Notices. Notice of waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Safety Zone Rubber Gloves Manufacturing product number 9999

31,024 words·~141 min read·/register/2008/05/01/08-1208

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

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P POSTAL SERVICE Sunshine Act Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, May 6, 2008, at 11:30 a.m.; and Wednesday, May 7, 2008, at 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. Place: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room. Status: May 6—11:30 a.m.—Closed; May 7—8:30 a.m.—Open; May 7—10:30 a.m.—Closed. Matters To Be Considered Tuesday, May 6 at 11:30 a.m. (Closed) 1. Strategic Issues. 2. Product Pricing. 3. Financial Update. 4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues. 5. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance. Wednesday, May 7 at 8:30 a.m.

(Open)1. Minutes of the Previous Meetings, April 1-2, and April 14, 2008. 2. Remarks of the Chairman of the Board. 3. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO. 4. Committee Reports. Wednesday, May 7 at 8:30 am.

(Open)[continued] 5. Quarterly Report on Service Performance. 6. Quarterly Report on Financial Performance. 7. Capital Investments. a. Richmond, Virginia, Processing and Distribution Center. b. New York, New York, International Service Center/John F. Kennedy Air Mail Center New Lease—Ground and Building. 8. Tentative Agenda for the July 29-30, 2008, meeting in Washington, DC. Wednesday, May 7 at 10:30 a.m. (Closed)—if Needed 1. Continuation of Tuesday's closed session agenda. Contact Person for More Information: Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone

(202)268-4800. Julie S. Moore, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9497 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IC-28255] Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 April 25, 2008. The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of April, 2008. A copy of each application may be obtained for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch (tel. 202-551-5850). An order granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on May 20, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. *For Further Information Contact:* Diane L. Titus at

(202)551-6810, SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041. Dean Family of Funds [File No. 811-7987] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On March 30, 2007, applicant transferred its assets to Dean Large Cap Value Fund, Dean Small Cap Value Fund, and Dean International Fund, each a series of Unified Series Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses of $131,162 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by Unified Fund Services, applicant's transfer agent, and Dean Investment Associates, applicant's investment adviser. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on March 5, 2008, and amended on April 22, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 2480 Kettering Tower, Dayton, OH 45423. Templeton Russia/Eurasia Fund [File No. 811-8409] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage in business of any kind. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on April 4, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2100, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394. Scudder Intermediate Government & Agency Trust [File No. 811-5539] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July 29, 2005, applicant transferred its assets to DWS Strategic Government Securities Fund (formerly, DWS U.S. Government Securities Fund and Scudder U.S. Government Securities Fund), based on net asset value. Expenses of $180,000 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on April 10, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 222 South Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL 60606. Seligman New Technologies Fund II, Inc. [File No. 811-9849] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On February 14, 2008 and February 19, 2008, applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $259,300 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant. Applicant has retained a cash reserve of approximately $57,449 to cover certain unpaid expenses relating to applicant's liquidation and dissolution. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on April 11, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 100 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017. Merrimac Funds [File No. 811-7939] *Summary:* Applicant, a feeder fund in a master-feeder structure, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 30, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $2,358 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant. Applicant has retained $2,260 in cash to pay outstanding accrued expenses of the same amount. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on March 28, 2008, and amended on April 14, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 200 Clarendon St., 16th Floor, Boston, MA 02116. Dreyfus California Tax Exempt Money Market Fund [File No. 811-4216] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On March 16, 2007, applicant transferred its assets to General California Municipal Money Market Fund, based on net asset value. Expenses of $42,390 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by The Dreyfus Corporation, applicant's investment adviser. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on March 31, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* c/o The Dreyfus Corporation, 200 Park Ave., New York, NY 10166. Merrimac Master Portfolio [File No. 811-7941] *Summary:* Applicant, a master fund in a master-feeder structure, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 30, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $142,095 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant. Applicant has retained $105,682 in cash to pay outstanding accrued expenses of the same amount. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on March 28, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 200 Clarendon St., 16th Floor, Boston, MA 02116. Merrimac Series [File No. 811-8741] *Summary:* Applicant, a feeder fund in a master-feeder structure, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 30, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $115,988 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant. Applicant has retained $80,900 in cash to pay outstanding accrued expenses of the same amount. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on March 28, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 200 Clarendon St., 16th Floor, Boston, MA 02116. First Investors Single Payment and Periodic Payment Plans for the Accumulation of Shares of Vanguard Wellington Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-343]; First Investors Single Payment and Periodic Payment Plans for the Accumulation of Shares of AMCAP Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-636]; First Investors Single Payment and Periodic Payment Plans for the Accumulation of Shares of Fundamental Investors, Inc. [File No. 811-818] *Summary:* Each applicant, a unit investment trust, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On or about June 19, 2001, January 10, 2007, and January 10, 2007, respectively, each applicant made a liquidating distribution to its unitholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $1,313, $679, and $1,158, respectively, incurred in connection with each liquidation were paid by First Investors Corporation, applicants' sponsor. *Filing Date:* The applications were filed on March 28, 2008. *Applicants' Address:* 110 Wall St., New York, NY 10005. ACM Managed Income Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-5643] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On August 29, 2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $100,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on April 2, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10105. Topiary Fund for Benefit Plan Investors

(BPI)LLC [File No. 811-21480]; Topiary Master Fund for Benefit Plan Investors

(BPI)LLC [File No. 811-21605] *Summary:* Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On September 30, 2007, applicants transferred their assets to Hatteras Multi-Strategy TEI Fund, L.P. and Hatteras Master Fund, L.P., respectively, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $130,000 incurred in connection with each reorganization were paid by DB Investment Managers, Inc., applicants' investment adviser. *Filing Dates:* The applications were filed on December 26, 2007, and amended on March 27, 2008. *Applicants' Address:* DB Investment Managers, Inc., 345 Park Ave., New York, NY 10154. AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-9160] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On January 25, 2008, applicant transferred its assets to AllianceBernstein High Income Fund, Inc. (formerly known as AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund, Inc.) (“acquiring fund”), based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $246,800 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant and the acquiring fund. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on February 21, 2008, and amended on April 2, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10105. Dreyfus Connecticut Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund [File No. 811-6642] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On May 30, 2007, applicant transferred its assets to a corresponding series of Dreyfus Premier State Municipal Bond Fund, based on net asset value. Expenses of $42,930 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by The Dreyfus Corporation, applicant's investment adviser. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on March 20, 2008. *Applicant's Address:* c/o The Dreyfus Corporation, 200 Park Ave., New York, NY 10166. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9538 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57707; File No. SR-Amex-2008-14] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, and Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend Rule 903C to Permit the Listing and Trading of Additional Index Options Series April 24, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 20, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” 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 Amex. On April 24, 2008, Amex 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 Amex proposes to amend Rule 903C to permit the listing and trading of additional index options series that do not meet current requirements, if such options series are listed and traded on at least one other national securities exchange. For each additional options series listed by the Exchange pursuant to the amended rule, the Exchange would submit a proposed rule change with the Commission that is effective upon filing within the meaning of Section 19(b)(3)(A) under the Act. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.amex.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, Amex 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. Amex 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 add new Commentary .06 to Rule 903C to permit the listing and trading of additional index options series that do not meet current Rule 903C requirements, if such options series are listed on at least one other national securities exchange in accordance with the applicable rules of such exchange for the listing and trading of index options. For each additional options series listed by the Exchange pursuant to proposed Commentary .06, the Exchange would submit a proposed rule change with the Commission that is effective upon filing within the meaning of Section 19(b)(3)(A) under the Act. Rule 903C provides the mechanism for the Exchange to list or open options expiration month series on particular index options classes approved for listing and trading on the Exchange. In general, up to a six expiration month series may be listed at any one time. Amex *Rule 903C(a) permits the Exchange to open options expiration month series on approved index options classes as follows:*

(i)Consecutive Month Series;

(ii)Cycle Month Series;

(iii)Long-Term Options Series;

(iv)Short-Term (1 week) Options Series; and

(v)Quarterly Options Series. This proposal seeks to permit the Exchange to list additional index options expiration month series if another options exchange does so, regardless of whether the additional series listing complies with the requirements of Rule 903C. Consecutive Month Series Under Rule 903C(a)(i), Consecutive Month Series options are a series of options, within a particular class of stock index options, having up to four consecutive expiration months which can be opened for simultaneous trading. The shortest-term series permissible are series initially having no more than two months to expiration. Cycle Month Series Under Rule 903C(a)(ii), the Exchange may designate one expiration cycle for each class of stock index options, consisting of four calendar months occurring at three-month intervals. With respect to any particular class of stock index options, Cycle Month Series options expiring in three of the four cycle months designated by the Exchange for that class may be traded simultaneously with the shortest-term series initially having approximately three months to expiration. Long-Term Option Series Under Rule 903C(a)(iii), the Exchange may list series of options having up to sixty

(60)months to expiration for any particular class of stock index options. These Long-term Options Series may be traded simultaneously with Consecutive Month Series options as well as Cycle Month Series options. Quarterly Options Series Under Rule 903C(a)(iv), the Exchange may list and trade options series that expire at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar quarter. Quarterly Options Series for up to five currently listed stock index options classes or options classes for options on ETFs may be listed. The Exchange may also list Quarterly Options Series on any options classes that are selected by other options exchanges. Short Term (1 Week) Option Series Under Rule 903C(a)(v), the Exchange may open for trading, on any business Friday, series of options that expire at the close of business on the following Friday. The Exchange may select up to five currently listed option classes on which Short Term Option Series may be opened. Additionally, the Exchange may list Short Term Option Series on any option classes that are selected by other options exchanges. Consistent with this proposal, the index options class must either be specifically reviewed and approved by the Commission under section 19(b)(2) of the 1934 Act and rules thereunder, or comply with Commentary .02 or .03 to Rule 901C, for the Exchange to be able to list the additional series. Amex believes the ability to list and trade additional series of an index options class that may not meet the requirements of Rule 903C if another options exchange lists such expiration month series is appropriate and necessary in order to remain competitive and provide customers with the full offering of index option products. Although the proposal may result in an incremental increase in message and quote traffic for systems of the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority (OPRA), the Exchange expects the operational impact of such increase in quote traffic to be minimal. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 3 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 4 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 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. 3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 4 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 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 the self-regulatory organization 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, as amended, 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-Amex-2008-14 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-14. 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, 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 Amex. 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-Amex-2008-14 and should be submitted on or before May 22, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9523 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57712; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-69] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Obvious Errors April 24, 2008. I. Introduction On September 4, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” 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 Phlx Rule 1092, the Exchange's obvious error rule (“Obvious Error Rule”). On February 29, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On March 11, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposal. The proposed rule change, as modified, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 18, 2008. 3 The Commission received no comment letters on the proposal, as modified. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57482 (March 12, 2008), 73 FR 14544. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1092 to:

(i)Change the definition of Theoretical Price to mean either the last National Best Bid price, with respect to an erroneous sell transaction or the last National Best Offer price, with respect to an erroneous buy transaction, just prior to the trade;

(ii)allow an Options Exchange Official 4 to establish the Theoretical Price when there are no quotes for comparison purposes, or when the National Best Bid/Offer (“NBBO”) for the affected series, just prior to the erroneous transaction, was at least two times the permitted bid/ask differential permitted under Exchange Rule 1014(c)(1)(A)(i)(a);

(iii)establish the Theoretical Price for transactions occurring as part of the Exchange's automated opening system as the first quote after the transaction(s) in question that does not reflect the erroneous transaction(s);

(iv)determine the average quote width for the underlying security by adding the quote widths of sample quotations at regular 15-second intervals during the two minutes preceding and following an erroneous transaction;

(v)delete the provision pertaining to trades that are automatically executed when the specialist or Registered Options Trader (“ROT”) sells $.10 or more below parity;

(vi)permit nullification of transactions that occur during trading halts in the affected option on the Exchange or in the underlying security in specified situations; and

(vii)increase the time period, which varies depending on the status of the party, within which a party who believes it participated in an erroneous transaction must notify the Exchange's Market Surveillance Department, and allow a longer notification time period for certain erroneous transactions involving a non-broker-dealer customer that occur as part of the Phlx's automated opening process. 4 *See* Phlx Rule 1(pp). 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 5 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act 6 and the rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 in that the proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. 5 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission considers that, in most circumstances, trades that are executed between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the price of the executed trade indicates an “obvious error” may exist, suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the trade had come to a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the transaction. In the Commission's view, the determination of whether an “obvious error” has occurred should be based on specific and objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures. The Commission believes that the proposed revisions to the definition of Theoretical Price provide clear and objective standards for determining when an obvious price error exists. The Commission also believes that the proposed revisions to the time periods for requesting review of a transaction, including for certain erroneous transactions involving a non-broker-dealer customer that occur during the Exchange's automated opening process, as well as the proposal to sample quotations at 15-second intervals to determine the average quote width of the underlying security, represent reasonable modifications to the Obvious Error Rule. Furthermore, the Commission believes that eliminating the provision pertaining to trades that are automatically executed when the specialist or ROT sells $.10 or more below parity and permitting the nullification of transactions that occur during trading halts in the affected option on the Exchange or in the underlying security in specified situations are clear and objective. Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to the Obvious Error Rule are appropriate. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2007-69), as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is hereby approved. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 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. E8-9539 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Small Business Size Standards: Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Safety Zone Rubber Gloves Manufacturing product number 9999. SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)is granting a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Safety Zone Rubber Gloves Manufacturing. The basis for waiver is that no small business manufacturers are supplying this class of product to the Federal government. The effect of a waiver would be to allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses; service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. DATES: This waiver is effective May 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATI0N CONTACT: Pamela M. McClam, Program Analyst, by telephone at

(202)205-7408; by FAX at

(202)481-4783; or by e-mail at *Pamela.McClam@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act,

(SBA)is granting a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Trash Bags Manufacturing. The basis for waiver is that no small business manufacturers are supplying this class of product to the Federal government. The effect of a waiver would be to allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses; service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. DATES: This waiver is effective May 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela M. McClam, Program Analyst, by telephone at

(202)205-7408; by FAX at

(202)481-4783; or by e-mail at *Pamela.McClam@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act,

(SBA)is granting a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Paper Products Manufacturing. The basis for waiver is that no small business manufacturers are supplying this class of product to the Federal government. The effect of a waiver would be to allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses; service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. DATE: This waiver is effective May 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela M. McClam, Program Analyst, by telephone at

(202)205-7408; by FAX at

(202)481-4783; or by e-mail at *Pamela.McClam@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act,

(Act)15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406 (b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market. As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202 (c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on six digit coding systems. The first coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The second is the Product and Service Code required as a data entry field by the Federal Procurement Data System. The SBA received a request on February 22, 2008, to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Paper Products Manufacturing. In response, on April 8, 2008, SBA published in the **Federal Register** a notice of intent to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Paper Products Manufacturing. SBA explained in the notice that it was soliciting comments and sources of small business manufacturers of this class of products. No comments were received in response to this notice. SBA has determined that there are no small business manufacturers of this class of products, and is therefore granting the waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Paper Products Manufacturing. NAICS code 326111 product number 8540. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17). Dated: April 25, 2008. Linda S. Korbol, Acting Director for Government Contracting. [FR Doc. E8-9550 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Future Systems Technology Advisory Panel [Docket No. SSA-2008-0012] Establishment of the Future Systems Technology Advisory Panel AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Establishment of the Future Systems Technology Advisory Panel. SUMMARY: The Commissioner of Social Security is establishing the Future Systems Technology Advisory Panel under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In making this decision, the Commissioner has found that the Panel is necessary and in the public interest. It will contribute to the performance of duties imposed upon SSA in carrying out its statutory mission. The Commissioner consulted with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration (GSA). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianne Rose, Designated Federal Official, Future Systems Technology Advisory Panel, Social Security Administration, by: • Mail addressed to SSA, Future Systems Technology Advisory Panel, Room 800, Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-0001; • Telephone at 410-965-9455; • Fax at 410-965-0210; or • E-mail to *dianne.rose@ssa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Panel members will analyze SSA's current technology status and provide independent advice and recommendations for future systems enhancements based on their knowledge of the needs of the Agency and technological advancements. This will serve as a road map for the Agency in determining what future systems technologies may be developed. It will help SSA carry out its statutory mission. Advice and recommendations can relate to SSA's systems in the area of internet applications, customer service, or any other arena that would improve the Agency's ability to serve the American people. The Panel shall be composed of not more than 12 members, including:

(1)Members of academia and private industry recognized as experts in the area of future computer systems technology;

(2)Members of private industry familiar with the use of computer technology in the fields of customer service, health care, privacy, financial, and document management;

(3)Experts that can speak to the needs of SSA's clientele; and

(4)SSA experts familiar with the Agency's policies, systems, and practices with regard to its mission. The Panel will be terminated two years after the effective date unless otherwise renewed. In accordance with the FACA, an additional notice will be published in the **Federal Register** announcing the Panel's first meeting. Dated: April 24, 2008. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. [FR Doc. E8-9574 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6207] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: U.S.-Poland Parliamentary Youth Exchange Leadership Program *Announcement Type:* New Grant. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/PE/C/PY-08-68. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 00.000. *Key Dates:* *Application Deadline:* June 5, 2008. *Executive Summary:* The Office of Citizen Exchanges, Youth Programs Division (ECA/PE/C/PY), of the Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs announces an open competition for the U.S.-Poland Parliamentary Youth Exchange Leadership Program. Public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) may submit proposals to conduct a three- to four-week exchange program in academic year 2008-09, preferably with an early 2009 winter program, focusing on civic education and leadership for 15 secondary school students and 2 educators each from Poland and the U.S. for a total of 34 participants. I. Funding Opportunity Description *Authority:* Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries * * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations * * * and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program above is provided through legislation. *Purpose:* In recognition of the 90th Anniversary of U.S.-Polish Diplomatic Relations in 2009, the Office of Citizen Exchanges' Youth Programs Division proposes to sponsor an exchange program for secondary school students and educators (either teachers or adults who work with youth in other capacities) from the United States and Poland, who will travel to the host country to spend up to four weeks on an intensive academic and hands-on training program designed to develop the participants' knowledge and skill base in the principles of civic education, civil society, rule of law, community service, and youth leadership, and to examine the history, constitution and political development of the host country in particular. As a part of the four-week program, students and educators will shadow professionals and participate in community service projects and/or mini (volunteer) internships in relevant fields designed to reinforce learning. The program structure will include: Up to two weeks of training in a host community outside of the capital cities; a one week Civic Education Workshop in Washington, DC or Warsaw; and one week of shadowing, community service or an internship. Polish and American participants will meet and interact at some point during either the host community stay or the Civic Education Workshop. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Grant Agreement. *Fiscal Year Funds:* 2008. *Approximate Total Funding:* $250,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* One. *Approximate Average Award:* $250,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* September 2008. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* December 2009. *Additional Information:* Pending successful implementation of this program and the availability of funds in subsequent fiscal years, it is ECA's intent to renew this grant for two additional fiscal years (for exchanges in academic years 2010 and 2011), before openly competing it again. III. Eligibility Information III.1. Eligible Applicants Applications may be submitted by public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). III.2. Cost Sharing or Matching Funds There is no minimum or maximum percentage required for this competition. However, the Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding in support of its programs. Please note that cost sharing is one of the criteria by which proposals will be judged. When cost sharing is offered, it is understood and agreed that the applicant must provide the amount of cost sharing as stipulated in its proposal and later included in an approved grant agreement. Cost sharing may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs. For accountability, you must maintain written records to support all costs which are claimed as your contribution, as well as costs to be paid by the Federal government. Such records are subject to audit. The basis for determining the value of cash and in-kind contributions must be in accordance with OMB Circular A-110, (Revised), Subpart C.23—Cost Sharing and Matching. In the event you do not provide the minimum amount of cost sharing as stipulated in the approved budget, ECA's contribution will be reduced in like proportion. III.3. Other Eligibility Requirements Bureau grant guidelines require that organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges be limited to $60,000 in Bureau funding. ECA anticipates awarding one grant, in an amount up to $250,000 to support program and administrative costs required to implement this exchange program. Therefore, organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges are ineligible to apply under this competition. IV. Application and Submission Information Note: Please read the complete announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. IV.1. Contact Information to Request an Application Package Please contact the Youth Programs Division, Office of Citizen Exchanges (ECA/PE/C/PY), Room 568, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, telephone

(202)203-7507, fax

(202)203-7529, e-mail *jonessa1@state.gov* to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/PE/C/PY-08-68 located at the top of this announcement when making your request. Alternatively, an electronic application package may be obtained from grants.gov. Please see section IV.3f for further information. The Solicitation Package contains the Proposal Submission Instruction

(PSI)document which consists of required application forms, and standard guidelines for proposal preparation. It also contains the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation

(POGI)document, which provides specific information, award criteria and budget instructions tailored to this competition. Please specify Bureau Program Officer Shalita Jones and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/PE/C/PY-08-68 located at the top of this announcement on all other inquiries and correspondence. IV.2. To Download a Solicitation Package Via Internet The entire Solicitation Package may be downloaded from the Bureau's Web site at *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/rfgps/menu.htm,* or from the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.grants.gov.* Please read all information before downloading. IV.3. Content and Form of Submission Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. The application should be submitted per the instructions under IV.3f. “Application Deadline and Methods of Submission” section below. IV.3a You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the U.S. Government. This number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* or call 1-866-705-5711. Please ensure that your DUNS number is included in the appropriate box of the SF-424 which is part of the formal application package. IV.3b All proposals must contain an executive summary, proposal narrative and budget. Please refer to the Solicitation Package. It contains the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions

(PSI)document and the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation

(POGI)document for additional formatting and technical requirements. IV.3c You must have nonprofit status with the IRS at the time of application. **Please note:** Effective March 14, 2008, all applicants for ECA federal assistance awards must include with their application, a copy of page 5, Part V-A, “Current Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Key Employees” of their most recent Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)Form 990, “Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax.” If your organization is a private nonprofit which has not received a grant or cooperative agreement from ECA in the past three years, or if your organization received nonprofit status from the IRS within the past four years, you must submit the necessary documentation to verify nonprofit status as directed in the PSI document. Failure to do so will cause your proposal to be declared technically ineligible. IV.3d Please take into consideration the following information when preparing your proposal narrative: IV.3d.1. Adherence To All Regulations Governing The J Visa The Office of Citizen Exchanges of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the official program sponsor of the exchange program covered by this RFGP, and an employee of the Bureau will be the “Responsible Officer” for the program under the terms of 22 CFR 62, which covers the administration of the Exchange Visitor Program (J visa program). Under the terms of 22 CFR 62, organizations receiving grants under this RFGP will be third parties “cooperating with or assisting the sponsor in the conduct of the sponsor's program.” The actions of grantee program organizations shall be “imputed to the sponsor in evaluating the sponsor's compliance with” 22 CFR part 62. Therefore, the Bureau expects that any organization receiving a grant under this competition will render all assistance necessary to enable the Bureau to fully comply with 22 CFR part 62 *et seq.* The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs places critically important emphases on the secure and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by grantee program organizations and program participants to all regulations governing the J visa program status. Therefore, proposals should explicitly state in writing that the applicant is prepared to assist the Bureau in meeting all requirements governing the administration of Exchange Visitor Programs as set forth in 22 CFR part 62. If your organization has experience as a designated Exchange Visitor Program Sponsor, the applicant should discuss their record of compliance with 22 CFR 62 et seq., including the oversight of their Responsible Officers and Alternate Responsible Officers, screening and selection of program participants, provision of pre-arrival information and orientation to participants, monitoring of participants, proper maintenance and security of forms, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. The Office of Citizen Exchanges of ECA will be responsible for issuing DS-2019 forms to participants in this program. A copy of the complete regulations governing the administration of Exchange Visitor

(J)Programs is available at *http://exchanges.state.gov* or from: United States Department of State, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, ECA/EC/ECD-SA-44, Room 734, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, Telephone:

(202)203-5029, Fax:

(202)453-8640. IV.3d.2. Diversity, Freedom and Democracy Guidelines Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and disabilities. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the “Support for Diversity” section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into your proposal. Public Law 104-319 provides that “in carrying out programs of educational and cultural exchange in countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy,” the Bureau “shall take appropriate steps to provide opportunities for participation in such programs to human rights and democracy leaders of such countries.” Public Law 106—113 requires that the governments of the countries described above do not have inappropriate influence in the selection process. Proposals should reflect advancement of these goals in their program contents, to the full extent deemed feasible. IV.3d.3. Program Monitoring and Evaluation Proposals must include a plan to monitor and evaluate the project's success, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. The Bureau recommends that your proposal include a draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus a description of a methodology to use to link outcomes to original project objectives. The Bureau expects that the grantee will track participants or partners and be able to respond to key evaluation questions, including satisfaction with the program, learning as a result of the program, changes in behavior as a result of the program, and effects of the program on institutions (institutions in which participants work or partner institutions). The evaluation plan should include indicators that measure gains in mutual understanding as well as substantive knowledge. Successful monitoring and evaluation depend heavily on setting clear goals and outcomes at the outset of a program. Your evaluation plan should include a description of your project's objectives, your anticipated project outcomes, and how and when you intend to measure these outcomes (performance indicators). The more that outcomes are “smart” (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and placed in a reasonable time frame), the easier it will be to conduct the evaluation. You should also show how your project objectives link to the goals of the program described in this RFGP. Your monitoring and evaluation plan should clearly distinguish between program *outputs* and *outcomes.* *Outputs* are products and services delivered, often stated as an amount. Output information is important to show the scope or size of project activities, but it cannot substitute for information about progress towards outcomes or the results achieved. Examples of outputs include the number of people trained or the number of seminars conducted. *Outcomes,* in contrast, represent specific results a project is intended to achieve and are usually measured as an extent of change. Findings on outputs and outcomes should both be reported, but the focus should be on outcomes. We encourage you to assess the following four levels of outcomes, as they relate to the program goals set out in the RFGP (listed here in increasing order of importance): 1. Participant satisfaction with the program and exchange experience. 2. Participant learning, such as increased knowledge, aptitude, skills, and changed understanding and attitude. Learning includes both substantive (subject-specific) learning and mutual understanding. 3. Participant behavior, concrete actions to apply knowledge in work or community; greater participation and responsibility in civic organizations; interpretation and explanation of experiences and new knowledge gained; continued contacts between participants, community members, and others. 4. Institutional changes, such as increased collaboration and partnerships, policy reforms, new programming, and organizational improvements. Please note: Consideration should be given to the appropriate timing of data collection for each level of outcome. For example, satisfaction is usually captured as a short-term outcome, whereas behavior and institutional changes are normally considered longer-term outcomes. Overall, the quality of your monitoring and evaluation plan will be judged on how well it

(1)specifies intended outcomes;

(2)gives clear descriptions of how each outcome will be measured;

(3)identifies when particular outcomes will be measured; and

(1)In hard-copy, via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., DHL, Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, or U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight Mail, etc.), or

(2)Electronically through *http://www.grants.gov.* Along with the Project Title, all applicants must enter the above Reference Number in Box 11 on the SF-424 contained in the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions

(PSI)of the solicitation document. IV.3f.1 Submitting Printed Applications Applications must be shipped no later than the above deadline. Delivery services used by applicants must have in-place, centralized shipping identification and tracking systems that may be accessed via the Internet and delivery people who are identifiable by commonly recognized uniforms and delivery vehicles. Proposals shipped on or before the above deadline but received at ECA more than seven days after the deadline will be ineligible for further consideration under this competition. Proposals shipped after the established deadlines are ineligible for consideration under this competition. ECA will not notify you upon receipt of application. It is each applicant's responsibility to ensure that each package is marked with a legible tracking number and to monitor/confirm delivery to ECA via the Internet. Delivery of proposal packages may not be made via local courier service or in person for this competition. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Only proposals submitted as stated above will be considered. Important Note: When preparing your submission please make sure to include one extra copy of the completed SF-424 form and place it in an envelope addressed to “ECA/EX/PM”. The original and six copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, *Ref.:* ECA/PE/C/PY-08-68 (each Program Office assigns a unique number), Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. Applicants submitting hard-copy applications must also submit via e-mail the Executive Summary, Proposal Narrative, and Budget sections of the proposal, as well as any essential attachments, in Microsoft Word and/or Excel to the program officer Shalita Jones at *jonessa1@state.gov.* The Bureau will provide these files electronically to the Office of Public Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw for its review. IV.3f.2 Submitting Electronic Applications Applicants have the option of submitting proposals electronically through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). Complete solicitation packages are available at Grants.gov in the “Find” portion of the system. Please follow the instructions available in the “Get Started” portion of the site ( *http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted* ). Several of the steps in the Grants.gov registration process could take several weeks. Therefore, applicants should check with appropriate staff within their organizations immediately after reviewing this RFGP to confirm or determine their registration status with Grants.gov. Once registered, the amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you not wait until the application deadline to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. Direct all questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission to: Grants.gov Customer Support, Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726, Business Hours: Monday-Friday, 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Eastern Time, E-mail: *support@grants.gov.* Applicants have until midnight (12 a.m.), Washington, DC time of the closing date to ensure that their entire application has been uploaded to the Grants.gov site. There are no exceptions to the above deadline. Applications uploaded to the site after midnight of the application deadline date will be automatically rejected by the grants.gov system, and will be technically ineligible. Applicants will receive a confirmation e-mail from grants.gov upon the successful submission of an application. ECA will not notify you upon receipt of electronic applications. It is the responsibility of all applicants submitting proposals via the Grants.gov web portal to ensure that proposals have been received by Grants.gov in their entirety, and ECA bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes. IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of Applications Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program. V. Application Review Information V.1. Review Process The Bureau will review all proposals for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy section overseas, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for assistance awards (grants) resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer. Review Criteria Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered and all carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation: 1. *Quality of the program idea:* Proposals should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to the Bureau's mission. 2. *Program planning:* Detailed agenda and relevant work plan should demonstrate substantive undertakings and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan should adhere to the program overview and guidelines described above. 3. *Ability to achieve program objectives:* Objectives should be reasonable, feasible, and flexible. Proposals should clearly demonstrate how the institution will meet the *program's objectives and plan.* 4. * Multiplier effect/impact:* Proposed programs should strengthen long-term mutual understanding, including maximum sharing of information and establishment of long-term institutional and individual linkages. 5. *Support of Diversity:* Proposals should demonstrate substantive support of the Bureau's policy on diversity. Achievable and relevant features should be cited in both program administration (selection of participants, program venue and program evaluation) and program content (orientation and wrap-up sessions, program meetings, resource materials and follow-up activities). 6. *Institutional Capacity:* Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program or project's goals. 7. *Institution's Record/Ability:* Proposals should demonstrate an institutional record of successful exchange programs, including responsible fiscal management and full compliance with all reporting requirements for past Bureau grants as determined by Bureau Grants Staff. The Bureau will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. 8. *Follow-on Activities:* Proposals should provide a plan for continued follow-on activity (without Bureau support) ensuring that Bureau supported programs are not isolated events. 9. *Project Evaluation:* Proposals should include a plan to evaluate the activity's success, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. A draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus description of a methodology to use to link outcomes to original project objectives is recommended. 10. *Cost-effectiveness:* The overhead and administrative components of the proposal, including salaries and honoraria, should be kept as low as possible. All other items should be necessary and appropriate. 11. *Cost-sharing:* Proposals should maximize cost-sharing through other private sector support as well as institutional direct funding contributions. VI. Award Administration Information VI.1a. Award Notices Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through internal Bureau procedures. Successful applicants will receive a Federal Assistance Award

(FAA)from the Bureau's Grants Office. The FAA and the original grant proposal with subsequent modifications (if applicable) shall be the only binding authorizing document between the recipient and the U.S. Government. The FAA will be signed by an authorized Grants Officer, and mailed to the recipient's responsible officer identified in the application. Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review from the ECA program office coordinating this competition. VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements Terms and Conditions for the Administration of ECA agreements include the following: Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122, “Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations.” Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21, “Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.” OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Governments”. OMB Circular No. A-110 (Revised), Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Nonprofit Organizations. OMB Circular No. A-102, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments. OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Government, and Non-profit Organizations. Please reference the following Web sites for additional information: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants. http://fa.statebuy.state.gov.* VI.3. Reporting Requirements You must provide ECA with a hard copy original plus one copy of the following reports:

(1)A final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award;

(2)Interim reports, as required in the Bureau grant agreement. Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. (Please refer to IV. Application and Submission Instructions (IV.3.d.3) above for Program Monitoring and Evaluation information. All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. All reports must be sent to the ECA Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer listed in the final assistance award document. Reports may also be sent electronically to *reports@state.gov* and copied the program officer at *jonessa1@state.gov.* *Program Data Requirements:* Organizations awarded grants will be required to maintain specific data on program participants and activities in an electronically accessible database format that can be shared with the Bureau as required. As a minimum, the data must include the following:

(1)Name, address, contact information and biographic sketch of all persons who travel internationally on funds provided by the grant or who benefit from the grant funding but do not travel.

(2)Itineraries of international and domestic travel, providing dates of travel and cities in which any exchange experiences take place. Final schedules for in-country and U.S. activities must be received by the ECA Program Officer at least three work days prior to the official opening of the activity. VII. Agency Contacts For questions about this announcement, contact Shalita Jones, Program Officer, Youth Programs Division, Office of Citizen Exchanges, ECA/PE/C/PY, Room 568, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, Telephone:

(202)203-7507, Fax:

(202)203-7529, E-mail: *jonessa1@state.gov.* All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/PE/C/PY-08-68. Please read the complete announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. VIII. Other Information Notice The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements per section VI.3 above. Dated: April 23, 2008. Goli Ameri, Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-9584 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6206] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: Greek Teacher Professional Development Project *Announcement Type:* New Cooperative Agreement. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/A/S/X-08-06. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 00.000. *Key Dates:* Application Deadline: June 6, 2008. *Executive Summary:* The Office of Global Educational Programs of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State announces an open competition for the Greek Teacher Professional Development Project. U.S. public and private universities with schools of education and that meet the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) may submit proposals to administer an eight-week professional development program to start in August 2009, for approximately twenty teachers in the humanities from Greece at an early point in their careers as educators. The program will focus on teaching methodology as well as the use of technology in the classroom and should include both an academic component of seminars at a U.S. university's school of education and a practical component of practice teaching with guidance from experienced mentor teachers in local schools. Interested universities should demonstrate strong contacts with local U.S. school districts to facilitate the practical internship component, as well as the faculty resources to conduct a substantive academic program. Host schools for internships may be public, private, magnet or charter schools, and should exemplify educational best practices. I. Funding Opportunity Description Authority Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended, Public Law 87-256, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries * * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations * * * and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic, and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program above is provided through legislation. Purpose The program will bring approximately twenty beginning teachers in the humanities from Greece to the U.S. to study and practice student-centered teaching approaches and the uses of technology in the classroom. The teachers, who will speak English, will be recruited by the U.S. Educational Foundation in Greece (Fulbright Foundation) in consultation with the Ministry of Education in Greece for approval by the ECA program office. The group will be diverse in terms of their home regions in Greece, gender, and socio-economic background. Following the program, the teachers will return with enhanced abilities as young professionals teaching in secondary schools throughout Greece. This program is designed to provide these new teachers with a substantive cultural and exchange experience in the United States as well as a basis for continuing cooperation with U.S. counterparts in the promotion of mutual understanding. Program Administration Activities and responsibilities of the program office in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

(ECA)include:

(1)Participation in the design and direction of program activities;

(2)Approval of key personnel;

(3)Approval and input on program timelines, agendas and administrative procedures;

(4)Guidance in execution of all program components;

(5)Review and approval of all program publicity and recruitment materials;

(6)Approval of participating teachers, in cooperation with the U.S. Educational Foundation in Greece;

(7)Approval of decisions related to special circumstances or problems throughout the duration of program;

(8)Assistance with non-immigration status and other SEVIS-related issues;

(9)Assistance with participant emergencies; and

(10)Liaison with the U.S. Educational Foundation in Greece. Programs must conform with Bureau requirements and guidelines outlined in the Solicitation Package which includes the Request for Grant Proposals (RFGP), the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation

(POGI)and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). Overall Responsibilities of the Recipient The recipient is responsible for preparation of form DS-2019 under a G Program Number under the Bureau's responsibility on behalf of the ECA program office; organizing and implementing pre-orientation and debriefing programs; placement; monitoring, supervision, and support of participants; administering sub-award competitions as necessary; and fiscal management, evaluation, and follow-on and alumni activities for the program components described above. Please see the POGI for details pertaining to these activities. The recipient should coordinate program administration with the Fulbright Foundation in Greece and consult with the ECA program office regarding program activities, maintaining regular telephone, e-mail, and fax communications. The recipient should administer financial aspects of the program and comply with Bureau reporting requirements. Specific recipient activities and responsibilities are described according to program phases as follows: *Pre-departure Orientation:* The recipient should, in cooperation with representatives of the Fulbright Foundation, conduct a two-day pre-departure orientation workshop for the participants in Greece. The recipient should prepare and provide substantive information about the program for the pre-departure orientation including information about program goals and requirements. At the orientation, organizers should address issues about the participants' stay in the U.S. and provide a basic introduction to U.S. life and customs, and how these customs may differ from those in Greece. *U.S. Program:* In the United States, the recipient should:

(1)Provide the Greek teachers with an introduction to U.S. government as it relates to education, the U.S. educational system and U.S. culture through site visits;

(2)Arrange for the teachers to visit a variety of secondary schools (public, private, charter, etc.), including economically and ethnically diverse schools;

(3)Arrange for the teachers to gain direct knowledge of local school governance, by attending faculty, board of education, and parent-teacher association meetings;

(4)Select local U.S. secondary schools to serve as internship hosts (based on a review of brief proposals solicited by the recipient from the schools outlining their interests, understanding of program goals, examples of best practices, and commitments to mentoring);

(5)Place small groups of participants at secondary schools near the university for six-week internships. The Greek teachers should be paired with experienced U.S. teachers whose academic specializations match their own. Internship activities should include observing a variety of teaching methods (inquiry, active classroom, group projects, etc.) as well as computer-based lessons; integrating technology in the classroom; working individually (or in pairs) with a mentor teacher on curriculum development; team teaching; and, if possible, teaching independently under the guidance of a mentor teacher;

(6)Organize and deliver seminars on pedagogical topics. These seminars should be integrated with the internships and include topics such as classroom management, conflict resolution, diversity, and curriculum development. The seminars should also help participants create a curriculum or portfolio for use after returning to Greece;

(7)Coordinate cultural experiences that enable participants to interact with their local communities through brief home hospitality visits and involvement with non-school-based groups in activities reflecting the diversity of U.S. society, and that include opportunities to speak formally or informally to Americans about contemporary Greek society and culture;

(8)Create a network through which Greek teachers can communicate and support one another in using the new methodologies and to facilitate the development of follow-on activities in cooperation with the Fulbright Foundation; and

(9)Arrange an end-of-program debriefing of one or two days in Washington, DC to enable the Greek teachers to share with ECA managers what they have observed and learned. The debriefing should also suggest strategies for Greek teachers to share their knowledge as program alumni with professional counterparts and students in their own classrooms in Greece after they return home. *Follow-on Activities in Greece:* The recipient university should send representatives to make presentations and provide facilitative assistance at a follow-on workshop in Greece, to be organized and funded by the Fulbright Foundation. The agreement will begin on or about September 1, 2008 and the recipient should complete all exchange activities by June 30, 2010. The exchange program will take place August-September 2009. Please refer to additional program specific guidelines in the Project Objectives, Goals, and Implementation

(POGI)document. Programs must comply with J-1 visa regulations. Please refer to Solicitation Package for further information. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreement. *Fiscal Year Funds:* 2008. *Approximate Total Funding:* $200,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* 1. *Approximate Average Award:* $200,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* Pending availability of funds, September 1, 2008. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* June 30, 2010. *Additional Information:* Pending successful implementation of this program and the availability of funds in subsequent fiscal years, it is ECA's intent to renew this agreement for two additional fiscal years, before openly competing it again. III. Eligibility Information *III.1. Eligible Applicants:* Applications may be submitted by U.S. public and private universities meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). Universities applying for this program must involve their schools or departments of education in program implementation. *III.2. Cost Sharing or Matching Funds:* There is no minimum or maximum percentage required for this competition. However, the Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding in support of its programs. When cost sharing is offered, it is understood and agreed that the applicant must provide the amount of cost sharing as stipulated in its proposal and later included in an approved grant agreement. Cost sharing may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs. For accountability, you must maintain written records to support all costs which are claimed as your contribution, as well as costs to be paid by the Federal government. Such records are subject to audit. The basis for determining the value of cash and in-kind contributions must be in accordance with OMB Circular A-110, (Revised), Subpart C.23—Cost Sharing and Matching. In the event you do not provide the minimum amount of cost sharing as stipulated in the approved budget, ECA's contribution will be reduced in like proportion. *III.3. Other Eligibility Requirements:* Bureau grant guidelines require that organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges be limited to $60,000 in Bureau funding. ECA anticipates awarding one grant, in an amount up to $200,000 to support program and administrative costs required to implement this exchange program. Therefore, organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges are ineligible to apply under this competition. The Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding in support of its programs. IV. Application and Submission Information Note: Please read the complete **Federal Register** announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. *IV.1. Contact Information to Request an Application Package:* Please contact Patricia Mosley of the Teacher Exchange Branch, ECA/A/S/X, Room 349, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, telephone:

(202)453-8897, fax:

(202)453-8890, e-mail: *MosleyPJ@state.gov* to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/S/X-08-06 located at the top of this announcement when making your request. Alternatively, an electronic application package may be obtained from grants.gov. Please see section IV.3f for further information. The Solicitation Package contains the Proposal Submission Instruction

(PSI)document which consists of required application forms, and standard guidelines for proposal preparation. It also contains the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation

(POGI)document, which provides specific information, award criteria and budget instructions tailored to this competition. Please specify Michelle Garren, telephone:

(202)453-8884, e-mail: *GarrenMW@state.gov* and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/S/X-08-06 located at the top of this announcement on all other inquiries and correspondence. *IV.2. To Download a Solicitation Package Via Internet:* The entire Solicitation Package may be downloaded from the Bureau's Web site at *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/rfgps/menu.htm,* or from the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.grants.gov.* Please read all information before downloading. *IV.3. Content and Form of Submission:* Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. The original and seven copies of the application should be submitted per the instructions under IV.3f. “Application Deadline and Methods of Submission” section below. IV.3a. You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the U.S. Government. This number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* or call 1-866-705-5711. Please ensure that your DUNS number is included in the appropriate box of the SF-424 which is part of the formal application package. IV.3b. All proposals must contain an executive summary, proposal narrative and budget. Please Refer to the Solicitation Package. It contains the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions

(PSI)document and the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation

(POGI)document for additional formatting and technical requirements. IV.3c. You must have nonprofit status with the IRS at the time of application. Please note: Effective March 14, 2008, all applicants for ECA federal assistance awards must include with their application, a copy of page 5, Part V-A, “Current Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Key Employees” of their most recent Internal Revenue Service

(J)programs is available at *http://exchanges.state.gov* or from: United States Department of State, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, ECA/EC/ECD—SA-44, Room 734, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, Telephone:

(202)203-5029, FAX:

(202)453-8640. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for further information. IV.3d.2 Diversity, Freedom and Democracy Guidelines Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and disabilities. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the 'Support for Diversity' section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into your proposal. Public Law 104-319 provides that “in carrying out programs of educational and cultural exchange in countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy,” the Bureau “shall take appropriate steps to provide opportunities for participation in such programs to human rights and democracy leaders of such countries.” Public Law 106-113 requires that the governments of the countries described above do not have inappropriate influence in the selection process. Proposals should reflect advancement of these goals in their program contents, to the full extent deemed feasible. IV.3d.3 Program Monitoring and Evaluation Proposals must include a plan to monitor and evaluate the project's success, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. The Bureau recommends that your proposal include a draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus a description of a methodology to use to link outcomes to original project objectives. The Bureau expects that the grantee will track participants or partners and be able to respond to key evaluation questions, including satisfaction with the program, learning as a result of the program, changes in behavior as a result of the program, and effects of the program on institutions (institutions in which participants work or partner institutions). The evaluation plan should include indicators that measure gains in mutual understanding as well as substantive knowledge. Successful monitoring and evaluation depend heavily on setting clear goals and outcomes at the outset of a program. Your evaluation plan should include a description of your project's objectives, your anticipated project outcomes, and how and when you intend to measure these outcomes (performance indicators). The more that outcomes are “smart” (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and placed in a reasonable time frame), the easier it will be to conduct the evaluation. You should also show how your project objectives link to the goals of the program described in this RFGP. Your monitoring and evaluation plan should clearly distinguish between program outputs and outcomes. Outputs are products and services delivered, often stated as an amount. Output information is important to show the scope or size of project activities, but it cannot substitute for information about progress towards outcomes or the results achieved. Examples of outputs include the number of people trained or the number of seminars conducted. Outcomes, in contrast, represent specific results a project is intended to achieve and is usually measured as an extent of change. Findings on outputs and outcomes should both be reported, but the focus should be on outcomes. We encourage you to assess the following four levels of outcomes, as they relate to the program goals set out in the RFGP (listed here in increasing order of importance): 1. Participant satisfaction with the program and exchange experience. 2. Participant learning, such as increased knowledge, aptitude, skills, and changed understanding and attitude. Learning includes both substantive (subject-specific) learning and mutual understanding. 3. Participant behavior, concrete actions to apply knowledge in work or community; greater participation and responsibility in civic organizations; interpretation and explanation of experiences and new knowledge gained; continued contacts between participants, community members, and others. 4. Institutional changes, such as increased collaboration and partnerships, policy reforms, new programming, and organizational improvements. Please note: Consideration should be given to the appropriate timing of data collection for each level of outcome. For example, satisfaction is usually captured as a short-term outcome, whereas behavior and institutional changes are normally considered longer-term outcomes. Overall, the quality of your monitoring and evaluation plan will be judged on how well it

(1)Specifies intended outcomes;

(2)gives clear descriptions of how each outcome will be measured;

(3)identifies when particular outcomes will be measured; and

(4)provides a clear description of the data collection strategies for each outcome (i.e., surveys, interviews, or focus groups). (Please note that evaluation plans that deal only with the first level of outcomes [satisfaction] will be deemed less competitive under the present evaluation criteria.) Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. IV.3.d.4. Describe your plans for staffing: Please provide a staffing plan which outlines the responsibilities of each staff person and explains which staff member will be accountable for each program responsibility. Wherever possible please streamline administrative processes. IV.3e. Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget: IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire program. The budget should not exceed $200,000 for program and administrative costs. There must be a summary budget as well as breakdowns reflecting both administrative and program budgets for host campus and foreign teacher involvement in the program. Applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification. The summary and detailed administrative and program budgets should be accompanied by a narrative which provides a brief rationale for each line item including a methodology for estimating appropriate average maintenance allowance levels and tuition costs (as applicable) for the participants, and the number that can be accommodated at the levels proposed. The total administrative costs funded by the Bureau must be reasonable and appropriate. IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the program and additional budget guidance are outlined in detail in the POGI document. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. IV.3f. Application Deadline and Methods of Submission: *Application Deadline Date:* Friday, June 6, 2008. *Reference Number:* ECA/A/S/X-08-06. *Methods of Submission:* Applications may be submitted in one of two ways: 1. In hard-copy, via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., DHL, Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, or U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight Mail, etc.), or 2. Electronically through *http://www.grants.gov.* Along with the Project Title, all applicants must enter the above Reference Number in Box 11 on the SF-424 contained in the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions

(PSI)of the solicitation document. IV.3f.1 Submitting Printed Applications Applications must be shipped no later than the above deadline. Delivery services used by applicants must have in-place, centralized shipping identification and tracking systems that may be accessed via the Internet and delivery people who are identifiable by commonly recognized uniforms and delivery vehicles. Proposals shipped on or before the above deadline but received at ECA more than seven days after the deadline will be ineligible for further consideration under this competition. Proposals shipped after the established deadlines are ineligible for consideration under this competition. ECA will not notify you upon receipt of application. It is each applicant's responsibility to ensure that each package is marked with a legible tracking number and to monitor/confirm delivery to ECA via the Internet. Delivery of proposal packages may not be made via local courier service or in person for this competition. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Only proposals submitted as stated above will be considered. Important note: When preparing your submission please make sure to include one extra copy of the completed SF-424 form and place it in an envelope addressed to “ECA/EX/PM”. The original and seven copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/A/S/X-08-06, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. Applicants submitting hard-copy applications must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal in text (.txt) format on a PC-formatted disk. The Bureau will provide these files electronically to the appropriate Public Affairs Section at the U.S. embassy for its review. IV.3f.2 Submitting Electronic Applications Applicants have the option of submitting proposals electronically through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). Complete solicitation packages are available at Grants.gov in the “Find” portion of the system. Please follow the instructions available in the “Get Started” portion of the site ( *http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted* ). Several of the steps in the Grants.gov registration process could take several weeks. Therefore, applicants should check with appropriate staff within their organizations immediately after reviewing this RFGP to confirm or determine their registration status with Grants.gov. Once registered, the amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you not wait until the application deadline to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. Direct all questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission to: Grants.gov Customer Support, Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726, Business Hours: Monday-Friday, 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Eastern Time, E-mail: *support@grants.gov* . Applicants have until midnight (12 a.m.), Washington, DC time of the closing date to ensure that their entire application has been uploaded to the Grants.gov site. There are no exceptions to the above deadline. Applications uploaded to the site after midnight of the application deadline date will be automatically rejected by the grants.gov system, and will be technically ineligible. Applicants will receive a confirmation e-mail from grants.gov upon the successful submission of an application. ECA will not notify you upon receipt of electronic applications. It is the responsibility of all applicants submitting proposals via the Grants.gov Web portal to ensure that proposals have been received by Grants.gov in their entirety, and ECA bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes. IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of Applications: Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program. V. Application Review Information V.1. Review Process The Bureau will review all proposals for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy section and Fulbright Foundation overseas. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for assistance awards (cooperative agreements) resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer. Review Criteria Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered and all carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation: *1. Program Development and Management:* The proposal narrative should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to the Bureau's mission as well as the objectives of the Greek Teacher Professional Development Project. It should include an effective, feasible program plan for U.S.-based school internships and host university seminars. *2. Multiplier Effect/Impact:* The proposed program should strengthen long-term mutual understanding, including maximum sharing of information and establishment of long-term institutional and individual linkages. *3. Support of Diversity:* Proposals should demonstrate substantive support of the Bureau's policy on diversity. Achievable and relevant features should be cited in both program administration (selection of participants, program venue and program evaluation) and program content (orientation and wrap-up sessions, program meetings, resource materials and follow-up activities). *4. Institutional Capacity and Record:* Proposals should demonstrate an institutional record of successful exchange programs, including responsible fiscal management and full compliance with all reporting requirements for past Bureau grants as determined by Bureau Grants Staff. The successful proposal will demonstrate the organization's experience in international educational exchange and internship programs, and an understanding of Greece's history, culture, religion, and system of education. The Bureau will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. *5. Follow-on and Alumni Activities:* Proposals should provide a plan for continued follow-on activity (both with and without Bureau support) ensuring that the Greek Teacher Professional Development Project is not an isolated event. Activities should include tracking and maintaining updated lists of all alumni and facilitating follow-up activities, including facilitating an alumni conference in Greece organized by the Fulbright Foundation and the Greek Ministry of Education. *6. Project Evaluation:* Proposals should include a plan to evaluate the activity's success, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. A draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus description of a methodology to use to link outcomes to original project objectives is recommended. *7. Cost-effectiveness and Cost Sharing:* The overhead and administrative components of the proposal, including salaries and honoraria, should be kept as low as possible. All other items should be necessary and appropriate. Proposals should maximize cost-sharing through other private sector support as well as institutional direct funding contributions. VI. Award Administration Information VI.1a Award Notices Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through internal Bureau procedures. Successful applicants will receive an Assistance Award Document

(AAD)from the Bureau's Grants Office. The AAD and the original grant proposal with subsequent modifications (if applicable) shall be the only binding authorizing document between the recipient and the U.S. Government. The AAD will be signed by an authorized Grants Officer, and mailed to the recipient's responsible officer identified in the application. Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review from the ECA program office coordinating this competition. VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements Terms and Conditions for the Administration of ECA agreements include the following: Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122, “Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations.” Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21, “Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.” OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Governments”. OMB Circular No. A-110 (Revised), Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Nonprofit Organizations. OMB Circular No. A-102, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments. OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Government, and Non-profit Organizations. Please reference the following Web sites for additional information: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants;http://exchanges.state.gov/education/grantsdiv/terms.htm#articleI.* VI.3. Reporting Requirements You must provide ECA with a hard copy original plus one copy of the following reports: 1. A final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award; 2. A concise, one-page final program report summarizing program outcomes no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award. This one-page report will be transmitted to OMB, and be made available to the public via OMB's USAspending.gov Web site—as part of ECA's Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting requirements. 3. Quarterly program and financial reports. The recipient will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. (Please refer to IV. Application and Submission Instructions (IV.3.d.3) above for Program Monitoring and Evaluation information.) All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. All reports must be sent to the ECA Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer listed in the final assistance award document. VII. Agency Contacts For questions about this announcement, contact: Michelle Garren, Office of Global Educational Programs, ECA/A/S/X, Room 349, ECA/A/S/X-08-06, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, telephone: 202-453-8884, fax 202-453-8890, *GarrenMW@state.gov.* All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/A/S/X-08-06. Please read the complete announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. VIII. Other Information Notice The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements per section VI.3 above. Dated: April 23, 2008. Goli Ameri, Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-9603 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6203] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Thomas Hope: Regency Designer” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Thomas Hope: Regency Designer”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Bard Graduate Center, New York, NY, from on or about July 17, 2008, until on or about November 16, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Richard Lahne, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-453-8058). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: April 22, 2008. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-9583 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6204] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Grecian Taste and Roman Spirit: The Society of Dilettanti” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Grecian Taste and Roman Spirit: The Society of Dilettanti”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, California, from on or about August 7, 2008, until on or about October 27, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: April 24, 2008. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-9601 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6205] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “The Dead Sea Scrolls” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, from on or about June 28, 2008, until on or about December 30, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: April 24, 2008. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-9595 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Sixth Meeting, Special Committee 213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision System, (EFVS/SVS) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision System, (EFVS/SVS). SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision System, (EFVS/SVS). DATES: The meeting will be held May 20-22, 2008 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Marriot Courtyard, Montreal Airport, 7000 Place Robert-Joncas, Montreal, Quebec H4M 2Z5. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036 telephone

(202)833-9339: fax

(202)833-9434: Web site *http://www.rtca.org* for directions. Marriot Courtyard Contact: Ms. Gabrielle Ricci. On Site Point of Contacts: Mr. Anthony Barber 514-855-9411, Ms. Sandra Beaven 514-855-9771. *Dress:* Business Casual. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 213 meeting. The agenda will include: • May 20: • Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda Review; • Review SC-213 Objectives, Action Items, and SC-213 Web site content; • Approve minutes from previous; • Review initial reports from WG 1 and WG 2; • Review/edit most recent draft MASPS. • May 21: • Continuation of Plenary meetings to edit draft MASPS. • May 22: • Plenary consensus of combined draft MASPS; • Plenary; • Review of action items; • Define next steps for continued MASPS development; • Establish date and time for next meeting, adjourn. Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2008. Francisco Estrada C., RTCA Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. E8-9534 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)announces that it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for Fresno Yosemite International Airport

(FAT)under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47504 *et seq.* (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and 14 CFR part 150 by City of Fresno, California. This program was submitted subsequent to a determination by FAA that associated noise exposure maps submitted under 14 CFR part 150 for FAT were in compliance with applicable requirements, effective July 6, 2005 (70 FR 50437-50438). The proposed noise compatibility program will be approved or disapproved on or before October 15, 2008. DATES: *Effective Date:* The effective date of the start of FM's review of the noise compatibility program is April 18, 2008. The public comment period ends June 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David B. Kessler, AICP, Regional Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, Telephone 310/725-3615. Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program should also be submitted to the above office. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for FAT, which will be approved or disapproved on or before October 15, 2008. This notice also announces the availability of this program for public review and comment. An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations

(FAR)Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses. The City of Fresno initially submitted its noise compatibility program for the subject airport to the FAA on May 26, 2006 (71 FR 33032-33033). In a letter received by FAA on September 15, 2006, the City of Fresno requested that FAA suspend its review and processing of the noise compatibility program in order to modify the document. FAA terminated its formal review of the City of Fresno's noise compatibility program effective September 15, 2006 (71 FR 56582). The City of Fresno has submitted their revised noise compatibility program to FAA. Therefore, the FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for FAT, effective on April 18, 2008. The airport operator has requested that the FAA review this material and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program under section 47504 of the Act. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to FAR Part 150 requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before October 15, 2008. The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR part 150, § 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of aviation safety or create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, and whether they are reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-compatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses. Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program with specific reference to these factors. All comments relating to these factors, other than those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the noise exposure maps and the proposed noise compatibility program are available for examination at the following locations: Federal Aviation Administration, National Headquarters, Planning and Environmental Division, APP-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 621, Washington, DC 20591. Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Office, Airports Division, Room 3012, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90261. Federal Aviation Administration, Western Pacific Region, San Francisco Airports District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Suite 210, Burlingame, California 94010. City of Fresno, Mr. Kevin Meikle, Airports Planning Manager, 4995 East Clinton Way, Fresno, CA 93727-1525. Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Issued in Hawthorne, California on April 18, 2008. Mark A. McClardy, Manager, Airports Division, AWP-600, Western-Pacific Region. [FR Doc. E8-9532 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 35133] Milwaukee Industrial Trade Center, LLC, d/b/a Milwaukee Terminal Railway—Acquisition and Operation Exemption—Line Owned by Milwaukee Industrial Trade Center, LLC, d/b/a Milwaukee Terminal Railway Milwaukee Industrial Trade Center, LLC, d/b/a Milwaukee Terminal Railway (MITC), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 1 to acquire and operate approximately 2 miles of rail line 2 that is located within MITC's 84-acre plant site in Milwaukee, WI. 1 The notice of exemption in this proceeding originally was filed on April 14, 2008, but was amended on April 16, 2008. Therefore, the official filing date for the notice of exemption is April 16, 2008. 2 The rail line proposed to be acquired and operated by MITC has been privately owned track, which was formerly owned by A.O. Smith Corp., then by Tower Automotive, Inc., and now by MITC. MITC states that the line connects with a rail line owned by Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which is operated by Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co. MITC further states that the rail line to be acquired and operated by MITC constitutes a line of railroad for which an exemption from the Board is required because it is MITC's initial rail acquisition and operation, notwithstanding that it might otherwise be considered to be spur, industrial, and/or switching track exempt from the Board's acquisition and operation authority under 49 U.S.C. 10906. 3 3 *See Effingham RR Co.—Pet. for Declaratory Order,* 2 S.T.B. 606 (1997), *aff'd sub nom. United Transp. Union—III. Legislative Bd.* v. *Surface Transp. Bd.,* 183 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 1999); *See also Bulkmatic RR.—Acquire and Operate—Bulkmatic Tranport,* 6 S.T.B. 481 (2002). The transaction is expected to be consummated no sooner than 30 days after the filing of the amended notice of exemption, or after the May 16, 2008 effective date of the exemption. MITC certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio.* Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the transaction. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than May 9, 2008 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective). Pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161 section 193, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007), nothing in this decision authorizes the following activities at any solid waste rail transfer facility: Collecting, storing, or transferring solid waste outside of its original shipping container; or separating or processing solid waste (including baling, crushing, compacting, and shredding). The term “solid waste” is defined in section 1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6903. An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 35133, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Thomas F. McFarland, Thomas F. McFarland, P.C., 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1890, Chicago, IL 60604-1112. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: April 23, 2008. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9568 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY United States Mint Notification of 2008 American Eagle Platinum Proof Coin Pricing SUMMARY: The United States Mint is setting prices for the 2008 American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins. Pursuant to the authority that 31 U.S.C. 5111(a) and 5112(k) grant the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue platinum coins, and to prepare and distribute numismatic items, the United States Mint mints and issues 2008 American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins in four denominations with the following weights: One-ounce, one-half ounce, one-quarter ounce, one-tenth ounce. The United States Mint also produces American Eagle Platinum Proof four-coin sets that contain one coin of each denomination. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(B), the United States Mint is setting the price of these coins to reflect increases in the market price of platinum. Accordingly, the United States Mint will commence selling the following 2008 American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins according to the following price schedule: Description Price 2008 American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins: One-ounce platinum coin $2,299.95 One-half ounce platinum coin 1,174.95 One-quarter ounce platinum coin 609.95 One-tenth ounce platinum coin 269.95 Four-coin platinum set 4,119.95 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria C. Eskridge, Associate Director for Sales and Marketing, United States Mint, 801 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500. Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701. Edmund C. Moy, Director, United States Mint. [FR Doc. E8-9429 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0463] Proposed Information Collection (Notice of Waiver of VA Compensation or Pension To Receive Military Pay and Allowances) Activity; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to waive disability benefits. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov;* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail: *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0001” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at

(202)461-9769 or FAX

(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. *With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on:*

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Notice of Waiver of VA Compensation or Pension to Receive Military Pay and Allowances, VA Form 21-8951 and VA Form 21-8951-2. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0463. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Claimants who wish to waive VA disability benefits in order to receive active or inactive duty training pay are require to complete VA Forms 21-8951 and 21-8951-2. Active and inactive duty training pay cannot be paid concurrently with VA disability compensation or pension benefits. Claimants who elect to keep training pay must waive VA benefits for the number of days equal to the number of days in which they received training pay. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 3,500 hours. *Estimated Average Burden per Respondent:* 10 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* Annually. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 21,000. Dated: April 23, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-9553 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0405] Proposed Information Collection (REPS Annual Eligibility Report) Activity: Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(REPS)benefits. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *http://www.Regulations.gov;* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail: *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0001” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *http://www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at

(202)461-9769 or FAX

(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* REPS Annual Eligibility Report, (Under the Provisions of Section 156, Public Law 97-377), VA Form 21-8941. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0405. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA Form 21-8941 is completed annually by claimants who have earned income that is at or near the limit of earned income. The REPS program pays benefits to certain surviving spouses and children of veterans who died in service prior to August 13, 1981 or who died as a result of a service-connected disability incurred or aggravated prior to August 13, 1981. VA uses the information collected to determine a claimant's continued entitlement to REPS benefits. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 300 hours. *Estimated Average Burden per Respondent:* 15 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* Annually. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,200. Dated: April 23, 2008. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-9555 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P 73 85 Thursday, May 1, 2008 Proposed Rules Part II Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Parts 732, 785, 870 and 872 Remining Incentives; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Parts 732, 785, 870 and 872 [Docket ID: OSM-2007-0016] RIN 1029-AC57 Remining Incentives AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are proposing to amend our existing regulations to provide incentives to promote the remining and reclamation of eligible abandoned coal mine refuse piles. We are also considering and seeking comment on other remining incentives that were authorized by recent amendments to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 made by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (2006 Act). DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before on June 30, 2008, to ensure our consideration. Public hearings: Upon request, we will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule at a date, time, and location to be announced in the **Federal Register** before the hearing. We will accept requests for a public hearing until 4 p.m., Eastern Time, on May 22, 2008. If you wish to attend a hearing, but not speak, you should contact the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT before the hearing date to verify that the hearing will be held. If you wish to attend and speak at a hearing, you should follow the procedures under “III. Public Comment Procedures” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.* The notice is listed under the agency name “Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.” The proposed rule has been assigned Docket ID: OSM-2007-0016. If you would like to submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, go to *www.regulations.gov* and do the following. Click on the “Advanced Docket Search” button on the right side of the screen. Type in the Docket ID OSM-2007-0016 and click the “Submit” button at the bottom of the page. The next screen will display the Docket Search Results for the rulemaking. If you click on OSM-2007-0016, you can view the proposed rule and submit a comment. You can also view supporting material and any comments submitted by others. • *Mail, Hand-Delivery/Courier to:* Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, Room 252-SIB, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Please include the Docket ID (OSM-2007-0016) with your comment. We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered. Comments sent to an address other than those listed above will not be included in the docket for this rulemaking. For additional information on the rulemaking process and the public availability of comments, see “III. Public Comment Procedures” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. If you wish to comment on the information collection aspects of this proposed rule, submit your comments to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Interior Desk Officer, via electronic mail, to *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* or via fax at

(202)395-6566. Please refer to OMB control number 1029-0040 in your correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James M. Taitt, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Three Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220. Telephone: 412-937-2106. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Remining B. The 2006 Act C. Outreach Summary II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background A. Remining Remining is defined in 30 CFR 701.5 as “surface coal mining and reclamation operations which affect previously mined areas.” Many previously mined areas, generally those mined prior to the passage of SMCRA, were not adequately reclaimed during the original mining operation. These sites often include environmental and safety problems resulting from inadequate reclamation, such as landslides, instability, erosion and sedimentation of streams, inadequate vegetation, and water quality problems. In many cases, previously mined lands may still include coal reserves that can be economically mined using present technology. Often, operators can economically remine and reclaim these areas while at the same time eliminating the environmental and safety problems associated with the site. Recognizing that remining can eliminate environmental and safety problems at previously mined sites while recovering coal reserves, Congress, in 1992, revised SMCRA to encourage remining. In the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) (Pub. L. 102-486), Congress amended section 404 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1234) to extend eligibility for reclamation of lands and water under that section to lands which are reaffected by remining operations. In the May 31, 1994, **Federal Register** (59 FR 28136) we published a final rule implementing changes to SMCRA made by the EPAct. We promulgated 30 CFR 874.12(h) which provides in relevant part that “[s]urface coal mining operations on lands eligible for remining pursuant to section 404 of the Act shall not affect the eligibility of such lands for reclamation activities after the release of the bonds or deposits posted by any such operation as provided by § 800.40 of this chapter.” We made further changes in our rules regarding remining in response to revisions to SMCRA made by the EPAct. In the November 27, 1995, **Federal Register** (60 FR 58479) we published amendments to our rules at 30 CFR 701.5, 773.15(b)(4)(i), 785.25, and 816/817.116(c)(2) that were designed to encourage remining of lands eligible for expenditures under sections 402(g)(4) and 404 of SMCRA. In the February 12, 1999, **Federal Register** (64 FR 7470) we published a rule concerning the financing of abandoned mine land reclamation

(AML)projects that involve the incidental extraction of coal. The rule (known as the enhancing AML reclamation rule) amends the definition of “government-financed construction” at 30 CFR 707.5. We have also published a proposed rule that provides environmental performance and reclamation standards for remining abandoned coal refuse remining operations. That proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2136). A provision of the January 17th proposed rule proposes a definition of the term “abandoned coal refuse remining operations” at 30 CFR 701.5. That proposed definition states: Abandoned coal refuse remining operations means those surface mining activities for the on-site reprocessing of abandoned coal refuse and for the removal of abandoned coal refuse on lands that would otherwise be eligible for expenditure under section 404 and section 402(g)(4) of the Act. Reprocessing operations include on-site activities that separate the coal from waste material using specific gravity or floatation methods, as well as activities that use mechanical means to sort and size the refuse material prior to separation. Removal operations include on-site activities that remove refuse from the site as well as those activities that use mechanical means to sort and size the refuse material prior to its removal. The term “abandoned coal refuse remining operations” does not encompass the removal of refuse for non-fuel uses. A final rule regarding this definition has not yet been promulgated, but the term has been used throughout this preamble and in our proposed rule language. Therefore, for purposes of the rulemaking, we will review any comments on the definition submitted in response to the January 17th proposed rule and we will accept any additional comments with regard to the definition that are submitted concerning this proposed rule. B. The 2006 Act Remining Incentives On December 20, 2006, Congress enacted the 2006 Act, which included amendments to SMCRA. These amendments, among other things, added section 415, titled “Remining Incentives” to SMCRA. Section 415 gives the Secretary of the Interior the option to promulgate rules, subject to certain requirements, to provide incentives to promote remining of eligible lands. Section 415(a) provides that rules promulgated under this section must: * * * describe conditions under which amounts in the fund may be used to provide incentives to promote remining of eligible land under section 404 in a manner that leverages the use of amounts from the fund to achieve more reclamation with respect to the eligible land than would be achieved without the incentives. The fund referred to in that provision is defined in SMCRA section 701(7) as “the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund established pursuant to section 401.” In this proposed rule we refer to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund as “the Fund.” Section 415(b) provides that “Any regulations promulgated under subsection

(a)shall specify that the incentives shall apply only if the Secretary determines, with the concurrence of the State regulatory authority referred to in title V, that, without the incentives, the eligible land would not be likely to be remined and reclaimed.” In essence, section 415 establishes that the Secretary has discretion to promulgate rules authorizing remining incentives that use amounts from the Fund, so long as the incentives meet certain requirements. Section 415(c) specifies two types of incentives that the Secretary may consider.

(1)IN GENERAL.—Incentives that may be considered for inclusion in the regulations promulgated under subsection

(a)include, but are not limited to—

(A)A rebate or waiver of the reclamation fees required under section 402(a); and

(B)The use of amounts in the fund to provide financial assurance for remining operations in lieu of all or a portion of the performance bonds required under section 509. Section 415(c)(1)(A) specifies that the Secretary may consider a rebate or waiver of the reclamation fees that operators must pay for coal produced. Reclamation fees are authorized by SMCRA section 402 (30 U.S.C. 1232) which is implemented in large part at 30 CFR part 870. These fees are collected from coal companies and deposited into the Fund account in the United States Treasury. The Fund is then allocated according to SMCRA. Section 415 authorizes the Secretary to consider whether rebate or waiver of these reclamation fees as an incentive for remining operations would achieve more reclamation of eligible lands than would otherwise be achieved. Only moneys from the Fund can be used for incentives authorized under section 415. As a result, States cannot use prior balance money they receive under SMCRA section 411(h)(1) to pay for remining incentives because the prior balance money is appropriated from the general Treasury and not the Fund. Section 415(c)(1)(B) specifies the second incentive that the Secretary may consider: “The use of amounts in the fund to provide financial assurance for remining operations in lieu of all or a portion of the performance bonds required under section 509.” The performance bonds required by section 509 must be posted by permittees wishing to conduct coal mining and reclamation operations including remining operations. Section 509(a) provides that, “[t]he amount of the bond shall be sufficient to assure the completion of the reclamation plan if the work had to be performed by the regulatory authority in the event of forfeiture * * *. .” A permittee may have difficulty obtaining a bond for remining previously mined sites because of the environmental and safety problems often associated with these sites. Therefore, Congress authorized the Secretary to offer as a remining incentive, the use of amounts in the Fund in lieu of all or a portion of the performance bond. Limitations on Remining Incentives As discussed above, general requirements for remining incentives are set out in sections 415(a) and (b). Section 415 sets no additional limitations on the use of amounts in the Fund as financial assurance in lieu of performance bonds for remining operations. However, under section 415(c), only two types of remining operations could be eligible for a rebate or waiver of reclamation fees: Those that remove or reprocess abandoned coal mine waste; and remining activities that meet the priorities specified in paragraph

(1)or

(2)of section 403(a). Section 415(c)(2) establishes limitations on the use of a rebate or waiver of reclamation fees. Subsection 415(c)(2)(A) provides that: A rebate or waiver under paragraph (1)(A) shall be used only for operations that—

(i)Remove or reprocess abandoned coal mine waste; or

(ii)Conduct remining activities that meet the priorities specified in paragraph

(1)or

(2)of section 403(a). Under subsection 415(c)(2)(B), “[t]he amount of a rebate or waiver provided as an incentive under paragraph (1)(A) to remine or reclaim eligible land shall not exceed the estimated cost of reclaiming the eligible land under this section.” Remining Operations Under subsection 415(c)(2)(A)(i), the Secretary may authorize a rebate or waiver of reclamation fees for operations that remove or reprocess abandoned coal mine waste. Abandoned coal mine waste (referred to in this rulemaking as abandoned coal refuse) is the refuse resulting from the cleaning of mined coal. Abandoned coal refuse sites are lands on which refuse was placed prior to the passage of SMCRA and that were not adequately reclaimed when mining was completed. The refuse material was often dumped or piled on lands without sufficient environmental protection controls or without ensuring stability of the piles. These piles can cause numerous environmental problems including acid drainage and pollution of adjacent streams, uncontrolled erosion resulting in stream siltation and downstream flooding, and diminished aesthetic qualities. Additionally, the coal refuse piles present serious health and safety risks including landslides, uncontrolled burning of the refuse material, and injuries to site visitors because of pile instability. In many cases, the technology for separating coal from refuse material when these sites were created left a significant amount of coal in the piles. Operators may remine refuse material to recover coal by either reprocessing it (separating the coal from refuse material) in place or by hauling the refuse material to an offsite location for processing or burning. Remining and subsequent reclamation of refuse piles can eliminate safety and environmental problems while recovering coal reserves. Under subsection 415(c)(2)(A)(ii), the Secretary may authorize a waiver or rebate of reclamation fees for remining activities that meet the priorities specified in paragraph

(1)or

(2)of SMCRA section 403(a) (known as priority 1 or priority 2 sites). Section 403(a) was also amended by the SMCRA Amendments of 2006. As amended, subsection 403(a)(1) is subdivided into subparagraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B). Similarly, amended subsection 403(a)(2) is subdivided into subparagraphs (2)(A) and (2)(B). The priority referred to in subparagraph (1)(A) is protection of public health, safety, and property from extreme danger of adverse effects of coal mining practices; and the priority referred to in subparagraph (1)(B) is restoration of land and water resources and the environment that have been degraded by the adverse effects of coal mining practices; and are adjacent to a site that has been or will be remediated under subparagraph (1)(A). The priority referred to in subparagraph (2)(A) is protection of public health and safety from adverse effects of coal mining practices; and the priority referred to in subparagraph (2)(B) is restoration of land and water resources and the environment that have been degraded by the adverse effects of coal mining practices, and are adjacent to a site that has been or will be remediated under subparagraph (2)(A). OSM refers to the priorities in subparagraphs (1)(A) and

(B)collectively as “priority 1,” and to the priorities in subparagraphs (2)(A) and

(B)collectively as “priority 2.” Priority 1 and priority 2 sites can include, among other things, abandoned surface mine areas and abandoned deep mine entries and voids, as well as abandoned coal refuse sites. As with coal refuse sites, remining of priority 1 and priority 2 sites can eliminate many safety and environmental hazards while recovering coal reserves. The 2006 Act made numerous other changes to SMCRA. This rule proposes regulations to implement only new SMCRA section 415. Other amendments of SMCRA in the 2006 Act will be addressed in separate rulemakings. C. Outreach Summary Because Congress gave the Secretary the option to promulgate rules to use the Fund to implement section 415, we decided to ask stakeholders whether rules to encourage remining were necessary and, if so, what those rules should encompass. On February 23 and February 26, 2007, we conducted an outreach program to solicit comments, concerns and ideas for regulatory changes to implement section 415. We provided, via e-mail, a series of discussion points for stakeholders to consider when thinking of possible regulatory changes. We asked the stakeholders whether incentives were necessary to encourage remining operations and if so, what form the incentives should take. We also were concerned about any impacts incentives for remining operations may have on the amount of money in the Fund that would be used to reclaim abandoned mine land projects. We sent the outreach discussion points to representatives of industry, the States, environmental, citizen and conservation organizations and groups. Information we received from the outreach was considered in the drafting of this proposed rule. We received a limited response to our outreach effort. For the most part, organizations that responded supported efforts to encourage the remining of abandoned coal mines and indicated that remining incentives could complement existing programs to encourage remining. In addition to the general comments supporting the concept of additional remining incentives, we also received some specific suggestions about incentives. One outreach respondent indicated that we should make a determination in the regulations that the incentives proposed will encourage remining that would not likely otherwise occur. The respondent believes that an individual finding by the Secretary for each remining permit would delay permit issuance and that the State regulatory authority should make the determination that remining permits are justified on a case by case basis. We have proposed a regulation at 30 CFR 732.18(c) that would implement this suggestion. We would interpret the requirement for the Secretary’s determination in section 415(b) as a requirement applicable to changes in State AML or regulatory programs that implement these incentives. We do not propose to interpret section 415(b) as requiring a Secretarial determination for every proposed remining operation to which these incentives could apply. However, we recognize that delegating this responsibility to the State regulatory authority may not be feasible or wanted by States. In the alternative, a potential process could be developed where the OSM Field Office Directors would be responsible for making the determination that remining and reclamation would not likely occur, save for the remining incentives, on a case-by-case basis. Operators seeking incentives would propose the projects to the State regulatory authority who, in turn, would notify the OSM Field Office Director with oversight authority in their State. The Field Office Director would examine the permit application and would forward his or her determination of eligibility for remining incentives to the State regulatory authority. We are seeking comments on whether such a system would be practical and advantageous; and on whether some other method of making the finding required in section 415(b) could be more practical or more helpful. An outreach respondent indicated that waiver of reclamation fees was preferred over rebate of the fees. This respondent indicated that a rebate of fees would inject an element of uncertainty into the remining process when the purpose of the incentives should be to eliminate or reduce uncertainty. We have proposed rules at 30 CFR 785.26 and 30 CFR 870.13(d) to provide for waivers of reclamation fees for abandoned coal refuse remining operations that remove all refuse material for reprocessing off site. However, we are seeking comments on whether rebates of reclamation fees for abandoned coal refuse remining operations would be more practical than waivers and would increase the number of remining operations and their subsequent reclamation. Another respondent to our outreach efforts supported the use of the Fund to provide financial assurance in lieu of some or all of the performance bonds. The respondent suggested that we establish a bond pool for remining operations. Since each State's bonding process is unique, we decided not to propose a national rule requiring a specific bonding system for remining operations such as a bond pool. One respondent proposed that we create a bond pool for remining projects in the anthracite and bituminous regions of Pennsylvania. A State-specific bonding program would be beyond the scope of a national rulemaking. We chose not to propose a rule to use monies from the Fund to provide financial assurances in lieu of all or part of required performance bonds. A nationwide rule that adds to, or modifies, existing bonding regulations would not fit well with the diversity of bonding systems employed in the States. Additionally, one State indicated that it employed one agency to administer Title IV projects and a separate agency to administer Title V projects. That State was concerned that its laws may not allow the use of Title IV funds to provide bonds to guarantee reclamation of Title V projects or may not allow transfer of funds from its Title IV agency to its Title V agency. One respondent suggested that we develop a remining operator's assistance program to provide financial assistance to operators for preparing permit materials for remining sites. We are seeking comment from the public on the feasibility and utility of such a program. One respondent also indicated support of the concept of a special nationwide permit for remining, but disagrees with the way it was limited by the Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The respondent indicated that we should not follow the COE practice of defining a remining site by a ratio of 60% remining acreage to 40% new disturbance. The respondent believes this ratio will serve to limit the number of remining sites addressed and that operators need maximum incentives to ensure that as much remining will be done as promptly as possible. We are seeking further comment from the public on whether we should address the COE definition of remining in our final rule. A respondent requested that we revise 30 CFR 785.25 to remove paragraph

(c)that allows 30 CFR 785.25 to expire. The removal of the September 30, 2004, expiration date will be addressed in a separate rulemaking. Several States expressed concerns about whether they would be required to amend their approved mining or abandoned mine land programs to include counterparts to any Federal rules promulgated under section 415. We anticipate that State adoption of any rules we promulgate under section 415 of SMCRA will be discretionary. However, to participate in the remining incentives program, States will have to adopt rules that are no less effective than the Federal rules that may be eventually promulgated. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment After considering the comments we received in outreach, we determined that, while there was a general interest in remining incentives, there was little agreement on what specific incentives should be offered. When envisioning rules to implement section 415, we determined that any incentives offered should be easily implemented and result in the most rapid and complete reclamation possible. We felt that permittees would not likely take advantage of incentives that add excessive recordkeeping burdens or result in cumbersome procedures. As a result, we determined that a waiver of reclamation fees would be the most logical incentive to implement. A waiver would require little or no additional recordkeeping by operators and would result in benefits to operators as soon as coal is recovered from remining operations. Since reclamation fees are based on the amount of coal produced, a waiver of fees would give operators more revenue per ton and would encourage operators to mine quickly and efficiently. Mining more rapidly will lead to more rapid reclamation and efficient mining will increase the amount of coal reserves recovered from remining operations. In deciding what types of remining operations we should encourage through the use of incentives, we felt that it would be logical to remine and subsequently reclaim previously affected sites that have serious environmental impacts and that have sufficient coal reserves to make a waiver of reclamation fees an attractive incentive. Coal refuse disposal sites appeared to be the most logical candidates that fit these criteria. The safety impacts of refuse disposal sites can be severe. Refuse piles placed on hillsides, such as exist throughout Appalachia, may be unstable and slip, resulting in landslides with damage to adjacent property and roads. In addition, refuse is often easily combustible because of its significant coal content. As a result, burning refuse banks have been serious problems, because of both noxious fume emissions and the potential for fires spreading to adjacent areas and to nearby residences. Refuse piles are also attractive for off-road vehicle use which, because of the piles' unstable and steep slopes, can result in injury and even death. Refuse disposal sites can also have severe environmental impacts, including: Acid drainage and pollution of adjacent streams resulting from the large amounts of pyritic materials that are often present; uncontrolled erosion resulting in stream siltation and downstream flooding; diminished aesthetic qualities, and loss of land use. While the amount of coal in each refuse disposal site is variable, there can be significant amounts remaining to be remined. Remining can recover the reserves while at the same time reclaiming the site to eliminate the safety and environmental impacts. We also considered whether to offer incentives for all refuse remining operations including both those that reprocess refuse on site and those that remove all on-site refuse material for reprocessing off site. There are several differences between abandoned coal refuse removal operations and on-site reprocessing operations that make reprocessing the refuse material off site preferable to on-site reprocessing. Most significantly, refuse removal operations generate little, if any, residual waste and no wet refuse waste, as compared to that generated by on-site reprocessing operations. Further, refuse removal operations do not require on-site reprocessing or preparation plants with their associated process water circuits, discharges, and ponds. Additionally, most refuse removal operations will be of shorter duration than on-site refuse reprocessing operations. Having considered the above factors, we are proposing, in this rule, to authorize waiver of reclamation fees for the remining of refuse disposal sites where all refuse is removed for reprocessing off site. We are proposing to add four provisions to our regulations at 30 CFR to implement this remining incentive: 30 CFR 732.18, 785.26, 870.13(d), and 872.23. Proposed 30 CFR 732.18 would provide that a State regulatory authority may submit a revision to its approved regulatory program to provide remining incentives under certain circumstances. This provision would also establish that approval by the Secretary of such a revision would be deemed a determination that without the incentives, the lands to be remined would not be likely to be remined and reclaimed. Proposed 30 CFR 785.26 would establish procedures for a State regulatory authority to waive reclamation fees as incentives for remining. Proposed section 870.13(d) would authorize the waiver of reclamation fees for abandoned coal refuse remining operations that remove all abandoned coal refuse to an off-site location for reprocessing or direct use. Finally, proposed 30 CFR 872.23 would establish procedures for the States to amend their programs to include remining incentives in their Title IV and Title V programs. We will discuss each of the four proposed new regulations in turn below. 30 CFR 732.18 We proposed 30 CFR 732.18 to satisfy the requirement of SMCRA section 415(b) that the Secretary determine, with the concurrence of the State regulatory authority, that, without the incentives, the eligible land would not be likely to be remined and reclaimed. Proposed 30 CFR 732.18 provides:

(a)This section applies to any State implementing 30 CFR 785.26 and 870.13 providing for a waiver of reclamation fees as an incentive for remining.

(b)The State regulatory authority may submit a revision to its approved regulatory program to provide remining incentives by waiver of reclamation fees pursuant to 30 CFR 785.26 and 870.13, if the State determines that providing such incentives will result in remining and reclamation of eligible lands that would not otherwise be likely to be remined and reclaimed.

(c)Approval by the Secretary of the Interior of a revision to a State regulatory program under this section will constitute a determination that without the incentives pursuant to this section, the lands to be remined would not be likely to be remined and reclaimed. Under this proposed provision, if a State first determines that a regulatory program provision providing remining incentives would result in remining and reclamation that would not otherwise be likely, then approval by the Secretary of the revision would constitute the Secretary's determination to the same effect. This provision would avoid the necessity for the Secretary to concur in every waiver decision on a remining permit. We believe that delegating to the State the authority for waiver decisions is consistent with the cooperative federalism that is central to the SMCRA regulatory scheme. When the State submits an amendment to adopt these remining incentives they will have to include provisions to ensure that the lands to be remined would not likely be mined and reclaimed without these provisions. Our approval of the amendment would ensure that the requirements for the finding are included in the State's program and would establish that once implemented by the State, OSM would conduct oversight on these remining operations to ensure that the finding was being made. We are also considering an alternative to this language: To delegate to OSM Field Office Directors the authority for making this finding on a case-by-case basis for each remining operation. We invite comment on this alternative. 30 CFR 785.26 Proposed 30 CFR 785.26 is intended to implement SMCRA sections 415(a) and (b). This section would establish procedures for a State regulatory authority to waive reclamation fees as an incentive for remining. It would require a State regulatory authority to consult with the State agency that administers the State reclamation program under Title IV and the implementing regulations at part 870, before making the determinations required under proposed 30 CFR 785.26(a) and (b). Proposed 30 CFR 785.26 provides: This section applies to waiver of reclamation fees by a State regulatory authority as an incentive for remining operations under part 872 of this chapter. A waiver of reclamation fees under this section shall apply only to production of coal by removal of abandoned coal mine refuse for reprocessing or direct use off site.

(a)*Consultation with the Title IV reclamation agency.* You, the State regulatory authority, may waive reclamation fees otherwise required under part 870 of this chapter, provided that you first consult with the State agency designated to administer the State reclamation program under part 870 of this chapter, and make the following determinations:

(1)That waiver of reclamation fees for remining of eligible lands under the permit would result in more reclamation of the eligible land than would result from expenditure of the same amount from the Fund.

(2)That the eligible lands to be remined under the permit would not be likely to be remined and reclaimed without the waiver of reclamation fees as an incentive.

(b)*Eligibility* . After you make the determinations under paragraph

(a)of this section, production of coal by remining pursuant to a permit you issue under part 786 of this chapter will be eligible for a waiver of reclamation fees in accordance with part 872 of this chapter.

(c)*Documentation* . You must include in the remining case file for the permit:

(1)The determinations made under paragraph

(a)of this section; and

(2)The information taken into account in making the determinations. This proposed rule would require that, after consultation, the State regulatory authority would determine whether remining under a permit for which a waiver of fees was requested would achieve more reclamation than would be achieved without the incentives. The required consultation and determinations are intended to assure that waivers could be authorized only for remining that would leverage use of moneys from the Fund to achieve more reclamation of eligible lands than would otherwise occur. If after making the determinations required under this section, the State regulatory authority issued a permit for remining a coal refuse pile to remove all abandoned coal refuse, the State regulatory authority could waive the reclamation fees that would normally be due on coal produced under that remining permit. In general, the proposed rule would authorize waiver of reclamation fees for coal recovered from abandoned coal refuse remining operations that remove all refuse for reprocessing or burning off site if all criteria in section 415 of SMCRA are met. A State that amends its approved program to authorize fee waivers would be required to document, as part of the permit application process, that a remining operation is eligible for a waiver of the reclamation fees and that it meets the provisions of section 415. The State would have to retain that documentation for the waiver as part of the permitting package subject to review by OSM pursuant to our oversight and audit procedures. Permittees receiving permits for abandoned coal refuse remining operations would be required to file the OSM-1 form as provided for in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 870. If this rule becomes final as proposed, the OSM-1 would be modified to address waiver of the reclamation fees for tonnage reported for coal recovered by these remining operations. The permittee's eligibility for a waiver would be subject to periodic audit and review under existing procedures in 30 CFR 870.16. If an audit confirms that a permittee has improperly received a fee waiver, or an operator fails to complete reclamation of an abandoned coal refuse remining operation, the fee waiver would be cancelled and the fee imposed for all coal produced. The effect of this proposal on States would be to authorize uncertified States ( *i.e.* States other than those States that have certified achievement under SMCRA section 411 of all section 403(a) priorities), in their discretion, to adopt State program amendments providing for fee waivers consistent with the proposed rule. If a State did amend its program to authorize fee waivers, the State would forego its share of the fees waived. If a State waived reclamation fees, the value of the waived fees would usually be offset to the extent abandoned coal refuse sites were reclaimed. The limit on the amount of fees waived for a particular remining operation should be less than the State's cost to reclaim the site using abandoned mine land funds. Therefore, the State abandoned mine land program would not have to expend Federal AML funds to reclaim the priority problem, and would realize a savings at least equivalent to the value of the fees waived. Additionally, a State could actually achieve more reclamation through remining incentives at less cost because it would not have to prepare designs and plans for reclamation of the coal refuse sites. Instead, operators would be responsible for preparing these documents as part of a permit application package to remine the site. Typically, the cost of preparing designs and plans for reclaiming a coal refuse disposal area could amount to 10% of the overall cost of a project. States could save these costs by having an operator remine the site and include the designs and plans in a permit application package. Waiver of reclamation fees could affect the amount of money available from the Fund for distributions to the States and for OSM's use. Waiving fees results in less money being sent to the Fund and, in turn, would mean less money available for distribution from the Fund. Therefore, a State with numerous remining sites qualifying for a waiver could conceivably reduce the amount of money available from the Fund for use by other States and OSM. While the amount of fee waivers is expected to be minor and the consequent impact to the Fund to also be minor, we are seeking comment on whether the proposed remining incentives would impact the ability of the States to effectively reclaim priority 1 and priority 2 sites. Effects on industry would be positive. Any companies granted a fee waiver would remine and reclaim abandoned coal refuse sites. If the remining and reclamation would not be profitable, even with a fee waiver, then the operators would not conduct the operation. There is a possibility that, in some markets, an operator selling coal from remined coal refuse might compete with conventionally-mined coal, but OSM does not anticipate that a typical refuse remining operation would clean and sell a large amount of refuse coal. The rule as proposed could have a minor effect on transfers to the United Mine Workers of America

(UMWA)as authorized under SMCRA section 402(h). To the extent reclamation fees are waived or rebated, a minor reduction in the principal of the Fund could result in a minor reduction in earnings. We are proposing to authorize waiver of reclamation fees because we believe that it would be simpler to administer an incentives program that offers a waiver, rather than a rebate. A rebate program would involve additional steps because it would first require an operator to pay reclamation fees and would require OSM to process the fees before they are rebated by the State from AML funds distributed to the State under SMCRA section 401(f) and allocated pursuant to SMCRA section 402(g). This would result in delayed payments to operators and would not achieve more rapid or complete reclamation. Additionally, we are proposing that the waiver of fees apply only to operations that remove all coal refuse from the site for reprocessing or direct use off site. An operation that would remove only a portion of the refuse material from the site would not be eligible for a waiver. As discussed below, we believe that removal of all refuse material would be the most beneficial way to ensure complete reclamation of the site. We believe that our proposal could be fairly and easily implemented by States who elect to do so, and would result in environmental improvements because the incentive would encourage operators to remine and reclaim abandoned coal mine refuse piles. However, as we noted earlier, we are also seeking comments on the feasibility and practicality of offering reclamation fee rebates as provided in SMCRA section 415(c)(1)(A). Under a rebate program, operators would pay reclamation fees on coal recovered from abandoned coal refuse remining operations. An operator could then seek rebates of fees if the State elected to include fee rebate provisions in their approved program. The rebates would be paid by the State from moneys distributed from the Fund. In all cases, OSM would retain audit authority to ensure that the requirements of SMCRA section 415 were met. 30 CFR 870.13(d) We propose to add a new paragraph

(d)to existing 30 CFR 870.13 to provide that a State may waive fees for “abandoned coal refuse remining operations” under our specified conditions. Proposed 30 CFR 870.13(d) provides:

(d)*Waiver of fees for abandoned coal refuse remining operations* . The operator will not be required to pay fees for coal produced by an abandoned coal refuse remining operation as defined in § 701.5 of this chapter that removes all abandoned coal refuse and that meets the requirements of § 872.23 of this chapter, if the fees have been waived pursuant to §§ 732.18 and 785.26 of this chapter. Because existing 30 CFR 870.13 sets out the reclamation fee rates for various types of operations, we believe it would be logical to add this proposed provision on waiver of fee rates to it. This proposed rule would change OSM's current practice regarding the assessment of reclamation fees on coal refuse material. Generally, OSM does not assess fees if the refuse is demonstrated to have no value for fee purposes. SMCRA imposes the fees at a flat rate per ton, but also states that the fee shall not exceed 10 percent of the value of the coal at the mine, as determined by the Secretary. SMCRA section 402(a), 30 U.S.C. 1232(a). In implementing this statutory restriction, OSM may find that refuse has no value in the following circumstances: when the operator clearly documents that the material was a by-product of a coal preparation process, is of low quality, has no relevant use other than as a waste material in a small power production or cogeneration facility qualified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and is not reprocessed using gravity separation to extract the useable coal. OSM also considers any other relevant factors in determining whether fees must be paid under section 402(a). By contrast, the fee waiver under this proposed rule would apply regardless of the material's quality and use, and the type of reprocessing. 30 CFR 872.23 Proposed 30 CFR 872.23 describes the process and requirements for State waiver of reclamation fees. As proposed, this section provides:

(a)The State regulatory authority may waive reclamation fees required under part 870 of this chapter for abandoned coal refuse remining operations permitted under subchapter G that remove all abandoned coal refuse for reprocessing or direct use off site.

(b)The amount of the waiver provided as an incentive under paragraph

(a)of this section to remine and reclaim eligible land must not exceed the estimated cost as required in 30 CFR 780.18(b)(2) of reclaiming the eligible land. Consistent with SMCRA section 415, this proposed rule specifies the circumstances in which a waiver may be given, and also requires that the amount of the waiver must not exceed the estimated cost of reclaiming the eligible land. Under proposed 30 CFR 872.23, if an operator obtains a permit under Title V of SMCRA to remine abandoned coal refuse by removing the refuse for reprocessing or direct use from the site, and the State regulatory authority makes the findings required under proposed 30 CFR 785.26, then the operation would be eligible for waiver of reclamation fees on coal removed thereafter. Additional Provisions OSM Is Considering As discussed below, we request comments on whether we should implement any other alternatives for incentives that are authorized in section 415, in addition to the incentives addressed in the proposed rule text. Under section 415 two types of remining operations could be eligible for a rebate or waiver of reclamation fees: Those that remove or reprocess abandoned coal mine waste; and remining of priority 1 and priority 2 sites. This proposed rule addresses waiver of reclamation fees for operations that remine abandoned coal mine refuse and remove the refuse for direct use or reprocessing off site. We are not proposing a rebate or waiver of reclamation fees for operations that reprocess coal mine refuse on site without removal of the refuse from the site. An operation that reprocesses coal mine waste on-site would be required to reclaim any refuse remaining after recoverable coal is removed. This is required because failure to properly reclaim the refuse material could lead to serious environmental problems such as erosion, siltation of streams, and water quality issues, as well as safety concerns because of the potential instability of the disturbed refuse. Because of these potential problems from refuse left on a site, we believe a remining incentive that requires removal of the abandoned coal mine refuse is preferable. Removal should encourage rapid removal of the refuse and thus rapid alleviation of associated environmental and safety problems. However, we are considering providing for fee waivers or rebates for operations that reprocess abandoned coal mine refuse on site and we seek comments on whether such operations should also be eligible for waivers or rebates of reclamation fees. Commenters may wish to focus on the environmental benefits, if any, of reprocessing the refuse on site as opposed to removal of the refuse; whether incentives would encourage more refuse remining operations if they were applied to coal produced from refuse processed on site; and the relative costs and benefits of reclaiming the material remaining after separating coal from the refuse on site versus reclaiming the site after complete removal of all refuse. This proposed rule would not authorize waiver of reclamation fees for remining of priority 1 or 2 sites, *per se* . It would apply only to abandoned coal refuse sites; however some abandoned coal refuse sites may also qualify as priority 1 or 2 sites. Nonetheless, we are considering making priority 1 or 2 sites eligible for a waiver of reclamation fees. We seek comments on whether making these sites eligible for incentives would be likely to increase the remining and subsequent reclamation of such sites and whether incentives for these sites would be likely to meet the requirements of SMCRA section 415(a) and (b). We seek comments on alternative ways to implement the reclamation fee waiver provision. One alternative way to implement the waiver provision would be for the State to adopt a system that would provide a credit of reclamation fees in the full amount of the estimated cost to the State for reclamation of the priority 1 or 2 site or the coal refuse site. The credit would be applied to the site being remined, and if not fully utilized at that site, the balance of the credit could be applied to future fees otherwise payable for coal produced at other permits. This alternative could address situations in which coal refuse remining would not recover sufficient coal to ensure that a fee waiver would cover the full cost of reclamation. This type of incentive might more effectively encourage the remining of additional priority 1 or 2 sites and coal refuse areas. We decided not to propose rules regarding the use of amounts in the Fund to provide financial assurance for remining operations in lieu of all or a portion of the performance bonds required under section 509. As we noted above, a nationwide rule that adds to, or modifies, existing bonding regulations would not fit well with the diversity of bonding systems employed in the States. However, in addition to the proposed rule, we are also considering either addressing all types of incentives specifically authorized by Congress in section 415, or addressing other types of incentives generally authorized but not specified by Congress. Therefore, we seek comments and information on whether any additional remining incentives would be practical and would be likely to materially increase reclamation by remining operations. However, any additional incentives would be subject to the restrictions in section 415 on the use of remining incentives. Finally, we request comments on the likely usefulness and effectiveness of remining incentives authorized in section 415 of SMCRA. If we determine that the record demonstrates insufficient interest in, or effectiveness of, remining as authorized in section 415 we may choose not to adopt a rule authorizing incentives. How Will This Rule Affect Approved Regulatory Programs? The proposed rule would authorize States to adopt similar provisions if they choose to, but we would not require the States to amend their programs. III. Public Comment Procedures *Electronic or Written Comments:* If you submit written comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications or information on what factors are most significant when determining the viability and profitability of refuse remining. We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered. Comments sent to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ) will not be included in the docket for this rulemaking. *Public Availability of Comments:* Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. *Public Hearings:* We will hold a public hearing on the proposed regulations upon request only. The time, date, and address for any hearing will be announced in the **Federal Register** at least 7 days prior to the hearing. Any person interested in participating at a hearing should inform James Taitt (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), either orally or in writing by 4 p.m., Eastern Time, on May 22, 2008. Any disabled individual who requires reasonable accommodation to attend a public hearing should also contact Mr. Taitt so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If no one has contacted Mr. Taitt to express an interest in participating in a hearing by that date, a hearing will not be held. If only a few people express an interest, a public meeting rather than a hearing may be held. At the public meeting, we will note any concerns that are expressed and a summary will be entered into the docket for the rulemaking. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all persons scheduled to speak have been heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after all persons scheduled to speak and persons present in the audience who wish to speak have been heard. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who testifies at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her testimony. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This document is not a significant rule and the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866. We have made the assessments required by Executive Order 12866 and the results are given below.

(1)The provisions in the rule would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.

(2)The provisions in the rule would not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.

(3)The provisions in the rule do not raise novel legal or policy issues.

(4)This rule would not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. The costs associated with this proposed rule would be in the form of waivers of reclamation fees that would normally be made part of the Fund. These costs are estimated at approximately $1.5 million; significantly less than $100 million. The costs are estimated from available data that indicate that refuse piles may have a carbon content ranging from a low of 27.5 percent to a high of 98.9 percent of the original coal values that were mined. Recovery of these formerly “lost” coal values, either by reprocessing or by directly burning the refuse, in a sense increases the nation's coal resources. Since the percentage of recoverable coal varies widely, we are assuming, for computation purposes, that the coal refuse, on average, contains from 5,000 to 8,000 Btu/lb, or about half the Btu value of bituminous coal. Approximately 9 million tons of refuse is recovered/utilized annually. Because this material has about half the Btu value of bituminous coal, these 9 million tons of refuse would represent, theoretically, at least 4.5 million tons of coal. Assuming that 4.5 million tons of coal are recovered from the remining of refuse piles each year, then $1,417,500 in reclamation fees would be waived in each year through fiscal year 2012, and $1,260,000 would be waived each year from fiscal years 2013 through 2021. The reduced waiver amount for fiscal years 2013 through 2021 results from the fact that the fee rate for those years has been set at a lower rate by law. The rule might result in an increase in remining operations from the current levels; however, the increase is not expected to be significant and, therefore, would not add greatly to the waiver estimates provided above. The rule would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The rule would have the positive effects on the economy and the environment of increasing the number of coal refuse remining sites that are reclaimed, and of recovering coal within those sites that was unavailable for use because it was deposited as waste. While waiver of reclamation fees will reduce the amount of money in the Fund, we do not expect the reduction to significantly affect the ability of States to reclaim priority 1 or priority 2 sites. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that the proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The proposed rules would not have an adverse economic impact on the coal industry or State regulatory authorities. Further, they would not produce adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets. The fee waiver contained in the proposed rule would presumably result in an economic benefit for the coal operator. Based on available data, we estimate that approximately $1,417,500 in reclamation fees would be waived in each year through fiscal year 2012 and $1,260,000 would be waived each year from fiscal years 2013 through 2021. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act For the reasons previously stated, the regulations are not considered “major” under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule: a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises for the reasons stated above. Unfunded Mandates The rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, Tribal, or local governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, Tribal, or local governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* ) is not required. Executive Order 12630—Takings In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule would not have takings implications that would require a takings implication analysis. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Executive Order 13132—Federalism In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule would not have Federalism implications sufficient to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment for the reasons discussed above. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of the rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule would not have substantial direct effects on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Executive Order 13211—Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use These regulations are not considered a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211. The proposed revisions would not have a significant effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), OSM has submitted the following request for information collection and recordkeeping authority for 30 CFR 785 to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval: *Title:* 30 CFR 785—Requirements for permits for special categories of mining. *OMB Control Number:* 1029-0040. *Summary:* The information is being collected to meet the requirements of sections 507, 508, 510, 515, 701 and 711 of Public Law 95-87, which requires applicants for special types of mining activities to provide descriptions, maps, plans and data of the proposed activity. This information will be used by the regulatory authority in determining if the applicant can meet the applicable performance standards for the special type of mining activity. *Bureau Form Number:* None. *Frequency of Collection:* Once. *Description of Respondents:* Applicants for coal mine permits and State Regulatory Authorities. *Total Annual Responses:* 387. *Total Annual Burden Hours:* 24,521. *Total Non-Wage Costs:* 0. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OSM must obtain OMB approval of all information and recordkeeping requirements. No person is required to respond to an information collection request unless the form or regulation requesting the information has a currently valid OMB control (clearance) number. The control number appears in 30 CFR 785.10. To obtain a copy of OSM's information collection clearance request contact John A. Trelease at

(202)208-2783 or by e-mail at *jtrelease@osmre.gov.* *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for SMCRA regulatory authorities to implement their responsibilities, including whether the information will have practical utility.

(b)The accuracy of OSM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information.

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

(d)Ways to minimize the burden of collection on the respondents. By law, OMB must respond to OSM within 60 days of publication of this proposed rule, but may respond as soon as 30 days after publication. Therefore, to ensure consideration by OMB, you must send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of these information collection and recordkeeping requirements by June 2, 2008 to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Interior Desk Officer, via e-mail to *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* , or via facsimile to

(202)395-6566. Also, please send a copy of your comments to John A. Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave, NW., Room 202 SIB, Washington, DC 20240, or electronically to *jtrelease@osmre.gov* . Please include the OMB control number, 1029-0040, at the top of your correspondence. National Environmental Policy Act OSM has prepared a draft environmental assessment

(EA)of this proposed rule and has made a tentative finding that it would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). It is anticipated that a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) will be made for the final rule in accordance with OSM procedures under NEPA. The draft EA is on file in the docket for this rulemaking and may be viewed online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . At that internet address, the document is listed under “Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.” The EA will be completed and a finding made on the significance of any resulting impacts before we publish the final rule. Data Quality Act In developing this rule we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554). Clarity of This Regulation We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(a)Be logically organized;

(b)Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c)Use clear language rather than jargon;

(d)Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e)Use lists and tables wherever possible. If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc. List of Subjects 30 CFR Part 732 Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining, Underground mining. 30 CFR Part 785 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining, Underground mining. 30 CFR Part 870 Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, Reclamation fees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining, Underground mining. 30 CFR Part 872 Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, Indian lands, Reclamation fees, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: April 2, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we are proposing to amend 30 CFR Parts 732, 785, 870, and 872 as set forth below: PART 732—PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF STATE PROGRAM SUBMISSIONS 1. The authority citation for part 732 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* and 16 U.S.C. 470 *et seq.* 2. Part 732 is amended by adding § 732.18 to read as follows: § 732.18 How does a State get approval to offer remining incentives?

(a)This section applies to any State implementing 30 CFR 785.26 and 870.13 providing for a waiver of reclamation fees as an incentive for remining.

(c)Approval by the Secretary of the Interior of a revision to a State regulatory program under this section will constitute a determination that without the incentives pursuant to this section, the lands to be remined would not be likely to be remined and reclaimed. PART 785—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS FOR SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF MINING 3. The authority citation for part 785 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* 4. Part 785 is amended by adding § 785.26 to read as follows: § 785.26 What are the procedures for a waiver of the reclamation fee for remining? This section applies to waiver of reclamation fees by a State regulatory authority as an incentive for remining operations under part 872 of this chapter. A waiver of reclamation fees under this section shall apply only to production of coal by removal of abandoned coal mine refuse for reprocessing or direct use off site.

(2)That the eligible lands to be remined under the permit would not be likely to be remined and reclaimed without the waiver of reclamation fees as an incentive.

(b)*Eligibility.* After you make the determinations under paragraph

(c)*Documentation.* You must include in the remining case file for the permit:

(1)The determinations made under paragraph

(a)of this section; and

(2)The information taken into account in making the determinations. PART 870—ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND—FEE COLLECTION AND COAL PRODUCTION REPORTING 5. The authority citation for part 870 continues to read as follows: Authority: 28 U.S.C. 1746, 30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* , and Pub. L. 105-277. 6. Section 870.13 is amended by adding paragraph

(d)to read as follows: § 870.13 Fee rates.

(d)*Waiver of fees for abandoned coal refuse remining operations.* The operator will not be required to pay fees for coal produced by an abandoned coal refuse remining operation as defined in § 701.5 of this chapter that removes all abandoned coal refuse and that meets the requirements of § 872.23 of this chapter, if the fees have been waived pursuant to §§ 732.18 and 785.26 of this chapter. PART 872—ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUNDS 7. The authority citation for part 872 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* 8. Part 872 is amended by adding § 872.23 to read as follows: § 872.23 Incentives for abandoned coal refuse remining operations.

(b)The amount of the waiver provided as an incentive under paragraph

(a)of this section to remine and reclaim eligible land must not exceed the estimated cost as required in 30 CFR 780.18(b)(2) of reclaiming the eligible land. [FR Doc. E8-9564 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P 73 85 Thursday, May 1, 2008 Presidential Documents Part III The President Proclamation 8247—Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, 2008 Proclamation 8248—Jewish American Heritage Month, 2008 Proclamation 8249—National Physical Fitness and Sports Month, 2008 Title 3— The President Proclamation 8247 of April 29, 2008 Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, 2008 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation Americans who trace their ancestry to Asia and the Pacific Islands have contributed much to our Nation. During Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, we highlight their importance to our great Nation. Asian/Pacific Americans have made our country better with their talents and hard work. Their values and commitment to family and community have helped shape and strengthen America. These citizens speak many languages, honor countless traditions, and practice different faiths, but they are bound by a shared commitment to freedom and liberty. The diversity among Asian/Pacific Americans adds to the cultural fabric of our society. Asian/Pacific Americans have enriched our culture, excelling in many fields, including education, business, science, technology, government, sports, and the arts. We especially honor those Asian/Pacific Americans who have answered the call to protect the cause of freedom by serving in our Armed Forces. These brave men and women set a powerful example for all Americans. As we celebrate Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, we are reminded of the richness of the Asian and Pacific cultures. Asian/Pacific Americans enhance the American experience and contribute to our country's legacy of diversity. To honor the achievements and contributions of Asian/Pacific Americans, the Congress, by Public Law 102-450, as amended, has designated the month of May each year as “Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month.” NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 2008 as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month. I call upon the people of the United States to learn more about the history of Asian/Pacific Americans and their many contributions to our Nation and to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth 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. 08-1208 Filed 4-30-08; 11:26 am]

Connectionstraces to 44

Traces to 44 documents

U.S. Code