, Section 4-17, Interpretation of By-Laws, would be amended to clarify that the Board shall determine whether an interpretation of the By-Laws and the Rules must be filed with the Commission as a proposed rule change, and if so, then such change would not become effective until filed with, or filed with and approved by, the Commission, as required under Section 19 of the Act 28 and the rules promulgated thereunder. 28 15 U.S.C. 78s. Article IV, Section 4-21, Annual Financial Report, would be amended to reflect that the Board of Governors would no longer send out annual financial reports as described in Section 4-21. However, annual financial reports of the Exchange would continue to be available at the Exchange and would also be reflected in the public consolidated financial statements of NASDAQ OMX. Article V of the By-Laws would be amended to set forth in detail the powers and duties relating to the Chair, Vice-Chair, and officers of the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to insert language in By-Law Article V, Section 5-1, Board's Appointive Powers, to state that the Board would appoint the officers of the Exchange as provided in the By-Laws and shall fix their duties, responsibilities, and terms of employment. Additionally, language would be added to Section 5-2, Chair of the Board of Governors, to set forth the powers of the Chair of the Board and to establish that the Board would select its Chair from among the members of the Board who are Independent Governors. Proposed Sections 5-4, Chief Executive Officer, and 5-5, President, set forth the duties and powers of these officers of the Exchange. 29 29 These provisions are consistent with current NASDAQ OMX By-Law Article VII, and NASDAQ Exchange By-Law Article IV. Article VI, Equity Stock Compensation, Section 6-1, Stock Incentive and Option Plans, would be deleted as this provision is no longer applicable due to the fact that NASDAQ OMX would be the sole owner of the Exchange's Common Stock and any potential equity stock compensation is likely to consist of NASDAQ OMX stock rather than Phlx stock. Additionally, By-Law Article IX, Trustees of Stock Exchange Fund, Sections 9-1 through 9-6 would be deleted, as these provisions are no longer deemed necessary after the acquisition of the Exchange by NASDAQ OMX. 30 The change reflects a simplification of the Exchange's financial management, under which the Exchange's assets would be subject to the oversight of the Board rather than separate trustees and also subject to public company financial controls established by NASDAQ OMX. 31 30 The purpose of the Stock Exchange Fund was to appoint trustees to manage the investment of certain funds of the Exchange and collect interest, dividends and income from the funds for the Exchange. 31 The applicable references to the Stock Exchange Fund in Article IV, Section 4-4, Duties and Powers, Removal of governors or trustees of gratuity fund and stock exchange for cause, would also be deleted and this section would be updated to reflect that there is no longer a gratuity fund. d. Standing Committees Generally, the Standing Committees of the Board would remain the same, except as discussed below. By-Law Article X, Standing Committees, would also be updated to reflect the elimination of the Automation Committee and Marketing Committee, as these committees are deemed no longer necessary at this time because automation and marketing would be guided and handled at the parent company level. Additionally, the responsibilities of the Audit Committee would be updated to conform with similar responsibilities and processes of the Audit Committees of NASDAQ OMX and the NASDAQ Exchange. 32 The composition of the Executive Committee and the Finance Committee would be amended to reflect the proposed changes to the composition of the Board. 32 *See* NASDAQ OMX Audit Committee Charter approved April 18, 2007 and NASDAQ Exchange By-Law Article III. Several Exchange committees that currently review proposed rule changes may review such proposals before the proposals are presented to either the Executive Committee 33 or the Board for approval for filing with the Commission. 34 These committees on which Exchange members serve would continue to perform this function after the NASDAQ OMX merger. For example, the Business Conduct Committee (“BCC”) may review proposed changes to the disciplinary Rules that are set forth in Exchange Rule 960 before these Rules are presented to the Executive Committee or the Board. The BCC currently consists (and will continue to consist) of nine members as follows: three Independent Governors; one Member or person associated with a Member Organization who conducts business on XLE; one Member who conducts options business at the Exchange; and four persons who are Members or persons associated with a Member Organization. 35 33 The Executive Committee currently consists of nine Governors; the Chairman of the Board; the Vice-Chairman of the Board; the Chairman of the Finance Committee; the Chairmen of two floor committees; two Stockholder Governors; and two Independent Governors. *See* By-Law Article X, Section 10-14. As proposed herein, the Executive Committee would be amended so that it would consist of the Chair of the Board, the Vice-Chair of the Board, the Stockholder Governor, a number of designated Governors equal to at least 20% of the total number of Governors on the Executive Committee, and such other Governors as the Board may appoint. *See* proposed By-Law Article X, Section 10-14. 34 Members using XLE (the Exchange's equity trading system) are represented on the Exchange's Board through the exercise of their voting rights for members of the Board. Currently, there is no designated committee that reviews proposed rule changes covering equity Rules. The Board or Executive Committee performs this function. 35 *See* By-Law Article X, Section 10-11. Furthermore, the Options Committee makes or recommends for adoption such Rules as it deems necessary for the convenient and orderly transaction of business upon the equity and index options trading floor, as well as makes and enforces Rules and regulations relating to order, decorum, health, safety and welfare on the equity and index options trading floor and the immediately adjacent premises of the Exchange. Fifty percent of the Members of the Options Committee are permit holders or associated with a Member Organization. 36 Thus, Member representation on Exchange committees would continue. 36 *See* By-Law Article X, Section 10-20. Additionally, By-Law Article X, Section 10-15, Finance Committee, would be amended such that the Chair of the Finance Committee would be the Chair of the Board and would no longer be either the Vice-Chair, Stockholder Governor or Member Governor. The Exchange also proposes to amend the description of the composition of the Finance Committee members to allow any Member or persons associated with a Member Organization, who conducts business on XLE to be a member of the Committee. Currently, the language states, in part, that the Finance Committee shall include two Members or persons associated with a Member Organization, who may be Governors, one of whom conducts business primarily on XLE or on the equity options floor. Although this proposed change is not directly related to the NASDAQ OMX Merger, the Exchange proposes to delete the word “primarily” in order to allow a greater pool of candidates to be eligible to serve on the Finance Committee. 37 37 This proposed change is consistent with a recent By-Law change to Section 10-11, Business Conduct Committee, relating to the composition of the Business Conduct Committee. In that proposal, the Exchange expanded the type of business that may be conducted to qualify as a BCC member. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57023 (December 20, 2007), 72 FR 74398 (December 31, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-83). The purpose of deleting the supplementary material in Section 10-15 is to reflect the updated responsibilities of the Finance Committee. 38 The Board would establish capital expenditure policies, which may include delegation to Board committees and/or officers, but would no longer reflect these policies in the By-Laws. This reflects a more flexible approach, consistent with NASDAQ OMX's processes and the functions of a public company parent. 38 Currently, the supplementary material relates to directives that are applicable to the Finance Committee in the exercise of its duties, powers and authority under the By-Laws. For example, the supplementary material states that the Finance Committee may authorize certain expenditures of any budgeted line items; may delegate to the staff of the Exchange so much of its authority to make expenditures as it deems appropriate; and shall perform its functions and act with the same powers and limitations for the Exchange and all subsidiaries of the Exchange. *See* By-Law Article X, Section 10-15, Supplementary Material. Also, in By-Law Article X, Section 10-19, Nominating, Elections and Governance Committee, the Exchange proposes to delete the term limit applicable to this Committee and delete the prohibition on Committee members standing for re-election to the Board. These changes are designed to increase the pool of candidates eligible to serve on the Committee and the Board. Moreover, the deletion of these restrictions is also supported by the fact that all Board members, including those serving on the Committee, would serve for one-year terms and would therefore have their qualifications for continued Board service under more frequent review. In addition, the Nominating, Elections and Governance Committee would no longer select all Chairs of the Standing Committees in accordance with Article X. The Board would now appoint a person to fill any vacancy in a Standing Committee, including Chairs, except for the Chair of the Executive Committee, the Chair of the Nominating, Elections and Governance Committee and the Chair of the Finance Committee. 39 This change reflects a general philosophy that the full Board should have control over the composition of Standing Committees, including the selection of their Chairs and is consistent with how NASDAQ OMX currently operates. 40 39 Pursuant to the By-Laws, the Chair of the Board is the Chair of the Executive Committee and the Finance Committee and the Chair of the Nominating, Elections and Governance Committee is selected from among the members of such Committee who are Independent Governors. *See* By-Law Article X, Sections 10-14(a), 10-15 and 10-19(a). 40 *See* NASDAQ OMX By-Law Article IV, Section 4.13. Additionally, in By-Law Article X, Section 10-21, the Exchange proposes to clarify the composition of the Quality of Markets Committee by specifically stating that the members of this Committee would include at least as many Independent members as it does the “combined number” of Stockholder-chosen members 41 and members who are Members of the Exchange. 42 The Exchange believes that adding the language “combined number” should clarify that the number of Stockholder-chosen Committee members 43 are added to the number of Members serving on the Committee 44 and that total is then compared to the number of “Independent” Committee members (not to be confused with “Independent Governors,” which also rely on the definition of “Independent” in By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(o)). 41 *See* By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(gg). 42 *See* By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(t). 43 NASDAQ OMX, as Stockholder, would select the Stockholder member(s) of this Committee, subject to Board approval pursuant to By-Law Article X, Section 10-1(b). 44 The Board would select the Member(s) serving on the Committee pursuant to By-Law Article X, Section 10-1(b). In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt for the Quality of Markets Committee a “fair representation requirement” consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, 45 which requires that the rules of an exchange assure a fair representation of its members in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs. This language is intended to ensure fair Member representation on the Quality of Markets Committee. 46 45 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). 46 This provision is similar to the NASDAQ Exchange's Quality of Markets Committee. *See* NASDAQ Exchange By-Law Article III, Section 6. By-Law Article XI, Section 11-1(b) would be amended to delete references to a “special committee of the Board of Governors” that hears appeals from determinations of the Nominating, Elections and Governance Committee regarding eligibility for election to the Board. The special committee had been composed of Governors not then standing for re-election. However, because the proposed amendments to Section 4-3 eliminate the “staggering” of the Board, requiring all Governors to be elected annually, it would not be possible to form such a special committee. Now that the Exchange proposes to reduce the size of its Board, the Exchange believes that at this time, it would be more practical for the full Board to hear an appeal pursuant to Section 11-1(b) because all Governors would stand for re-election annually. In By-Law Sections 13-5, Liability of Officers, Directors and Substantial Stockholders, 13-7, Violation of Terms of Registration, 17-4, Time for Settlement of Insolvent Member or Participant, Extension, and 18-3, Responsibility of Member or Participant for Acts of His Organization, references to receiving an affirmative vote of either 14 or 15 Governors (which used to represent a supermajority) would be changed to require an affirmative vote of a majority of all Governors. This change is necessary as the number of Board members may be reduced after the NASDAQ OMX Merger and therefore a vote of 14 or 15 Governors may no longer be possible. Article XXII, Amending the By-Laws, would be amended to state affirmatively that By-Law amendments must be filed with, and/or approved by, the Commission as required under Section 19 of the Act 47 and that the holders of a majority of the shares of Common Stock then issued and outstanding must affirmatively vote for By-Law amendments. 47 15 U.S.C. 78s. Article XXVIII, Section 28-3, Nomination of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors; Independent Nominations by Stockholders; Election of Nominees for Stockholder and Independent Governors, currently provides for a nomination process in connection with nominating and electing the above-referenced individuals. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 28-3 to reflect that the Holder of Common Stock would present to the Nominating, Elections and Governance Committee its candidate recommendations for Vice-Chair, Shareholder Governor and Independent Governors for placement on the ballot for election by the Holder of Common Stock at the annual meeting of Stockholders. These nominees would be placed on the ballot and elected by the Holder of Common Stock. Additionally, the Board would now appoint the Chair from among the members of the Board who are Independent Governors. 48 This approach is consistent with the NASDAQ Exchange's processes for nomination of non-Member Representative Directors by a nominating committee that may seek the input and recommendations of NASDAQ OMX as the owner of the NASDAQ Exchange. 49 48 *See* proposed By-Law Article V, Section 5-2. 49 *See* NASDAQ Exchange By-Law Article III, Section 6. Article XXVIII, proposed Section 28-13, Action Without Meeting, sets forth provisions relating to action that may be taken without a meeting and the accompanying requirements relating to taking such action. This provision sets forth specifically that any action required or permitted to be taken at any annual or special meeting of Stockholders may be taken by Stockholders without a meeting as set forth in detail in Section 28-13, unless otherwise specified in the Certificate of Incorporation of the Exchange. This language should assist in providing greater flexibility in connection with taking any action required or permitted to be taken at any annual or special meeting of Stockholders and is consistent with proposed Article SEVENTH of the Exchange's Certificate of Incorporation. Article XXIX, Capital Stock, would be updated. The proposed changes to Sections 29-1 through 29-7 are similar to NASDAQ OMX By-Law Article IX, Capital Stock, Sections 9.1 through 9.7, reflect standard provisions for a Delaware stock corporation and also reflect the contemplated ownership of all Common Stock by NASDAQ OMX. Existing provisions in Article XXIX that contemplated a possible public offering of the Exchange's stock would be deleted and replaced with restrictions on stock transfer comparable to the restrictions included in the Certificate of Incorporation and discussed above. Additionally, proposed Section 29-8, Dividends, is similar to Section 15 of the LLC Agreement of the NASDAQ Exchange, and prohibits the Exchange from using Regulatory Funds to pay dividends. 50 50 “Regulatory Funds” are defined as fees, fines, or penalties derived from the regulatory operations of the Exchange. However, “Regulatory Funds” shall not be construed to include revenues derived from listing fees, market data revenues, transaction revenues, or any other aspect of the commercial operations of the Exchange even if a portion of such revenues are used to pay costs associated with the regulatory operations of the Exchange. *See* proposed By-Law Article I, Section 1-1(kk). Additionally, further changes to the Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws would be made to correct typographical errors and to update the language to more accurately reflect current practices. For example, the language relating to how the Exchange's Weekly Bulletin is distributed would be updated to not restrict its distribution to mail, but rather to permit distribution by e-mail and posting on the Exchange's Web site. 51 As a second example, references to “Chairman” would be replaced with “Chair.” Additionally, references to the “director” of either the Membership Services or Examinations Departments in Sections 17-1, Suspension for Insolvency on Declaration, and 17-3, Investigation of Insolvency, would be deleted in favor of more general references to the departments. Therefore, notices would still be required to be sent to these departments, but not necessarily to the director. This change should allow more flexibility in connection with sending notices to these departments. 51 *See* , *e.g.* , By-Law Article XII, Section 12-5(d). e. Rules The Exchange also proposes to amend the following current Exchange Rules:

(1)Rule 1, Definitions;

(2)Rule 98, Emergency Committee;

(3)Rule 164, Trading Halts; and

(4)Rule 972, Continuation of Status After the Merger. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to update Rule 1, Definitions, to include a definition of the NASDAQ OMX Merger, which will apply to Rule 972. Rule 98, Emergency Committee, is proposed to be amended to reflect that the Board shall establish the Emergency Committee and determine its composition, which not only revises the members that comprise the Committee, but allows for greater flexibility in appointing members to this Committee. Currently, the Emergency Committee consists of the following: the Chairman of the Board, the On-Floor Vice-Chairman of the Exchange, the Off-Floor Vice-Chairman of the Exchange (this position, however, no longer exists and reference to this position was inadvertently not deleted previously from Rule 98), and the Chairmen of the Options and Foreign Currency Options Committees. Rule 164, Trading Halts, is proposed to be amended to provide that the officers of the Exchange designated by the Board shall have the power to suspend trading in any and all securities traded on XLE whenever in their opinion such suspension would be in the public interest. Currently, only the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer or his designee has the authority to suspend trading pursuant to Rule 164. Under this proposal, there would no longer be one position entitled “Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.” Accordingly, the proposed change allows for greater flexibility in designating individuals responsible for declaring any trading halts and updates the rule to reflect the proposed revisions relating to the officers of the Exchange. 52 52 *See* proposed By-Law Article V, Sections 5-1 through 5-5. Proposed Rule 972, Continuation of Status After the NASDAQ OMX Merger, is being amended to reflect that current members, 53 inactive nominees, member organizations, foreign currency options participants, foreign currency options participant organizations, as well as approved lessors of foreign currency options participations holding such status prior to the NASDAQ OMX Merger would continue to hold such status following the NASDAQ OMX Merger. This provision was adopted in connection with and currently refers to the Exchange's 2004 demutualization. 54 It is being amended to refer specifically to the proposed NASDAQ OMX merger and to serve the same purpose as the original provision, which is to make clear that the merger does not affect membership status generally. 53 The term “member,” defined in Rule 1(n), is not capitalized, unlike the Exchange's By-Laws. 54 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49098 (January 16, 2004), 69 FR 3974 (January 27, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-73). Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt two new Rules that would reflect its status as a wholly-owned subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX upon the effectiveness of the NASDAQ OMX Merger. The purpose of the Rules is to guard against any possibility that the Exchange may exercise, or forebear to exercise, regulatory authority with respect to an affiliated entity in a manner that is influenced by commercial considerations, to provide an opportunity for Commission review of certain proposed affiliations, and to ensure that certain affiliated members do not receive advantaged access to information in comparison with unaffiliated members. The Exchange believes that the proposed Rules would provide added assurance of regulatory integrity without subjecting the Exchange and its affiliates to unwarranted restrictions on their commercial activities. First, the Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 990, which is comparable to NASDAQ Exchange Rule 4370. The rule provides that if a security issued by NASDAQ OMX or any of its affiliates is listed on the Exchange, the Exchange will apply special procedures to the regulation of that listing, including reporting to the Commission and conducting an annual independent audit of the security's compliance with Exchange listing standards. Second, proposed Exchange Rule 985(a) would limit ownership of NASDAQ OMX's voting securities by members of the Exchange and their associated persons ( *i.e.* , their registered representatives). The Rule is comparable to Rule 2130 of the NASDAQ Exchange, and provides that no member or associated person of a member shall be the beneficial owner of greater than 20% of the then-outstanding voting securities of NASDAQ OMX. “Beneficial ownership” is defined with reference to NASDAQ OMX's certificate of incorporation, which in turn provides that a person shall be deemed the “beneficial owner” of, shall be deemed to have “beneficial ownership” of and shall be deemed to “beneficially own” any securities:

(i)Which such person or any of such person's affiliates is deemed to beneficially own, directly or indirectly, within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 under the Act; 55

(ii)subject to certain narrow exceptions described in the certificate of incorporation, which such person or any of such person's affiliates has the right to acquire or to vote pursuant to any agreement, arrangement, or understanding or otherwise; or

(iii)subject to certain narrow exceptions described in the certificate of incorporation, which are beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by any other person and with respect to which such person or any of such person's affiliates has any agreement, arrangement or understanding for the purpose of acquiring, holding, voting or disposing of such securities. 55 Rule 13d-3 under the Act, 17 CFR 240.13d-3, in turn provides that a beneficial owner of a security includes any person who, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise has or shares voting power or investment power. Third, proposed Exchange Rule 985(b) would regulate the affiliation between the Exchange and its affiliates, on the one hand, and Exchange members, on the other hand, in a manner comparable to Rule 2140 of the NASDAQ Exchange. In general, the proposed rule provides that the Exchange must file a proposed rule change with the Commission before the Exchange or an entity with which it is affiliated directly or indirectly acquires or maintains an ownership interest in, or engages in a business venture with, an Exchange member or an affiliate of an Exchange member. 56 The rule defines “affiliate” with reference to Rule 12b-2 under the Act, 57 which provides that if one person controls, is controlled by, or is under common control of another person, the persons are affiliates. 56 As used in the rule, the term “affiliate” includes natural persons, but the term “entity,” when used to describe an affiliate, excludes natural persons. 57 17 CFR 240.12b-2. The proposed rule would make it clear that in a case where the Exchange or an affiliate of the Exchange proposes an acquisition of, or a merger or business venture with, an Exchange member, a proposed rule change would be required. In order to make it clear that the obligation to avoid affiliations that have not been filed is imposed by the rule both on the Exchange and its members, moreover, the rule provides that an Exchange member shall not be or become an affiliate of the Exchange, or an affiliate of any entity affiliated with the Exchange, without a proposed rule change. The term “business venture,” as used in the rule, is defined as an arrangement under which the Exchange or an entity with which it is affiliated, on the one hand, and an Exchange member or affiliate thereof, on the other hand, engage in joint activities with an expectation of shared profit and a risk of shared loss from common entrepreneurial efforts. Thus, the term does not include, and the proposed rule does not regulate, contracts with members or their affiliates to provide goods, products, or services for consideration, including, but not limited to, asset or stock purchase agreements that do not result in ongoing ties with a member or its affiliates, 58 credit or debt facilities, licenses of intellectual property, contracts for investment banking, financial advisory, or consulting services, 59 or the provision of transaction services or data to a broker-dealer member or products or services to a listed company that is or that owns a member broker-dealer. 58 For example, in the case of an acquisition of a non-Member subsidiary of a Member in a transaction that did not result in an ongoing affiliation with the Member, the transaction would not be regulated by the rule. 59 In some cases, such contracts may involve sharing of confidential information with a Member in circumstances where a Member acts as a fiduciary for Phlx or one of its affiliates. The Member would be required to take measures to prevent such information from being misused, and a failure to do so may constitute a violation of Rules, including, depending on the circumstances, Exchange Rules 707, 708, and 1020. The rule limits possible expansive interpretations of the term “affiliate” by stipulating that one entity is not deemed to be an affiliate of another entity solely by virtue of having a common director. For example, if one of the Governors of the Exchange is also a director of an Exchange member, that member would not be deemed to be an affiliate of the Exchange solely because of the common director. In addition, the rule should not be construed to regulate in any manner the selection of Governors or standing committee members of the Exchange, NASDAQ OMX, the NASDAQ Exchange, or their affiliates, provided such selections are conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of governing corporate documents. In circumstances where a Commission filing is required, the rule allows the Exchange to file, in appropriate cases, a proposed rule change on an immediately effective basis under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 60 and Rule 19b-4(f) thereunder. 61 For example, in cases where a proposed affiliation or business venture would not result in the establishment of a “facility” of the Exchange within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act, 62 a filing to establish Rules to govern the operation of the affiliate or business venture would not be required or appropriate. Rather, in such circumstances, the Exchange would expect to engage in informal consultation with the Commission's Division of Trading and Markets and/or members of the Commission, and would then submit a filing to amend the rule itself, to establish that the affiliation or business venture could exist as an exception to the rule. Depending on the circumstances, such a filing might be submitted on an immediately effective basis. 60 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 61 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f). 62 15 U.S.C. 78c. There are also several important exceptions to the general filing requirement of the rule. First, the rule would not require a filing for transactions that result in an Exchange member acquiring or holding an interest in NASDAQ OMX that is consistent with Rule 985(a) (discussed above). Second, no filing would be required for the Exchange or an entity affiliated with the Exchange acquiring or maintaining an ownership interest in, or engaging in a business venture with, an affiliate of an Exchange member if there are information barriers between the member and the Exchange and its facilities, such that the member:

(i)Would not be provided an informational advantage concerning the operation of the Exchange and its facilities, and would not be provided changes or improvements to the trading system that are not available to the industry generally or other Exchange members;

(ii)would not have knowledge in advance of other members of proposed changes, modifications, or improvements to the operations or trading systems of the Exchange and its facilities, including advance knowledge of Exchange filings pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act; 63

(iii)would be notified of any proposed changes, modifications, or improvements to the operations or trading systems of the Exchange and its facilities in the same manner as other Exchange members are notified; and

(iv)would not share employees, office space, or databases with the Exchange or its facilities, NASDAQ OMX, or any entity that is controlled by NASDAQ OMX. 64 The Exchange's Board must certify, on an annual basis, to the Director of the Commission's Division of Trading and Markets that the Exchange has taken all reasonable steps to implement the foregoing requirements with respect to any affiliate to which they apply and is in compliance therewith. 63 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 64 Phlx would not construe these limitations to bar an employee of an affiliated member from serving on a Phlx standing committee, since:

(i)Such committee members would be required to sign confidentiality agreements with regard to information received through committee service; and

(ii)the committee member employed by the affiliate would receive information provided through committee service at the same time as other committee members. This exception is aimed at circumstances in which the Exchange or an affiliated entity acquires, or enters into a business venture with, an affiliate of an Exchange member, and the Exchange erects information barriers between the member and the Exchange and its facilities. Thus, the Exchange ensures that the member does not receive any advantage as a result of its affiliation. In connection with the adoption of this rule, the Exchange hereby requests Commission approval under the rule for the affiliation that would result by virtue of the merger between the Exchange and the two broker-dealer subsidiaries of the NASDAQ Exchange: Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC (“NES”) and NASDAQ Options Services, LLC (“NOS”). The acquisition of the entities that are now NES and NOS by NASDAQ OMX was approved by the Commission in 2004 and 2005. 65 The rules under which NES currently routes orders to other market centers were approved by the Commission in 2006 and subsequently amended on several occasions. 66 Notably, NASDAQ Exchange Rule 4758(b) establishes the parameters for operation of NES as follows:

(1)All routing of equities by the NASDAQ Exchange is performed by NES, which, in turn, routes orders to other market centers as directed by the NASDAQ Exchange;

(2)NES would not engage in any business other than:

(a)As a outbound router for the NASDAQ Exchange, and

(b)any other activities it may engage in as approved by the Commission;

(3)NES would operate as a facility, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Act, 67 of the NASDAQ Exchange;

(4)for purposes of Rule 17d-1 under the Act, 68 the designated examining authority of NES would be a self-regulatory organization unaffiliated with the NASDAQ Exchange or any of its affiliates;

(5)the NASDAQ Exchange shall be responsible for filing with the Commission rule changes related to the operation of, and fees for services provided by, NES, and NES shall be subject to exchange non-discrimination requirements;

(6)the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and employees of NES, as a facility of the NASDAQ Exchange, shall be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and employees of the NASDAQ Exchange for purposes of, and subject to oversight pursuant to, the Act, and the books and records of NES, as a facility of the NASDAQ Exchange, shall be subject at all times to inspection and copying by the Commission; and

(7)use of NES is optional. 65 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50311 (September 3, 2004), 69 FR 54818 (September 10, 2004) (Order Granting Application for a Temporary Conditional Exemption Pursuant To Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Relating to the Acquisition of an ECN by The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.) and 52902 (December 7, 2005), 70 FR 73810 (December 13, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-128) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Rules Governing the Operation of the INET System). 66 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56867 (November 29, 2007), 72 FR 69263 (December 7, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-065); 56708 (October 26, 2007), 72 FR 61925 (November 1, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-078); 55335 (February 23, 2007), 72 FR 9369 (March 1, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-07-005); 54613 (October 17, 2006), 71 FR 62325 (October 24, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-043); 54271 (August 3, 2006), 71 FR 45876 (August 10, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-027); and 54155 (July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41291 (July 20, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-001). 67 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2). 68 17 CFR 240.17d-1. Currently, routing by NES on behalf of the NASDAQ Exchange takes two forms:

(i)Orders that access any liquidity on the NASDAQ Exchange book that has a price equal to or superior to the prices available on other “automated market centers” and thereafter route to seek the best available price; and

(ii)routing of “directed orders” to automated market centers other than the NASDAQ Exchange on an “immediate-or-cancel” basis. Such directed orders may be designated as “intermarket sweep orders,” which may be executed by the receiving venue based on the representation of the market participant that it has routed to all superior protected quotations, or not so designated, in which case the orders will execute only if their execution would not result in a trade-through. NOS serves as the outbound router for the Nasdaq Options Market (“NOM”), which commenced operations on March 31, 2008. Under Rule Chapter VI, Section 11 for NOM, 69

(1)NOM will route orders in options via NOS, which serves as the sole “Routing Facility” of NOM;

(2)the sole function of the Routing Facility will be to route orders in options listed and open for trading on NOM to away markets pursuant to NOM rules, solely on behalf of NOM;

(3)NOS is a member of an unaffiliated SRO which is the designated examining authority for the broker-dealer;

(4)the Routing Facility is subject to regulation as a facility of the NASDAQ Exchange, including the requirement to file proposed rule changes under Section 19 of the Act; 70

(5)NOM shall establish and maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow of confidential and proprietary information between the NASDAQ Exchange and its facilities (including the Routing Facility), and any other entity; and

(6)the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of the Routing Facility, as a facility of the NASDAQ Exchange, shall be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of the NASDAQ Exchange for purposes of and subject to oversight pursuant to the Act, and the books and records of the Routing Facility, as a facility of the Exchange, shall be subject at all times to inspection and copying by the NASDAQ Exchange and the Commission. 69 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12, 2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and -080) (the “NOM Approval Order”). 70 15 U.S.C. 78s. Unlike NES, NOS does not have a “directed order” for options that are trading on NOM; rather, all routable orders for options that are trading on NOM check the NOM book prior to routing. However, NOS also routes orders in options that are not trading on NOM. When routing orders in options that are not listed and open for trading on NOM, NOS will not be regulated as a facility of the NASDAQ Exchange but rather as a broker-dealer regulated by its designated examining authority. However, as provided by Chapter IV, Section 5 of the NOM rules, all orders routed by NOS under these circumstances will be routed to away markets that are at the best price, and solely on an immediate-or-cancel basis. Although not explicitly stated in Chapter VI, Section 11 of the NOM Rules, NOS, like NES, will be subject to exchange non-discrimination requirements, and the use of NOS will be optional. 71 In addition, NOS will not engage in any business other than the activities approved by the Commission in the NOM Approval Order and such other activities as may be approved by the Commission at a later date. 71 Consistent with this restriction, Chapter VI, Section 11 of the NOM rules provides that routing will be based on the user's instructions and that a participant can designate an order as not available for routing. In order to further restrict the interaction between the Exchange and NES and NOS, the NASDAQ Exchange has agreed that it will, prior to the closing of the NASDAQ OMX Merger, amend its rules to change the routing practices of NES and NOS. With respect to NES, directed orders will not be eligible for routing to Exchange facilities. With respect to NOS, when routing orders in options that are not listed and open for trading on NOM, NOS will not route to Exchange facilities. Routing of orders that check the NASDAQ Exchange and NOM books prior to routing will continue and such orders may be routed to the Exchange as appropriate. The Exchange notes that at a later date, the Exchange may opt to use NES and/or NOS to route on behalf of the Exchange. 72 Such future uses of NES or NOS would be reflected in filings to establish the terms and conditions of such routing, but would not allow for routing of directed orders to the NASDAQ Exchange, NOM, or any other affiliated exchange or trading facility thereof. 73 72 Currently, the Exchange uses PRO Securities LLC (“PRO”) to route equity orders. PRO is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Order Execution Services Holdings, Inc. The Exchange routes options orders through the Intermarket Option Linkage system. 73 In this regard, it should be noted that both the New York Stock Exchange and the NYSE Arca use NYSE Arca's broker-dealer subsidiary to perform routing. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, in accordance with proposed Exchange Rule 985(b)(i)(B), the Exchange proposes that NES and NOS be permitted to become affiliates of the Exchange subject to the following: • With respect to NES, NES remains a facility of the NASDAQ Exchange; use of NES's routing function by NASDAQ Exchange members continues to be optional; and NES does not provide routing of directed orders to the Exchange or any trading facilities thereof, unless such orders first attempt to access any liquidity on the NASDAQ Exchange book. • With respect to NOS, NOS remains a facility of the NASDAQ Exchange; use of NOS's Routing Facility function by NASDAQ Exchange members continues to be optional; and NOS does not provide routing of orders in options that are not listed and open for trading on NOM to the Exchange or any trading facilities thereof. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 74 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(5) of the Act 75 in particular, in that it is designed to enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply with and enforce compliance by members and persons associated with members with provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and Rules, and is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 74 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 75 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

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

(ii)as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of this proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of the filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission is considering the Exchange's request to grant accelerated approval of the proposed rule change following the conclusion of the 21-day comment period. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2008-31 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-31. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-31 and should be submitted on or before May 20, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 76 76 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9323 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6201] Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Frontera Juarez Pipeline Project AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment

(EA)for the Proposed Frontera Juarez Pipeline Project. A draft Environmental Assessment

(EA)for the Proposed Frontera Juarez Pipeline Project has been prepared by P.M.I. Services North America (“PMI”) in support of its application to the Department for a Presidential permit. On January 18, 2008, The Department of State received an application from PMI for a Presidential permit, pursuant to Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004, as amended, to construct, connect, operate, and maintain facilities at the border for a 10.75-inch diameter liquid hydrocarbon (gasoline and diesel) pipeline at the U.S.-Mexico border near San Elizario, Texas, for the purpose of transporting gasoline and diesel between the United States and Mexico. PMI has stated that it seeks this authorization in connection with its Frontera Juarez Pipeline Project (“Frontera”), which is designed to transport gasoline and diesel from the Longhorn Partners Pipeline Terminal in El Paso County, Texas, to the U.S.-Mexico border near San Elizario, Texas. The Secretary of State is designated and empowered to receive all applications for Presidential permits, as referred to in Executive Order 13337, as amended, for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance, at the borders of the United States, of facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, petroleum products, coal, or other fuels to or from a foreign country. On March 26, 2008, the Department of State published in the **Federal Register** a Notice of Receipt of the PMI application and of intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA), soliciting public comments on the application. In accordance with section 102(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)( *42 U.S.C. 4332(C)* ) and implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the Department of State (22 CFR part 161), including in particular *22 CFR 161.7(c)(1)* , a draft environmental assessment

(EA)was prepared by PMI to determine if there are any potential significant impacts, to address alternatives to the proposed action, and to determine possible impacts to traditional or cultural properties under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In light of public comments submitted on the application, PMI has now revised its draft EA and made it available for further review. The purpose of this Notice of Availability is to invite public comment on the draft EA prepared by PMI. Any person wishing to comment on the draft EA may do so. To ensure consideration of comments prior to a Department of State decision on the application, it is important that we receive your comments by no later than 30 days from publication of notice. Options for submitting comments on the draft EA are as follows: • *By mail to:* Elizabeth Orlando, OES/ENV Room 2657, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. Please note that Department of State mail can be delayed due to security screening. • *Fax to:*

(202)647-1052, attention Elizabeth Orlando. • *E-mail to: orlandoea2@state.gov* . In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, the Department of State invites you to attend a public meeting in the project area to submit comments on the draft EA. A court reporter will be present and will accept comments for the record. The date and location for the public meeting is: May 7, 2008; 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. (local time). At the Lower Valley Water District, 1557 FM Road 1110, Clint, Texas 79836. (Signs will be posted at address). After comments are reviewed, significant new issues (if any) are investigated, and modifications (if any) are made to the draft EA, a final EA will be made available by the Department of State, along with the Department's determination whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate in this case or whether an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)must be prepared. The final EA will contain the Department's response to timely comments received on the draft EA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, to receive a CD-ROM copy of the draft EA, or to comment on the proposed project contact Elizabeth Orlando, OES/ENV Room 2657, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone 202-647-4284, facsimile 202-647-1052, e-mail *orlandoea2@state.gov* . Issued in Washington, DC on April 22, 2008. Stephen J. Gallogly, Director, International Energy and Commodity Policy, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-9366 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending December 28, 2007 The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 *et seq.* ). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0127. *Date Filed:* December 27, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* January 17, 2008. *Description:* Application of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, N.V. (“KLM”) requesting an amended foreign air carrier permit to enable KLM to engage in:

(1)Foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property, and mail between any point or points behind any member state of the European Union via any point or point in any member state and via intermediate points to any point or points in the United States or beyond;

(2)foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area;

(3)foreign scheduled and charter cargo air transportation between any point or points in the United States and any other point or points;

(4)other charters pursuant to Part 212; and

(5)transportation authorized by any additional route rights that may be made available to European Union carriers in the future. KLM also requests a corresponding exemption to enable it to provide the services described above pending issuance of an amendment to KLM's foreign air carrier permit. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E8-9317 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending December 21, 2007 The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign AirCarrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 *et seq* .). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0084. *Date Filed:* December 18, 2007 . *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* January 2, 2008. *Description:* Application of SkyWest Airlines, Inc. requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing SkyWest to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail, including authority to operate via the U.S. and intermediate points to a point or points within countries with which the U.S. has a bilateral or multilateral open skies agreement. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2006-0123. *Date Filed:* December 21, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* January 11, 2008. *Description:* Application of TAG Aviation Espana S.L. (“TAG Espana”) requesting a foreign air carrier permit to enable it to engage in:

(i)Foreign charter air transportation of persons and property from any point or points behind any Member State of the European Union via any point or points in any Member State and via intermediate points to any point or points in the United States and beyond;

(ii)foreign charter air transportation of persons and property between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area;

(iii)other charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements set forth in Part 212 of the Department's Economic Regulations; and

(iv)transportation authorized by any additional route rights made available to the European Community carriers in the future. TAG Espana further requests an amendment to its existing exemption to enable it to provide the service described above pending issuance of a foreign air carrier permit and such additional or other relief as the Department may deem necessary or appropriate. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0124. *Date Filed:* December 21, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* January 11, 2008. *Description:* Application of Aerolineas Mesoamericanas, S.A. de C.V., (“ALMA”) requesting a foreign air carrier permit to provide scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail as provided for in the Air Transport Services Agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. ALMA also requests authority to engage in charter trips in foreign air transportation, as permitted by Annex II of the 2005 U.S.-Mexico Agreement, and other charters in accordance with Part 212. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0125. *Date Filed:* December 21, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* January 11, 2008. *Description:* Application of National Aviation Company of India Limited, d/b/a Air India requesting an amended foreign air carrier permit and exemption authority to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail from points behind India via India and intermediate points to a point or points in the United States and beyond. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0126. *Date Filed:* December 19, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* January 9, 2008. *Description:* Application of Eos Airlines, Inc. requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E8-9319 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Airport Property Release at Griffin-Spalding County Airport, Griffin, GA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153 (c), notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the City of Griffin to waive the requirement that approximately .649—acres of aeronautical property, located at the Griffin-Spalding County Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Anna Guss, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747. In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to William P Wilson, Jr, County Manager, Spalding County at the following address: Spalding County, 119 Solomon St, Griffin, GA 30224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Guss, Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747,

(404)305-7146. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the City of Griffin to release approximately .649 acres of aeronautical property at the Griffin-Spalding County Airport. The property consists of one parcel located adjacent to and north and west of the right of way at the intersection of SR 155 and Airport Road. This property is currently shown on the approved Airport Layout Plan as aeronautical use land; however, the property is currently not being used for aeronautical purposes, and the proposed use of this property is compatible with airport operations. The City will ultimately sell the property to the Georgia Department of Transportation who will utilize the property for purposes of right of way for both SR 155 and Airport Road, with proceeds of the sale providing funding for future airport development. Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the Griffin-Spalding County Airport. Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on March 13, 2008. Larry F. Clark, Acting Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region. [FR Doc. E8-9272 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government [Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2008-0037] The Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (Louisville Metro), seeks a permanent waiver of compliance from a certain provision of the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 49 CFR Part 222. Louisville Metro intends to establish a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone that it had previously continued under the provisions of 49 CFR 222.41(c)(1). Louisville Metro is seeking a waiver to extend the mailing date for a Notice of Intent as provided in 49 CFR 222.41(c)(2)(i)(A) that states that the Notice of Intent must be mailed by February 24, 2008. The waiver petition requests that the Notice of Intent that Louisville Metro mailed on March 26, 2008, be accepted as a valid Notice of Intent even though it was mailed after February 24, 2008. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2008-0037) and may be submitted by any of the following methods: Web site: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Fax: 202-493-2251. Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). Issued in Washington, DC on April 23, 2008. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-9034 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0026; Notice 2] General Motors Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance General Motors Corporation

(GM)has determined that certain model year 2006 and 2007 motor vehicles equipped with remote start systems that it manufactured prior to May of 2007, did not fully comply with paragraph S7.3(a)(1) of 49 CFR 571.208, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection* . On August 27, 2007, GM filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports* identifying approximately 146,360 model year 2006 and 2007 motor vehicles including Buick Lacrosse and Pontiac Grand Prix passenger cars; and Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Pontiac Montana SV6 and Saturn Relay multipurpose passenger vehicles that do not comply with the paragraph of FMVSS No. 208 cited above. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, GM has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on November 9, 2007 in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 63653). No comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/.* Then follow the online search instructions to locate docket number “NHTSA-2007-0026.” For further information on this decision, contact Mr. Charles Case, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone

(202)366-5319, facsimile

(202)366-5930. GM certified these vehicles to paragraph S7.3(a)(1) of 49 CFR 571.208 which requires: S7.3

(a)A seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system that, at the option of the manufacturer, either—

(1)Activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds and that activates a continuous or flashing warning light visible to the driver displaying the identifying symbol for the seat belt telltale shown in Table 2 of FMVSS 101 or, at the option of the manufacturer if permitted by FMVSS 101, displaying the words “Fasten Seat Belts” or “Fasten Belts”, for not less than 60 seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the “on” or the “start” position) when condition

(b)exists simultaneously with condition (c)* * *

(b)The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the “on” position or to the “start” position.

(c)The driver's lap belt is not in use, as determined, at the option of the manufacturer, either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened, or by the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position. GM explains that under certain circumstances following a remote engine start that the seatbelt assembly warning system audible signal and/or the telltale warning light do not always activate as required to fully comply with FMVSS No. 208. The vehicles in question fall into two groups. The first group contains only 2006 model year vehicles. The second group consists of a few late production 2006 multipurpose passenger vehicles and all the 2007 vehicles reported. For simplification, these groups are referenced hereafter as the 2006 and the 2007s. GM states that when a subject vehicle's engine is started using the ignition key (not with remote start), three warning cycles are provided to unbelted occupants for the 2007 vehicles. The first warning cycle satisfies the requirements specified in FMVSS No. 208 S7.3(a)(l) for the unbuckled driver. The second and third cycles provide additional audible and telltale warnings, of the same duration required by the standard, for drivers who remain unbuckled. The 2006 vehicles receive only the first cycle of driver and passenger warnings. If at anytime the driver buckles, the warnings will cease. GM additionally explains that in some cases, if the vehicle is started using the remote start function the seatbelt assembly warning system will not activate upon key rotation to the “RUN” position as specified by FMVSS No. 208 S7.3(a)(l). For both 2006 and 2007 vehicles following remote start, an audible warning will sound when the key is rotated to the “RUN” position, but the required telltale warning may not be provided. The length of the telltale warning for the first warning cycle is decreased by the amount of time between when the engine is started and when the key is turned to the “RUN” position. Therefore, a driver who uses the remote start and then quickly enters the vehicle and turns the key to “Run” will receive a visual warning for some period. However, a driver who uses the remote start but does not turn the key to “RUN” for a longer period will receive no visual warning unless the vehicle has the supplemental warning cycles. The driver, buckled or unbuckled, receives an audible warning except in the situation where the front passenger buckles between 25 and 33 seconds following the remote start (in effect buckling in response to the chime and silencing it before the driver enters the vehicle). For the 2006 vehicles, as originally manufactured, there were no supplemental warning signal cycles. The 2007 vehicles were provided with an enhanced safety belt reminder system that will activate if front outboard occupants are not belted and the vehicle speed is above 5 miles per hour (mph). The 2007 vehicles will provide two cycles of audible and visual belt warning notice in such conditions. GM also provided a detailed explanation of the reasons why it believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. In summary, GM states that for all of the subject vehicles, the unbuckled driver receives a warning when the ignition key is turned to the “RUN” position essentially every time:

(1)When the vehicles are started with its ignition key, the required seat belt warnings are provided.

(2)When the 2007 vehicles and the upgraded 1 2006 vehicles are started remotely, the unbuckled driver receives, at a minimum, the audible warning when the ignition key turned to the “RUN” position plus 2 cycles of visual and audible warning when the vehicle's speed reaches 5 mph. 1 General Motors has initiated a Customer Satisfaction Program to upgrade the belt reminder system on the 2006 vehicles to provide three sets of warning cycles as implemented on the 2007 vehicles and has sent letters to the customers of those vehicles informing them about the upgrade.

(3)When the 2006 vehicles are started remotely, the unbuckled driver will receive, at a minimum, the audible warning. The only exception where an audible warning is not provided is when the front passenger buckles between 25 and 33 seconds following the remote start (in effect buckling in response to the chime and silencing it before the driver enters the vehicle). GM states that it believes that because the noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no further corrective action is warranted. NHTSA Decision The following explains our rationale. There are two separate starting procedures for these vehicles. One uses the key to start the vehicle. The second uses the remote start feature. Key Starting for All Vehicles When the key is used to start the vehicle, the seat belt warning system meets the requirements of the standard because the driver receives the required visible and audible warnings when not buckled. This is the case for both the 2006 and 2007 groups of vehicles. Remote Start With Enhanced Seat Belt Warning Systems For the 2007 group of vehicles (and the 2006 vehicles that have been upgraded through the customer service program) using remote start, a 6-second audible and 75-second telltale warning is provided if the front outboard occupants (driver and passenger) are not belted and the vehicle speed exceeds 5 mph. These meet the time requirements of S7.3(a)(1) and provide an audible and visual warning as intended by the requirement. In addition, the warnings go beyond the requirement because

(1)The visual telltale warning is on 15 seconds longer than required by the standard,

(2)the warnings include the non-regulated front outboard passenger, and

(3)the warnings repeat for an additional period if the front occupants do not react to the first warning. The purpose of the requirement is met because

(1)both the audible and visual warnings are activated at a low enough speed that the occupants have time to react to the reminders before traveling very far and before attaining a high speed, and

(2)the warnings that do activate go beyond the requirements in certain aspects. Remote Start for Reprogrammed Seat Belt Warning Systems For the 2006 group of vehicles using remote start, the additional warnings are not available. However, GM has instituted a Customer Satisfaction Program to reprogram these vehicles so that they have the same seat belt warning system as the 2007 vehicles discussed previously. Remote Start for Non-Reprogrammed Seat Belt Warning Systems GM has indicated there are 75,416 vehicles in the 2006 group that are eligible for reprogramming. GM also estimates that 50 percent of those vehicles will actually be taken to the dealer for the customer service campaign. Thus, an estimated 37,708 vehicles may eventually not have the enhanced seat belt warning system. Even in these vehicles the driver will still receive a 6-second audible warning signal that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Exception The final condition to consider for both the 2006 and 2007 groups is when the passenger buckles the seat belt 25 to 33 seconds after remote start. In this condition, there may be no audible warning or visual telltale. This does not appear to be a condition that is likely to happen. It would be logical to assume that the remote start normally is used for warming the engine, or warming or cooling the interior of the vehicle prior to getting in the vehicle. Since these conditions could not generally occur within 25 to 33 seconds of remote start, we estimate this condition will not likely occur during normal vehicle operation. Moreover, for this scenario to occur, the passenger must buckle the belt in a small window of time (25 to 33 seconds after a remote start) before the driver enters and turns the key to “RUN.” If the driver enters first and turns the key to “RUN” or if the passenger buckles the belt before or after the 8-second window, the audible warning, and perhaps some visual warnings will function. Decision Because GM has offered to provide a very helpful upgrade to the vehicles most affected by this problem, and because in all but one rare condition (which we estimate will not likely occur) there is an audible and/or visual seat belt warning, NHTSA has decided that GM has met its burden of persuasion that the seat belt warning system noncompliances described are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliances under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: April 22, 2008. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-9247 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA-2007-28505] Pipeline Safety: Requests for Special Permit AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal pipeline safety laws allow a pipeline operator to request PHMSA to waive compliance with any part of the Federal pipeline safety regulations by granting a special permit to the operator. PHMSA is publishing this notice to provide a list of special permit requests we have received from pipeline operators seeking relief from compliance with certain pipeline safety regulations. This notice seeks public comment on these requests, including comments on any environmental impacts. At the conclusion of the comment period, PHMSA will evaluate each request individually to determine whether to grant or deny a special permit. DATES: Submit any comments regarding any of these special permit requests by May 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for the special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways: • E-Gov Web Site: *http://www.regulations.gov.* This site allows the public to enter comments on any **Federal Register** notice issued by any agency. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Instructions:* You should identify the docket number for the special permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. To receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. There is a privacy statement published on *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lemoi by telephone at

(404)832-1160; or, e-mail at *wayne.lemoi@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA has filed in the Federal docket management system at *http://www.regulations.gov* requests for special permits we have received from pipeline operators seeking relief from compliance with certain pipeline safety regulations. Each request has been assigned a separate docket number. We invite interested persons to participate by reviewing these special permit requests and by submitting written comments, data or other views. Please include any comments on environmental impacts granting the special permit may have. Before acting on any special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date. We will consider comments received after this date if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. We may grant a special permit or deny a request based on the comments we receive. PHMSA has received the following special permit requests: Docket No. Requester Regulation(s) Nature of special permit PHMSA-2008-0066 Columbia Gulf Transmission Company

(CGT)49 CFR 195.452(h) To authorize CGT to operate nine pipeline segments in three sections of Mainline 100, 200 and 300 in Williamson and Davidson Counties, Tennessee without reducing the operating pressure as a result of changes from Class 1 and Class 2 locations to Class 3 locations. PHMSA-2008-0067 Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (Boardwalk) 49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR 192.201 To authorize Boardwalk to construct and operate approximately 262.6 miles of two, 36-inch, natural gas transmission lateral pipelines at a maximum allowable operating pressure

(MAOP)of 1250 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), which corresponds to a pipe stress level up to 80 percent of the steel pipe's specified minimum yield strength

(SMYS)in Class 1 locations, 67 percent SMYS in Class 2 locations, and 56 percent SMYS in Class 3 locations. The pipelines are the 166.2-mile Fayetteville Lateral located primarily in Arkansas but crosses the Mississippi River into western Mississippi and the 96.4-mile Greenville Lateral located entirely in Mississippi. PHMSA-2008-0068 Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company

(GCPC)49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR 192.201 To authorize GCPC to construct and operate approximately 353.2 miles of a new 42-inch natural gas transmission pipeline running from Grayson County, Texas to Madison Parish, Louisiana at an MAOP of 1480 psig, which corresponds to a pipe stress level up to 80 percent of SMYS in Class 1 locations, 67 percent SMYS in Class 2 locations and 56 percent SMYS in Class 3 locations. The special permit request also includes a 17.8-mile, 42-inch, loop line from Hinds County to Simpson County, MS, which is part of the Gulf Crossing project. PHMSA-2008-0077 Florida Gas Transmission Company

(FGT)49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR 192.201, 49 CFR 192.505, 49 CFR 192.611, 49 CFR 192.619 To authorize FGT to operate certain pipeline segments along its approximately 741.2-mile mainline natural gas transmission pipeline system running from Mobile County, Alabama to Lee County, Florida at an MAOP of up to 1333 psig, which corresponds to a pipe stress level up to 80 percent of SMYS in Class 1 locations, 67 percent SMYS in Class 2 locations and 56 percent SMYS in Class 3 locations. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118(c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.53. Issued in Washington, DC on April 21, 2008. Barbara Betsock, Acting Director, Office of Regulations. [FR Doc. E8-9259 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Ex Parte No. 558 (Sub-No. 11)] Railroad Cost of Capital—2007 AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. ACTION: Notice of decision. SUMMARY: The Board is instituting a proceeding to determine the railroad industry's cost of capital for 2007. The decision solicits comments on:

(1)The railroads' 2007 current cost of debt capital;

(2)the railroads' 2007 current cost of preferred stock equity capital (if any);

(3)the railroads' 2007 cost of common stock equity capital; and

(4)the 2007 capital structure mix of the railroad industry on a market value basis. DATES: Notices of intent to participate are due no later than May 6, 2008. Statements of the railroads are due by May 22, 2008. Statements of other interested persons are due by June 23, 2008. Rebuttal statements by the railroads are due by July 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should submit a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, *Attn:* STB Ex Parte No. 558 (Sub-No. 11), 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pedro Ramirez, 202-245-0333. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on our Web site *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Environmental and Energy Considerations We preliminarily conclude that the proposed action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10704(a). Decided: April 22, 2008. By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Buttrey. Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9352 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8878-A AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8878-A, IRS e-file Electronic Funds Withdrawal Authorization for Form 7004. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 30, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown, at

(202)622-6688, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *Carolyn.N.Brown@irs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* IRS e-file Electronic funds Withdrawal Authorization for Form 7004. *OMB Number:* 1545-1927. *Form Number:* 8878-A. *Abstract:* Form 8878-A is used by a corporate officer or agent and an electronic return originator

(ERO)to use a personal identification number

(PIN)to authorize an electronic funds withdrawal for a tax payment made with a request to extend the filing due date for a corporate income tax return. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the form at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 140,000. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 3 hours, 37 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 505,400. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 21, 2008. R. Joseph Durbala, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-9358 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedures 2002-39, 2006-45 (Previous 2002-37), and 2006-46 (Previous 2002-38) AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedures 2002-39, 2006-45, 2006-46, Changes in Periods of Accounting. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 30, 2008, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of revenue procedures should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown,

(202)622-6688, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at *Carolyn.N.Brown@irs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Changes in Periods of Accounting. *OMB Number:* 1545-1786. *Revenue Procedure Numbers:* Revenue Procedures 2002-39, 2006-45, and 2006-46. *Abstract:* Revenue Procedures 2002-39, 2006-45, and 2006-46, provide the comprehensive administrative rules and guidance, for affected taxpayers adopting, changing, or retaining annual accounting periods, for federal income tax purposes. In order to determine whether a taxpayer has properly adopted, changed to, or retained an annual accounting period, certain information regarding the taxpayer's qualification for and use of the requested annual accounting period is required. The revenue procedures request the information necessary to make that determination when the information is not otherwise available. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to these revenue procedures at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organization, individuals, not-for-profit institutions and farms. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 800 *Estimated Average Time per Respondent:* 53 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 700. Also, the burden is reflected in the burdens of Forms 1128 and 2553. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: April 24, 2008. R. Joseph Durbala, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-9370 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (including the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)Treasury. ACTION: Notice Correction. SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 13, 2008 and Wednesday, May 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or

(414)231-2360. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.

(1988)that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Wednesday, May 14, 2008, 8 a.m. to Noon Eastern Time, in Cincinnati, OH. For more information or to confirm attendance, please contact Mary Ann Delzer. Ms. Delzer may be reached at 1-888-912-1227, or

(414)231-2360. Or you can submit written comments to the panel by faxing the comments to

(414)231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or you can post comments to the Web site at *http://www.improveirs.org* . The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. Dated: April 18, 2008. Sandy McQuin, Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. [FR Doc. E8-9357 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P 73 83 Tuesday, April 29, 2008 Presidential Documents Title 3— The President Proclamation 8246 of April 25, 2008 Malaria Awareness Day, 2008 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation On Malaria Awareness Day, our Nation recognizes all who suffer from this devastating disease, and we remember the lives lost to an illness that is entirely preventable and treatable. Today, we renew our commitment to lead the world toward the urgent goal and noble mission of turning the tide against malaria in Africa and around the world. My Administration and our partners are working together to save lives in Africa through the President's Malaria Initiative. On a recent trip to Africa, First Lady Laura Bush and I personally saw this Initiative working and making incredible progress against malaria. By distributing insecticide-treated bed nets, expanding indoor insecticide spraying, providing cutting-edge drugs to those in need, and empowering African leaders to determine the best strategy for their country, we have brought an extraordinary achievement within reach: together, we can eradicate a disease that has claimed the lives of children for centuries. Millions of lives are being saved because of the kindness and generosity of the American people, and we will continue to work to ensure that our aggressive and comprehensive strategy achieves its goal. America is a compassionate country that feeds the hungry and protects the vulnerable because we believe every human life has inherent dignity and matchless value. As the people of Africa continue their struggle against malaria, we offer our support and steadfast commitment. We call on all nations to join us in a great humanitarian effort. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 25, 2008, as Malaria Awareness Day. I encourage Americans to answer the universal call to love a neighbor and join in our goal of eliminating malaria on the African continent and elsewhere. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fifth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. GWBOLD.EPS [FR Doc. 08-1199 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 77

Traces to 77 documents

CFR

U.S. Code

statutes-at-large

/statutes-at-large/vol-50/public-law-388
Public Law 388

78 references not yet in our index

132 F. Supp. 2d 1
688 F. Supp. 639
865 F.2d 240
492 U.S. 919
15 USC 2051-2084
16 CFR 11
Pub. L. 104-164
10 CFR 1021
10 CFR 1022
Pub. L. 107-63
18 CFR 380
320 U.S. 591
262 U.S. 679
254 F.3d 289
165 F.3d 54
203 F.3d 53
496 F.3d 695
988 F.2d 1254
315 F.3d 316
627 F.2d 525
18 CFR 34
40 CFR 1508.27
40 CFR 1508.27(b)(1)
40 CFR 1508.27(b)(2)
40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)
40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4)
40 CFR 1508.27(b)(5)
40 CFR 1508.27(b)(6)
40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7)
40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)
40 CFR 1508.27(b)(9)
40 CFR 1508.27(b)(10)
40 CFR 1500
10 CFR 903
40 CFR 9
5 CFR 1320.12
5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)
12 CFR 225
45 CFR 1355.40
50 CFR 17.11

+ 38 more

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

Notice of Consent Motion to Terminate Panel Review of the final results of the second antidumping administrative review respecting Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (Secretariat File No

F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1

F. Supp.688 F. Supp. 639

F. App'x865 F.2d 240

Cites 155 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources