Unknown. Final special conditions; request for comments
126,217 words·~574 min read·
/register/2008/05/20/08-1281A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-05-20.xml --- 73 98 Tuesday, May 20, 2008 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Commodity Credit Corporation See Food and Nutrition Service Army Army Department See Engineers Corps Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Implementation of Vessel Security Officer Training Certification Requirements: International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, 29060-29071 E8-11225 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29141-29142 E8-11231 Commerce Commerce Department See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commodity Commodity Credit Corporation NOTICES Public Hearing on New Entrant's 2008-Crop Cane Sugar Marketing Allocation, 29107 E8-11213 Copyright Copyright Office, Library of Congress RULES Late-Filed and Underpaid Royalties, 29071-29073 E8-11274 Defense Defense Department See Engineers Corps See Navy Department NOTICES 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification, 29112-29119 E8-11142 Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29119 E8-11233 Education Education Department NOTICES Career and Technical Education Programs of Study; Statewide or Multi-State Articulation Agreements, 29121-29128 E8-11271 Disability Rehabilitation Research Program, 29128 E8-11269 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Engineers Engineers Corps PROPOSED RULES Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 29094-29095 E8-11250 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes:
California; Ventura Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reclassification to Serious, 29073-29075 E8-11294 PROPOSED RULES National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, 29184-29291 E8-10808 Public Hearings for National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, 29095 E8-10812 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29133-29134 E8-11296 EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment, 29134-29135 E8-11132 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives:
Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747 200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes, 29042-29044 E8-11330 Special Conditions: AmSafe, Inc., Various Transport Category Airplanes; Inflatable Restraints, 29037-29042 E8-11297 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes, 29089-29091 E8-11284 Boeing Model 757-200 and -200PF Series Airplanes, and Model 767-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, 29087-29089 E8-11286 Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes, 29091-29093 E8-11282 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes, 29085-29086 E8-11289 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Application: Coastal Bend Gas Storage, LLC, 29129-29130 E8-11201 Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests: Dan River Hydropower LLC, 29128-29129 E8-11198 Combined Notice of Filings, 29130-29131 E8-11252 Filing: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 29131 E8-11199 Intent to File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, etc.:
Alaska Power & Telephone Co., 29131-29132 E8-11202 Request Under Blanket Authorization: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, 29132 E8-11200 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions on a Proposed U.S. Highway Project in California, 29173-29174 E8-11209 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Meetings: Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), 29174 E8-11239 Federal Register Federal Register, Administrative Committee See Federal Register Office Federal Register Federal Register Office NOTICES Agreements:
American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States, 29154-29158 E8-11316 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 29135 E8-11234 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 29135 E8-11235 Meetings: Consumer Advisory Council, 29135-29136 E8-11161 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act;
Authorization for Take of Eagles, 29075-29084 E8-11091 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Wintering Population of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) in Texas, 29294-29321 E8-10742 Status Review Initiation; Bald Eagle in the Sonoran Desert Area of Central Arizona and Northwestern Mexico, 29096-29098 E8-11052 NOTICES Issuance of Permits, 29142-29143 E8-11259 Receipt of Applications for Endangered Species Permits, 29143-29144 E8-11292 Receipt of Applications for Permit, 29144-29145 E8-11260 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices;
Immunology and Microbiology Devices: Classification of Plasmodium Species Antigen Detection Assays, 29052-29054 E8-11263 NOTICES Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Plasmodium Species Antigen Detection Assays, 29137-29138 E8-11261 Food Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Preparing 2009 Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, 29107-29108 E8-11236 GSA General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29119 E8-11233 Health Health and Human Services Department See Food and Drug Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health PROPOSED RULES Regulation on the Organizational Integrity of Entities Implementing Leadership Act Programs and Activities, 29096 E8-10890 NOTICES Peer Review Panel Report on the Validation Status of the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay, etc., 29136-29137 E8-11195 Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings:
Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, 29138-29139 E8-11237 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard Indian Indian Affairs Bureau RULES Gaming on Trust Lands Acquired (After October 17, 1988), 29354-29380 E8-11086 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Reporting on Offsets Agreements in Sales of Weapon Systems or Defense-Related Items to Foreign Countries, etc., 29108-29109 E8-11208 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Guidance Under Section 7874 for Determining the Ownership Percentage in the Case of Expanded Affiliated Groups, 29054-29058 E8-11285 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29177-29181 E8-11178 E8-11179 E8-11180 E8-11182 E8-11266 E8-11288 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cutto-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate Products from Japan, 29109-29110 E8-11299 Export Trade Certificate of Review, 29110-29111 E8-11262 Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the New Shipper Reviews: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 29111 E8-11298 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Termination of Investigation:
Certain Digital Multimeters and Products With Multimeter Functionality, 29151-29152 E8-11196 Settlement Agreement; Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, 29152 E8-11197 Justice Justice Department NOTICES Lodging of Consent Decree: Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. et al., 29152-29153 E8-11204 Labor Labor Department See Mine Safety and Health Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease NDM (95197), 29145 E8-11220 Library Library of Congress See Copyright Office, Library of Congress Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws, 29174-29176 E8-11242 E8-11244 E8-11245 Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29146-29151 E8-11287 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration RULES Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners, 29058-29060 E8-11329 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29153, 29119 E8-11193 E8-11233 Meetings: NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Heliophysics Subcommittee, 29153-29154 E8-11194 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration See Federal Register Office NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings:
National Toxicology Program; Report on Carcinogens; Styrene Expert Panel, 29139-29140 E8-11207 National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors; Amended Notice, 29139 E8-11206 Office of Dietary Supplements Analytical Methods and Reference Materials Program; Vitamin Methodology, 29140-29141 E8-11192 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Changes to the Coastal Zone Management Act Program Change Procedures, 29093-29094 E8-11064 Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery: Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan, 29104-29106 E8-11253 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery: Allowance of New Gear (Eliminator Trawl) in Specific Special Management Programs, 29098-29103 E8-11303 NOTICES Marine Mammals; Receipt of Application to Import One Beluga Whale, 29111-29112 E8-11300 Permits; Foreign Fishing, 29112 E8-11251 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act, 29158 E8-11189 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Intent to Grant Exclusive Patent License:
Vytral Systems Co. Ltd, LLC, 29119-29120 E8-11241 Meetings: U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors, 29120 E8-11223 Nominations for Membership on Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel, 29121 E8-11243 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving no Significant Hazards Considerations, 29158-29168 E8-11246 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 29169-29170 E8-11232 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards;
Subcommittee on Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, 29168-29169 E8-11228 E8-11230 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 29170-29171 08-1281 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* National Safe Boating Week (Proc. 8256), 29381-29384 08-1283 World Trade Week (Proc. 8257), 29385-29386 08-1284 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Definition of Eligible Portfolio Company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 29044-29052 E8-11254 NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 29171 E8-11277 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Stock Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia, 29171-29172 E8-11205 Social Social Security Administration RULES Amendments to the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program, 29324-29351 E8-10879 State State Department NOTICES Arms Export Control Act, 29172 E8-11255 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemption: Middletown and New Jersey Railway Company, Inc.; Orange County, NY, 29176 E8-11131 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See Maritime Administration See Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Meetings:
National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, 29172-29173 E8-11185 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29176-29177 E8-11211 E8-11212 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 29181-29182 E8-11240 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 29184-29291 E8-10808 Part III Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 29294-29321 E8-10742 Part IV Social Security Administration, 29324-29351 E8-10879 Part V Interior Department, Indian Affairs Bureau, 29354-29380 E8-11086 Part VI Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 29381-29386 08-1283 08-1284 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 98 Tuesday, May 20, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM392; Special Conditions No. 25-371-SC] Special Conditions: AmSafe, Inc., Various Transport Category Airplanes;
Inflatable Restraints AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the transport category airplanes listed in Table 1. These airplanes, as modified by AmSafe, Inc., will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the lap belt or shoulder harness portion of the safety belt that contains an integrated inflatable airbag installed on passenger seats. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is May 7, 2008. We must receive your comments by June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies of your comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No.
NM392, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356. You may deliver two copies to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. You must mark your comments: Docket No. NM392. You can inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gardlin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2136; facsimile
(425)227-1320. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive. If you want us to let you know we received your comments on these special conditions, send us a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On August 21, 2006, AmSafe Inc., 1043 N. 47th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85043, applied for a supplemental type certificate to install the AmSafe Aviation Inflatable Restraint
(AAIR)for head injury protection on passenger seats on various transport category airplanes. The AAIR is designed to limit passenger forward excursion in the event of an accident, thus reducing the potential for head injury. The AAIR will reduce the potential for head injury and head entrapment. The AAIR behaves like an automotive inflatable airbag except that the airbag is integrated into the lap belt and inflates away from the seated passenger. While inflatable airbags are standard in the automotive industry, the use of an inflatable lap belt is novel for commercial aviation. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 25.785 requires that passengers be protected from head injury by either the elimination of any injurious object within the striking radius of the head or by padding. Traditionally, compliance has required either a setback of 35 inches from any bulkhead, front seat or other rigid interior feature or padding where a setback was not practical. The relative effectiveness of these two means of injury protection was not quantified. The adoption of Amendment 25-64 to 14 CFR part 25, specifically § 25.562, created a new standard for protection from head injury. Section 25.562 requires that dynamic tests be conducted for each seat type installed in the airplane. In particular, the regulation requires that persons not suffer serious head injury under the conditions specified in the tests and that a Head Injury Criterion
(HIC)measurement of not more than 1000 units be recorded, should the head contact the cabin interior. While the test conditions described in this section are specific, it is the intent of the requirement that an adequate level of head injury protection be provided for crash severity up to and including that specified. Section 25.562, including HIC, is part of the certification basis of some of the airplanes covered by these special conditions. While § 25.562 is not part of the certification basis of other airplanes covered by these special conditions, some applicants elected to comply with portions of § 25.562—not including §§ 25.562(c)(5) and (c)(6) which specify protection from femur injury and the HIC (this is summarized in table 1). Therefore, on those airplanes, the seat installations with AAIR are not required to meet the requirement of § 25.562 that HIC of less than 1000 be demonstrated for occupants of seats incorporating the AAIR. Although HIC may not be part of the certification basis for some of the covered airplanes, references to HIC are included in these special conditions for consistency with other projects that do require compliance with HIC. Because §§ 25.562 and 25.785 do not adequately address seats with AAIRs, the FAA recognizes that we need to develop appropriate pass/fail criteria that do address the safety of occupants of those seats. The AAIR has two potential advantages over other means of head impact protection. The first is that it can provide significantly greater protection than would be expected with energy-absorbing pads; the second is that it can provide essentially equivalent protection for occupants of all stature. These are significant advantages from a safety standpoint, since such devices will likely provide a level of safety that exceeds the minimum 14 CFR part 25 standards. On the other hand, AAIRs are active systems and must activate properly when needed, as opposed to an energy-absorbing pad or upper torso restraint that is passive and always available. Therefore, the potential advantages must be balanced against potential disadvantages in order to develop standards that will provide an equivalent level of safety to that intended by the regulations. There are two primary safety concerns with the use of AAIRs: one is that they perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions, and two, that they do not perform in a way that would constitute a hazard to the airplane or occupants. This latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the requirements, owing to the active nature of the system. The AAIR will rely on electronic sensors for signaling and pyrotechnic charges for activation, so that it is available when needed. These same devices could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of such deployment must be considered in establishing the reliability of the system. AmSafe must substantiate that the effects of an inadvertent deployment in flight are either not a hazard to the airplane or that such deployment is an extremely improbable occurrence (occurring less than 10 −9 per flight hour). The effect of an inadvertent deployment on a passenger sitting or standing close to the AAIR must also be considered. A minimum reliability level will have to be established for this case, depending upon the consequences, even if the effect on the airplane is negligible. The potential for an inadvertent deployment could be increased as a result of conditions in service. The installation must take into account wear and tear, so that the likelihood of an inadvertent deployment is not increased to an unacceptable level. In this context, an appropriate inspection interval and self-test capability are necessary. Other outside influences are lightning and high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). Since the sensors that trigger deployment are electronic, they must be protected from the effects of these threats. Existing regulations regarding lightning (§ 25.1316) and HIRF (§ 25.1317) are applicable in lieu of any other lightning and HIRF special conditions that have been adopted for the affected airplanes. For the purposes of compliance, if inadvertent deployment could cause a hazard to the airplane, the AAIR is considered a critical system; if inadvertent deployment could cause injuries to persons, the AAIR is considered an essential system. Finally, the AAIR installation should be protected from the effects of fire, so that an additional hazard is not created by, for example, a rupture of the pyrotechnic squib. In order to be an effective safety system, the AAIR must function properly and must not introduce any additional hazards to occupants as a result of its functioning. There are several areas where the AAIR differs from traditional occupant protection systems, and requires special conditions to ensure adequate performance. Because the AAIR is essentially a single use device, there is the potential that it could deploy under crash conditions that are not sufficiently severe as to require head injury protection from the AAIR. Since an actual crash is frequently composed of a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, this could render the AAIR useless if a larger impact follows the initial impact. This situation does not exist with energy absorbing pads or upper torso restraints, which tend to provide protection according to the severity of the impact. Therefore, the AAIR installation should be such that the AAIR will provide protection when it is required and will not expend its protection when it is not needed. There is no requirement for the AAIR to provide protection for multiple impacts, where more than one impact would require protection. Since each passenger's restraint system provides protection for that occupant only, the installation must address seats that are unoccupied. It will be necessary to show that the required protection is provided for each occupant regardless of the number of occupied seats and considering that unoccupied seats may have AAIR that are active. Since there is a wide range in the size of passengers, the inflatable seatbelt restraint must be effective over the entire range. The FAA has historically considered the range from the fifth percentile female to the ninety-fifth percentile male as the range of passengers to take into account. In this case, the FAA is proposing consideration of an even broader range of passengers, due to the nature of the inflatable seatbelt restraint installation and its close proximity to the passenger. In a similar vein, passengers may assume the brace position for those accidents where an impact is anticipated. Test data indicate that passengers in the brace position do not require supplemental protection, so that it will not be necessary to show that the AAIR will enhance the brace position. However, the inflatable seatbelt restraint must not introduce a hazard in that case by deploying into the seated, braced passenger. Another area of concern is the use of seats so equipped by children, whether lap-held, in approved child safety seats, or occupying the seat directly. Similarly, if the seat is occupied by a pregnant woman, the installation needs to address such usage, either by demonstrating that it will function properly, or by adding an appropriate limitation on usage. Since the AAIR will be electrically powered, there is the possibility that the system could fail due to a separation in the fuselage. Since this system is intended as a means of protection in a crash or after a crash, failure due to fuselage separation is not acceptable. As with emergency lighting, the system should function properly, if such a separation occurs at any point in the fuselage. Since the AAIR is likely to have a large volume displacement, the inflated bag could potentially impede egress of passengers. Since the bag deflates to absorb energy, it is likely that an AAIR would be deflated at the time that persons would be trying to leave their seats. Nonetheless, it is considered appropriate to specify a time interval after which the AAIR may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds has been chosen as a reasonable time, since it corresponds to the maximum time allowed for an exit to be openable. In actuality, it is unlikely that an exit would be prepared this quickly in an accident severe enough to warrant deployment of the AAIR, and the AAIR will likely deflate much quicker than ten seconds. Finally, it should be noted that the special conditions are applicable to the AAIR system, as installed. The special conditions are not an installation approval. Therefore, while the special conditions relate to each such system installed, the overall installation approval is a separate finding and must consider the combined effects of all such systems installed. In automobile installations, the airbag is a supplemental system and works in conjunction with an upper torso restraint. In addition, the crash event is more definable and of typically shorter duration, which can simplify the activation logic. The airplane-operating environment is also quite different from automobiles and includes the potential for greater wear and tear and unanticipated abuse (due to galley loading, passenger baggage, etc.); airplanes also operate where exposure to high intensity electromagnetic fields could affect the activation system. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of § 21.101, AmSafe Inc. must show that the multiple airplane models as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in the Type Certificate
(TC)numbers listed in Table 1 or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated for each individual airplane model listed in Table 1 are defined within each Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS). In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations and special conditions that are not pertinent to these special conditions. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for each airplane model listed in Table 1 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, each airplane model listed in Table 1 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101. Table 1.—Airplane Model List Make Model TC holder TCDS Boeing 737-500 Series 1 The Boeing Company A16WE Revision 40. 737-700 Series 3 737-800 Series 3 737-600 Series 3 737-700C Series 4 737-900 Series 3 737-900ER Series 3 Boeing 747-400 Series 1 The Boeing Company A20WE Revision 38. 747-400D Series 1 747-400F Series 1 Boeing 767-300 Series 1 The Boeing Company A1NM Revision 25. 767-300F Series 1 767-400ER Series 3 Boeing 777-200 Series The Boeing Company T00001SE Revision 19. 777-300 Series 777-300ER Series 777-200LR Series Airbus A318 Series: A318-111 1 A318-112 1 A318-121 5 A318-122 5 A319 Series: 5 A319-111 A319-112 A319-113 A319-114 A319-115 A319-131 A319-132 A319-133 A320 Series: 5 A320-111 A320-211 A320-212 A320-214 A320-231 A320-232 A320-233 A321 Series: 5 A321-111 A321-112 A321-131 A321-211 A321-212 A321-213 A321-231 A321-232 Airbus A330-200 Series: 6 Airbus A28NM Revision 10. A330-201 A330-202 A330-203 A330-223 A330-243 A330-300 Series: 6 A330-301 A330-321 A330-322 A330-323 A330-341 A330-342 A330-343 Airbus A340-200 Series: 6 Airbus A46NM Revision 10. A340-211 A340-212 A340-213 A340-300 Series: 6 A340-311 A340-312 A340-313 A340-500 Series: A340-541 A340-600 Series: Models: A340-642 Airbus A380-8007 Airbus A43NM Revision 10. Bombardier Inc BD-100-1A10 Airbus A58NM Revision 1. Bombardier BD-700-1A10 BD-700-1A11 Bombardier Inc T00005NY Revision 5. Bombardier DHC-8-100 Series 1 DHC-8-200 Series 1 DHC-8-300 Series 1 DHC-8-400 Series 1 Bombardier Inc T00003NY Revision 13. Bombardier CL-600-1A11 CL-600) 1 Bombardier Inc A13NM Revision 15. CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) 1 CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A Variant) 1 CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3R Variant) 1 CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) 1 CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) 1 CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Embraer EMB-145 Bombardier Inc A21EA Revision 26. EMB-145ER EMB-145MR EMB-145LR EMB-135ER EMB-135LR EMB-135KE EMB-135KL EMB-135BJ EMB-145XR EMB-145MP EMB-145EP Embraer ERJ 170-100 STD ERJ 170-100 LR ERJ 170-100 SU Embraer-Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A T00011AT Revision 26. ERJ 170-100 SE ERJ 170-200 STD ERJ 170-200 LR ERJ 170-200 SU Embraer ERJ 190-100 STD ERJ 190-100 LR ERJ 190-100 IGW Embraer-Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A A56NM Revision 6. McDonnell Douglas MD-88 MD-90-30 MD-717-200 2 McDonnell Douglas Corporation A6WE Revision 26. All models listed include Amendment 25-64 in their certification basis with exceptions as noted. 1 Does not include § 25.562 (Amendment 25-64) in certification basis. 2 Does not include § 25.562(c)(5) HIC in certification basis. 3 Does not include § 25.562(c)(5) HIC in certification basis; only flight attendant and flight deck observer seats meet HIC. 4 Does not include § 25.562(c)(5) HIC in certification basis; only flight deck observer seat meets HIC. 5 Does not include Amendment 25-64 in certification basis, but applicant elected to meet § 25.562, except § 25.562(c)(5) HIC. 6 Cockpit seats do not comply with § 25.562 but will meet § 25.561; § 25.785 front row seats behind bulkhead met by 35-inch free head strike envelope. 7 Includes § 25.562 in certification basis with exemption from § 25.562(b)(2) only. Novel or Unusual Design Features The airplane model list in Table 1 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: These airplanes as modified by AmSafe, Inc. will have a lap belt or shoulder harness portion of the safety belt that contains an integrated inflatable airbag device or AAIR installed on passenger seats. The AAIR will be installed to reduce the potential for head injury in the event of an accident. The AAIR works like an automotive airbag, except that the airbag is integrated with the lap belt or harness of the restraint system. The AAIR is considered a novel design for transport category airplanes and were not considered as part of the original type certification basis. Section 25.785 states the performance criteria for head injury protection in objective terms. However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning seats with AAIR. The FAA has therefore determined that, in addition to the requirements of 14 CFR part 25, special conditions are needed to address requirements particular to installation of seats with AAIR. Accordingly, in addition to the passenger injury criteria specified in § 25.785, these special conditions are adopted for the airplane model list in Table 1 equipped with AAIR. Other conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with the manufacturer and civil aviation authorities. Discussion From the standpoint of a passenger safety system, the airbag is unique in that it is both an active and entirely autonomous device. While the automotive industry has good experience with airbags, the conditions of use and reliance on the airbag as the sole means of injury protection are quite different. In automobile installations, the airbag is a supplemental system and works in conjunction with an upper torso restraint. In addition, the crash event is more definable and of typically shorter duration, which can simplify the activation logic. The airplane-operating environment is also quite different from automobiles and includes the potential for greater wear and tear, and unanticipated abuse conditions (due to galley loading, passenger baggage, etc.); airplanes also operate where exposure to high intensity electromagnetic fields could affect the activation system. The following special conditions can be characterized as addressing either the safety performance of the system, or the system's integrity against inadvertent activation. Because a crash requiring use of the airbags is a relatively rare event, and because the consequences of an inadvertent activation are potentially quite severe, these latter requirements are probably the more rigorous from a design standpoint. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the airplane models listed in Table 1. Should AmSafe, Inc. apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the airplane model list in Table 1 to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the airplane models listed in Table 1. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant which applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane models listed in these special conditions. The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable and that good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the airplane models listed in Table 1 of these special conditions, as modified by installation of the AmSafe Aviation Inflatable Restraint (AAIR). 1. *Seats with AAIRs* . It must be shown that the AAIR will deploy and provide protection under crash conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious head injury or head entrapment. The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a two-year-old child to a ninety-fifth percentile male. The AAIR must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption throughout that range. In addition, the following situations must be considered: a. The seat occupant is holding an infant. b. The seat occupant is a child in a child restraint device. c. The seat occupant is a child not using a child restraint device. d. The seat occupant is a pregnant woman. 2. The AAIR must provide adequate protection for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat assembly, considering that unoccupied seats may have active seatbelts. 3. The design must prevent the AAIR from being either incorrectly buckled or incorrectly installed such that the AAIR would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will provide the required head injury protection. 4. It must be shown that the AAIR system is not susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear or inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings), likely to be experienced in service. 5. Deployment of the AAIR must not introduce injury mechanisms to the seated occupant or result in injuries that could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include an occupant who is in the brace position when it deploys and an occupant whose belt is loosely fastened. 6. It must be shown that an inadvertent deployment that could cause injury to a standing or sitting person is improbable. 7. It must be shown that inadvertent deployment of the AAIR, during the most critical part of the flight, will either not cause a hazard to the airplane or is extremely improbable. 8. It must be shown that the AAIR will not impede rapid egress of occupants 10 seconds after its deployment. 9. The AAIR must function properly after loss of normal aircraft electrical power and after a transverse separation of the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the location of the lap belt does not have to be considered. 10. It must be shown that the AAIR will not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin. 11. The AAIR installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result. 12. There must be a means for a crewmember to verify the integrity of the AAIR activation system prior to each flight or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 7, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-11297 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0554; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-100-AD; Amendment 39-15522; AD 2008-10-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD requires an inspection to determine if acceptable external skin doublers are installed at the stringer 6 (S-6) lap splices, between station
(STA)340 and STA 400. For airplanes without the acceptable external skin doublers, this AD requires repetitive related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides an optional terminating modification for the repetitive related investigative actions. This AD results from a report of cracked fastener holes at the right S-6 lap splice between STA 340 and STA 380. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage skin, which could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity. DATES: This AD is effective May 20, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 20, 2008. We must receive comments on this AD by July 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6437; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We have received a report of cracking found at fourteen adjacent fastener holes where protruding head fasteners were installed in the upper row of the right stringer 6 (S-6) lap splice, between station
(STA)360 and STA 380. The airplane had accumulated 23,132 total flight cycles. The protruding head fasteners had been installed without external skin doublers 9,757 flight cycles earlier as one of several modification options provided in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2253 (AD 90-06-06, amendment 39-6490 (55 FR 8374, March 7, 1990), requires that one of the modifications specified in the service bulletin be done). Analysis by Boeing indicates that the protruding head fastener modification and the post-modification inspections are not adequate to prevent and detect cracks at the upper row of fasteners in the S-6 lap splices before the cracks reach critical length. The post-modification inspections are given in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2253 and are required by AD 90-23-14, amendment 39-6801 (55 FR 46652, November 6, 1990). Cracking in the fuselage skin, if not corrected, could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity. Relevant Service Information We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2748, dated May 9, 2008. The alert service bulletin describes procedures for an external inspection to determine if acceptable external skin doublers are installed at the left- and right-side S-6 lap splices, between STA 340 and STA 400. For airplanes without the acceptable external skin doublers, the alert service bulletin specifies doing repetitive related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary. Related investigative actions include external high frequency eddy current
(HFEC)and low frequency eddy current
(LFEC)inspections of the skin for cracking, as applicable. Corrective actions include repairing cracking and repeating related investigative actions, or modifying the airplane by installing acceptable external skin doublers at both the left- and right-side S-6 lap splices (includes doing an open-hole HFEC inspection of the skin for cracking, and trimming out cracking if necessary). Doing the modification would end the repetitive related investigative actions. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2748 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2253, Revision 3, dated March 24, 1994; and Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2272, Revision 18, dated May 16, 2002; as additional sources of service information for accomplishment of the modification (installation of acceptable external skin doublers). FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. This AD requires an external inspection to determine if acceptable external skin doublers are installed at the S-6 lap splices, between STA 340 and STA 400. For airplanes without the acceptable external skin doublers, this AD requires repetitive related investigative actions, as applicable, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides an optional terminating modification for the repetitive related investigative actions. Interim Action We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring the modification (installation of acceptable external skin doublers), which would terminate the repetitive related investigative actions. However, the planned compliance time for the modification would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the modification. FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date We have determined that cracking of multiple adjacent fastener holes at the S-6 lap splices adjacent to the flight deck windows could join together and result in large cracks. Considering the number of accumulated flight cycles on the affected Boeing Model 747 airplanes and the consequences of cracking, we have determined that immediate inspections are necessary. Because of our requirement to promote safe flight of civil aircraft and thus, the critical need to assure the structural integrity of the fuselage and the short compliance time involved with this action, this AD must be issued immediately. Because an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0554; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-100-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-10-15 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15522. Docket No. FAA-2008-0554; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-100-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective May 20, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2748, dated May 9, 2008. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of cracked fastener holes at the right stringer 6 (S-6) lap splice between station
(STA)340 and STA 380. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage skin, which could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity. Compliance
(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Service Bulletin Reference Paragraph
(f)The term “alert service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2748, dated May 9, 2008. Inspection for Acceptable External Skin Doublers
(g)For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 2, in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2748, dated May 9, 2008: At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, do an external general visual inspection to determine if acceptable external skin doublers are installed at the left- and right-side S-6 lap splices, in accordance with Part 1 of the alert service bulletin.
(1)Prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles.
(2)Within 8,000 flight cycles after a modification was done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2253.
(3)Within 15 days or 100 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Acceptable External Skin Doublers Found at Both Sides
(h)If, during the inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD, acceptable external skin doublers in accordance with the alert service bulletin are found installed at both the left- and right-side S-6 lap splices, no further work is required by this AD. Acceptable External Skin Doublers Not Found—Repetitive Related Investigative Actions and Corrective Actions
(i)If, during the inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD, acceptable external skin doublers in accordance with alert service bulletin are not found installed at either the left- or right-side S-6 lap splice: Before further flight, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions by doing all actions specified in Part 2 of the alert service bulletin. Repeat the applicable related investigative actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles until the modification specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD is done. Optional Terminating Modification
(j)Modifying the airplane by installing acceptable external skin doublers at both the left- and right-side S-6 lap splices (including doing an open-hole HFEC inspection of the skin for cracking, and trimming out cracking as applicable) in accordance with the alert service bulletin terminates the repetitive related investigative actions required by this AD. Note 1: The alert service bulletin refers to Boeing Service Bulletins 747-53-2253, Revision 3, dated March 24, 1994; and 747-53-2272, Revision 18, dated May 16, 2002; as additional sources of service information for accomplishment of the modification (installation of acceptable external skin doublers). Note 2: AD 90-06-06, amendment 39-6490, requires, among other actions, one of the modification options specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2253, dated December 14, 1984. Note 3: AD 90-23-14, amendment 39-6801, requires that inspections of modifications done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2253, and applicable repairs, be done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2253, Revision 2, dated March 29, 1990. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6437; fax
(425)917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(l)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2748, dated May 9, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 13, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-11330 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 270 [Release No. IC-28266; File No. S7-37-04] RIN 3235-AJ31 Definition of Eligible Portfolio Company Under the Investment Company Act of 1940 AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Commission is adopting an amendment to a rule under the Investment Company Act of 1940 to more closely align the definition of eligible portfolio company, and the investment activities of business development companies (“BDCs”), with the purpose that Congress intended. The amendment expands the definition of eligible portfolio company to include certain companies that list their securities on a national securities exchange. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 21, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rochelle Kauffman Plesset, Senior Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Division of Investment Management,
(202)551-6840, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-5030. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission today is adopting amendments to Rule 2a-46 [17 CFR 270.2a-46] under the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a]. 1 1 The amendments were proposed in Definition of Eligible Portfolio Company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Investment Company Act Release No. 27539 (Oct. 25, 2006) [71 FR 64093 (Oct. 31, 2006)] (“Reproposing Release”). Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background III. Discussion A. Rule 2a-46(b) B. Use of Standard Based on Market Capitalization C. Dollar Level of Standard IV. Cost-Benefit Analysis V. Consideration of Promotion of Efficiency, Competition and Capital Formation VI. Paperwork Reduction Act VII. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis VIII. Statutory Authority Text of Rule I. Executive Summary A BDC is a closed-end investment company that Congress established for the purpose of making capital more readily available to certain types of companies. Under the Investment Company Act (“Investment Company Act” or “Act”), a BDC must invest at least 70 percent of its assets in “eligible portfolio company” securities and certain other securities. Rule 2a-46 defines the term eligible portfolio company to include any company whose securities are not listed on a national securities exchange (“Exchange”). 2 When we adopted Rule 2a-46 in 2006, we also requested comment on whether to further expand the definition to include Exchange-listed companies that have
(i)less than $75 million in public float or
(ii)less than $150 million in market capitalization or less than $250 million in market capitalization. 3 Today we are amending Rule 2a-46 to expand the definition of eligible portfolio company to include Exchange-listed companies that have less than $250 million in market capitalization. 2 Definition of Eligible Portfolio Company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Investment Company Act Release No. 27538 (Oct. 25, 2006) [71 FR 64086 (Oct. 31, 2006)] (“Adopting Release”). 3 *See* Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1. II. Background Congress established BDCs as a new category of closed-end investment companies when it enacted the Small Business Investment Incentive Act (“SBIIA”) in 1980. 4 Congress intended that BDCs would make capital more readily available to certain types of companies. 5 To accomplish this purpose, the Investment Company Act generally prohibits a BDC from making any investment unless, at the time of the investment, at least 70 percent of its total assets (“70% basket”) are invested in securities of certain specific types of companies, including “eligible portfolio companies.” 6 4 Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96-477, 94 Stat. 2274
(1980)(codified at scattered sections of the United States Code). 5 *See generally* H.R. Rep. No. 1341, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 21
(1980)(“House Report”). 6 *See* Section 2(a)(46) of the Investment Company Act (statutory definition of eligible portfolio company) [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(46)]. *See also* Section 55(a) of the Investment Company Act (regulating the activities of BDCs) [15 U.S.C. 80a-54(a)]. Among other things, the 70% basket may include securities of eligible portfolio companies purchased in transactions not involving any public offering, securities of eligible portfolio companies already controlled by the BDC without regard to the nature of the offering, and securities of certain financially distressed companies that do not meet the definition of eligible portfolio company and that are purchased in transactions not involving any public offering. *See* Section 55(a). The Investment Company Act defines eligible portfolio company to include any domestic operating company 7 that does not have a class of securities with respect to which a member of an Exchange, broker, or dealer may extend margin credit pursuant to rules promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board under Section 7 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). 8 At the time that Section 2(a)(46) was adopted, Congress generally perceived the Federal Reserve Board's definition of “margin security” to be a “rational and objective test for determining whether an issuer has ready access to the securities markets.” 9 Nevertheless, Congress recognized that the definition of eligible portfolio company as adopted, and, in particular, the definition's reliance on the Federal Reserve Board's margin rules, might need to be adjusted in the future. 10 Accordingly, Congress specifically gave the Commission rulemaking authority under Section 2(a)(46)(C)(iv) of the Investment Company Act to expand the definition of eligible portfolio company. 11 7 Section 2(a)(46) of the Investment Company Act defines eligible portfolio company to include any company that satisfies the criteria set forth in each of Section 2(a)(46)(A) and Section 2(a)(46)(B) in addition to one of the three criteria set forth in Section 2(a)(46)(C). Section 2(a)(46)(A) defines eligible portfolio company to include any company organized under the laws of, and with its principal place of business in, one or more states of the United States. Section 2(a)(46)(B) of the Investment Company Act generally excludes from the definition of eligible portfolio company any company that meets the definition of investment company under Section 3 of the Investment Company Act, or that is excluded from the definition of investment company by Section 3(c) of the Act, but includes as an eligible portfolio company any small BDC that is licensed by the Small Business Administration and that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a BDC. 8 Section 2(a)(46)(C)(i). *See also* Section 2(a)(46)(C)(ii) (defines eligible portfolio company to include companies that are controlled by the investing BDC or certain of its affiliates); Section 2(a)(46)(C)(iii) (defines eligible portfolio company to include certain very small companies). 9 House Report at 31. The House Report also indicated that Section 2(a)(46)(C)(i) was “intended to cover companies which are unable to borrow money through conventional sources or which do not have ready access to the public capital markets.” Id. at 30. In 1980, the Federal Reserve Board periodically published lists of each company that had a class of securities that was marginable under its rules. Companies that were not listed as having a class of marginable securities qualified as eligible portfolio companies. 10 *See* House Report at 31. 11 Under Section 2(a)(46)(C)(iv), the term eligible portfolio company includes any issuer that, in addition to meeting the requirements of Sections 2(a)(46)(A) and (B), “meets such other criteria as the Commission may, by rule, establish as consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of [the Act].” *See* House Report at 23 (“* * * the Commission is given rulemaking authority to expand the class of eligible portfolio companies, following certain specific standards.”). The legislative history of the SBIIA also makes clear that the intent of this provision “is to enable the Commission through the administrative process to broaden, if appropriate, the category of eligible portfolio company.” Congress also noted its expectation that “the Commission would institute [rulemaking] proceedings to consider whether the definition of eligible portfolio company can be expanded, consistent with the purpose of the legislation, to increase the flow of capital to small, developing businesses or financially troubled businesses.” *See* House Report at 31. In providing the Commission with rulemaking authority, Congress noted “[a]mong the objective factors which the Commission may consider in [rulemaking] proceedings are the size of such companies, the extent of their public ownership, and their operating history as going concerns and public companies.” *Id.* Since 1980, the Federal Reserve Board has periodically amended its definition of margin security to increase the types of securities that would fall within that definition under its rules. In 1998, for reasons unrelated to small business capital formation, the Federal Reserve Board amended its definition of margin security to include all equity securities that trade on an Exchange or are listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market, and most debt securities. This amendment had the result of significantly reducing the companies that qualify as eligible portfolio companies under Section 2(a)(46) of the Investment Company Act. 12 12 Securities Credit Transactions; Borrowing By Brokers and Dealers, 63 FR 2805
(1998)(adopting final rule amendment). As a result of these amendments, companies that would have been considered eligible portfolio companies in 1980 may no longer meet that definition. *See* Definition of Eligible Portfolio Company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Investment Company Act Release No. 26647 (Nov. 1, 2004) [69 FR 64815 (Nov. 8, 2004)] (“2004 Proposing Release”) at nn.19-24. In 2006, we adopted two rules, Rules 2a-46 and 55a-1 under the Act, to address the impact of the Federal Reserve Board's amendment to its definition of margin security on the definition of eligible portfolio company. 13 Rule 2a-46 defines eligible portfolio company to include all domestic operating companies 14 whose securities are not listed on an Exchange. 15 Rule 55a-1 conditionally permits a BDC to continue to invest in any company that qualified as an eligible portfolio company under Rule 2a-46 when the BDC made its initial investment(s) in it, but that subsequently does not meet the definition of eligible portfolio company because it no longer meets the requirements of that rule. 16 13 *See* Adopting Release, *supra* note 2. 14 Rule 2a-46 incorporates the provisions of Sections 2(a)(46)(A) and (B). *See supra* note 7. 15 17 CFR 270.2a-46. 16 17 CFR 270.55a-1. When we adopted Rules 2a-46 and 55a-1, we also proposed to amend Rule 2a-46 to expand the definition of eligible portfolio company to include certain public domestic operating companies that list their securities on an Exchange. 17 This proposal was designed to address concerns that part of the rule (proposed in 2004, but not adopted 18 ) would be unworkable and too narrow. 19 17 *See* Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1. 18 *See* 2004 Proposing Release, *supra* note 12 (proposed a definition of eligible portfolio company that would have included certain financially-troubled Exchange-listed companies). 19 For example, some commenters had stated that the proposed rule would not include some small companies that list their securities on an Exchange but that nevertheless may have difficulties accessing conventional sources of capital and raising additional capital on the public markets. *See* Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1 at n.12 and accompanying text. In the Reproposing Release, we requested comment on alternatives that would expand the definition of eligible portfolio company to include domestic operating companies with securities listed on an Exchange. We asked whether we should expand the definition to include any such company with
(i)a public float of less than $75 million or
(ii)market capitalization of less than $150 million or market capitalization of less than $250 million. 20 We explained that the $75 million public float standard incorporates the size-based standard used in Form S-3 and Rule 12b-2 which the Commission has used to delineate between small, unseasoned companies, and larger seasoned companies whose securities are listed on an Exchange. 21 We explained that the market capitalization alternatives are similar to definitions of “micro-cap” company used generally by market participants. 22 We also noted that some who had commented on Rule 2a-46 when it was initially proposed had stated that companies with market capitalizations in this range generally have limited (if any) analyst coverage, have lower trading volume and are owned by fewer institutional investors than companies with higher market capitalizations. 23 These commenters concluded that such companies have difficulty accessing the public capital markets. 24 20 *See* Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1. 21 *See, e.g.* , Form S-3 [17 CFR 239.13]; Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act [17 CFR 240.12b-2]. 22 *See* Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1 at nn.38-40 and accompanying text. 23 *Id.* at nn.34-43 and accompanying text. 24 *E.g.,* comments of Williams & Jensen (Feb. 17, 2006); comments of Representatives Sue Kelly and Nydia Velászquez (Jan. 5, 2005) (commenting on the 2004 Proposing Release). We received letters from fifteen commenters (including eight BDCs and one legal counsel to BDCs). 25 Fourteen commenters favored the $250 million market capitalization standard. 26 Several commenters specifically noted that companies meeting such a standard “often have difficulty accessing traditional capital sources.” 27 Commenters also stated that the $250 million market capitalization standard is similar to what most market participants use to identify micro-cap companies, and that these companies have less analyst coverage, institutional ownership and lower trading volume. 28 25 The eight BDCs were Allied Capital Corp., American Capital Strategies Ltd., Apollo Investment Corp., Ares Capital Corp., Gladstone Management, Harris & Harris Group, Inc., MCG Capital Corp. and NGP Capital Resources Company. We also received comments from two trade associations (The Financial Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce), one legal counsel to BDCs (Williams & Jensen), one investment banker (Ferghana Partners Inc.), one investment adviser (ThinkEquity Partners LLC) and two individuals. These letters are available for inspection in the Commission's Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 (File No. S7-37-04), and may be viewed at *http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s73704.shtml#27539.* 26 One commenter did not address this issue. Comments of Kathryn Ellis (Nov. 26, 2006). In addition, commenters generally disagreed with the adoption of a public float standard. *See infra* Section III.B. Two commenters also suggested that we include a provision that would in the future adjust the standard that we adopt today to reflect inflation. Comments of American Capital Strategies Ltd. (Dec. 24, 2006); comments of Apollo Investment Corp. (Jan. 2, 2007). We did not propose such a provision and therefore have not included it in Rule 2a-46. 27 *See, e.g.* , comments of Apollo Investment Corp. (Jan. 2, 2007); comments of Gladstone Management (Nov. 2, 2006). *See also* comments of Allied Capital Management (Dec. 21, 2006) (“Public companies with a market capitalization of up to $250 million . . . often have trouble accessing the traditional capital markets despite the fact that their shares are listed on an exchange.”). 28 *See, e.g.* , comments of Gladstone Management (Nov. 2, 2006); comments of American Capital Strategies Ltd. (Dec. 24, 2006); comments of Apollo Investment Corp. (Jan. 2, 2007). In addition, in support of the $250 million market capitalization standard, one commenter provided information about public companies that have received financing over the past several years and the types of financing that they have received. 29 Specifically, the commenter submitted information regarding public companies that were able to access the public markets, either by engaging in initial public offerings or by issuing follow-on equity and debt financing. 30 The commenter also provided information regarding the public companies that had obtained capital through private investment transactions. 31 In addition, the commenter provided information regarding the average institutional leveraged loan size and average high yield issuance size. 32 Based on this information, the commenter concluded that companies with less than $250 million market capitalization are having difficulty accessing traditional capital sources. 33 Accordingly, the commenter urged the Commission to adopt the $250 million market capitalization standard. 34 29 Comments of Williams & Jensen (Apr. 19, 2007, May 30, 2007). This commenter also provided information regarding the investment practices of BDCs. The commenter, focusing on five of the largest BDCs, provided a description of each BDC's investment focus, the number of companies in each BDC's portfolio, and the number of individual investments each BDC made that was greater than $100 million. The commenter also provided the average revenue of the portfolio companies that are held by four BDCs. Comments of Williams & Jensen (May 30, 2007). 30 Comments of Williams & Jensen (Apr. 19, 2007). 31 Comments of Williams & Jensen (May 30, 2007). 32 *Id.* 33 Comments of Williams & Jensen (Apr. 19, 2007, May 30, 2007). 34 Comments of Williams & Jensen (Feb. 17, 2006, Apr. 19, 2007, May 30, 2007). III. Discussion A. Rule 2a-46(b) After carefully considering the comments received in response to both the Reproposing Release and the 2004 Proposing Release, we are amending Rule 2a-46 to include new paragraph (b). 35 Rule 2a-46(b) expands the definition of eligible portfolio company to include any domestic operating company that has a class of securities listed on an Exchange and that has a market capitalization 36 of less than $250 million (calculated using the price at which the company's common equity is last sold, or the average of the bid and asked prices of the company's common equity, in the principal market for such common equity) on any day in the 60-day period immediately before the BDC's acquisition of its securities. 37 We believe that the new rule is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Investment Company Act. 35 We are also designating the current text of Rule 2a-46 as paragraph
(a)of the rule. 36 A company's market capitalization for purposes of the rule is the aggregate market value of the company's outstanding voting and non-voting common equity securities. *See, e.g.* , Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1 at n.16. 37 Rule 2a-46(b). This method of calculating market capitalization was used in both of the proposed market capitalization alternatives in the reproposal. *See* Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1 at n.16. We received no comment on this method, and we are adopting it as proposed. We note that the method of calculating market capitalization is stated solely for purposes of determining a company's qualification as an eligible portfolio company. A BDC is required to value its interests in portfolio companies for purposes of calculating the BDC's net asset value consistent with Section 2(a)(41) of the Investment Company Act. B. Use of Standard Based on Market Capitalization As discussed above, one of the alternatives that we proposed used a public float standard, and the options proposed in the other alternative used a market capitalization standard. 38 We have decided to adopt a market capitalization standard for the reasons discussed below. For purposes of Rule 2a-46(b), market capitalization is the aggregate value of a company's outstanding voting and non-voting equity securities. 39 In contrast, a company's public float is a company's market capitalization minus the aggregate market value of common equity held by the company's affiliates. 40 38 *See supra* note 20 and accompanying text. 39 *See supra* note 36. 40 *See, e.g.* , Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1 at n.16. We requested comment on whether it would be burdensome for a BDC to determine a company's eligible portfolio company status if the standard is based on public float rather than market capitalization. 41 Adopting a public float standard in Rule 2a-46(b) would have imposed burdens that are not present in other Commission rules that incorporate such a standard. These other Commission rules typically are rules in which a company is responsible for calculating its own public float to determine its eligibility in connection with certain registration or reporting requirements. 42 Section 55 of the Investment Company Act, however, effectively requires a BDC to determine whether a target company qualifies as an eligible portfolio company before investing in it as part of the BDC's 70% basket. 43 Consequently it is the BDC, rather than the target company, that must determine whether a target company meets the definition of eligible portfolio company under Rule 2a-46(b). 41 *Id.* at text following n.51. 42 *See supra* note 21. 43 Section 55(a) of the Investment Company Act. Accordingly, although several commenters stated that both public float and market capitalization are good indicators of whether a company is small and unseasoned, all commenters who addressed this issue preferred a market capitalization standard. 44 Commenters stated that information about a company's market capitalization is readily available through third-party sources, while information about a company's public float is not. 45 Commenters generally explained that, in order for a BDC to calculate a company's public float, as proposed, it would have to determine the number of shares owned by the company's affiliates, which is information not readily available on a current basis through third-party sources. 46 The BDC therefore would have to communicate with possible target companies to determine whether they would qualify under the definition of eligible portfolio company before making any investment decision. 44 *See, e.g.* , comments of American Capital Strategies Ltd. (Dec. 24, 2006); comments of Gladstone Management (Nov. 2, 2006); comments of Apollo Investment Corp. (Jan. 3, 2007). 45 *See, e.g.* , *id.* 46 *See, e.g.* , comments of American Capital Strategies Ltd. (Dec. 24, 2006); comments of Ares Capital Corp. (Jan. 2, 2007). Although Exchange Act reporting companies are required to disclose their public float on the cover of Form 10-K [17 CFR 249.310], the form requires a filer to disclose its public float as of the last business day of the filer's most recently completed second fiscal quarter. Because Rule 2a-46(b) defines an eligible portfolio company to be a company that meets the requisite size standard on any day in the 60-day period immediately before the BDC's acquisition of the company's securities, the public float information on a company's Form 10-K always would have been outdated for purposes of the proposed public float alternative. Commenters argued that requiring BDCs to determine a company's public float within the requirements of the proposed rule would place an unnecessary burden on BDCs and thereby impede appropriate investment activity. 47 In contrast, under the adopted market capitalization standard, a BDC may use information obtained from third parties to assist it in determining whether a possible investment target is an eligible portfolio company. In this regard, we note that under the adopted market capitalization standard, a BDC may use information obtained from independent third parties to assist it in determining whether a possible target company is an eligible portfolio company without communicating with the target company directly. In light of these burdens and the general public availability of information regarding a company's market capitalization, we agree with commenters that a market capitalization standard is appropriate for purposes of Rule 2a-46. 47 *See, e.g.* , comments of American Capital Strategies Ltd. (Dec. 24, 2006). C. Dollar Level of Standard We are adopting new Rule 2a-46(b) to define eligible portfolio company to include any company that is listed on an Exchange with market capitalization of less than $250 million. The new standard, consistent with legislative intent, broadens the definition of eligible portfolio company. 48 We estimate that, based on January 31, 2008 data, 6,062 companies, representing 61.3% (6,062/9,883) of all public domestic operating companies, qualify as eligible portfolio companies under Rule 2a-46(a). We further estimate that 1,649 Exchange-listed companies qualify as eligible portfolio companies under Rule 2a-46(b). 49 Accordingly, we estimate that 7,711 companies, representing 78% (7,711/9,883) of all public domestic operating companies qualify as eligible portfolio companies under Rule 2a-46 as amended. 48 *Supra* note 11. As discussed above, the $250 million market capitalization standard is a level similar to what most market participants generally view to be “micro-cap” companies, a term used to identify small public companies. *See* Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1 at nn.38-40 and accompanying text. 49 We note that our estimates reflect only companies with less than $250 million market capitalization whose securities are listed on Nasdaq, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and the American Stock Exchange (“Amex”). In the Reproposing Release, we noted a general concern raised by commenters in response to the 2004 Proposing Release 50 that companies with market capitalization up to $300 million are followed by fewer analysts, have lower institutional ownership and have lower trading volume than companies at higher levels of market capitalization. 51 These commenters concluded that companies having market capitalization below that amount may have more difficulty accessing public capital. We generally agreed that there may be some correlation between the size of a company, based on these factors, and the ability of a company to access public capital. 52 We specifically requested comment on whether any of the alternative standards would better align the definition of eligible portfolio company with the purpose that Congress intended when it adopted the SBIIA. 50 *Supra* note 12. 51 Comments of Representatives Sue Kelly and Nydia Vela zquez at n.12 (Jan. 5, 2005); comments of Williams & Jensen (Feb. 17, 2006). These commenters also referred to analysis prepared by our Office of Economic Affairs (“OEA”) in connection with Securities Offering Reform. *See* memorandum dated December 3, 2004 (“OEA Memorandum”) attached to comments of Williams & Jensen (Feb. 17, 2006), *infra* note 58. 52 *See* Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1 at text following n.36. Commenters universally favored the $250 million market capitalization standard. Commenters argued that companies with market capitalization of less than $250 million often have difficulty accessing traditional forms of capital and that adoption of the standard thus would be consistent with Congressional intent. 53 One commenter also provided information regarding the limited number of follow-on offerings of equity and debt securities by Exchange-listed companies and stated that this information “clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of companies with market capitalizations of $250 million or less * * * have significantly limited access” to the public equity and debt markets. 54 This commenter also argued that market participants that provide public capital are not servicing the needs of these companies. 55 53 *E.g.,* comments of Allied Capital Management (Dec. 21, 2006); comments of Apollo Investment Corp. (Jan. 2, 2007). 54 *See* comments of Williams & Jensen (Apr. 19, 2007). 55 Comments of Williams & Jensen (May 30, 2007). Most commenters responding to the alternatives proposed in the Reproposing Release also argued that companies with less than $250 million market capitalization have difficulty accessing public capital because generally these companies are followed by fewer analysts, have lower institutional ownership and lower trading volume than larger companies. 56 One commenter specifically noted that companies with less than $250 million market capitalization “have spotty analyst coverage at best, * * * few or no institutional investors, and * * * thin trading volumes” and that “these are characteristics of companies that would not in today's market have ready access to public capital.” 57 This commenter referred to information developed by our Office of Economic Analysis (“OEA”) about those factors that were prepared for purposes other than this rulemaking. 58 56 *See,* *e.g.* , comments of Gladstone Management (Nov. 2, 2006); comments of Apollo Investment Corp. (Jan. 2, 2007); comments of Ares Capital Corp. (Jan. 2, 2007). 57 Comments of Williams & Jensen (Apr. 19, 2007). 58 The commenter had attached to its comment letter statistics that were prepared in connection with the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies. *See* Background Statistics: Market Capitalization & Revenue of Public Companies, August 1, 2005, at Table 7 (Analyst Coverage and Institutional Holdings by Market Capitalization), attached to comments of Williams & Jensen (Apr. 19, 2007). This commenter had attached to a prior comment letter an earlier memorandum prepared by OEA that sets forth data regarding analyst coverage, institutional ownership and average daily trading for publicly traded companies between 1997 and 2003. *See* OEA Memorandum dated December 3, 2004 attached to comments of Williams & Jensen (Feb. 17, 2006) (exhibit entitled “SEC Data Demonstrates Lack of Market Following for Companies with Market Capitalizations of $300 million or Less”). OEA prepared this memorandum in connection with the Securities Offering Reform rulemaking. *See* Securities Offering Reform, Securities Act Release No. 8591 (July 19, 2005) [70 FR 44722 (Aug. 3, 2005)]. As we stated in the Reproposing Release, we believe that there is some correlation between analyst coverage, institutional ownership and trading volume and the ability of a company to access public capital. 59 Based on the comments we received, and our review of those factors with respect to companies with less than $250 million market capitalization, we believe that a distinction can be made with respect to a company's ability to access public capital at $250 million market capitalization. OEA has considered this information and determined that fewer than 50% of companies with market capitalizations of less than $250 million are followed by more than two analysts and that these companies generally have lower institutional ownership and are more thinly traded than larger companies. 59 *See* Reproposing Release, *supra* note 1 at n.37 and accompanying text. Moreover, in the Reproposing Release we requested comment on whether adoption of a $250 million market capitalization standard would result in BDCs focusing their investment activities in companies at the higher end of the standard to the detriment of smaller companies. 60 Commenters responded that adoption of a $250 million market capitalization standard would not have this result, with some arguing further that larger companies do not necessarily present a more attractive investment in comparison to smaller companies. 61 Commenters also argued that historically, BDCs have not invested in larger non-public companies at the expense of smaller non-public companies, and that there is no reason to suggest that this would occur in the context of public companies. 62 In light of these comments, we are persuaded that our adoption of the $250 million market capitalization standard is not likely to result in BDCs focusing their investment activity on larger companies to the detriment of smaller companies. 60 *See id.* at n.47 and accompanying text. We requested comment on this issue in response to a comment made by one commenter to the 2004 Proposing Release. This commenter raised the concern that BDCs might not provide financing for smaller Exchange-listed companies if the Commission adopts a standard higher than $100 million market capitalization. *See* comments of Capital Southwest Corp. (Dec. 28, 2004). 61 *See,* *e.g.* , comments of MCG Capital Corp. (Dec. 27, 2006); comments of American Capital Strategies Ltd. (Dec. 24, 2006). 62 *See* comments of Harris & Harris Group (Jan. 3, 2007); comments of ThinkEquity Partners LLC (Dec. 6, 2006). Accordingly, we conclude that adoption of the $250 million market capitalization standard is an appropriate standard for purposes of the amended rule and we believe that it is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Investment Company Act. 63 63 We are persuaded that our adoption of the $250 million market capitalization standard is not inconsistent with our other rules that distinguish between smaller and larger companies because of the different purposes of these rules. For example, Form S-3 incorporates a $75 million public float standard (in addition to other factors) to identify those companies about which sufficient information is publicly available to allow them to take advantage of our integrated disclosure system. *See* Revisions to the Eligibility Requirements for Primary Securities Offerings on Forms S-3 and F-3, Securities Act Release No. 8878 (Dec. 19, 2007) [72 FR 73534 (Dec. 27, 2007)]; Simplification of Registration for Primary Securities Offerings, Securities Act Release No. 6943 (July 16, 1992) [57 FR 32461 (July 22, 1992)]. In contrast, Rule 2a-46(b) incorporates a $250 million market capitalization standard to identify companies that are having difficulty accessing public capital and may benefit from greater access to BDC financing. IV. Cost-Benefit Analysis We are sensitive to the costs and benefits that result from our rules. In the Reproposing Release we requested public comment and specific data regarding the costs and benefits of reproposed Rule 2a-46(b). As discussed below, we received one comment regarding the Commission's estimate of the companies that would benefit from the reproposed rule. 64 64 Comments of Williams & Jensen (Apr. 19, 2007). A. Benefits Rule 2a-46(b) more closely aligns the definition of eligible portfolio company, and the investment activities of BDCs, with the purpose that Congress intended. Specifically, Rule 2a-46(b) expands the definition of eligible portfolio company to include any domestic operating company with a class of securities listed on an Exchange that has a market capitalization of less than $250 million. Many public companies that are included as eligible portfolio companies under Rule 2a-46(b) may need capital for continued development and growth, but, notwithstanding that their securities are listed on an Exchange, may find it difficult to raise capital through additional offerings or borrow money through other sources. By amending the definition of eligible portfolio company to include these companies, such companies will benefit because of the expanded sources of capital from which the companies may seek to obtain financing. Increased competition among capital providers will benefit shareholders of companies seeking capital. Rule 2a-46(b) also benefits BDCs by expanding the universe of investments that BDCs may include as part of their 70% basket. This will allow BDCs to make additional investments to companies that qualify as eligible portfolio companies under the rule, which in turn could benefit BDC shareholders. Rule 2a-46(b) also benefits BDCs by addressing the uncertainty caused by changes in the margin rules in the operation of BDCs. In the Reproposing Release, OEA estimated, using June 30, 2006 data, that there were a total of 1,562 domestic operating companies whose securities were listed on Nasdaq, the NYSE and Amex that have a market capitalization of less than $250 million. At that time OEA estimated that 6,041 domestic operating companies that qualified as eligible portfolio companies under Rule 2a-46 as initially adopted. Accordingly, OEA calculated that 7,603 companies, representing 77.2% (7,603/9,845 65 ) of public domestic operating companies, would qualify as eligible portfolio companies if the $250 million market capitalization standard was adopted. 65 *See infra* note 69. Using January 31, 2008 data, OEA estimates that there were a total of 1,649 domestic operating companies whose securities were listed on Nasdaq, the NYSE and the Amex that have a market capitalization of less than $250 million. OEA further estimates that approximately 6,062 companies qualify as eligible portfolio companies under Rule 2a-46, as initially adopted (now Rule 2a-46(a)). Accordingly, OEA calculates that 7,711 companies, representing 78% percent (7,711/9,883 66 ) of public domestic operating companies, qualify as eligible portfolio companies under amended Rule 2a-46. 66 *Id* . OEA reached its estimates by first calculating the number of companies whose securities were listed on Nasdaq, the NYSE and the Amex. OEA then deducted from this estimate all foreign companies, investment companies and companies that are excluded from the definition of investment company by Section 3(c) of the Investment Company Act (because both Section 2(a)(46) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 2a-46 exclude these types of companies from the definition of eligible portfolio company), and corrected for cases where individual companies had multiple classes of securities listed. OEA then determined the number of companies that had a market capitalization of less than $250 million. 67 Using the same methodology, OEA determined the number of companies that qualify as eligible portfolio companies under Rule 2a-46(a). 68 OEA then calculated the total number of eligible portfolio companies and the percentage of the total public domestic operating companies that would qualify as eligible portfolio companies under amended Rule 2a-46. 69 67 *See supra* note 49. 68 *See* Adopting Release, *supra* note 2 at text preceding n.31. 69 OEA estimated the total number of public domestic operating companies by calculating the number of companies whose securities were listed on Nasdaq, the NYSE and the Amex, in addition to those companies whose securities were trading through the over-the-counter bulletin board and on Pink Sheets LLC, correcting these figures for cases where individual companies had multiple classes of securities listed, and then removing from these figures foreign companies, investment companies, and companies that are excluded from the definition of investment company by Section 3(c). As noted above, one commenter stated that the Reproposing Release overstated the percentage of companies that would benefit under Rule 2a-46, as amended by the reproposed rule. 70 The commenter noted, however, that regardless of whether or not the Commission overstated the percentage of companies, “the percentage in and of itself adds little analytical weight in describing which public companies need access to capital. * * *” The commenter concluded that “we believe that there is no precise percentage of public companies that can or should be targeted. * * *” 71 While the commenter agreed that foreign companies, investment companies and most companies that are excluded from the definition of investment company by Section 3(c) of the Investment Company Act are excluded from qualifying as eligible portfolio companies under the Investment Company Act, the commenter suggested that these companies should still be included as part of the total number of public companies. Thus, the commenter suggested that the benefits of the rule should be calculated by comparing the total number of companies that would be eligible portfolio companies under the rule to the total number of public companies. 70 Williams & Jensen (Apr. 19, 2007). 71 *Id* . As discussed previously, Section 2(a)(46) excludes from the definition of eligible portfolio companies foreign companies, investment companies and most companies that are excluded from the definition of investment company by Section 3(c). Therefore, in determining the benefits of Rule 2a-46 as amended for purposes of this analysis, we believe that it is appropriate to compare the number of companies that meet the definition of eligible portfolio company under the rule with the number of companies that are not statutorily precluded from being treated as eligible portfolio companies. This commenter also argued that public companies listed on the OTC Bulletin Board with market capitalizations of between $0 and $25 million should be excluded from OEA's calculations. 72 The commenter explained that although these companies qualify as eligible portfolio companies, “they are not likely to seek or be seriously considered appropriate investments for a BDC.” 73 OEA's calculations are intended to show the number of all companies that would fall within the definition of eligible portfolio company under Rule 2a-46(b), however, regardless of whether any particular company or size of company would be seriously considered by a BDC for investment purposes. Accordingly, we have not recalculated the numbers and percentages stated above to reflect the commenter's view. 72 *Id* . 73 *Id* . B. Costs We received no comments on the potential costs of our adoption of the new standard. Although Rule 2a-46(b) might impose certain administrative compliance costs on BDCs, it is our understanding that these costs are similar to the types of compliance costs that a BDC currently undertakes when it invests in a company. Specifically, a BDC will need to determine, prior to investing in a company, if the company has a class of securities listed on an Exchange and whether that company's market capitalization was less than $250 million as of a date within 60 days prior to the date of the BDC's investment. Costs in obtaining this information, however, will be minimal because information about the market capitalization of companies is readily available from third-party sources. Finally, we anticipate that Rule 2a-46(b) will impose only minimal, if any, costs on portfolio companies. V. Consideration of Promotion of Efficiency, Competition and Capital Formation Section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act mandates that the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking that requires it to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition and capital formation. 74 In the Reproposing Release, we requested comment on our analysis of the impact of Rule 2a-46(b) on efficiency, competition and capital formation. As discussed in Section II of this Release, commenters generally supported expanding the definition to include Exchange-listed companies with less than $250 million market capitalization because of their belief that these companies often have difficulty accessing capital. 75 Some commenters also argued that expanding the rule to include Exchange-listed companies with less than $250 million market capitalization would allow BDCs to compete with other capital providers, and that such competition would benefit shareholders of companies seeking capital. 76 We have decided to amend Rule 2a-46 to expand the definition of eligible portfolio company to include Exchange-listed companies that have a market capitalization of less than $250 million. 74 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(c). 75 *See supra* note 27 and accompanying text. 76 *See, e.g.* , comments of Williams & Jensen (Apr. 19, 2007); comments of Apollo Investment Corp. (Jan. 2, 2007). Rule 2a-46(b) is designed to promote efficiency, competition and capital formation. Efficiency will be enhanced because Rule 2a-46(b) expands the definition of eligible portfolio company so as to allow BDCs to compete with other entities that provide capital to certain companies. Competition for financing may result in lower cost capital for current funding needs or may replace higher cost capital previously issued, which could potentially allow companies desiring capital to take on additional or different investment projects. Thus, Rule 2a-46(b) will promote a more efficient allocation of capital. Rule 2a-46(b) in our view also will promote efficiency by providing a workable test for determining whether a company is an eligible portfolio company. We also believe Rule 2a-46(b) will promote competition. Rule 2a-46(b) allows BDCs more easily to compete with other capital providers, and such competition benefits shareholders of BDCs, companies receiving the capital and shareholders of companies receiving capital. The market for private equity and debt investments can be highly competitive. Since their establishment, BDCs have competed with various sources of capital, including private equity funds (including venture capital funds), hedge funds, investment banks and other BDCs, to provide financing to certain companies. We believe that Rule 2a-46(b) will encourage such competition. Such competition also benefits the qualifying companies in need of capital and their shareholders because such companies can more readily consider BDCs as a source of financing. To the extent that BDCs provide either additional or less expensive capital to these companies, those companies may be more competitive in the marketplace. Finally, we believe that Rule 2a-46(b) may promote capital formation. BDC investments represent additional capital to companies. By expanding the definition of eligible portfolio company, Rule 2a-46(b) may result in additional capital investments by BDCs. We estimate that a total of 1,649 public domestic operating companies would qualify as eligible portfolio companies under Rule 2a-46(b). The rule provides greater access to public capital by increasing these companies' access to BDC financing. VI. Paperwork Reduction Act The Commission has determined that Rule 2a-46 as amended does not involve a collection of information pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act [44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ]. VII. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604. It relates to Rule 2a-46(b) under the Investment Company Act. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) was prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603 and was published in the Reproposing Release. 77 77 Reproposing Release *supra* note 1 at Section VII. A. Reasons for and Objectives of the Amendment As described previously in this Release, Rule 2a-46(b) more closely aligns the definition of eligible portfolio company, and the investment activities of BDCs, with the purpose that Congress intended. Specifically, Rule 2a-46(b) will expand the definition of eligible portfolio company to include any domestic operating company with a class of securities listed on an Exchange that has a market capitalization of less than $250 million. These companies may need BDC financing for continued growth and development, but, notwithstanding the fact that their securities are listed on an Exchange, may find it difficult to raise additional capital in new offerings or borrow money through other conventional sources. B. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comment When the Commission reproposed Rule 2a-46(b), comment was requested on the reproposal and the accompanying IRFA. None of the comment letters specifically addressed the IRFA. C. Small Entities Subject to the Rule Rule 2a-46(b) will affect BDCs and companies that qualify as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a BDC is a small entity if it, together with other investment companies in the same group of related investment companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year. 78 As of June 2007, there were 73 BDCs, of which 43 were small entities. A company other than an investment company is a small entity under the Regulatory Flexibility Act if it had total assets of $5 million or less on the last day of its most recent fiscal year. 79 We estimate there are approximately 20 Exchange-listed companies that may be considered small entities. 80 78 17 CFR 270.0-10. 79 17 CFR 230.157; 17 CFR 240.0-10. 80 We noted in the Reproposing Release that at that time we calculated that there were approximately 2,500 companies, other than investment companies, that may be considered small entities. *See* Reproposing Release *supra* note 1 at text following n.72. This figure inadvertently included companies whose securities are not listed on an Exchange. Rule 2a-46(b), however, only pertains to companies whose securities are listed on an Exchange. As discussed above, we estimate that there are only approximately 20 Exchange-listed companies that may be considered small entities. As discussed in this Release, Rule 2a-46(b) is intended to benefit certain companies that need capital for continued development and growth, but may be unable to borrow money through conventional sources despite their securities being listed on an Exchange. Rule 2a-46(b) will also benefit BDCs, including those that are small entities, by expanding the number of companies that BDCs may include as part of their 70% basket. Because none of the comment letters specifically addressed the IRFA, we continue to believe that those BDCs and companies that are small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act would not be disproportionately affected by the amended rule. D. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements Rule 2a-46(b) will not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements on BDCs or on companies. It also will impose only minimal, if any, compliance requirements on portfolio companies. Rule 2a-46(b) will impose minimal compliance requirements on BDCs, including small entities. A BDC would need to determine, prior to investing in a company, if the company has a class of securities listed on an Exchange and whether that company's market capitalization was less than $250 million as of a date within 60 days prior to the date of the BDC's investment. We anticipate that the costs associated with obtaining this information would be minimal because such information is readily available from third-party sources. Furthermore, it is our understanding that these costs are similar to the types of compliance costs that a BDC currently undertakes when it invests in an issuer. E. Commission Action To Minimize Adverse Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider significant alternatives that would accomplish our stated objectives, while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small entities. Alternatives in this category would include:
(1)Establishing different compliance or reporting standards that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying the compliance requirements for small entities;
(3)the use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4)exempting small entities from the coverage of the rules, or any part thereof. Establishing different compliance or reporting requirements for small entities would not be appropriate under Rule 2a-46(b). Rule 2a-46 will not impose any reporting requirements on BDCs or on companies. It will also not impose any compliance requirements on portfolio companies. Rule 2a-46(b) will, however, impose some compliance requirements on BDCs that are intended to ensure that BDCs invest primarily in certain types of companies. These requirements should, however, impose only minimal burdens on BDCs. We believe that clarifying, consolidating or simplifying the compliance requirements for small entities would be inappropriate. As discussed above, Rule 2a-46(b) will not impose any compliance requirements on portfolio companies. As noted, Rule 2a-46(b) will impose some compliance requirements on BDCs, which we believe will impose minimal burdens on BDCs. These requirements are designed to ensure that BDCs will invest in companies in accordance with the rule. We believe that using performance rather than design standards would add unnecessary complexity. Rule 2a-46(b) provides a clear, bright-line, workable test for determining whether a company is an eligible portfolio company. A standard based on performance could be unduly complicated and cause further uncertainty to BDCs, including those that are small entities, when determining whether a company is an eligible portfolio company. Likewise, the use of a performance standard would bring uncertainty to companies in determining whether they meet the definition of eligible portfolio company. Finally, we believe that it would be inappropriate to exempt BDCs that are small entities from the coverage of Rule 2a-46(b). Rule 2a-46(b) should benefit BDCs and companies, including those that are small entities, by expanding the definition of eligible portfolio company to include certain companies whose securities are listed on an Exchange. Exempting BDCs and companies that are small entities from the amended rule would be contradictory to the purpose of this rulemaking. VIII. Statutory Authority We are amending Rule 2a-46 pursuant to our rulemaking authority under Sections 2(a)(46)(C)(iv) and 38(a) of the Investment Company Act. List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 270 Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities. Text of Rule For reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 270—RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 1. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.,* 80a-34(d), 80a-37, and 80a-39, unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise § 270.2a-46 to read as follows: § 270.2a-46 Certain issuers as eligible portfolio companies. The term *eligible portfolio company* shall include any issuer that meets the requirements set forth in paragraphs
(A)and
(B)of section 2(a)(46) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(46)(A) and (B)) and that:
(a)Does not have any class of securities listed on a national securities exchange; or
(b)Has a class of securities listed on a national securities exchange, but has an aggregate market value of outstanding voting and non-voting common equity of less than $250 million. For purposes of this paragraph:
(1)The *aggregate market value* of an issuer's outstanding voting and non-voting common equity shall be computed by use of the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average of the bid and asked prices of such common equity, in the principal market for such common equity as of a date within 60 days prior to the date of acquisition of its securities by a business development company; and
(2)*Common equity* has the same meaning as in 17 CFR 230.405. Dated: May 15, 2008. By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11254 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 866 [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0231] Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of Plasmodium Species Antigen Detection Assays AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is classifying *Plasmodium* species antigen detection assays into class II (special controls). The special control that will apply to the device is the guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: *Plasmodium* Species Antigen Detection Assays.” The agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is announcing the availability of the guidance document that will serve as the special control for this device. DATES: This rule is effective June 19, 2008. The classification was effective June 13, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Freddie M. Poole, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-440), Food and Drug Administration, 2098 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-0712. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What Is the Background of This Rulemaking? In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the amendments), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807 of FDA's regulations. Section 513(f)(2) of the act provides that any person who submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the act for a device that has not previously been classified may, within 30 days after receiving an order classifying the device in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the act, request FDA to classify the device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. FDA shall, within 60 days of receiving such a request, classify the device by written order. This classification shall be the initial classification of the device. Within 30 days after the issuance of an order classifying the device, FDA must publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing this classification (section 513(f)(2) of the act). In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the act, FDA issued an order on February 22, 2007, classifying the Binax NOW® Malaria Test in class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. On March 22, 2007, Binax, Inc., submitted a petition requesting classification of the Binax NOW® Malaria Test under section 513(f)(2) of the act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1). In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the act, FDA reviewed the petition in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. Devices are to be classified into class II if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the petition, FDA determined that the Binax NOW® Malaria Test can be classified in class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. The device is assigned the generic name “ *Plasmodium* species antigen detection assays.” It is identified as a device that employs antibodies for the detection of specific malaria parasite antigens, including histidine-rich protein-2
(HRP2)specific antigens, and pan malarial antigens in human whole blood. These devices are used for testing specimens from individuals who have signs and symptoms consistent with malaria infection. The detection of these antigens aids in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of malaria caused by the four malaria species capable of infecting humans: *Plasmodium falciparum* , *Plasmodium vivax* , *Plasmodium ovale* , and *Plasmodium malariae* , and aids in the differential diagnosis of *P. falciparum* infections from other less virulent *Plasmodium* species. The device is intended for use in conjunction with other clinical laboratory findings. FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with the device. Failure of the test to perform as indicated may lead to improper patient management and/or inappropriate public health responses. For example, false negative results may lead to delays in providing, or even failure to provide, definitive diagnosis and appropriate treatment. A false positive test result may subject individuals to unnecessary and/or inappropriate treatment for malaria, and failure to appropriately diagnose and treat the actual disease condition. The unnecessary use of alternative drugs, such as quinine, mefloquine and artemisinin, typically used in high resistance areas outside the United States, is problematic because these drugs are less safe than the first and second line treatments. In addition, malaria is a significant public health issue and is a reportable disease to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Local and state health departments are required to conduct case investigations upon receiving a report of a malaria infection. A false positive test result could place an undue burden on local and state health department resources and could also lead to unnecessary public health actions (e.g., unnecessary or inappropriate treatment and management of others in the community). On the other hand, a false negative result could lead to a delay in recognition of increased transmission of the parasitic infection. An error in interpretation of results could also pose a risk, especially decisions about treatment without confirmation of negative results by microscopy, which is more sensitive than antigen detection assays for detecting malaria parasites in blood. Table 1.—Risks to Health and Mitigation Measures Identified Risks Mitigation Measures Failure of the assay to perform properly, i.e., false negative or false positive results which can lead to improper patient management and/or inappropriate public health responses Section 6. of the guidance—Performance Characteristics Section 7. of the guidance—Labeling Failure to properly interpret test results Section 6. of the guidance—Performance Characteristics Section 7. of the guidance—Labeling FDA believes the class II special controls guidance document generally addresses the risks to health identified in the previous paragraphs. FDA believes the class II special controls guidance document will aid in mitigating potential risks by providing recommendations on labeling and validation of performance characteristics. The guidance document also provides information on how to meet 510(k) premarket notification submission requirements for the device. FDA believes that the special controls, in addition to general controls, address the risks to health identified previously and provide reasonable assurances of the safety and effectiveness of the device type. Therefore, on June 13, 2007, FDA issued an order to the petitioner classifying the device into class II (Ref. 2). FDA is codifying this classification by adding 21 CFR 866.3402. Following the effective date of this final classification rule, any firm submitting a premarket notification submission for a *Plasmodium* species antigen detection assay will need to address the issues covered in the special controls guidance. However, the firm need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance, or in some other way provides equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness. Section 510(m) of the act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, however, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device and, therefore, this type of device is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the *Plasmodium* species antigen detection assays they intend to market. II. What Is the Environmental Impact of This Rule? The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. III. What Is the Economic Impact of This Rule? FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive order. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because classification of this device into class II will relieve manufacturers of the cost of complying with the premarket approval requirements of section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e), and may permit small potential competitors to enter the marketplace by lowering their costs, the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $127 million, using the most current
(2006)Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount. IV. Does This Final Rule Have Federalism Implications? FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required. V. How Does This Rule Comply With the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995? This final rule contains no new information collection provisions. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required. VI. What References Are on Display? The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 1. Petition from Binax, Inc., dated March 22, 2007. 2. Order classifying Binax NOW® Malaria Test, dated June 13, 2007. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 866 Biologics, Laboratories, Medical devices. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows: PART 866—IMMUNOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 866 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371. 2. Section 866.3402 is added to subpart D to read as follows: § 866.3402 Plasmodium species antigen detection assays.
(a)*Identification* . A *Plasmodium* species antigen detection assay is a device that employs antibodies for the detection of specific malaria parasite antigens, including histidine-rich protein-2
(HRP2)specific antigens, and pan malarial antigens in human whole blood. These devices are used for testing specimens from individuals who have signs and symptoms consistent with malaria infection. The detection of these antigens aids in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of malaria caused by the four malaria species capable of infecting humans: *Plasmodium falciparum* , *Plasmodium vivax* , *Plasmodium ovale* , and *Plasmodium malariae* , and aids in the differential diagnosis of *Plasmodium falciparum* infections from other less virulent *Plasmodium* species. The device is intended for use in conjunction with other clinical laboratory findings.
(b)*Classification* . Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: *Plasmodium* species Antigen Detection Assays.” See § 866.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document. Dated: April 30, 3008. Daniel G. Schultz, Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. [FR Doc. E8-11263 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9399] RIN 1545-BE93 Guidance Under Section 7874 for Determining the Ownership Percentage in the Case of Expanded Affiliated Groups AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulation. SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations under section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)relating to the disregard of certain affiliate-owned stock in determining whether a corporation is a surrogate foreign corporation under section 7874(a)(2)(B) of the Code. DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective on May 20, 2008. *Applicability Date:* For the date of applicability, see § 1.7874-1(g). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Milton Cahn, 202-622-3860 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 7874 provides rules for expatriated entities and their surrogate foreign corporations. An expatriated entity is defined in section 7874(a)(2)(A) as a domestic corporation or partnership with respect to which a foreign corporation is a surrogate foreign corporation, and any U.S. person related (within the meaning of section 267(b) or section 707(b)(1)) to such domestic corporation or partnership. Generally, a foreign corporation is a surrogate foreign corporation under section 7874(a)(2)(B) if, pursuant to a plan or a series of related transactions, certain conditions are met. One such condition depends on the percentage of owner continuity in the foreign corporation after the acquisition. This condition is satisfied if, after the acquisition, at least 60 percent of the stock (by vote or value) of the foreign corporation is held (in the case of an acquisition with respect to a domestic corporation) by former shareholders of the domestic corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic corporation, or (in the case of an acquisition with respect to a domestic partnership) by former partners of the domestic partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits interest in the domestic partnership. See section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii). The treatment of expatriated entities and surrogate foreign corporations varies depending on this percentage (ownership fraction). If the ownership fraction is 80 percent or more, the surrogate foreign corporation is treated as a domestic corporation for all purposes of the Code. If the ownership fraction is 60 percent or more (but less than 80 percent), the surrogate foreign corporation is treated as a foreign corporation, but certain income or gain recognized by the expatriated entity generally cannot be offset by net operating losses or credits from the first date properties are acquired pursuant to the plan through the end of the 10-year period following the completion of the acquisition. Section 7874(c)(2)(A) provides that stock held by members of the “expanded affiliated group” which includes the foreign corporation is not taken into account for purposes of the ownership fraction (affiliate-owned stock rule). Section 7874(c)(1) defines the term expanded affiliated group
(EAG)as an affiliated group defined in section 1504(a), but without regard to the exclusion of foreign corporations in section 1504(b)(3) and with a reduction of the 80 percent ownership threshold of section 1504(a) to a more-than-50 percent threshold. Section 7874(g) provides that “[t]he Secretary shall provide such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section, including regulations providing for such adjustments to the application of this section as are necessary to prevent the avoidance of the purposes of this section, including the avoidance of such purposes through * * *. the use of related persons, pass-through or other noncorporate entities, or other intermediaries * * *.” Section 7874(c)(6) provides that “[t]he Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be appropriate to determine whether a corporation is a surrogate foreign corporation, including regulations * * * to treat stock as not stock.” On December 28, 2005, a temporary regulation (TD 9238) was published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 76685) that related to the disregard of affiliate-owned stock under section 7874(c)(2)(A). A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-143244-05) cross-referencing the temporary regulation was published in the **Federal Register** for the same day (70 FR 76732). No public hearing was requested or held. Written and electronic comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking were received. After consideration of all the comments, the proposed regulation is adopted, as amended by this Treasury decision, as final, and the corresponding temporary regulation is removed. The revisions are discussed below. Summary of Comments and Revisions A. Temporary and Proposed Regulations Treasury regulation § 1.7874-1T provides guidance under the affiliated-owned stock rule. Generally, § 1.7874-1T provides that stock owned by members of an EAG is excluded from both the numerator and denominator of the ownership fraction. However, affiliate-owned stock is excluded from the numerator of the ownership fraction, but is included in the denominator of the ownership fraction, in two instances:
(1)Certain transactions occurring as part of an internal group restructuring involving a domestic entity; and
(2)certain acquisitive business transactions between unrelated parties where the former shareholders or partners of the domestic entity have a minority interest in the acquired properties after the acquisition. With respect to internal group restructurings, the special rule applies where the common parent of the EAG after the acquisition owns directly or indirectly at least 80 percent of the domestic entity before the acquisition, and non-members of the EAG hold, by reason of holding an interest in the domestic entity, no more than 20 percent of the stock (by vote or value) of the foreign corporation after the acquisition. With respect to transactions between unrelated parties, the special rule applies where, after the acquisition, the former owners of the domestic entity do not own, in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value) of any member of the EAG. Section 1.7874-1T also provides guidance regarding the treatment of certain “subsidiary-owned” interests (which include so-called “hook stock”) for purposes of the exceptions to the general application of the ownership fraction. These rules apply to stock or partnership interests owned by an entity in which at least 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value), or at least 50 percent of the capital or profits interest, is owned directly or indirectly by the issuer of such stock or by the partnership in question. These rules are included in the final regulations, with revisions as noted below. B. Section 1504(a)(4) Preferred Stock Both the numerator and denominator of the ownership fraction take into account stock described in section 1504(a)(4) (so-called “plain vanilla preferred stock”). For purposes of determining whether an affiliated group constitutes an EAG, however, such stock is not treated as stock because of the reference to the rules of section 1504(a). See section 7874(c)(1). Commentators have noted the inconsistent treatment of plain vanilla preferred stock in section 7874. In addition, they point out that, due to the debt-like nature of such stock, it should not be treated as stock for any purpose of section 7874, including the ownership fraction. The Treasury Department and the IRS note that Congress has expressly stated that section 1504(a)(4) preferred stock is not treated as stock in several Code provisions, including certain provisions of section 7874, as noted above. See, for example, sections 243(c)(1), 246A(c)(4), and 355(g)(2)(B)(iv)(III). In contrast, Congress specifically chose not to exclude plain vanilla preferred stock from the ownership fraction. Although section 7874 grants the Treasury Department and the IRS the authority to treat stock as not stock when such treatment would further the purposes of section 7874, the legislative history to section 7874 does not suggest that the treatment of plain vanilla preferred stock in the ownership fraction is inconsistent with the purposes of section 7874. The Treasury Department and the IRS therefore decline to exercise the regulatory authority to exclude plain vanilla preferred stock in the calculation of the ownership fraction. Accordingly, all classes of stock, including plain vanilla preferred stock, are included in the ownership fraction and treated as stock for purposes of section 7874, other than for purposes of determining the EAG. The Treasury Department and the IRS considered whether the treatment of plain vanilla preferred stock in the EAG definition should be made consistent with the treatment of plain vanilla preferred stock in the ownership fraction. After studying the issue, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that taking plain vanilla preferred stock into account for purposes of the definition of an EAG may facilitate the avoidance of the rules regarding EAGs. Consequently, the Treasury Department and the IRS also decline to exercise regulatory authority to amend the treatment of plain vanilla preferred stock for purposes of defining an EAG. The Treasury Department and the IRS will, however, continue to monitor the use of plain vanilla preferred stock and its treatment under section 7874. C. Internal Restructuring Exception Treasury regulation § 1.7874-1T(c)(1) provides that stock held by a member of an EAG is included in the denominator, but not the numerator, of the ownership fraction if two conditions are satisfied. First, the common parent of the EAG must own directly or indirectly at least 80 percent of the stock (by vote or value) or the capital or profits interest in the domestic entity prior to the acquisition. Second, following the acquisition non-members of the EAG, by reason of holding stock or a capital or profits interest in the domestic entity, must not own more than 20 percent of the stock (by vote or value) of the foreign corporation. One commentator suggested that the requirement should merely look to the stock ownership of the common parent of the EAG both before and after the acquisition. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with this suggestion. In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the rule should be modified to consider the stock by vote and value held by the common parent of the EAG. Consequently, stock of a member of an EAG is included in the denominator, but not the numerator of the ownership fraction, if the common parent of the EAG held directly or indirectly at least 80 percent of the stock (by vote and value) or the capital and profits interest, as applicable, of the domestic entity before the acquisition, and holds at least 80 percent of the stock (by vote and value) of the foreign acquiring corporation after the acquisition. Corresponding revisions have been made to the examples. D. Hook Stock One commentator requested clarification of the wording of § 1.7874-1T(d) regarding the treatment of hook stock. In response to this comment, the provision is clarified to exclude hook stock from both the numerator and denominator of the fractions that are used to determine whether the exceptions to the general rule apply (that is, the determination of whether the acquisition resulted in an internal group restructuring or a loss of control of the domestic entity). Regulations Addressing Avoidance of the Purposes of Section 7874 The Treasury Department and the IRS understand that taxpayers may be taking the position that a foreign corporation that acquires substantially all of the properties of a domestic corporation in a title 11 or similar case may not be a surrogate foreign corporation because it fails to satisfy the stock ownership requirement described in section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii). These taxpayers maintain that creditors of the domestic corporation, which typically receive all of the stock of the acquiring foreign corporation issued in the title 11 or similar case, are not considered former shareholders of the domestic corporation for purposes of section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii). Thus, they take the position that the creditors do not hold the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation received by reason of holding stock in the domestic corporation. Under this position, there often would be little or no continuity of ownership for purposes of section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii) and, as a result, the foreign corporation would not be a surrogate foreign corporation. Taxpayers take this position even though the creditors, in substance, are the equity owners of the domestic corporation at the time of the title 11 or similar case and acquire the stock issued by the acquiring foreign corporation by reason of their status as creditors of the domestic corporation. *Helvering* v. *Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Co.,* 315 U.S. 179 (1942). The Treasury Department and the IRS disagree with this characterization under current law and are considering issuing regulations to clarify the proper application of the rules to such transactions. Section 7874(c)(6) provides that the Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be appropriate to determine whether a corporation is a surrogate foreign corporation, including regulations:
(i)To treat warrants, options, contracts to acquire stock, convertible debt interests, and other similar interests as stock, and
(ii)to treat stock as not stock. These regulations would provide, as appropriate, that for purposes of section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii), creditors of a domestic corporation emerging from a title 11 or similar case are treated as former shareholders of such corporation. The regulations would further provide, as appropriate, that for this purpose, stock issued by the foreign acquiring corporation to such creditors is held by reason of holding stock in the domestic corporation. Similar rules may apply to acquisitions of substantially all the properties constituting a trade or business of a domestic partnership. The Treasury Department and the IRS also understand that some taxpayers may be taking the position that, where two or more domestic entities described in section 7874(a)(2)(B)(i) are acquired pursuant to an overall plan, section 7874(a)(2)(B) is applied separately to each such domestic entity. For example, taxpayers may take this position where a foreign corporation is formed to acquire, in exchange for its stock, 100 percent of the stock of two domestic corporations that have approximately the same value. In such a case, after the acquisition the former shareholders of the two domestic corporations, in the aggregate, would hold 100 percent of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic corporations. However, the taxpayers may claim that the ownership fraction applies separately to each acquisition such that the ownership fraction would be approximately 50 percent, rather than 100 percent. Under this interpretation, the acquiring foreign corporation would not be a surrogate foreign corporation because the condition described in section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii) would not be satisfied. The Treasury Department and the IRS disagree with this interpretation under current law and are considering issuing regulations to clarify the proper application of the rules. These regulations would clarify that the references in section 7874(a)(2)(B) to “a domestic corporation” shall, as appropriate, mean “one or more domestic corporations” where the properties of such corporations are, directly or indirectly, acquired pursuant to the same plan. Similar clarifications will be made with respect to acquisitions involving properties of domestic partnerships. Finally, the Treasury Department and the IRS understand that some taxpayers may be attempting to avoid the application of section 7874 by structuring acquisitions of domestic entities by foreign corporations through the use of intervening partnerships. For example, a foreign acquiring corporation may issue new shares to a newly formed domestic partnership in exchange for a 99 percent interest in the partnership. The shares transferred to the domestic partnership constitute 70 percent of the outstanding stock of the foreign acquiring corporation. An affiliate of the foreign acquiring corporation would transfer cash or other property to the partnership for the remaining one percent interest. The foreign acquiring corporation then transfers its 99 percent interest in the domestic partnership to the shareholders of a domestic corporation in exchange for 100 percent of the stock of the domestic corporation. The taxpayers take the position that this transaction is not subject to section 7874 even though, in substance, the foreign acquiring corporation acquired 100 percent of the stock of the domestic corporation and the former shareholders of the domestic corporation, through their 99 percent interest in the domestic partnership, hold more than 60 percent of the stock of the foreign acquiring corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic corporation. Under this interpretation, which relies on treating the partnership as an entity (rather than as an aggregate of its partners), the ownership fraction would be zero because none of the foreign acquiring corporation stock held by the partnership was held by former shareholders of the domestic corporation. Thus, section 7874 would not apply to the transaction. The Treasury Department and the IRS disagree with this characterization under current law and are considering issuing regulations to clarify the proper application of the rules to these transactions. The regulations would provide, as appropriate, that for purposes of applying section 7874(a)(2)(B)(i) to these structures, the exchange of an interest in a domestic entity for an interest in a partnership shall be treated as an exchange of the interest in the domestic entity for a pro rata share of the assets of the partnership. The regulations described above, which may be issued in conjunction with the finalization of the § 1.7874-2T regulations, may be effective as of May 20, 2008. However, no inference is intended as to the potential applicability of other Code or regulatory provisions, or judicial doctrines (including substance over form) to the transactions described above. Effective/Applicability Date Section 1.7874-1 applies to acquisitions completed on or after May 20, 2008, subject to transition relief for certain acquisitions entered into pursuant to binding commitments. In addition, taxpayers may elect to apply this section to prior acquisitions, but must apply it consistently to all acquisitions within its scope. Special Analyses It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comments on its impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal author of this regulation is Milton Cahn, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in its development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 1.7874-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7874(c)(6) and (g). § 1.7874-1T [Removed] **Par. 2.** Section 1.7874-1T is removed. **Par. 3.** Section 1.7874-1 is added to read as follows: § 1.7874-1 Disregard of affiliate-owned stock.
(a)*Scope.* Section 7874(c)(2)(A) provides that stock of the foreign corporation referred to in section 7874(a)(2)(B) held by members of the expanded affiliated group
(EAG)that includes such foreign corporation shall not be taken into account in determining ownership for purposes of section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii). This section provides rules under section 7874(c)(2)(A). The rules provided in this section are also subject to section 7874(c)(4).
(b)*General rule.* Except as provided in paragraph
(c)of this section, for purposes of the ownership percentage determination required by section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii), stock held by one or more members of the EAG is not included in either the numerator or the denominator of the fraction that determines such percentage (ownership fraction).
(c)*Exceptions to general rule* —(1) *Overview.* Stock held by one or more members of the EAG shall be included in the denominator, but not in the numerator, of the ownership fraction, if the acquisition qualifies as an *internal group restructuring* or results in a *loss of control* , as described in paragraph (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section.
(2)*Internal group restructuring.* For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an acquisition qualifies as an internal group restructuring if:
(i)Before the acquisition, 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) or the capital and profits interest, as applicable, of the domestic entity was held directly or indirectly by the corporation that is the common parent of the EAG after the acquisition; and
(ii)After the acquisition, 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of the acquiring foreign corporation is held directly or indirectly by such common parent.
(3)*Loss of control.* For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the acquisition results in a loss of control if after the acquisition, the former shareholders or partners of the domestic entity do not hold, in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value) of any member of the EAG.
(d)*Treatment of certain hook stock.* This paragraph applies to stock of a corporation that is held by an entity in which at least 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value) or at least 50 percent of the capital or profits interest, as applicable, in such entity, is held directly or indirectly by the corporation. The stock to which this paragraph applies shall not be included in either the numerator or denominator of any fraction for the following purposes:
(1)For applying paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
(2)For determining whether the acquisition qualifies as an internal group restructuring (described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section) or results in a loss of control (described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section).
(e)*Stock held by a partnership.* For purposes of section 7874, stock held by a partnership shall be considered as held proportionately by its partners.
(f)*Examples.* The application of this section is illustrated by the following examples. It is assumed that all transactions in the examples occur after March 4, 2003. In all the examples, if an entity or other person is not described as either domestic or foreign, it may be either domestic or foreign. In addition, each entity has only a single class of equity outstanding. Finally, the analysis of the following examples is limited to a discussion of issues under section 7874, even though the examples may raise other issues (for example, under section 367). Example 1. *Disregard of hook stock* —(i) *Facts.* USS, a domestic corporation, has 100 shares of stock outstanding. USS's stock is held by a group of individuals. Pursuant to a plan, USS forms FS, a foreign corporation, and transfers to FS the stock of several wholly owned foreign corporations, in exchange for 90 shares of FS stock. FS then forms Merger Sub, a domestic corporation. Under a merger agreement and state law, Merger Sub merges into USS, with USS surviving the merger. In exchange for their USS stock, the former shareholders of USS receive, in the aggregate, 100 shares of newly issued FS stock. As a result of the merger FS holds 100 percent of the USS stock. USS continues to hold 90 shares of FS stock.
(ii)*Analysis.* FS has indirectly acquired substantially all the properties held directly or indirectly by USS pursuant to a plan. After the acquisition, the former shareholders of USS hold 100 shares of FS stock by reason of holding stock in USS, and USS holds 90 shares of FS stock. Under paragraph
(b)of this section, the 90 shares of FS stock held by USS, a member of the EAG, are not included in either the numerator or the denominator of the ownership fraction. Accordingly, the ownership fraction is 100/100. If the condition in section 7874(a)(2)(B)(iii) is satisfied, FS is a surrogate foreign corporation which is treated as a domestic corporation under section 7874(b). Example 2. *Internal group restructuring; wholly owned corporation* —(i) *Facts.* P, a corporation, owns all 100 outstanding shares of USS, a domestic corporation. USS forms FS, a foreign corporation, and transfers all its assets to FS in exchange for all 100 shares of the stock of FS, in a reorganization described in section 368(a)(1). P exchanges its USS stock for FS stock under section 354.
(ii)*Analysis.* FS has directly acquired substantially all the properties held directly or indirectly by USS pursuant to a plan. The acquisition is an internal group restructuring described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section because P, the common parent of the EAG after the acquisition, held directly or indirectly 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of USS before the acquisition, and after the acquisition, P holds directly or indirectly 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of FS. Accordingly, under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the FS stock held by P is included in the denominator, but not in the numerator of the ownership fraction. Therefore, the ownership fraction is 0/100. FS is not a surrogate foreign corporation. Example 3. *Internal group restructuring; wholly owned corporation* —(i) *Facts.* The facts are the same as in *Example 2* , except that USS does not transfer any of its assets to FS. Instead, P transfers all 100 shares of USS stock to FS in exchange for all 100 shares of FS stock.
(ii)*Analysis.* FS has indirectly acquired substantially all the properties held directly or indirectly by USS pursuant to a plan. The acquisition is an internal group restructuring described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section because P, the common parent of the EAG after the acquisition, held directly or indirectly 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of USS before the acquisition, and after the acquisition, P holds directly or indirectly 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of FS. Accordingly, under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the FS stock held by P is included in the denominator, but not in the numerator of the ownership fraction. Accordingly, the ownership fraction is 0/100. FS is not a surrogate foreign corporation. Example 4. *Internal group restructuring; less than wholly owned corporation* —(i) *Facts.* The facts are the same as in *Example 3* , except that P holds 85 shares of USS stock. The remaining 15 shares of USS stock are held by A, a person unrelated to P. P and A transfer their shares of USS stock to FS in exchange for 85 and 15 shares of FS stock, respectively.
(ii)*Analysis.* FS has indirectly acquired substantially all the properties held directly or indirectly by USS pursuant to a plan. The acquisition is an internal group restructuring described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section because P, the common parent of the EAG after the acquisition, held directly or indirectly 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of USS before the acquisition, and after the acquisition P holds directly or indirectly 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of FS. Therefore, under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the FS stock held by P is included in the denominator, but not in the numerator of the ownership fraction. Accordingly, the ownership fraction is 15/100. FS is not a surrogate foreign corporation. Example 5. *Internal group restructuring exception not applicable; less than 80 percent owned corporation* —(i) *Facts.* The facts are the same as in Example 2, except that P owns 55 shares of USS stock, and A, a person unrelated to P, holds 45 shares of USS stock. P and A exchange their shares of USS stock for 55 shares and 45 shares of FS stock, respectively.
(ii)*Analysis.* FS has acquired substantially all the properties held directly or indirectly by USS pursuant to a plan. P, the common parent of the EAG after the acquisition, did not hold directly or indirectly 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of USS before the acquisition, and after the acquisition P does not hold directly or indirectly 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of FS. Thus, the acquisition is not an internal group restructuring described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and the general rule of paragraph
(b)of this section applies. Under paragraph
(b)of this section, the FS stock held by P, a member of the EAG, is not included in either the numerator or the denominator of the ownership fraction. Accordingly, the ownership fraction is 45/45. If the condition in section 7874(a)(2)(B)(iii) is satisfied, FS is a surrogate foreign corporation which is treated as a domestic corporation under section 7874(b). Example 6. *Internal group restructuring; hook stock* —(i) *Facts.* USS, a domestic corporation, has 100 shares of stock outstanding. P, a corporation, holds 80 shares of USS stock. The remaining 20 shares of USS stock are held by A, a person unrelated to P. USS owns all 30 outstanding shares of FS, a foreign corporation. Pursuant to a plan, FS forms Merger Sub, a domestic corporation. Under a merger agreement and state law, Merger Sub merges into USS, with USS surviving the merger as a subsidiary of FS. In exchange for their USS stock, P and A, the former shareholders of USS, respectively receive 56 and 14 shares of FS stock. USS continues to hold 30 shares of FS stock.
(ii)*Analysis.* FS has indirectly acquired substantially all the properties held directly or indirectly by USS pursuant to a plan. Under paragraph
(b)of this section, the shares of FS stock held by P and USS, both of which are members of the EAG, are not included in either the numerator or denominator of the ownership fraction, unless the acquisition results in an internal group restructuring or loss of control of USS such that the exception of paragraph (c)(1) of this section applies. In determining whether the acquisition of USS is an internal group restructuring, under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the FS stock held by USS is disregarded. Because P held directly or indirectly 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of USS before the acquisition, and after the acquisition P holds directly or indirectly 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of FS (when disregarding the FS stock held by USS), the acquisition is an internal group restructuring and the exception of paragraph (c)(1) of this section applies. Accordingly, when determining whether FS is a surrogate foreign corporation, the FS stock held by P is included in the denominator, but not the numerator of the ownership fraction. However, under paragraph
(b)of this section, the FS stock held by USS is not included in either the numerator or denominator of the ownership fraction. Accordingly, the ownership fraction is 14/70, or 20 percent, since only the stock held by A is included in the numerator, and the stock held by both P and A is included in the denominator. Accordingly, FS is not a surrogate foreign corporation. Example 7. *Loss of control* —(i) *Facts.* P, a corporation, holds all the outstanding stock of USS, a domestic corporation. B, a corporation unrelated to P, holds all 60 outstanding shares of FS, a foreign corporation. P transfers to FS all the outstanding stock of USS in exchange for 40 newly issued shares of FS.
(ii)*Analysis.* FS has indirectly acquired substantially all the properties held directly or indirectly by USS pursuant to a plan. After the acquisition, B holds 60 percent of the outstanding shares of the FS stock. Accordingly, B, FS and USS are members of an EAG. After the acquisition, P does not hold directly or indirectly more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value) of any member of the EAG and, thus, the acquisition results in a loss of control described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. Accordingly, under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the FS stock owned by B is included in the denominator, but not in the numerator, of the ownership fraction. Therefore, the ownership fraction is 40/100. FS is not a surrogate foreign corporation. Example 8. *Internal group restructuring; partnership* —(i) *Facts.* LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is engaged in the conduct of a trade or business. P, a corporation, holds 90 percent of the interests of LLC. A, a person unrelated to P, holds 10 percent of the interests of LLC. LLC has not elected to be treated as an association taxable as a corporation. P and A transfer their interests in LLC to FS, a newly formed foreign corporation, in exchange for 90 shares and 10 shares, respectively, of FS's stock, which are all of the outstanding shares of FS. Accordingly, LLC becomes a disregarded entity.
(ii)*Analysis.* Prior to the FS's acquisition of the interests of LLC, LLC was a domestic partnership for Federal income tax purposes. FS has acquired substantially all the properties constituting a trade or business of LLC pursuant to a plan. After the acquisition, P holds 90 percent of FS's stock (by vote and value) by reason of holding a capital and profits interest in LLC, and A holds 10 percent of FS's stock (by vote and value) by reason of holding a capital and profits interest in LLC. The internal group restructuring exception under paragraph (c)(2) of this section applies, because before the acquisition, P held 80 percent or more of the capital and profits interest in LLC, and after the acquisition, P holds 80 percent or more of the stock (by vote and value) of FS. Under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the FS stock held by P is included in the denominator, but not the numerator, of the ownership fraction. Accordingly, the ownership fraction is 10/100. FS is not a surrogate foreign corporation.
(g)*Effective/applicability date.* Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, this section shall apply to acquisitions completed on or after May 20, 2008. This section shall not, however, apply to an acquisition that was completed on or after May 20, 2008, provided such acquisition was entered into pursuant to a written agreement which was (subject to customary conditions) binding prior to May 20, 2008, and at all times thereafter (binding commitment). For purposes of the preceding sentence, a binding commitment shall include entering into options and similar interests in connection with one or more written agreements described in the preceding sentence. Notwithstanding the general application of this paragraph, taxpayers may elect to apply this section to prior acquisitions, but must apply it consistently to all acquisitions within its scope. Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: May 8, 2008. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E8-11285 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Part 57 RIN 1219-AB55 Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice of enforcement of DPM final limit; withdrawal of intent to issue a proposed rule. SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of MSHA's decision to implement the diesel particulate matter
(DPM)final permissible exposure limit
(PEL)of 160 micrograms of total carbon
(TC)per cubic meter of air (160 <sup>TC</sup> g/m 3 ). MSHA has developed a practical sampling strategy to account for interferences from non-diesel exhaust sources when TC is used as a surrogate for measuring a miner's exposure to DPM. The Agency will begin enforcement of the 160 TC limit under existing 30 CFR 57.5060(b)(3) on May 20, 2008. MSHA will post details of its sampling strategy on the Agency's DPM Single Source Page prior to enforcement. The sampling strategy is based on the best available scientific evidence and will be specific to each mine. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances at *silvey.patricia@dol.gov* (E-mail), 202-693-9440 (Voice), or 202-693-9441 (Fax). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background MSHA measures a miner's personal exposure to DPM by analyzing the sample for a DPM surrogate, TC. TC is the sum of elemental carbon
(EC)and organic carbon (OC). The 160 TC limit was promulgated in the 2001 final rule “Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners” which was published in the **Federal Register** on January 19, 2001 (66 FR 5706) and amended on June 6, 2005 (70 FR 32868) and May 18, 2006 (71 FR 28924). When the Agency published the 2006 final rule, MSHA stated its intent to issue a proposed rule to convert the 160 TC PEL to a comparable EC PEL prior to the effective date of May 20, 2008, provided sufficient scientific data were available to support a proposed rule. MSHA is not issuing a proposed rule to uniformly convert the 160 TC limit to a comparable EC limit. Instead, MSHA provides a protocol for calculating a location specific adjustment for situations in which the EC on the miner's personal sample is less than 160 micrograms per cubic meter of air times the error factor
(EF)for EC, and TC on the miner's personal sample is greater than 160 micrograms per cubic meter of air times the EF for TC. The decision not to issue a uniform conversion factor is based on MSHA's assessment that there is still insufficient evidence suggesting an appropriate conversion factor, and the latest available scientific evidence regarding the relationship between TC and EC at levels as low as 160 TC. MSHA will continue to monitor and encourage research in this field. The DPM rulemaking record established that a miner's exposure could not be validated simply by adding the EC and OC of a TC sample due to the potential for non-diesel exhaust sources to deposit on the OC part of the sample and interfere with the MSHA sample analysis. These interferences include environmental tobacco smoke, drill oil mist, and ammonium nitrate/fuel oil
(ANFO)vapors. When measuring EC, interferences are not a factor in assuring the accuracy of the sample analysis. Currently, MSHA determines a miner's exposure to the PEL of 350 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 (350 TC) by conducting an EC analysis to validate that the miner's overexposure to TC is not the result of interferences. In each analysis, MSHA incorporates an error factor to account for variability in sampling and analysis resulting from such things as pump flow rate, filters, and the NIOSH Analytical Method 5040. If the TC measurement is above 350 TC micrograms times the error factor for TC, MSHA looks at the EC measurement from the sample obtained through the NIOSH Analytical Method 5040, and multiplies EC by a conversion factor of 1.3 to produce a statistically valid estimate of what the TC result is without interferences. MSHA issues a citation when the EC measurement times the multiplier is above 350 micrograms times the error factor for EC. The 1.3 multiplier that MSHA uses to estimate TC ( *i.e.* , EC × 1.3 = estimated TC) is the median value of all TC to EC ratios obtained from valid TC samples ( *i.e.* , without OC interferences) collected by MSHA during the 31-Mine Study, and it is consistent with NIOSH's determination that TC is 60-80% EC. In the 2006 final rule (71 FR 28924, May 18, 2006), MSHA retained the 2001 final limit of 160 TC but determined that it should be phased in over a two-year period and stated that: Consequently, on May 20, 2006, the initial final limit will be 308 micrograms of EC per cubic meter of air (308 <sup>EC</sup> μg/m 3 ), which is the same as the existing interim limit; on January 20, 2007, the final limit will be reduced by 50 micrograms and will be a TC limit of 350 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 ; and on May 20, 2008, the final limit of 160 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 will become effective. Note that the 350 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 final limit and the 160 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 final limit are established as TC-based limits in this final rule. ( *Id.* at 28934). Also in the 2006 final rule, MSHA discussed its concerns regarding the relationship between TC, EC and OC at lower concentrations and its intent to conduct a separate rulemaking to determine the most appropriate way to convert the 160 TC PEL to a comparable EC PEL by stating: Moreover, we intend to convert the final limits of 350 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 and 160 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 in a separate rulemaking by January 2007. As we said in the 2005 NPRM, if we do not complete this rulemaking by that time, we will use the EC equivalent as a check to validate that an overexposure to the 350 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 final limit is not the result of interferences. This enforcement policy, which is based on the Second Partial Settlement Agreement and data in the rulemaking record, would be the same that we used to implement the 400 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 interim limit before we converted it to 308 <sup>EC</sup> μg/m 3 in the June 2005 final rule. Whereas we have evidence that we can obtain an accurate sample analysis of the final limit of 350 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 , there is no evidence in the rulemaking record suggesting that the 1.3 conversion factor is appropriate for substantially lower limits, such as the final limit of 160 <sup>TC</sup> μg/m 3 . ( *Id* . at 28976). Although in the 2006 final rule MSHA acknowledged the limitations of sampling a miner's exposure to TC and preferred EC rather than TC as a DPM surrogate, the Agency did not conclude that TC could not be used as an appropriate surrogate for measuring a miner's exposure to DPM. In addition, the court decision in *Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company* v. *Mine Safety and Health Administration* , 476 F.3d 946, 956 (DC Cir. 2007), upholding the DPM standard, allows MSHA to enforce either the 160 TC PEL or a converted elemental carbon
(EC)PEL. The court upheld MSHA's selection of TC and EC as appropriate surrogates for DPM. See *Id* . at 956. Subsequent to the DPM court decision, MSHA decided to wait for further scientific evidence regarding whether MSHA could reasonably convert the 160 TC PEL using a fixed conversion factor such as the 1.3 conversion factor currently used. The latest available scientific evidence is the study titled “Relationship between Elemental Carbon, Total Carbon, and Diesel Particulate Matter in Several Underground Metal/Non-metal Mines” which was published on February 1, 2007 (J. D. Noll; A. D. Bugarski; L. D. Patts; S. E. Mischler; L. McWilliams, *Environ. Sci. & Technol.* , Vol. 41, No. 3: February 1, 2007, 710-716). The authors concluded that the variability of the TC-to-EC ratio increases below 230 TC and is high at 160 TC. Therefore, MSHA could not identify a single, constant conversion factor for EC at any level below 230 TC. In March 2007, MSHA hired an outside expert with experience in DPM sampling methodology and analysis to advise the Agency in developing an enforcement strategy for accurately determining a miner's exposure to TC. The expert also reviewed the latest available data to attempt to devise a scientific method for converting the 160 TC PEL to a comparable EC PEL. The expert was unable to recommend such a method. As an alternative to developing a conversion factor, the expert recommended sampling strategy options for the Agency's consideration in enforcing the DPM final limit in a September 2007 report. MSHA was reviewing the expert's recommendations when it published its December 10, 2007 Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda in which the Agency continued to state its intent to propose a rule to convert the 160 TC limit. MSHA now has determined that insufficient data exist to proceed with further rulemaking to convert the DPM final limit using a single, constant conversion factor, such as the 1.3 factor currently used for EC for all mines. B. Notice of Enforcement of DPM Final Limit MSHA has developed an enforcement strategy for implementation of the DPM 160 TC PEL beginning May 20, 2008. MSHA will continue to determine a miner's exposure to DPM based on a single personal sample taken over the miner's full shift as specified in existing 30 CFR § 57.5061 of the DPM standard. MSHA will use an EC analysis and appropriate sampling methods to ensure that a citation for a miner's overexposure to the 160 TC PEL is valid and not the result of interferences. C. Reason for Withdrawal of Intent To Issue a Proposed Rule MSHA is withdrawing its intent to issue a proposed rule to convert the 160 TC PEL because it has determined that insufficient data exist to support such a rule, and because it has determined that the enforcement strategy it will begin to use on May 20, 2008, is an accurate and effective way of enforcing the DPM standard. This enforcement strategy will provide effective health protections for miners at underground metal and nonmetal mines. In light of MSHA's enforcement action, this notice does not reduce health protections for underground metal and nonmetal miners. Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners is withdrawn from the Regulatory Agenda. This document does not preclude future agency action that MSHA may find to be appropriate. Dated: May 15, 2008. John P. Pallasch, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-11329 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 104 46 CFR Parts 10 and 15 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0028] RIN 1625-AB26 Implementation of Vessel Security Officer Training and Certification Requirements—International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its regulations to implement the vessel security officer training and certification amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, and the Seafarers' Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code. These amendments incorporate the training and qualification requirements for vessel security officers into the requirements for the credentialing of United States merchant mariners. The vessel security officer requirements would apply to all vessels subject to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, under current regulations. This includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 15.1101, to mean self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR Part 7, except those vessels which have been determined to be otherwise exempt from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f). DATES: This interim rule is effective June 19, 2008. Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before July 21, 2008. Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)on collection of information must reach OMB on or before July 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0028 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1)*Online: http://www.regulations.gov.*
(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
(3)*Hand delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. For public submission of comments on collection of information, the subject line should reference the docket number and say Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Coast Guard, DHS. You must also send comments on collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure that the comments are received on time, the preferred method is by e-mail at *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or fax at 202-395-6566. An alternate, though slower, method is by U.S. mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim rule, contact Ms. Mayte Medina, Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division, Coast Guard, by telephone 202-372-1406 or by e-mail at *Mayte.Medina2@uscg.mil.* If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to the docket located at *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation
(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. A. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0028), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not be able to read your original submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this rule in view of them. B. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time, click on “Search for Dockets,” and enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0028) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. C. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* D. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . II. Acronyms DOT Department of Transportation GRT Gross Registered Tons GT Gross Tons IMO International Maritime Organization ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security Code MARAD Maritime Administration MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget QSS Quality Standards System REC Regional Examination Center SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 STCW International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 STCW Code Seafarer's Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code VSO Vessel Security Officer III. Regulatory Information The Coast Guard is issuing this interim final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)with respect to these amendments because providing opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and would be contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard is implementing VSO training and certification requirements that the U.S. has agreed to as a party to the STCW. This will ensure consistency and harmonize U.S. and international standards for VSO training and certification while at the same time ensuring that the U.S. observes its international obligations. Because the STCW VSO training and certification standards are exhaustive and well-established, pre-publication notice and comment procedures are not necessary to further inform the rulemaking, which follows those requirements. This interim rule also enhances national maritime safety and security by ensuring careful vetting by the Coast Guard of the qualifications of individuals wishing to serve as VSOs. A delay in implementing this rule would be contrary to the public interest in national maritime safety and security. This interim rule will also permit mariners to continue working in the industry on U.S. seagoing vessels outside of U.S. territorial waters by bringing their training and certification into compliance with STCW requirements. This permits U.S. seagoing vessels to continue to travel to and operate in foreign waters and ports without being subject to possible detention for noncompliance with STCW requirements. The Coast Guard believes that permitting U.S. seagoing vessels to continue to operate internationally consistent with STCW VSO training and certification requirements, and without delay, is clearly within the public interest. For these reasons, it is unnecessary and would be contrary to the public interest to further delay implementation of these requirements. This interim rule will have a 60-day comment period and the rule will be effective 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Coast Guard will address comments received on this interim rule before and after the effective date as part of the final rule process. You may submit a request for a public meeting if you believe one would be beneficial. If you would like to request a public meeting, submit your request as described above in PUBLIC MEETING explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine a public meeting is necessary, the time and place of the public meeting will be announced by a notice in the **Federal Register** . IV. Background and Purpose On July 1, 2007, the International Maritime Organization's
(IMO)Maritime Safety Committee adopted the 2006 amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended
(STCW)and the Seafarer's Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code) related to training and certification requirements for a vessel security officer (VSO). These amendments support the security requirements in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
(ISPS)and International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, Amendments, adopted December 2002. The amendments to the STCW and STCW Code set certification and qualification requirements for VSOs. The STCW set forth qualification standards for Masters, officers and watch personnel on seagoing merchant ships. STCW entered into force in 1984 and the U.S. became a party to the Convention in 1991. As a party to the STCW, the U.S. is committed to implementing the adopted amendments. The STCW amendments became effective January 1, 2008. Under the STCW amendments, those persons who became vessel security officers
(VSOs)on or after January 1, 2008, needed to comply with the new requirements as of January 1, 2008. Those persons who already worked as VSOs prior to January 1, 2008, need to comply with those new requirements by July 1, 2009. This rulemaking is being carried out as expeditiously as possible to ensure that mariners are issued the appropriate international certificates, therefore avoiding vessel detentions for non-compliance with the STCW requirements at foreign ports. Furthermore, the implementation of the rule at this time is meant to ensure there is time for training courses to be developed that comply with the proposed interim regulation and provide all new and existing VSOs with the opportunity to take the course and apply for a VSO endorsement prior to July 1, 2009. The STCW and STCW Code amendments include: 1. Certification by the Coast Guard of VSOs; 2. completion of sea service requirements; 3. VSO training in accordance with the STCW Code's standard of competence; 4. approval of training courses by the Coast Guard; and 5. continuous monitoring by the Coast Guard through a quality standards system
(QSS)of the training courses it accepts. The amendments also contain transitional provisions for persons already serving as VSOs that will expire on July 1, 2009. The STCW and STCW Code amendments were based on the IMO model course for Ship Security Officer. Currently, 33 CFR 104.215 requires VSOs to have maritime security knowledge which can be obtained through training or equivalent job experience, as self-certified by the owner/operator of the vessel employing the individual. The existing regulations do not require certification by the Coast Guard. This interim rule amends the current regulations to adopt the STCW and STCW Code amendments related to VSO training and qualifications. To address the primary STCW and STCW Code amendments, the Coast Guard is amending 46 CFR Part 10 to require owner/operators to employ a certified VSO on board each vessel subject to the STCW under current regulations. This includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 15.1101, to mean self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR Part 7, except those vessels which have been determined to be otherwise exempt from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f). The Coast Guard will also add VSO training requirements in 33 CFR 104.215 to align the regulations with competence-based training requirements in STCW. The regulations currently require VSOs to have maritime security knowledge in a number of areas contained in 33 CFR 104.210 and in 33 CFR 104.215. The Coast Guard has determined that the VSO training requirements should be contained in one place and that the training requirements should be fully aligned with STCW. The Coast Guard will also add VSO sea service requirements in 33 CFR 104.215 to align the regulations with the STCW requirements. The existing regulations do not include sea service requirements. The Coast Guard will now require sea service of 12 months or, with knowledge of vessel operations, six months. The Coast Guard determined that these two options were necessary to account for traditional mariners and for other personnel, such as security experts, who already possess knowledge and experience of vessel operations. V. Discussion of the Interim Rule Section 104.215 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations currently requires VSOs to have maritime security knowledge. This knowledge can be obtained through training or equivalent job experience, as self-certified by the owner/operator of the vessel employing the individual. The existing regulations do not require certification. 33 CFR 104.215 In 33 CFR 104.215, the regulation will require Coast Guard certification in the form of a VSO endorsement for persons performing duties as VSOs on board vessels subject to the STCW under current regulations. This includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 15.1101, to mean self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR part 7, except those vessels which have been determined to be otherwise exempt from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f). Section 104.215 will also require that VSOs meet entry requirements such as: 1. Be at least 18 years old; 2. be able to speak and understand the English language sufficiently as related to VSO duties; 3. hold valid credentials; 4. complete VSO training; and 5. have approved sea service. The training requirements will include competence-based mandatory training in order to qualify for a VSO endorsement. VSOs will be required to be trained to meet six competencies that fully align with the STCW Code, Table A-VI/5, Specifications of minimum standards of proficiency for ship security officers, which may be found in the docket [USCG-2008-0028]. The sea service requirements in § 104.215 will provide two options: 1. 12 months; or 2. 6 months with knowledge of ship operations. In addition to providing evidence of sea service, mariners seeking to qualify for an endorsement using the six-month option will also be required to furnish evidence of knowledge of basic ship operations. A list of ship operations areas is included in this rulemaking at 33 CFR 104.215(d)(3). The list was derived using input from merchant mariners and from maritime instructors. The STCW requires that all training be approved by the Coast Guard and that the training be continuously monitored through a quality-standard system to ensure achievement of defined objectives. To fulfill this requirement, VSO training courses will be approved and monitored by a Coast Guard-accepted Quality Standards System
(QSS)organization acting on behalf of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard will not directly approve any VSO courses. Any fees charged by the Coast Guard-accepted QSS organizations will be the responsibility of the VSO course provider. As of the publication date of this interim rule, there are three Coast-Guard accepted QSS organizations that may approve and monitor training on behalf of the Coast Guard. The list of these organizations can be found on the following Internet Web site: *http://www.uscg.mil/STCW/mmic-appcourses.htm.* It is expected that courses accepted for VSO endorsement by the Coast Guard will be based on the IMO model course for ship security officer, or the MARAD VSO model course. Vessel Security Officer courses must also ensure that persons completing the course can successfully demonstrate proficiency in the basic competencies in 33 CFR 104.215(d)(2). Information on MARAD VSO full and refresher courses can be found on the following Internet Web site: *http://www.marad.dot.gov/MTSA/MARAD%20Web%20Site%20for%20MTSA%20Course.html.* The Coast Guard will also accept courses approved by MARAD on behalf of the Coast Guard under section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-295 as meeting the requirements of STCW for purposes of fulfilling the regulatory requirements in 33 CFR 104.215(d)(1)(iv) and (d)(2), as referenced in 33 CFR 104.215(d)(6). Information on these approved courses can be found on the following Internet Web site: *http://www.marad.dot.gov/MTSA/MARAD%20Web%20Site%20for%20MTSA%20Course.html.* The Coast Guard will also accept a QSS-approved refresher course for persons who can document six months of experience as a VSO, or have successfully completed a course on vessel security that was not approved by MARAD prior to the effective date of this interim rule. 46 CFR 10.811 Section 10.811 will require proof of compliance with the entry requirements in 33 CFR 104.215 for mariners seeking a VSO endorsement. It will also require the individual to meet the physical examination requirements in 46 CFR 10.205(d)(1)-(2). 46 CFR 15.1113 We are adding 46 CFR 15.1113 which will require that VSOs serving on board vessels subject to the STCW hold an endorsement as VSO. This includes all seagoing vessels, as defined in 46 CFR 15.1101 to mean self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the Boundary Line established by 46 CFR Part 7, except those vessels which have been determined to be otherwise exempt from STCW as per 46 CFR 15.103(e) and (f). VI. Regulatory Evaluation We developed this interim rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analysis based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. A. Regulatory Analysis This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under that Order. A combined Regulatory Analysis and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. A summary of the analysis follows: The interim rule would require vessel security officers
(VSOs)serving on U.S.-flag vessels subject to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 as amended
(STCW)to complete training requirements consistent with STCW amendments on VSO training and qualifications. This would require existing VSOs and persons that intend to serve as VSOs to hold a Coast Guard-issued credential with a VSO endorsement. The affected vessels would be U.S.-flag self-propelled vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the boundary line as specified in 46 CFR part 15.1101. The Coast Guard does not plan to directly approve any VSO courses. Instead, VSO training must be Coast Guard-accepted. This means that the courses must be approved and monitored by a Coast Guard-accepted Quality Standards System
(QSS)organization acting on behalf of the Coast Guard. Any fees charged by the Coast Guard-accepted QSS organizations will be the responsibility of the course provider. In addition, persons that have already completed a Maritime Administration (MARAD)-approved VSO course before the effective date of this rule would be considered in compliance with the training requirement and would only need to successfully meet the qualification requirements. Persons that have completed a non-MARAD training course before the effective date of this rule can meet the training requirement by completing a Coast-Guard accepted VSO refresher course. They would be able to serve as a VSO upon completion of the training and they would have until July 1, 2009, to complete the refresher course. After that time, they will be required to take a full VSO training course. There are four cost elements associated with this interim rule
(1)A VSO refresher course cost,
(2)a full VSO course cost,
(3)a training provider cost from a Coast Guard-approved QSS, and
(4)a VSO endorsement and travel cost to a regional examination center (REC). We estimate that approximately 716 VSOs would need refresher course training and approximately 237 would need to enroll in a full training course. During the first full year the rule is in effect, or 2009, about 1,769 VSOs will incur a cost associated with an REC, and annually, about 190 VSOs will incur the REC cost (we chose 2009 as the first year of the analysis period since most VSOs would complete the required training during that year). The total population of VSOs potentially affected by this interim rule is approximately 1,974, depending upon the training requirement. Under the current rule, VSO training is optional. The number of training providers affected is dependent upon when the training provider courses expired and the renewal date. We estimate the interim rule to affect about 879 U.S.-flag seagoing vessels engaged in commercial service that operate beyond the boundary line as specified in 46 CFR part 15.1101. We present the costs of this interim rule in 2007 dollars and discount these costs to their present value
(PV)over a 10-year period of analysis, 2009-2018, using both seven and three percent discount rates. We estimate the annuitized costs of this interim rule over the 10-year period of analysis to be about $1.5 million at both seven and three percent discount rates. We estimate the total 10-year (2009-2018) present discounted value or cost of this interim rule to industry to be between $10.5 and $12.3 million at both seven and three percent discount rates, respectively. Table 1 below summarizes the costs of the interim rule. Table 1.— **Summary of Total Discounted Costs of Interim Rule** [2009-2018, 7 and 3 percent discount rates, 2007 dollars ($millions)] Cost item Discount rates 7 percent 3 percent Coast Guard-approved QSS VSO Training Provider Cost $0.25 $0.32 VSO Refresher Course 1.9 2.0 VSO Full Course 6.6 8.0 VSO Travel Cost to REC 1.9 2.1 Total Interim Rule Cost 10.5 12.3 Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. From our Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database, we estimate the interim rule to affect about 879 U.S.-flag vessels. Based on guidance from industry representatives, we were able to obtain the number of crews per vessel class assuming one VSO per crew. Based on our discussions with industry representatives, we found that, on average, there are two vessel crews per vessel in a specific vessel class (freight ships have three crews per vessel). See Table 2 below. The column labeled “VSOs in Compliance” presents the number of VSOs that have completed the MARAD (Maritime Administration)-approved training and would be in compliance with this interim rule. The last column of Table 2 labeled “Requiring Refresher Training” shows the number of VSOs in each vessel class that would require refresher training. We assume these persons that would like to serve as VSOs qualify for the refresher course training, either because they have recently served at least six months as a VSO or because they have completed non-MARAD-approved VSO training. Table 2 below summarizes the number of vessels affected per class of vessels, the number of VSOs affected per class of vessel, and the number of VSOs that would need the required training. Table 2.—VSOs Affected by Maritime Security Training Requirement Serving on U.S.-Flagged SOLAS Vessels Vessel service class U.S.-flagged SOLAS vessels Crews per vessel VSOs VSOs VSOs in compliance Requiring refresher training Freight Ship 216 3 648 518 130 Offshore Supply Vessel 197 2 394 197 197 Towing Vessel 179 2 358 179 179 Passenger (Inspected) 132 2 264 53 211 Tank Ship 73 2 146 117 29 Other 82 2 164 98 66 Total 879 1,974 1,162 812 Source: Based on MISLE and industry data. We assume that VSOs would incur different travel and lodging costs depending upon whether a VSO commuted daily to the training site, drove to the training site city and took lodging during the training period, or flew to the training site city and took lodging. We used a loaded hourly wage rate of $61 for all VSOs. A loaded labor rate is what a company pays per hour to employ the person, not what the person makes in hourly wages. The loaded labor rate includes the cost of benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). We also used this hourly wage when we estimated the opportunity cost of a VSO's time when a VSO engages in duties or activities in order to comply with the requirements of this interim rule. Furthermore, the Coast Guard has found that VSOs perform maritime security training on their employer's time. Therefore, we made the conservative assumption that VSOs' compliance activities related to obtaining the required training would be performed on their employers' time. As a result, we applied the $61 loaded hourly wage to these activities rather than the unloaded hourly wage rate of $44. Our estimation of costs that VSOs would incur as a result of this interim rule must take into account costs associated with travel to the training site and is dependent upon the distance VSOs live from available training sites. We estimated this distance using the regulatory analysis that supports the Coast Guard's interim rule “Validation of Merchant Mariners” Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Licenses and Certificates of Registry”, published on January 13, 2006 (71 FR 2159). In that analysis, the portion of mariners that reside within 50 miles and 100 miles of their RECs was determined. Given the location of the training sites from the various RECs, and assuming that the distribution of VSOs from their RECs is directly proportional to the distribution of mariners from their RECs, we estimated the portion of VSOs who reside within 50 miles and 100 miles of the training sites. There are 17 RECs located throughout the country and 22 training sites or schools. There are only seven RECs that have training schools within their geographic vicinity. If we draw 50 and 100-mile radius circles around the 17 REC cities and the 22 training provider sites, we would find that these circles do not neatly overlap one another. However, for the seven RECs that have a training site within their geographic area, some mariners who reside 100 miles from the REC reside within 50 miles of the training site. We based our calculations for all VSOs on these seven RECs in order to determine the share or percentage of VSOs that call a particular REC their REC and that would need to travel to an associated training facility for the required training. Schools are close enough in proximity to these seven RECs in order for us to estimate the share of VSOs that would need to commute, drive and lodge, or fly and lodge. Based on mariner address information from the Coast Guard's National Maritime Center
(NMC)and the regulatory analysis that supports the Coast Guard's interim rule “Validation of Merchant Mariners” Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Licenses and Certificates of Registry”, published on January 13, 2006 (71 FR 2159), we used the percentages presented in the regulatory analysis for that rule as listed in Table 3 below. Table 3.—VSO Travel Share Based on 50 and 100-Mile Radius Circles Around RECs Travel mode Commute Drive/lodge Fly/lodge Total Share 60.0% 30.0% 10.0% 100.0% In order for us to obtain the share or percentage of VSOs requiring training that would commute, drive/lodge, and fly/lodge around the country for training, we utilized the law of cosines to determine how much of an REC's 50-mile radius circle and 100-mile radius circle overlaps a school's 50-mile radius circle or 100-mile radius circle. We performed this exercise and calculations for all of the seven RECs that have schools in their geographic vicinity. The relevant REC cities are Baltimore, MD; Miami, FL; New York, NY; Oakland, CA; Seattle, WA; New Orleans, LA; and Portland, OR. Based on our calculations, we arrived at the share or percentage of VSOs that would attend the required training schools by travel modes listed in Table 4 below. Table 4.—Total National Share or Percentage of VSOs That Will Commute, Drive/Lodge, and Fly/Lodge REC cities Commute share (%) Drive/lodge share (%) Fly/lodge share (%)* Baltimore 4.9 1.95 0.8 Miami 7.7 2.9 1.2 New York 4.4 1.8 0.7 Oakland 1.0 2.0 1.1 New Orleans 2.5 5.0 2.7 Portland 2.3 1.2 0.4 Seattle 3.7 1.8 0.6 Total 26.5 16.7 7.5 + 49.3 = 56.8 Note: The remaining 10 REC cities have no schools associated with them; therefore, we added together the share or percentage of VSOs that call those cities their respective REC for a total of 49.3 percent. VSOs that attend schools in these cities would fly and lodge; therefore, we added these percentages to the fly/lodge category. From our calculations of the seven REC cities, we found the percentage of VSOs that would fly/lodge to be about 7.5 percent. Therefore, the total share or percentage of VSOs that will fly/lodge is about 56.8 percent (0.493 + 0.075). Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. From Table 1, there are 1,974 VSOs that serve on U.S.-flag SOLAS vessels under STCW. To obtain the number of VSOs that will need refresher training, we must subtract from the total number of VSOs (1,974) those VSOs that have completed MARAD-approved training (1,162) to obtain 812 VSOs that will need refresher training (1,974 − 1,162 = 812 VSOs). We also introduce an annual industry turnover rate of 0.12 or 12 percent. This turnover rate measures the annual flow of personnel leaving and entering the water transportation industry, rather than the flow of personnel leaving or entering the average firm in this industry. We assume that existing VSOs also leave at this rate and that all persons replacing these VSOs would be required to enroll in the full course training. We now multiply the number of VSOs requiring refresher course training from Table 1
(812)by 0.88 (the complement of the turnover rate, which is the retention rate) to obtain 716 or the number of VSOs that would need refresher course training. Cost for a refresher course is an initial-year cost only. To obtain the number of VSOs that would need to enroll in a full course, we multiplied the total number of VSOs (1,974) by the turnover rate (0.12) to obtain about 237 VSOs who would need to enroll in a full course annually. Full course training is an annual recurring cost. To obtain the number of VSOs by mode of travel, we simply multiplied the final percentages in Table 4 by the number of VSOs that require refresher course and full course training, respectively. For example, we calculated the total percentage of VSOs that would commute to be about 0.265 or 26.5 percent. The number of VSOs that would need full course training is about 237, so we multiplied 0.265 by 237 to obtain 63. Restated, the number of VSOs that will need full course training and will commute to the training school is about 63. See Table 5 below for the remaining population figures. Table 5.—Summary of Number of VSOs by Travel Mode and by Training Type Training type VSOs by travel mode Commuting Drive/lodge Fly/lodge Total Full Course Training 63 39 135 237 Refresher Training 190 120 407 716 Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Readers should refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for a summary of all of the individual VSO costs associated with the full training course. Next, we multiplied the total costs per VSO by the population figures for full course training in Table 5 to obtain a total initial and annual cost (non-discounted) for VSOs who take the full training course of $934,476. We performed the same analysis for the refresher course and obtained a total initial-year cost (non-discounted) of about $2,008,822 for VSOs that need refresher course training. Again, readers should refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for all of the individual VSO costs associated with the refresher course. We estimate the total present discounted value or cost for the training requirements of the interim rule to be between $8.4 and $9.9 million at both seven and three percent discount rates, respectively. The training requirement is the most costly element of the interim rule. The third cost element of this interim rule is the cost that a VSO will incur to obtain an endorsement on their Merchant Mariner Credential from an REC. A merchant mariner document expires every five years, so we assume that one-fifth (0.20 or 20 percent) of the VSOs every year would currently be required to make a trip to the REC to renew this document. Of the 1,974 VSOs in our population, 80 percent (1.00-0.20) of these VSOs in the initial year would be required to make an additional trip to an REC to get an endorsement, or about 1,579. During the initial year and annually, only VSOs that take the full course will be affected by this element of the interim rule. We estimate about 190 VSOs will be required to make an additional trip to an REC (237 × 0.80) each year to get an endorsement. Some VSOs would have to travel to an REC anyway once every five years to renew their merchant mariner document. We estimate that 395 VSOs out of the total number of VSOs would have had to travel to an REC anyway without the rule in place (1,974 × 0.20). From the number of VSOs that need to take the full course, we estimate that about 47 also would have had to travel to an REC anyway without the rule in place (237 × 0.20) in order to renew their merchant mariner document. Table 6 summarizes these figures below. Table 6.—Distribution of VSO Travel to an REC for Endorsement Time Required to make an additional trip to an REC Not required to make an additional trip to an REC Total Initial Year 1,579 395 1,974 Initial and Annual Year 190 47 237 Individual VSOs that need to obtain an endorsement from an REC would also incur travel costs similar to those presented for the training requirements (readers should refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for all of the individual VSO costs associated with the endorsement requirement). We estimate VSOs would incur an initial-year cost of about $1.2 million (non-discounted) and an annual cost of about $0.13 million (non-discounted). We estimate the total presented discounted value or cost to be about $2.0 million at both seven and three percent discount rates over the period of analysis. Lastly, the final cost element associated with this interim rule is the cost that training providers will incur for security training course evaluation and oversight. Since the Coast Guard does not approve VSO training courses, the onus is on the training provider to pay a Coast Guard-approved Quality Standards System
(QSS)organization to evaluate its VSO course for approval. Approval from a QSS organization would constitute Coast Guard acceptance of the course. Currently, MARAD pays one of the Coast Guard-approved organizations to approve courses on behalf of MARAD and the Coast Guard. Under this interim rule, the cost burden for course approval and oversight shifts to the training provider. There are 22 training providers throughout the U.S. The cost per course evaluation is about $7,500 and is valid for five years. We estimate the total present discounted value or cost of the interim rule to training providers to be about $0.30 million at both discount rates over the period of analysis. Readers should refer to the regulatory analysis in the docket for a detailed analysis of the costs associated with this interim rule. The interim rule has several qualitative benefits associated with it. The current training regime requires the designation of a VSO, but it does not require formal training, instead it allows owners/operators to self-certify their VSOs as having the security training. Under this regime, the expertise and knowledge varies from person to person and from vessel to vessel. This regime has proven to be less effective since there in no consistency in the attainment of the knowledge throughout the industry. Development of mandatory training requirements is necessary to ensure consistency of training in support of the domestic and international security regime. Seafarers constantly transfer from vessel to vessel; therefore, mandatory training would ensure consistency no matter where they serve. A course approval process in support of the mandatory requirements would lead to a higher quality of security training. The STCW requires that the Coast Guard issue a certificate of proficiency to the mariner. An endorsement to the STCW certificate would serve as proof that a VSO has met the certificate of proficiency requirement and would eliminate the issuance of a separate Coast Guard-issued document. Issuance of endorsements is also beneficial for U.S. vessels trading worldwide, since they would not be subject to detentions for non-compliance with the STCW. These new requirements would provide a systematic and verifiable program of certification and oversight, providing effectiveness, sufficient rigor, and consistency to maritime security education and training. The absence of a systematic and verifiable program of external certification and oversight, insufficient rigor, and a lack of consistency may render maritime security education and training less effective than it should be. B. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This interim rule does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this interim rule is exempt, we have reviewed it for potential economic impact on small entities. From the Coast Guard's MISLE database, there are 879 vessels, owned by 157 entities, impacted by the interim rule. For the purpose of this initial analysis, we estimate average impacts per owner. Discussions with industry revealed that there are approximately 245 VSOs leaving the industry each year, requiring the average vessel owner to hire (245 VSOs/879 vessels) 0.3 new VSOs per vessel each year. In addition, an average of about one (716 VSOs/879 vessels) partially trained VSO per vessel would be required to take a refresher course. Using data from the two business databases, we researched all 157 companies and found annual sales and employment information for 56 of them. We identified 43 of these 56 entities as small businesses (about 77 percent) using the SBA's criteria and assumed the 101 companies with no revenue data were also small for a total of 144 of 157 of the entities (92 percent). To estimate the impact on small entities, we multiplied the cost for full and refresher VSO courses by the average number of VSOs per vessel attending training each year. Vessel owners would incur a first-year cost for the refresher course and an annually recurring cost for the full course. We estimate the full course cost per vessel to be about $1,331 ($4,435 × 0.3 VSOs per vessel) and the refresher course cost per vessel to be about $3,326 ($3,326 × 1.0 VSOs per vessel). Table 7 summarizes the costs for a full VSO course and the shorter refresher course. Table 7.—Per Vessel Cost for VSO Training (Non-Discounted) Course Total course cost *** VSOs per vessel Total VSO Full Course * $4,435 0.3 $1,331 VSO Refresher ** 3,326 1.0 3,326 * The full course cost is an annually recurring cost based on the industry VSO turnover rate. ** The VSO refresher cost is a first-year cost for partially-trained VSOs. *** To be conservative, we used the higher cost estimates for mariners that fly in order to reflect the maximum potential economic impact on a given small business. The cost includes tuition, opportunity costs, transportation costs, etc. We estimate the revenue impact as the total cost per vessel multiplied by the number of vessels each affected entity owns. In the first year, vessel owners would incur the cost for the refresher course and the full course. Using publicly available and proprietary data on owner revenue, we estimate the impact to small entities as a percentage of revenue. The first year cost of the interim rule would have less than a 3 percent impact on 72 percent of the small entities. Table 8 presents the number of small entities in the sample and the estimated range of the initial year impact on revenue as a result of the interim rule requirements. The percentage of small entities in each impact range in the sample is then projected to the total estimate of small entities. Table 8.—Initial Year Impact to Small Entities (Non-Discounted) Percent impact on annual revenue Number of small entities with known revenue data Percent of small entities with known revenue data (percent) Total small entities 0% to 1% 31 72 104 >1% to 3% 0 0 0 >3% to 5% 5 12 17 >5% to 10% 5 12 17 Above 10% 2 5 7 Total 43 100 144 Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. After the initial year of the rulemaking, the annual impact on small businesses is lower because vessel owner and operators would no longer incur the cost of the refresher course for VSOs. We found that annual costs would have less than a 3 percent impact on 79 percent of small entities. Table 9 below presents the estimated annual impact on small entities. Table 9.—Annual Impact to Small Entities (Non-Discounted) Percent impact on annual revenue Number of small entities with known revenue data Percent of small entities with known revenue data (percent) Total small entities 0% to 1% 31 72 104 >1% to 3% 3 7 10 >3% to 5% 3 7 10 >5% to 10% 5 12 17 Above 10% 1 2 3 Total 43 100 144 Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. To the extent that new courses open after publication of the interim rule, there would be a reduction in the travel costs associated with the preliminary cost estimates in the RA. However, the revenue impacts provide a conservative estimate of the impact to small entities. Training providers would incur a cost for security training course evaluation and oversight. The NAICS codes for training providers were varied with 541618—Other Management Consulting Services—being the only code to appear more than once. The SBA annual revenue threshold for this NAICS code is $6,500,000. Most training providers do not offer all types or progressions of training discussed in this interim rule. Based on Coast Guard data, we identified 22 maritime training providers that offer some type of Coast Guard-approved training and could be affected by this rulemaking. Of the 22 training providers that offer training impacted by the interim rule, we were able to collect revenue data for 12. Of the 12 with revenue data, 10 are small entities as defined by the SBA and we assume the remaining 10 to be small, for a total of 20 of the 22 entities being classified as small. Of the small entities with revenue data, we found five (50 percent) would incur an impact of less than 1 percent of annual revenues in the year a course was registered and the remaining five (50 percent) would incur a cost of less than 3 percent of annual revenues. We anticipate that new or existing training providers that do not currently offer the training described in this rulemaking would only begin to offer the training described if they expect it to be net-beneficial. To the extent that training providers are able to pass the cost to mariners, the impact would be less than estimated above. Lastly, the onus of obtaining an endorsement from an REC is on an individual VSO. The interim rule does not require a VSO's employer to pay for this endorsement. We note that for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act an individual is not considered to be a small entity. However, previously in this small entity impact analysis, we have shown the cost to the employer if the employer voluntarily chooses to incur or reimburse the employee for costs related to receiving the VSO endorsement. We are interested in the potential direct impacts of this interim rule on small businesses and we request public comment on these potential direct impacts. If you think that this interim rule would have a significant economic impact on you, your business, or your organization, please submit a comment to the Docket [USCG-2008-0028]. In your comment, explain why, how, and to what degree you think this rule would have an economic impact on you. C. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this interim rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the interim rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call the contact provided in For Further Information Contact above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this interim rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). D. Collection of Information This interim rule calls for a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar actions. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection. Vessel Security Officers must meet minimum training requirements and receive an endorsement from a regional examination center (REC). Vessel Security Officers would be required to complete form CG-719B and deliver the form to an REC for endorsement. This collection is in addition to the current collection of information estimate for VRPs and FRPs [Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)1625-0040]. *Title:* Continuous Discharge Book, Application, Physical Exam Report, Sea Service Report, Chemical Testing, Entry Level Physical. *OMB Control Number:* 1625-0040. *Summary of the Collection of Information:* Vessel Security Officers would be required to obtain an endorsement on their merchant mariner document from an REC to prove a minimum level of training has been completed. Mariners currently complete form CG-719B every 5 years, but the interim rule would require many VSOs to obtain an endorsement prior to the expiration of their existing document. *Need for Information:* The information is necessary to show evidence that VSOs have completed the necessary training requirements to assess risk, threats, and vulnerabilities of a vessel. *Use of Information:* The Coast Guard would use this information to document that the VSO training level meets international requirements. *Description of the Respondents:* The respondents are the VSOs that would be required to complete form CG-719B. *Number of Respondents:* From Table 11, the number of respondents is 1,579 in the first year plus an additional 190 recurring annually, including the first year for a 3-year total of 2,149 [1,579 + (3 × 190)]. *Frequency of Response:* Respondents are required to complete form CG-719B every 5 years. The interim rule would require 1,579 new applications in the first year and an additional 190 new applications recurring annually. *Burden of Response:* Completing the information on CG-719B would take a VSO approximately 10 minutes. In the first year, 20 percent of VSOs are assumed to be completing the form due to the expiration of their merchant mariner document, but the remaining 80 percent detailed in the Number of Respondents section would incur the 10-minute burden. *Estimate of Total Annual Burden:* The existing OMB-approved total annual burden, as adjusted in July 2006, is 329,356 hours. This interim rule would increase the burden for 2,149 VSOs over a 3-year approval period by approximately 10 minutes. The total additional hours requested for this rulemaking is 358 [2,149 × (10 minutes/60 minutes)] and the average annual increase over the 3-year period is about 119 (358/3). The new annual burden as a result of this rulemaking is 329,475 hours. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this interim rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information. We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can minimize the burden of collection. If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit them both to OMB and to the Docket where indicated under ADDRESSES , by the date under DATES in the interim rule. You need not respond to a collection of information unless we have published a currently valid control number from OMB for that collection in the **Federal Register** . Before the requirements for this collection of information become effective, we will publish notice in the **Federal Register** of OMB's decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the collection. If OMB approves the collection, our publication of that control number in the **Federal Register** or the CFR will constitute display of that number; see 5 CFR 1320.3(f)(3), as required under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(B). E. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled, now, that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of *United States* v. *Locke and Intertanko* v. *Locke* , 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) Because the States may not regulate within this category, preemption under Executive Order 13132 is not an issue. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. G. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. H. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. I. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. J. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. K. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. L. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. M. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 104 Maritime security, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Vessels. 46 CFR Part 10 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen. 46 CFR Part 15 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 104, and 46 CFR parts 10 and 15 as follows: TITLE 33 CFR—NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS PART 104—MARITIME SECURITY: VESSELS 1. The authority citation for part 104 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 104.215 by re-designating paragraph
(c)as paragraph
(e)and adding new paragraphs
(c)and (d). § 104.215 Vessel Security Officer (VSO).
(c)*Certification required.* After July 1, 2009, persons performing duties as VSO on-board a seagoing vessel subject to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, must hold a valid Coast Guard-issued credential with a Vessel Security Officer endorsement. The Coast Guard will issue this endorsement only if the person meets the requirements in paragraph
(d)of this section. This endorsement serves as proof that the person meets the ship security officer requirements of Regulation VI/5 of the STCW.
(d)*Requirements for Coast Guard Endorsement:*
(1)To qualify for a VSO endorsement, a person must:
(i)Be at least 18 years of age;
(ii)Be able to speak and understand the English language as would be relevant to the duties of a VSO;
(iii)Hold any valid Coast Guard-issued credential under the regulations specified in 46 CFR Subchapter B;
(iv)Successfully complete a Coast Guard-accepted VSO course;
(v)Sea Service. Fulfill one of the following:
(A)Have approved sea service of not less than 12 months on any vessel subject to § 104.105 of this part, credited in accordance with 46 CFR 10.205(e), 10.211, and/or 10.213; or
(B)Have approved sea service of not less than 90 days on any vessel subject to § 104.105 of this part, credited in accordance with 46 CFR 10.205(b), 10.211, and/or 10.213, and have knowledge of vessel operations.
(2)To qualify as a Coast Guard-accepted course a VSO course under paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section must require candidates to demonstrate knowledge, understanding, and proficiency in the following competencies:
(i)Maintaining and supervising the implementation of a vessel security plan;
(ii)Assessing security risk, threat and vulnerability;
(iii)Undertaking regular inspections of the vessel to ensure that appropriate security measures are implemented and maintained;
(iv)Ensuring that security equipment and systems, if any, are properly operated, tested and calibrated;
(v)Encouraging security awareness and vigilance; and
(vi)Ensuring compliance with the TWIC program requirements.
(3)Candidates meeting the knowledge of vessel operations requirement under paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B) of this section must provide evidence through training or equivalent job experience, in the following areas:
(i)Basic vessel layout and construction:
(A)Understanding layout, including decks, rooms and space numbering; and
(B)Understanding of various vessel types; and working knowledge of nautical terms and definitions, especially those used to describe areas and parts of a vessel.
(ii)Shipboard organization: familiarity with the various departments and related functions, the titles used for personnel, the roles and responsibilities of these persons, and the chain of command.
(iii)Shipboard safety:
(A)Understanding of the importance of creating and maintaining safe working and living conditions for passengers and crew alike;
(B)General shipboard safety rules, emergency alarms and signals, and responses to and reporting of accidents;
(C)Proper usage of protective equipment and general knowledge of procedures for entering enclosed spaces;
(D)Proper usage of lifesaving equipment and where such equipment is normally stowed aboard various vessel types;
(E)Understanding of the operating principles of and proper use of watertight and fire screen doors; and
(F)Understanding where it is safe to smoke and not safe to smoke on board and in port.
(iv)Protection of the marine environment:
(A)Understanding of vessel personnel's responsibility to preserve the marine environment; and
(B)Basic working knowledge of pollution prevention regulations and techniques.
(v)Familiarity with key definitions, terminology, and operational practices employed in the maritime industry. (4)(i) Persons meeting the criteria in paragraphs (d)(4)(i)(A) and
(B)of this section prior to the effective date of this regulation may successfully complete a refresher Coast Guard-accepted VSO course no later than July 1, 2009, to fulfill (d)(1)(iv) of this section. Persons must have:
(A)At least six months of VSO experience during the preceding three years; or
(B)Successfully completed a VSO course that was not approved by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) on behalf of the Coast Guard. Maritime Administration approves VSO courses under section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-295.
(ii)To be eligible to take a refresher Coast Guard-accepted VSO course, a person must present to the course provider documentary evidence that he or she meets the criteria in (d)(4)(i) of this section.
(5)Vessel Security Officer courses meeting the training requirements in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(4) of this section are subject to Coast Guard acceptance under 46 CFR 10.309(a)(10)(ii).
(6)Vessel Security Officer courses approved by MARAD on behalf of the Coast Guard under section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-295 will be accepted by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR 10.309 as meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) and (d)(2) of this section.
(7)Persons who hold a valid “Vessel Security Officer” endorsement may serve as vessel or company personnel with security duties (33 CFR 104.220), and as all other vessel personnel (33 CFR 104.225), without meeting any additional requirements. TITLE 46 CFR—SHIPPING PART 10—LICENSING OF MARITIME PERSONNEL 3. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, and 8906; Executive Order 10173; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 10.107 is also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507. 4. In § 10.104, add the definition of Vessel Security Officer in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 10.104 Definitions of terms used in this part. *Vessel Security Officer (VSO)* means a person onboard the vessel accountable to the Master, designated by the Company as responsible for security of the vessel, including implementation and maintenance of the Vessel Security Plan, and for liaison with the Facility Security Officer and vessel's Company Security Officer. 5. Add § 10.811 to read as follows: § 10.811 Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as vessel security officer.
(a)The applicant for an endorsement as vessel security officer must present satisfactory documentary evidence in accordance with the requirements in 33 CFR 104.215.
(b)All applicants for an endorsement must meet the physical examination requirements in § 10.205(d)(1)-(2) of this chapter. PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS 6. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows: Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306, 3703, 8101, 8102, 8104, 8105, 8301, 8304, 8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 8903, 8904, 8905(b), 8906, 9102, and 8103; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 7. Amend § 15.301 by adding paragraph (b)(10) and revising paragraph (b)(11) to read as follows: § 15.301 Definitions of terms used in this part.
(b)* * *
(10)GMDSS radio operator; and
(11)Vessel Security Officer. 8. In § 15.1101, add paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows: § 15.1101 General.
(a)* * *
(6)*Vessel Security Officer (VSO)* means a person onboard the vessel accountable to the Master, designated by the Company as responsible for security of the vessel, including implementation and maintenance of the Vessel Security Plan, and for liaison with the Facility Security Officer and vessel's Company Security Officer. 9. Add § 15.1113 to read as follows: § 15.1113 Vessel Security Officer (VSO). After July 1, 2009, on board seagoing vessel, all persons performing duties as VSO must hold a valid endorsement as Vessel Security Officer. Dated: May 6, 2008. Brian M. Salerno, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship. [FR Doc. E8-11225 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Parts 201 [Docket No. RM 2008-5] Late-Filed and Underpaid Royalties AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is amending its rules governing the payment of interest on late or underpaid royalty fees under the Copyright Act to clarify when interest for late and underpayments is due in light of the Copyright Office’s electronic funds transfer requirement. In addition, the Copyright Office amends the rules to add text that was inadvertently deleted by a previous rulemaking action. The Copyright Office also makes a technical correction to its satellite carrier requirements to recognize changes made to Section 119 in 2004. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Golant, Assistant General Counsel, and Tanya M. Sandros, General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202)707-8380. Telefax:
(202)707-8366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 2006, the Copyright Office published a final rule requiring the submission of royalty fees to be made by electronic funds transfer (“EFT”). 71 FR 45739 (August 10, 2006). The purpose of this notice is to make technical amendments to Section 201.17(i) and other similar rules for satellite carriers and digital audio recording technologies to clarify when interest accrues for late and underpayments in light of the recent EFT requirement. In addition, we intend to re-insert regulatory text, originally contained in Section 201.17(i)(2), that was incorrectly deleted from Title 37 CFR when the EFT requirements were adopted. I. Electronic Funds Transfer Requirement Under the new EFT regulations, 37 CFR 201.17(i), a number of changes were made regarding the payment of copyright royalties. The most important change was that payment could only be made through an electronic funds transfer. This change eliminates the options of payment by certified or cashier’s check, or money order. Most payors already use EFTs, and requiring the use of EFTs substantially enhances the efficiency of the collection process. The regulations also require that the parties submit specific identifying and linking information as part of the EFT, and/or as part of a “remittance advice” which accompanies Statement(s) of Account, and that the “remittance advice” be faxed or emailed to the Licensing Division. Failure to submit the EFT in accordance with the rules may require the remitter to resubmit the EFT correctly. Should this occur, the remitter will be responsible for any assessed interest charge that accrues as a result of a late payment or an underpayment. The rules now include a waiver provision for those situations where there may be circumstances which make it virtually impossible for a remitter to use the electronic payment option or imposes a financial or other hardship. Requests for a waiver must include a statement setting forth the reasons why the waiver should be granted and the statement must be signed by a duly authorized representative of the entity making the payment, certifying that the information provided is true and correct. II. Proposed Amendments Section 201.17(c)(1) states that: Statements of Account shall cover semiannual accounting periods of
(i)January 1 through June 30, and
(ii)July 1 through December 31, and shall be deposited in the Copyright Office, together with the total royalty fee for such accounting periods . . . .by not later than the immediately following August 29, if the Statement of Account covers the January 1 through June 30 accounting period, and by not later than the immediately following March 1, if the Statement of Account covers the July 1 through December 31 accounting period. Section 201.17(i)(2) (before it was deleted) stated that: Royalty fee payments submitted as a result of late or amended filings shall include interest. Interest shall begin to accrue beginning on the first day after the close of the period for filing statements of account for all underpayments of royalties for the cable compulsory license occurring within that accounting period. The accrual period shall end on the date appearing on the certified check, cashier’s check, money order or electronic payment submitted by a cable system, provided that such payment is received by the Copyright Office within five business days of that date. If the payment is not received by the Copyright Office within five business days of its date, then the accrual period shall end on the date of the actual receipt by the Copyright Office. Morever, Section 201.17(i)(2)(iii) (before it was deleted) stated that “Interest is not required to be paid on any royalty underpayment or late payment from a particular accounting period if the interest charge is less than or equal to five dollars ($5.00).” It is important to note that the Copyright Office’s regulations concerning interest and accrual vis-a-vis late-filed SOAs for satellite carriers is different than that for cable operators. Section 201.11(i)(1) states: Royalty fee payments submitted as a result of late or amended filings will include interest. Interest will begin to accrue beginning on the first day after the close of the period for filing statements of account for all underpayments or *late payments* of royalties for the satellite carrier statutory license for secondary transmissions for private home viewing occurring within that accounting period. The accrual period will end on the date appearing on the certified check, cashier’s check, money order, or electronic payment submitted by a satellite carrier, provided that such payment is received by the Copyright Office within five business days of that date. If the payment is not received by the Copyright Office within five business days of its date, the accrual period will end on the date of actual receipt by the Copyright Office. (Emphasis added) The Copyright Office’s regulations regarding interest and accrual vis-a-vis late-filed SOAs for digital audio recording devices is comparable to that for satellite carriers. Section 201.28(l)(1) states: Royalty payments submitted as a result of *late payments* or underpayments shall include interest, which shall begin to accrue on the first day after the close of the period for filing Statements of Account for all *late payments* or underpayments of royalties occurring within that accounting period. The accrual period for interest shall end on the date appearing on the certified check, cashier’s check, money order, or electronic payment submitted by the manufacturing or importing party, if the payment is received by the Copyright Office within five business days of that date. If the payment is not received by the Copyright Office within five business days of its date, the accrual period shall end on the date of actual receipt by the Copyright Office. (Emphasis added) We note that the five-day language, contained in Section 201.17(i)(2) of the Copyright Office’s rules (before it was deleted), does not extend the Statement of Account filing period deadlines. However, the appropriate interest accrual period for late-filed SOAs has been subject to dispute because the “five business day” language of Section 201.17(i)(2) applies, on its face, to underpayments, not to late payments. It has been the Copyright Office’s Licensing Division’s practice that interest on late payments begins to accrue on the first day after the close of the period for filing statements of account until the date payment is received by the Copyright Office. If the “five business day” language applied in the instance of late payments, which it does not under the practices of the Copyright Office, then the amount of interest due would be less. Given the facts and circumstances, and the need for clarity and administrative consistency, technical amendments to the existing regulations are appropriate. We propose to amend Section 201.17(i) by adding the phrase “late payments” to the existing regulatory language. In the interest of consistency, this change would make the rule largely parallel to Sections 201.11(i) and 201.28(l). As such, all royalty payments made by EFT must be made the day they are due. Interest will begin to accrue the next day for all late-filed submissions and on royalties that are underpaid. The accrual period ends when a full royalty payment is received by the Copyright Office. We also propose to modify the “five business day” rule, currently found in all three regulations, and apply it only to those circumstances where a waiver of the EFT rule is granted by the Copyright Office. While the Office has received very few waivers since the EFT regulations were implemented, we still believe that special provisions concerning royalty payments by check are appropriate. In cases where a waiver is granted, the accrual period ends on the date the mailed payment is postmarked. However, if the payment is not received by the Copyright Office within five business days of its due date, then the accrual period shall end on the date of the actual receipt by the Copyright Office. Finally, Section 201.11(i) is amended to recognize that in 2004, Congress expanded Section 119 to include secondary transmissions to commercial establishments. Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, a part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004. *See* Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 3394
(2004)(“Section 107”). List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 Copyright. Proposed Regulation In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Office is amending part 201 of 37 CFR, chapter II in the manner set forth below: PART 201-GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 2. Revise § 201.11(i)(1) to read as follows: § 201.11 Satellite carrier statements of account covering statutory licenses for secondary transmissions.
(i)* * *
(1)*Interest* . Royalty fee payments submitted as a result of late or amended filings will include interest. Interest will begin to accrue beginning on the first day after the close of the period for filing statements of account for all underpayments or late payments of royalties for the satellite carrier statutory license for secondary transmissions for private home viewing and viewing in commercial establishments occurring within that accounting period. The accrual period shall end on the date the electronic payment submitted by a satellite carrier is received by the Copyright Office. In cases where a waiver of the electronic funds transfer requirement is approved by the Copyright Office, and royalties payments are either late or underpaid, the accrual period shall end on the date the payment is postmarked. If the payment is not received by the Copyright Office within five business days of its date, then the accrual period shall end on the date of the actual receipt by the Copyright Office. 3. Amend § 201.17 by adding paragraph (i)(4) to read as follows: § 201.17 Statements of account covering compulsory licenses for secondary transmissions by cable systems.
(i)* * *
(4)Royalty fee payments submitted as a result of late or amended filings shall include interest. Interest shall begin to accrue beginning on the first day after the close of the period for filing statements of account for all late payments and underpayments of royalties for the cable statutory license occurring within that accounting period. The accrual period shall end on the date the electronic payment submitted by a cable operator is received. The accrual period shall end on the date the electronic payment submitted by a satellite carrier is received by the Copyright Office. In cases where a waiver of the electronic funds transfer requirement is approved by the Copyright Office, and royalties payments are either late or underpaid, the accrual period shall end on the date the payment is postmarked. If the payment is not received by the Copyright Office within five business days of its date, then the accrual period shall end on the date of the actual receipt by the Copyright Office. 4. Revise § 201.28(l))(1) to read as follows: § 201.28 Statements of account for digital audio recording devices or media.
(l)* * *
(1)Royalty payments submitted as a result of late payments or underpayments shall include interest, which shall begin to accrue on the first day after the close of the period for filing Statements of Account for all late payments or underpayments of royalties for the digital audio recording obligation occurring within that accounting period. The accrual period shall end on the date the electronic payment submitted by the remitter is received. In cases where a waiver of the electronic funds transfer requirement is approved by the Copyright Office, and royalties payments are either late or underpaid, the accrual period shall end on the date the payment is postmarked. If the payment is not received by the Copyright Office within five business days of its date, then the accrual period shall end on the date of the actual receipt by the Copyright Office. Dated: April 30, 2008. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights. Approved by: James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress. [FR Doc. E8-11274 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0435; FRL-8568-3] Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; Ventura Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reclassification to Serious AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Effective June 15, 2004, EPA classified the Ventura County ozone nonattainment area as “subpart 2/moderate” for the 8-hour ozone standard with an attainment date of no later than June 15, 2010. On February 14, 2008, the California Air Resources Board submitted a request for reclassification of the Ventura County ozone nonattainment area from “moderate” to “serious.” Under section 181(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is granting California's request for voluntary reclassification of the Ventura County ozone nonattainment area to “serious” in today's document. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective on June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0435 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., confidential business information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
(415)972-3957, *jesson.david@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. I. Reclassification of Ventura County to Serious Ozone Nonattainment Effective June 15, 2004, we classified the Ventura County ozone nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act (“Act” or CAA) as “subpart 2/moderate” for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). See 69 FR 23858, at 23889 (April 30, 2004); and 40 CFR 81.305. Our classification of Ventura County as a “moderate” ozone nonattainment area establishes a requirement that the area attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six years from designation, i.e., June 15, 2010. By letter dated February 14, 2008, the Executive Officer for the California Air Resources Board
(CARB)submitted a request to reclassify three California areas designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Ventura was one of the three areas, and for the Ventura County ozone nonattainment area, CARB has requested reclassification from “moderate” to “serious.” We are acting on the request for Ventura in today's document. In a separate document, we will propose a schedule for required plan submittals for Ventura County under the new classification. We will also act on the requests for the other two areas listed in CARB's February 14, 2008 letter, as well as the reclassification requests previously received from CARB for the San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, and Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment areas, in a separate document. We are deferring action on the State's reclassification requests for the five other areas to allow for notification to, and the opportunity for consultation with, the Indian tribes located within the five areas. No Indian tribes are located within Ventura County. In the separate document, we will also propose schedules for required plan submittals under the new classifications for these areas. We are reviewing this request as one made pursuant to section 181(b)(3) of the Act which provides for “voluntary reclassification” and states: “The Administrator shall grant the request of any State to reclassify a nonattainment area in that State in accordance with table 1 of subsection
(a)of this section to a higher classification. The Administrator shall publish a notice in the **Federal Register** of any such request and of action by the Administrator granting the request.” While section 181 relates to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the same option exists with respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.903(b) (“A State may request a higher classification for any reason in accordance with section 181(b)(3) of the CAA.”). We find that the plain language of section 181(b)(3) mandates that we approve such a request, and, as such, EPA is granting CARB's request for voluntary reclassification under section 181(b)(3) for the Ventura County ozone nonattainment area from “moderate” to “serious” in today's document. As a result of this action, Ventura County must now attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than nine years from designation, i.e., June 15, 2013. EPA has determined that today's action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.” EPA has determined that public notice and comment for today's action is unnecessary because our action to approve voluntary reclassification requests under CAA section 181(b)(3) is nondiscretionary both in its issuance and in its content. As such, notice and comment rulemaking procedures would serve no useful purpose. II. Administrative Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. EPA has determined that the voluntary reclassification would not result in any of the effects identified in Executive Order 12866 section 3(f). Voluntary reclassifications under section 181(b)(3) of the CAA are based solely upon request by the State and EPA is required under the CAA to grant them. These actions do not, in and of themselves, impose any new requirements on any sector of the economy. In addition, because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to the differently classified areas, and because those requirements are automatically triggered by classification, reclassification cannot be said to impose a materially adverse impact on State, local or tribal governments or communities. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In addition, I certify that this rule will 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.* ). This action does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), because EPA is required to grant requests by States for voluntary reclassifications and such reclassifications in and of themselves do not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate. This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Because EPA is required to grant requests by States for voluntary reclassifications and such reclassifications in and of themselves do not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate, this action also does not have Federalism implications as it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. As discussed above, a voluntary reclassification under section 181(b)(3) of the CAA is based solely on the request of a State and EPA is required to grant such a request. In this context, it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it grants a State's request for a voluntary reclassification, to use voluntary consensus standards. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.,* as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 21, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas. Dated: May 13, 2008. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 81—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart C—[Amended] 2. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for “California-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” by revising the entry for “Ventura County, CA” to read as follows: § 81.305 California. California-Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Ventura County, CA: Ventura County (part)—That part of Ventura County excluding the Channel Islands of Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands. Nonattainment 6/19/08 Subpart 2/Serious. Remainder of County Unclassifiable/Attainment * * * * * * * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.* 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E8-11294 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Parts 13 and 22 [FWS-R9-MB-2008-0057; 91200-1231-9BPP-L2] RIN 1018-AV11 Authorizations Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for Take of Eagles AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: These final regulations provide two mechanisms to authorize take under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) by certain persons who have been authorized under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)to take bald eagles ( *Haliaeetus leucocephalus* ) and golden eagles ( *Aquila chrysaetos* ). DATES: This rule goes into effect on June 19, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliza Savage, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop 4107, Arlington, VA 22203-1610; or 703-358-2329. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) (Eagle Act) prohibits the take of bald eagles and golden eagles unless pursuant to regulations (and in the case of bald eagles, take can be authorized only under a permit). While the bald eagle was listed under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we authorized incidental take of bald eagles through take statements under ESA section 7 and through section 10 incidental take permits (50 CFR 402, Subparts A and B; 50 CFR 17.22(b) and 17.32(b)). Those authorizations were issued with assurances that the Service would exercise enforcement discretion in relation to violations of the Eagle Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) (MBTA). Since the bald eagle has been removed from the ESA's List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife throughout most of its range (see 72 FR 37345, July 9, 2007 and 73 FR 23966, May 1, 2008), the prohibitions of the ESA no longer apply except to the Sonoran Desert nesting bald eagle population. However, the potential for human activities to violate Federal law by taking bald eagles (and golden eagles) remains under the prohibitions of the Eagle Act and the MBTA. The Eagle Act defines the “take” of an eagle to include a broad range of actions: “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, or molest or disturb.” “Disturb” is defined in our regulations at 50 CFR 22.3 as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available,
(1)injury to an eagle,
(2)a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or
(3)nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” Many actions that were considered likely to incidentally “take” (harm or harass) eagles under the ESA may also “take” eagles under the Eagle Act, as those terms have been defined by statute and regulation. The ESA provides broad substantive and procedural protections for listed species but at the same time allows significant flexibility to permit activities that affect listed species. In particular, sections 7(b)(4) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide that we may authorize the incidental take of listed wildlife in the course of otherwise lawful activities. Nationwide, since 2002, the Service issued an average of 52 incidental take statements per year that covered anticipated take of bald eagles under the ESA's section 7 (50 CFR 402, Subpart B). During that same 5-year period, we issued nine incidental take permits that included bald eagles under the ESA's section 10(a)(1)(B). A total of 126 such incidental take permits have been issued for bald eagles and 12 incidental take permits include golden eagles as covered, non-listed species (50 CFR 17.22(b) and 17.32(b)). The statutory and regulatory criteria for issuing those ESA authorizations included minimization, mitigation, or other conservation measures that also satisfied the statutory mandate under that Eagle Act that authorized take must be compatible with the preservation of the bald or golden eagle. Our practice was to provide assurances in each section 7 incidental take statement and section 10 permit that we would not refer the incidental take of a bald eagle for prosecution under the Eagle Act, if the take was in compliance with the terms and conditions of a section 7(b)(4) incidental take statement or the conditions of a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit. 1 Now that the bald eagle is delisted in most of the U.S., new mechanisms are needed to address take pursuant to the Eagle Act. 1 Compliance with the conditions of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit entails compliance with the terms of the associated Habitat Conservation Plan and Implementing Agreement (if applicable). The Eagle Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior may authorize certain otherwise-prohibited take of eagles through promulgation of regulations. The Secretary is authorized to prescribe regulations permitting the “taking, possession, and transportation of [bald or golden eagles] * * * for the scientific or exhibition purposes of public museums, scientific societies, and zoological parks, or for the religious purposes of Indian tribes, or * * * for the protection of wildlife or of agricultural or other interests in any particular locality,” provided such permits are “compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle” (16 U.S.C. 668a). In accordance with this authority, the Secretary has previously promulgated Eagle Act permit regulations for scientific and exhibition purposes (50 CFR 22.21), for Indian religious purposes (50 CFR 22.22), for take of depredating eagles (50 CFR 22.23), for possession of golden eagles for falconry purposes (50 CFR 22.24), and for take of golden eagle nests that interfere with resource development or recovery operations (50 CFR 22.25). We have not previously promulgated permit regulations to implement the statutory provision which allows the Secretary to authorize take “for the protection of * * * other interests in any particular locality.” This statutory authority accommodates the spectrum of public and private interests (such as utility infrastructure development and maintenance, road construction, operation of airports, commercial or residential construction, resource recovery, recreational use, etc.) that have received authorization to take eagles under the ESA. Shortly before delisting the bald eagle, we proposed regulations to permit take under the Eagle Act where the take is associated with otherwise lawful activities, and to permit removal of eagle nests for emergency safety needs (see 72 FR 31141, June 5, 2007). That proposed rule also included provisions we are finalizing today under this rule to extend Eagle Act take authorizations to persons previously authorized to take eagles under the ESA, provided the take occurs in compliance with the terms of that ESA authorization. Because the authorizations associated with this final rulemaking are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) under Departmental procedures and we find it is appropriate to have these authorizations available at the earliest practical date, we have bifurcated the proposed rule and are finalizing the ESA-related provisions ahead of the remainder of the proposal. That remainder is currently undergoing a NEPA analysis which we intend to complete later this year. Summary of the Rulemaking Eagle take that was prohibited under the ESA is, in many instances, also prohibited under the Eagle Act. Both statutes define take to prohibit killing, wounding, pursuing, shooting, capturing, and collecting the species they protect (16 U.S.C. 668c; 16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The ESA definition of “take” additionally includes the terms “harm” and “harass,” while the Eagle Act includes “molest or disturb” in its definition of “take.” The regulatory definitions of “harm,” “harass,” and “disturb” differ; however they do overlap in several ways, with the result that an action considered likely to incidentally take eagles under the ESA may also take eagles under the Eagle Act. Under this final rule, we extend Eagle Act authorizations to holders of existing ESA authorizations as seamlessly as is possible under the applicable laws. There are two mechanisms through which these new regulations provide Eagle Act authorization. First, the rule establishes regulatory provisions under 50 CFR 22.11 to provide take authorization under the Eagle Act to ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permittees where the bald eagle is covered in a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP)or the golden eagle is covered as a non-listed species, as long as the permittee is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the ESA permit. This provision will also apply to the take of bald eagles and golden eagles specifically authorized in any future HCPs, whether or not eagles are then listed under the ESA. This provision also extends Eagle Act take authorization to ESA permits for Scientific Purposes and permits for Enhancement of Propagation or Survival (i.e., Recovery permits) issued under ESA section 10(a)(1)(A). Second, the rule establishes a new permit category to provide expedited Eagle Act permits to entities authorized to take bald eagles through section 7 incidental take statements. Permits are not available under this new permit for golden eagles because as a non-listed species no take of golden eagles was previously authorized under the ESA's section 7. Theoretically, this new permit category also may be used to extend Eagle Act take authorization to take exempted under section 7 of the ESA in the future where the bald eagle or golden eagle is protected under the ESA (e.g., for take of Sonoran Desert nesting bald eagles, or if bald eagles or golden eagles become ESA-listed in any portion of their respective ranges). However, in addition to the regulations being finalized herein, we intend to finalize regulations later this year to establish a new permit that will authorize take that is associated with, but not the purpose of, an action (proposed 50 CFR 22.26) (see 72 FR 31141, June 5, 2007). As part of that subsequent rule, we intend to amend the regulations we are promulgating today in a manner to restrict their use to section 7 incidental take statements issued prior to the date this later rule becomes effective. For any incidental take exempted under ESA section 7 that is authorized after the date § 22.26 becomes effective and that also constitutes take under the Eagle Act, the only permit that would be available to provide Eagle Act take authorization would be the new permit to be created by a final version of 50 CFR 22.26. Although the reasonable and prudent measures and associated terms and conditions of section 7 incidental take statements satisfy the statutory mandate of the Eagle Act, once a permit becomes available to authorize eagle take that is not associated with an ESA take authorization, for purposes of accountability and consistency, the same process and procedures should be used to authorize take under the Eagle Act regardless of whether it was also exempted under ESA section 7. Therefore, except for take authorized through ESA section 10 permits (which will confer authority to take under both the ESA and the Eagle Act under the new provision at 50 CFR 22.11), any take we authorize that is associated with, but not the purpose of an activity, would be provided under a single regulatory authority, 50 CFR 22.26, once it becomes available, rather than 50 CFR 22.28. Persons and entities permitted under § 22.28 may apply for a permit under § 22.26 when it becomes available. The reason why different authorizing mechanisms are needed to extend Eagle Act take authorization to take authorized under ESA section 10 versus take exempted under ESA section 7 is that the Eagle Act requires that any bald eagle take to be authorized must be
(1)pursuant to regulations,
(2)authorized upon procurement of a permit from the Secretary of the Interior, and
(3)compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle. We now find that the previously issued ESA take authorizations are compatible with the preservation of the eagle, and we are able to extend Eagle Act take authorization to holders of ESA permits through this regulation without the need for an additional permit because
(1)this regulation satisfies the Eagle Act statutory mandate that take be authorized by regulation, *and*
(2)a permit to take eagles has been procured from the Secretary of the Interior. In contrast, the take authorizations provided under section 7 of the ESA were not provided through a permit, and so the holders of those authorizations cannot be extended an Eagle Act authorization without a permit being procured prior to such taking. Description of the Rulemaking New Provisions at 50 CFR 22.11 To Extend Eagle Act Take Authorization to Permittees Authorized To Take Eagles Under the ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA authorizes incidental take permits for activities included in an HCP. One-hundred and twenty-six such permits cover bald eagles. Twelve permits authorize incidental take of golden eagles for ESA purposes (should the golden eagle be listed in the future) by their inclusion as covered non-listed species. Our practice was to issue these permits with a statement of enforcement discretion from the Service that provided assurances that the Service would not refer any take of bald or golden eagles for prosecution under the Eagle Act, as long as the take was in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and HCP. While the bald eagle was protected under the ESA, these assurances also conveyed the Federal Government's commitment to make no additional conservation demands of permittees who were fully implementing the conservation measures within their HCPs. Now that the bald eagle has been delisted in most portions of its range, all of these ESA permits will continue to provide viable authorizations under the ESA, should the affected eagle population become listed under the ESA in the future. The only change is that the bald eagle became a covered non-listed species under HCPs where it was delisted. However, none of these incidental take permits provided explicit authorization for take under the Eagle Act. The conservation measures required to cover the bald eagle and the golden eagle under previously issued ESA incidental take permits (which were crafted to safeguard federally listed species, including those that may be listed in the future) are “compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle and the golden eagle” as required by the Eagle Act. Therefore, a separate Eagle Act permit is not required under this final rule. This rule amends the Eagle Act regulations at 50 CFR 22.11 to extend Eagle Act authorization for the take authorized under the ESA to entities who continue to operate in full compliance with the terms and conditions of permits issued under ESA section 10. Failure to abide by the section 10 permit requirements that pertain to eagles may, however, potentially void the Eagle Act authorization for these permits and result in permit revocation. This final regulation diverges moderately from what we proposed in our June 2007 proposed rule (72 FR 31141). In the proposed rule, we suggested that section 10 incidental take permittees whose permits covered bald eagles as the only ESA-listed species would need to follow the same procedures as persons authorized under section 7 and apply for an expedited Eagle Act permit, rather than be covered by the new provision we are adding to 50 CFR 22.11. Although more cumbersome, we proposed that a new permit would be necessary because we thought that the ESA permit might be effectively “null and void,” since it no longer covered any species listed under the ESA. However, after further consideration, we now conclude that a single-species HCP does not become null and void if the species is delisted, but instead is ineffective for purposes of providing ESA authorization as long as the species remains off the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. However, should the species be re-listed within the tenure of the permit, the authorization would become effective (in much the same way that a permit under 50 CFR 17.22(d) that covers a Candidate species included in a Candidate Conservation Agreement becomes valid if the species becomes listed). Based on this approach, the seven section 10 permits that covered bald eagles as the only ESA-listed species are not null and void and are eligible to be treated in the same manner as section 10 incidental take permits that cover bald eagles among additional listed species, because both satisfy the Eagle Act permit requirement that a permit be procured before a bald eagle may be taken. Therefore the new provision at 50 CFR 22.11 will cover ESA section 10 incidental take permits that included eagles as the only ESA-listed species without the need for issuance of an additional Eagle Act permit. The new provision at 50 CFR 22.11 also applies to take covered under *future* ESA section 10 permits associated with HCPs for multiple species that include bald eagles or golden eagles as covered species, whether or not eagles are listed under the ESA. ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permits Take of bald eagles also was authorized under the ESA's section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for Scientific Purposes and permits for Enhancement of Propagation or Survival (i.e., Recovery permits). Many of these permits specifically provided take authorization under the Eagle Act in addition to the ESA authorization, and those permits will continue to serve as valid take authorizations under the Eagle Act. However, some section 10(a)(1)(A) permits provided take authority only under the ESA and these permits became inactive when the bald eagle was delisted. The new provision at § 22.11 will extend Eagle Act take authorization to the holders of those permits for the duration of the term of the section 10(a)(1)(A) permit, or until the amount or level of take authorized has been met. New Permit Provisions Under 50 CFR 22.28 As discussed above, the Eagle Act provides that bald eagles may not be taken unless a permit is first procured from the Secretary of the Interior. The new provisions at § 22.11 that extend Eagle Act coverage to holders of section 10 permits do not apply to section 7 incidental take statements, since those authorizations were not provided via issuance of a permit. This final rule establishes a process to issue Eagle Act permits to entities that were subject to ESA section 7 incidental take authorizations and for which there may continue to be a need to take eagles in the future. Through the ESA section 7 process, when the Service concludes that the agency action will not cause jeopardy or adverse modification, we include an incidental take statement that specifies the amount or extent of incidental take that will be caused by the agency's action and which is exempted from the ESA's take prohibitions. The incidental take statement includes reasonable and prudent measures and associated terms and conditions to which the agency (or any applicant or grantee of the agency) must adhere in order for the take exception to apply (see 16 U.S.C. 1536(o)(2)). Those reasonable and prudent measures and associated terms and conditions in the incidental take statement also satisfy the statutory mandate of the Eagle Act that authorized take must be compatible with the preservation of the eagle. Therefore, criteria for issuing these expedited permits are limited to
(1)whether the action agency (or any applicant or grantee of the agency) is implementing the action in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the ESA section 7 incidental take statement with respect to the take of eagles, and
(2)whether new information is available to indicate that such take is not compatible with the preservation of the eagle (e.g., that take was or will be exceeded, or the activity will affect eagles in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, or the activity will be modified). For ESA section 7 take statements issued before the date this rule takes effect, we will not refer such take for prosecution under the Eagle Act during an interim period that will afford the holders of the section 7 take statements a reasonable opportunity to obtain an Eagle Act permit, contingent on their remaining in full compliance with the terms and conditions of their take statements. For these purposes, “reasonable opportunity” means 1 year after the effective date of this rule, i.e., 13 months from the date of publication of this rule in the **Federal Register** . By that date, such applicants need to submit a completed application under these regulations. For ESA section 7 take statements issued before the date this rule takes effect, only those permittees whose activities will continue to take eagles *after* this 1-year period need to apply for an Eagle Act permit under these new regulations (as long as any take that occurs between August 8, 2007 (the effective date of the delisting of most bald eagles in the coterminous United States), through the end of this 1-year period is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the previously granted ESA incidental take statement). For ESA section 7 incidental take statements issued on or after the date this rule takes effect, there will be no conversion period. At the present time, this applies only to the population of eagles found in the Sonoran Desert region of Arizona. Our aforementioned assurances that we will not refer take under the Eagle Act do not apply to take statements issued on or after the date this rule takes effect. If take of eagles is proposed within an ESA-listed population that we could authorize in accordance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of both laws, the Service's Migratory Bird and Endangered Species programs will coordinate the authorization processes with the goal of issuing the Eagle Act and ESA authorizations in a synchronized manner. A separate authorization under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is not required. Many impacts authorized under the ESA that will require Eagle Act authorization will not “take” eagles under the MBTA because that statute does not contain a prohibition against harassment or disturbance (without injury) of the birds it protects. Therefore, activities that harass or disturb an eagle would not require MBTA authorization unless the activity also results in injury or some other impact prohibited by the MBTA. Even where MBTA take will occur, a separate MBTA authorization in addition to the Eagle Act authorization is not required because 50 CFR 22.11(a) exempts those who hold Eagle Act permits from the requirement to obtain an MBTA permit. In extending Eagle Act authorizations to entities authorized to take bald eagles under ESA section 7, we will make the permit available to either the action agency or the agency's grantee or permittee, or both. Either or both the action agency or the third party can request an Eagle Act permit under this section. In applying for the permit, the applicant must include a written certification that he or she is in full compliance with all terms and conditions of the ESA incidental take statement. In making our determination, we will also review other any other relevant information available to us, including, but not limited to, any monitoring and progress reports required and submitted in furtherance of the ESA incidental take statement. We anticipate that most permits will be issued with terms and conditions identical to those of the ESA incidental take statement. However, based on comments received on the proposed rule, we added provisions to the final regulation to address re-evaluation of terms and conditions, either at the request of the applicant, or initiated by the Service. Persons previously covered under an ESA incidental take statement, who apply for take authority under the Eagle Act through these regulations, may request a reevaluation from the Service to determine whether the conservation measures required under the ESA authorization are still necessary to satisfy the Eagle Act standard of compatibility with preservation of the bald eagle, or because of proposed modifications to the planned activity. However, if the ESA incidental take statement applies to eagles that are listed under the ESA, the Eagle Act permit cannot and will not remove or annul any terms and conditions contained in the ESA incidental take statement. Re-evaluation of the terms and conditions will likely require more time to process the application than when the applicant seeks to continue the past terms and conditions. Following issuance of the Eagle Act permit (as under most types of permits the Service administers) at any time during the permit tenure, the permittee may request amendment of his or her permit subject to general permit regulations at 50 CFR part 13. We may initiate re-evaluation of terms and conditions under this rule if certain criteria that previously would have triggered reinitiation of formal consultation are present (see 50 CFR 402.16). Those criteria are any of the following:
(1)The amount or extent of incidental take authorized under the take statement is exceeded;
(2)new information reveals effects of the action that may affect eagles in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; or
(3)the activity will be modified in a manner that causes effects to eagles not previously considered. If any of these factors is extant, depending on the specific circumstances, the Service may modify the terms and conditions as necessary to ensure that the authorized take is compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle. The Service may re-evaluate the terms and conditions either before issuing the Eagle Act permit, or at any time during the permit tenure that one of the three “reinitiation criteria” triggers such re-evaluation, just as would be the case for the section 7 authorization. We do not anticipate that any such review under the Eagle Act would result in terms and conditions substantially different from those that would result under section 7 of the ESA. The permit will be valid until the action that will take eagles, as described in the ITS or modified to condition the permit issued under this section, is completed, as long as the permittee complies with the terms and conditions of the permit, including any modified terms and conditions. There is no permit application form or processing fee for this permit. To apply for a permit under this section, the applicant must send to his or her Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office a signed statement requesting an Eagle Act permit under this section and certifying that he or she is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of his or her ESA incidental take statement. If needed and applicable, the permit office may request the applicant submit copies of any monitoring and progress reports required under the take statement. Revisions to General Permit Conditions at 50 CFR Part 13 As part of establishing the new permit authorizations under 50 CFR 22.28, we are amending the list of permits at 50 CFR 13.12 to add this new permit type. We are also amending 50 CFR 13.11(d), the nonstandard fee schedule, to include this new permit and provide that no processing fee will be charged. Response to Public Comments The comments addressed below include only those that pertain to the provisions being finalized in this rule. These include comments from two national environmental advocacy organizations, two industry associations, two law firms on behalf of real estate developers, one consultant, two committees representing multiple State natural resource agencies, and one Federal reclamation project. The remainder of the substantive comments we received in response to the June 5, 2007, proposed rule will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking. *Comment 1:* The criteria for permit issuance should be more stringent. Rather than give these “grandfathering” authorizations the barest of reviews, the Service must establish a system to assess these actions in light of the unique requirements of the Eagle Act. Language should be added to the sections on “Applying for a Permit” and “Required Determinations” to clarify that, before extending Eagle Act authorization, the Service will review whether the taking is necessary to protect an interest in a particular locality and whether the take is compatible with the preservation of the eagle. Before issuing these permits, the Service should also consider whether additional permit conditions or conservation measures are needed. *Service response:* The take that will be authorized under the Eagle Act through these permits has been (or will be) reviewed at least twice by the Service. First, at the time the original ESA authorization was issued, the Service reviewed the take under either section 7 or section 10 of the ESA. Prior to issuing a section 7 incidental take statement, the Service assesses the effects of the action and issues the take statement only if we conclude the take would not jeopardize the continued existence of bald eagles. For section 10 permits, the Service determines that the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery of the species. For each of the ESA authorizations we issued, we included a statement that we did not intend to bring enforcement action under either the Eagle Act or the MBTA for the ESA-authorized take. Though the take was not technically authorized under the MBTA or the Eagle Act through the ESA authorization, we determined that the ESA conservation goal was compatible with the statutory mandate of both Acts. We carefully considered the consequences of extending Eagle Act authorization to these actions before proposing to do so in our June 5, 2007, proposed rule (see 72 FR 31141) and since then, as we examined public input on that rule. Our conclusion is that the taking authorized by the ESA authorizations is compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle, individually and cumulatively. However, the authorizations granted under the ESA were themselves subject to re-evaluation by the Service under certain limited circumstances, and through this final rule, we are extending the same criteria that allowed us to revise terms and conditions under the ESA authorizations to the Eagle Act authorizations granted herein. For section 10 permits, we do this by adding language to the new provision at § 22.11 to clarify that the same regulatory provisions that applied to section 10(a)(1)(B) permits continue to apply, except that the revocation criterion is based on the Eagle Act mandate of compatibility with the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle, rather than the ESA standard of inconsistency with the criterion set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv). Accordingly, the Service cannot require any additional conservation measure for changed or unforeseen circumstances than we could have required under the ESA permit, but if mutually agreed upon conservation measures cannot assure compatibility with the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle, the Service may revoke a permit that is determined to be incompatible with the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle. To provide for Service-initiated re-evaluation of the terms and conditions of section 7 authorizations, we have added language to the final regulations that mirrors the criteria for reinitiation of formal consultation under section 7, but is based on the Eagle Act standard of compatibility with the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle. Regarding whether the Service, before issuing each permit, must make the determination that take is necessary to protect an interest in a particular locality, we believe that extending Eagle Act authorization to take that was previously exempted under the ESA is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of those members of the public, in particular localities, who were proceeding in good faith under previously issued ESA authorizations and were complying with all required conservation measures of their take statements. *Comment 2:* The regulations should contain an explicit finding that issuing Eagle Act permits for previously issued ESA authorizations is consistent with the Eagle Act's take authorization provisions at 16 U.S.C. 668a. *Service response:* We found above that the permits issued under this rulemaking are consistent with the Eagle Act. Additionally, based on this finding, the final regulations continue to use as the sole criterion for permit issuance whether the applicant is implementing the action as analyzed in the formal consultation and continues to fully comply with the terms and conditions of the previously issued ESA authorization. *Comment 3:* The scope of “take” under the Eagle Act is far narrower than under the ESA. Therefore, the expedited permit processing criteria are appropriate. *Service response:* Our conclusion that take previously authorized under the ESA is compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle is not based on a relative comparison of the two statutes' definitions of “take.” Rather, it is based on the adequacy of the issuance criteria for ESA authorizations, including minimization, mitigation, and other conservation measures, designed to protect a species classified as threatened under the ESA, that would remain as terms and conditions under the Eagle Act authorization. *Comment 4:* In the preamble to the proposed rule, the Service stated that persons applying under this permit would be given the opportunity to ask for a re-evaluation of permit conditions, to ensure that permittees are not compelled to undertake measures that would not otherwise be required to offset take under the Eagle Act. However, no such provisions were included within the proposed regulation itself. *Service response:* We have added specific provisions for requesting a re-evaluation of permit conditions to the final rule in two places: In § 22.28(c), Permit conditions; and in § 22.28(e)(2), Applying for an eagle take permit. *Comment 5:* The Service should enact a general permit process similar to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' section 404(e) permit program under the Clean Water Act. The Eagle Act requirement that a permit must first be procured before bald eagle take can be authorized does not necessarily mean an individual permit is required. Without being automatically authorized via a general permit, some people may be subjected to criminal and civil penalties because they do not realize they need an Eagle Act permit. *Service response:* The general permit program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) provides authorization for certain types of activities without the landowner or developer having to obtain an individual site-specific permit in advance. The Clean Water Act specifically authorizes the Corps to issue general permits that are exempt from individual, case-by-case review (33 U.S.C. 1344(e)). No such provision exists within the Eagle Act, which states that “bald eagles may not be taken for any purpose unless, prior to such taking, a permit to do so is procured from the Secretary of the Interior” (16 U.S.C 668a). Because of that provision, we can promulgate regulations that authorize take of golden eagles without a permit, but not bald eagles; a regulation is not sufficient authorization, absent a permit from the Department of the Interior to take bald eagles. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the Corps' nationwide general permits meet the statutory definition of rules because they are “legal prescription[s] of general and prospective applicability” *Natl. Assn. of Home Builders* vs. *U.S. Army Corps of Engineers* , 417 F. 3d 1272, 1284, D.C. Cir. 2005. Thus, if we attempted to authorize take of bald eagles with a “prescription of general and prospective applicability” and without individual permits, a reviewing court might find this to be inconsistent with the Eagle Act's requirement that a permit be procured prior to taking bald eagles. Consequently this final rule continues to require an application process, review, and issuance of a permit before take of bald eagles may be authorized under the Eagle Act for ESA section 7 authorizations because they were not provided via a permit from the Secretary of the Interior. Regarding the issue of liability for unauthorized take, we believe that persons who were previously authorized to take eagles under the ESA should be at least as aware that most bald eagles were delisted and of the need to gain take authorization under the Eagle Act as the average citizen who has never had occasion to consider his legal responsibilities with regard to eagles. *Comment 6:* There need to be timelines for issuance of the expedited permits, i.e., if no action is taken by the Service within 45 days, the applicant can conclusively presume that the permit is granted. *Service response:* Regardless of any presumption on the part of the applicant, the activity is not authorized under the Eagle Act without a permit. We intend to issue these permits expeditiously, and we may include permit processing targets for these types of permits in forthcoming implementation guidance. However, due to factors not always under our control, such as the volume of requests, incomplete information provided by applicants, etc., we cannot always meet desired targets. *Comment 7:* There should be a finite period of time during which people with previously issued incidental take statements must seek their conversion to an Eagle Act permit. *Service response:* Elsewhere in the preamble, we have clarified that we expect those persons who wish to be able to continue to rely on the assurances provided in past ESA section 7 incidental take statements to apply for permits under this section within 1 year after this rule takes effect (thirteen months from the date of publication in the **Federal Register** ). For ESA section 7 take statements issued on or after the date this rule takes effect, there will be no conversion period: The recipient of the take statement needs immediately, or concurrent with the related ESA consultation, to seek a permit under this section (until such time as a permit is available under § 22.26). An Eagle Act permit is required to authorize take under the Eagle Act regardless of whether the take has been exempted under section 7, and our aforementioned assurances that we will not refer take under the Eagle Act will not be included in incidental take statements issued on or after the date this rule is finalized. *Comment 8:* The Service needs to issue an Enforcement Directive from the Director to the field providing assurances during the interim period that it will not exercise any enforcement. The directive should be similar to the February 9, 1996, memorandum from the Director to the Regional Directors, which suggested that the Regions include statements in ESA incidental take authorizations they issue to the effect that the Service would not initiate enforcement actions under the Eagle Act and MBTA for the ESA-authorized take of migratory birds and eagles. *Service response:* This comment loses some of its urgency with the release of these final regulations. Even so, an “enforcement directive” that would apply for the next year while applicants undergo the Eagle Act permitting process may still be desired. However, we do not agree that an internal memorandum wherein the Director transmits “recommendations to the Regions as interim guidance,” as was the case with the February 9, 1996, memorandum, would provide greater assurances than we have already provided through language contained in four separate rulemaking actions (including this one) published in the **Federal Register** . *Comment 9:* Recipients of technical assistance letters that authorized activities under the ESA that are inconsistent with the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (see 72 FR 31156, June 5, 2007) may be subject to Eagle Act prosecution. Eagle Act permits should be expedited for recipients of such technical assistance letters. *Service response:* Technical assistance letters could not and did not provide any authorization to take eagles. The only means available to gain authorization to take eagles under the ESA was by means of a permit issued under section 10 or an incidental take statement issued under section 7. The role of technical assistance letters was to inform the landowner or project proponent that the Service did not consider take likely to occur. Generally we issued these letters after providing technical assistance to the project proponent that included recommended modifications to the planned activity to minimize the possibility of take, and after the project proponent agreed to incorporate the measures. Technical assistance letters do not authorize take should it occur despite the recommended measures; only a permit or incidental take statement could absolve a person of liability for take of eagles. In situations where these letters were issued and the activity proceeds, there is no Eagle Act violation unless an eagle is disturbed or otherwise taken, regardless of whether the activity was consistent or not with the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. If take does occur, the Service is unlikely to prioritize enforcement actions against a party that followed the Service's written advice (in the form of the technical assistance letter) regarding what steps were necessary to avoid taking eagles. Furthermore, although take of bald eagles under the Eagle Act can be authorized only by permit, it is not our goal to encourage applications for permits to cover take of eagles that is in fact very unlikely to occur. We believe our conservation mission is best served by helping the public reduce the likelihood of take, and to provide permits in appropriate circumstances where take is likely (and cannot practicably be avoided). *Comment 10:* The Service should issue immediate guidance regarding prospective applicants who were in the midst of the HCP process when the bald eagle was delisted. The guidance should provide methods and standards for applicants to follow pending adoption of final take permit rules. Applicants who conform to the process should be given written assurances that the Service will not prosecute for eagle take, and the final rule should provide a means to convert that assurance into a permit. *Service response:* This final rule provides a resolution of the issue raised by the commenter for most situations where project proponents were in the midst of developing an HCP that covered eagles when the bald eagle was delisted. The rule provides Eagle Act authorization for eagle take authorized under the ESA, including under future ESA section 10 permits. However, there are some parties whose uncompleted HCPs were going to cover bald eagles but no other ESA-listed species, and they are no longer able to obtain a section 10 permit under the ESA for delisted eagles and cannot apply for take authorization under the Eagle Act until we finalize our proposed Eagle act take permit regulations. We recognize the difficult position in which these parties find themselves, having expended some effort towards development of HCPs and permit conditions for purposes of obtaining take authorization for bald eagles under the ESA. The best solution is that we expeditiously complete the new permit rule discussed above. The difficulty with issuing the type of guidance the commenter suggests is that the handful of applicants in this position had reached different stages of the process at the time of bald eagle delisting. A few had nearly finalized development of appropriate minimization, mitigation, and conservation measures, but others had not. Because specific measures are needed in each particular situation to ensure impacts to eagles will be adequately mitigated, general guidance—other than what we provide in the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (e.g., how to avoid take)—would not be appropriate. For the handful of applicants who were engaged in the HCP process *and cannot avoid taking eagles* , we recommend that each such party continue working with our Ecological Services Field Office to implement measures that will minimize take until a means of Eagle Act authorization becomes available. The Service focuses its enforcement resources on investigating and prosecuting individuals and companies that take migratory birds without regard for the consequences of their actions and the law, especially when available conservation measures have not been implemented. *Comment 11:* The statement that certain section 10 permits are “null and void” upon delisting should be struck because the minimization and mitigation measures are still required. Also, some of these permits contain the provision that the bald eagle will be covered if re-listed in the future. *Service response:* We addressed this issue in the preamble discussion above: We do not consider certain section 10 permits to be “null and void” because eagles were the only listed species they covered. Rather, those permits are “ineffective for purposes of providing ESA authorization.” The commenter is technically incorrect in saying that HCPs that covered bald eagles as the only ESA-listed species contain the provision that the bald eagle will be covered if (delisted and) re-listed in the future. Neither the HCP, nor the permit, nor any implementing agreement included that specific provision. However, even without such a provision, the result is the same: If the bald eagle is re-listed for any reason in the future, we would recognize those permits as valid (within the timeframe for which the original permit was valid). Therefore, the single-species section 10 permit is not null and void, and can be treated under this rulemaking in the same manner as a section 10 permit associated with a multi-species HCP. The validity of the permit for both Eagle Act authorization and for future authorization under the ESA continues to be predicated on the permittee's compliance with the terms and conditions of the ESA permit. Furthermore, the commenter is correct in noting that, even while the bald eagle remains off the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and the single-species permit is “inactive” or “quiescent” for ESA purposes, if post-delisting take of bald eagles occurs, the permittee remains responsible for required minimization or mitigation measures that pertain to bald eagles in order to avoid liability under the Eagle Act. Required Determinations Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211) On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211, which addresses regulations that affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(a)Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b)Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
(c)Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
(d)Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency publishes a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may benefit a variety of small businesses, including real estate developers and brokers; construction companies; forestry and logging, farming, and ranching operations; tourism companies; utility companies; and others who were previously granted authorization to incidentally take eagles under the ESA. However, the benefits are more legal in nature than economic because this rule provides legal coverage under the Eagle Act for activities that are underway and proceeding under assurances provided by the Service that it would use enforcement discretion with regard to the Eagle Act as long as the activities are conducted under the terms and conditions of ESA authorizations. The Eagle Act authorizations will apply to the same activities for which these assurances had been provided a connection with an ESA authorization. Thus, additional economic benefits will not be significant. The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The principal economic effect of the rule would be to remove uncertainty and facilitate transactions related to activities that may incidentally take bald eagles, where the take had been authorized until the bald eagle was delisted under the ESA. Small entities that benefited from the issuance of permits under the ESA will continue to benefit from permits issued under this rule. b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The permits issued under this regulation will not significantly affect costs or prices in any sector of the economy. The rule provides regulatory assurances under the Eagle Act for take that had previously been authorized under the ESA. c. Will not have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This regulation establishes a mechanism to permit effects from activities within the United States that were already authorized under a different statute. Therefore, there is no anticipated negative economic effect to small businesses resulting from this rule. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required. a. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. The permit regulations that are established through this rulemaking will not require actions on the part of small governments. b. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. Takings (E.O. 12630) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule will affect some private property insofar as it provides some land owners Eagle Act authorization for activities on their property that might incidentally take bald eagles, where the take was or is authorized under the ESA. A takings implication assessment is not required. Federalism (E.O. 13132) In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. This rule will not interfere with the States' ability to manage themselves or their funds. Changes in the regulations governing the take of eagles should not result in significant economic impacts because this rule allows for the continuation of a current activity (take of eagles) albeit under a different statute (shifting from the ESA to the Eagle Act). A Federalism Assessment is not required. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule will not interfere with Tribes' ability to manage themselves or their funds. This rule will not affect the process by which members of federally recognized tribes apply for and receive permits to possess eagle parts from the National Eagle Repository or permits to take eagles from the wild for religious purposes. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain new information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Any information we collect will be in the form of a certification and is therefore exempt from Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. We may not collect, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number. National Environmental Policy Act We have considered this action and determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental assessment
(EA)or environmental impact statement
(EIS)in association with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 because this action is categorically excluded from such analysis under the Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures at 516 DM 8.5(A)(1), which covers changes or amendments to an approved action when such changes have no or minor potential environmental impact. The authorizations provided under these regulations are “approved actions” and are being extended with no changes in most cases. If any permits are issued under these regulations with changed permit conditions (at the request of the holder of an ESA authorization) and the changed conditions have the potential for a more than minor impact, the permits will be subject to the NEPA assessment on a case-by-case basis before they are issued. Therefore, relative to those permits, this action is categorically excluded under 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.1. Endangered Species Act Considerations Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires all Federal agencies to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat.” This rule provides authorizations for impacts that were already assessed under section 7 of the ESA and maintains the requirement to comply with the conservation measures prescribed under those assessments for listed species. This rule has no impact on endangered or threatened species. List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 13 Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife. 50 CFR Part 22 Birds, Exports, Imports, Migratory birds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife. Regulation Promulgation For the reasons described in the preamble, we amend subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 13—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 668a, 704, 712, 742j-1, 1374(g), 1382, 1538(d), 1539, 1540(f), 3374, 4901-4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 19 U.S.C. 1202; 31 U.S.C. 9701. 2. Amend § 13.11(d)(4) by adding an entry in the table as the last entry under “Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act”, to read as follows: § 13.11 Application procedures.
(d)* * *
(4)*User fees* . * * * Type of permit CFR citation Fee Amendment fee * * * * * * * Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act * * * * * * * Eagle Take—Exempted under ESA 50 CFR 22 * * * * * * * 3. Amend § 13.12(b) by adding to the table the following entry in numerical order by section number under “Eagle permits” to read as follows: § 13.12 General information requirements on applications for permits.
(b)* * * Type of permit Section * * * * * Eagle permits: * * * * * Eagle Take—Exempted under ESA 22.28 * * * * * PART 22—[AMENDED] 4. The authority citation for part 22 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544. 5. Amend § 22.1 by revising the first sentence to read as follows: § 22.1 What is the purpose of this part? This part controls the taking, possession, and transportation within the United States of bald eagles ( *Haliaeetus leucocephalus* ) and golden eagles ( *Aquila chrysaetos* ) and their parts, nests, and eggs for scientific, educational, and depredation control purposes; for the religious purposes of American Indian tribes; and to protect other interests in a particular locality. * * * 6. Amend § 22.11 as follows: a. By revising the first sentence of the introductory text to read as set forth below; b. By redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c)as paragraphs (b), (c), and (d); and c. By adding a new paragraph
(a)to read as set forth below. § 22.11 What is the relationship to other permit requirements? You may not take, possess, or transport any bald eagle ( *Haliaeetus leucocephalus* ) or any golden eagle ( *Aquila chrysaetos* ), or the parts, nests, or eggs of such birds, except as allowed by a valid permit issued under this part, 50 CFR part 13, 50 CFR part 17, and/or 50 CFR part 21 as provided by § 21.2, or authorized under a depredation order issued under subpart D of this part. * * *
(a)A permit that covers take of bald eagles or golden eagles under 50 CFR part 17 for purposes of providing prospective or current ESA authorization constitutes a valid permit issued under this part for any take authorized under the permit issued under part 17 as long as the permittee is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit issued under part 17. The provisions of part 17 that originally applied will apply for purposes of the Eagle Act authorization, except that the criterion for revocation of the permit is that the activity is incompatible with the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle rather than inconsistent with the criterion set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv). 7. Amend part 22, subpart C, by adding new § 22.26, § 22.27 and § 22.28 to read as follows: Subpart C—Eagle Permits § 22.26 [Reserved] § 22.27 [Reserved] § 22.28 Permits for bald eagle take exempted under the Endangered Species Act.
(a)*Purpose and scope* . This permit authorizes take of bald eagles ( *Haliaeetus leucocephalus* ) in compliance with the terms and conditions of a section 7 incidental take statement under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 50 CFR 402, Subpart B).
(b)*Issuance Criteria* . Before issuing you a permit under this section, we must find that you are in full compliance with the terms and conditions contained in the applicable ESA incidental take statement for take of eagles, based on your certification and any other relevant information available to us, including, but not limited to, monitoring or progress reports required pursuant to your incidental take statement. The terms and conditions of the Eagle Act permit under this section, including any modified terms and conditions, must be compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle.
(c)*Permit conditions* .
(1)You must comply with all terms and conditions of the incidental take statement issued under section 7 of the ESA, or modified measures specified in the terms of your permit issued under this section. At permit issuance or at any time during its tenure, the Service may modify the terms and conditions that were included in your ESA incidental take statement, based on one or more of the following factors:
(i)You requested and received modified measures because some of the requirements for take authorization under the ESA were not necessary for take authorization under the Eagle Act;
(ii)The amount or extent of incidental take authorized under the take statement is exceeded;
(iii)New information reveals effects of the action that may affect eagles in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, and requires modification of the terms and conditions to ensure the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle; or
(iv)The activity will be modified by the permittee in a manner that causes effects to eagles that were not previously considered and which requires modification of the terms and conditions in the incidental take statement in order to ensure the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle.
(2)During any period when the eagles covered by your incidental take statement are listed under the ESA, you must comply with the terms and conditions of both the incidental take statement and the permit issued under this section.
(d)*Permit duration* . The permit will be valid until the action that will take eagles, as described in the incidental take statement or modified to condition the permit issued under this section, is completed, as long as the permittee complies with the terms and conditions of the permit, including any modified terms and conditions.
(e)*Applying for an eagle take permit* .
(1)Your application must consist of a copy of the applicable section 7 incidental take statement issued pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and a signed certification that you are in full compliance with all terms and conditions of the ESA incidental take statement.
(2)If you request reevaluation of the terms and conditions required under your previously granted ESA incidental take statement for eagles, you must include a description of the modifications you request, and an explanation for why you believe the original conditions or measures are not reasonably justified to offset the detrimental impact of the permitted activity on eagles.
(3)Send completed permit applications to the Regional Director of the Region in which the disturbance would occur—Attention: Migratory Bird Permit Office. You can find the current addresses for the Regional Directors in § 2.2 of subchapter A of this chapter. Dated: April 22, 2008. Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E8-11091 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 73 98 Tuesday, May 20, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0562; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-010-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found cases where the pressure equalization valve was not installed in the left-hand bulkhead blowout panel, on the forward and/or aft cargo compartments, thus affecting the effectiveness of fire detection, containment and suppression. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *Go to http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2848; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0562; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-010-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2007-11-01 and 2007-11-02, both dated December 12, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found cases where the pressure equalization valve was not installed in the left-hand bulkhead blowout panel, on the forward and/or aft cargo compartments, thus affecting the effectiveness of fire detection, containment and suppression. Corrective actions include inspecting for the presence of and, if necessary, installing pressure equalization valves. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Embraer has issued Service Bulletins 170-21-0032 and 190-21-0019, both dated August 10, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 101 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $8,080, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER)** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0562; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-010-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by June 19, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Embraer Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, and -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes, having serial numbers (S/N) 17000002, 17000004 through 17000013, and 17000015 through 17000154; and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -100 ECJ, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes, having S/N 19000002, 19000004, and 19000006 through 19000060; certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 21: Air Conditioning. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been found in cases where the pressure equalization valve was not installed in the left-hand bulkhead blowout panel, on the forward and/or aft cargo compartments, thus affecting the effectiveness of fire detection, containment and suppression. Corrective actions include inspecting for the presence of and, if necessary, installing pressure equalization valves. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a general visual inspection on the left-hand bulkhead blowout panel of both the forward and aft cargo compartments to determine whether the pressure equalization valves, part number (P/N) 120-48865-003, are installed. If both pressure equalization valves are installed in their respective blowout panels, no additional action is required by this AD.
(2)If any valve is not installed, within 700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, install valve P/N 120-48865-003, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 170-21-0032 or 190-21-0019, both dated August 10, 2007; as applicable. Note 1: For the purpose of this AD, a general visual inspection
(GVI)is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance, unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight or drop-light, and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2848; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2007-11-01 and 2007-11-02, both dated December 12, 2007; and Embraer Service Bulletins 170-21-0032 and 190-21-0019, both dated August 10, 2007; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 7, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-11289 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0561; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-223-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200 and -200PF Series Airplanes, and Model 767-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes; and Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require doing an inspection to determine the part number and serial number of the hub assembly of the ram air turbine (RAT), and replacing the hub assembly of the RAT with a new, serviceable, or reworked and re-identified hub assembly if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports indicating that the counterweights in some hub assemblies of the RATs could be under strength and fracture when they are extended in flight. We are proposing this AD to prevent a fractured counterweight on the hub assembly of the RAT, which will cause an overspeed condition, and consequent turbine blade separation, possible injury to passengers, possible airplane structural damage, and an inoperative RAT. An inoperative RAT will cause the loss of hydraulic power to the primary flight controls in cases where both engines are shut down in flight, resulting in subsequent loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Frey, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6468; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0561; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-223-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We have received reports indicating that the counterweights in some hub assemblies of the ram air turbine
(RAT)could be under strength and fracture when they are extended in flight, on certain Boeing Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes and Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. The cause of the fractures has been attributed to a manufacturing process error. A fractured counterweight on the hub assembly of the RAT, if not corrected, will cause an overspeed condition, and consequent turbine blade separation, possible injury to passengers, possible airplane structural damage, and an inoperative RAT. An inoperative RAT will cause the loss of hydraulic power to the primary flight controls in cases where both engines are shut down in flight, resulting in subsequent loss of control of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-29A0066, dated January 2, 2007 (for Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes); and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0110, dated January 2, 2007 (for Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for doing an inspection to determine the part number and serial number on the hub assembly of the RAT, replacing the hub assembly of the RAT with a new, serviceable, or reworked and re-identified hub assembly if necessary, and submitting a report to the manufacturer. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-29A0066, refers to the Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 730814-29-12, dated November 30, 2005; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0110, refers to the Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 729548-29-15, dated November 30, 2005; as additional sources of service information for accomplishing the inspection and replacement of the hub assembly of the RAT. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the Boeing service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference between the Proposed Rule and Referenced Service Bulletin.” Difference Between Proposed Rule and Referenced Service Bulletin Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced Boeing service bulletins describe procedures for submitting a feedback form related to the service bulletins, this proposed AD would not require those actions. Costs of Compliance There are about 60 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 43 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $3,440, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0561; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-223-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 7, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certified in any category. Table 1.—Applicability For model— As identified in—
(1)757-200 and -200PF series airplanes Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-29A0066, dated January 2, 2007.
(2)767-200 and -300 series airplanes Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0110, dated January 2, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports indicating that the counterweights in some hub assemblies of the ram air turbines
(RAT)could be under strength and fracture when they are extended in flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fractured counterweight on the hub assembly of the RAT, which will cause an overspeed condition, and consequent turbine blade separation, possible injury to passengers, possible airplane structural damage, and an inoperative RAT. An inoperative RAT will cause the loss of hydraulic power to the primary flight controls in cases where both engines are shut down in flight, resulting in subsequent loss of control of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection and Replacement
(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to determine the part number and serial number on the hub assembly of the RAT in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-29A0066, dated January 2, 2007 (for Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0110, dated January 2, 2007 (for Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes); as applicable. If the part number and serial number on the hub assembly of the RAT are listed in Table 2 of this AD, within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the hub assembly of the RAT with a new, serviceable, or reworked and re-identified hub assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Parts Installation
(g)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a hub assembly of the RAT having any applicable part number and serial number listed in Table 2 of this AD, on any airplane, unless it has been reworked and re-identified in accordance with paragraph
(f)of this AD. Table 2.—RAT Hub Assembly Part Numbers For model— Part No.— Serial No.—
(1)757-200 and -200PF series airplanes 733785A or 733785B 0410 through 0413 inclusive, 0415, 0417 through 0430, 0432, or 0434.
(2)767-200 and -300 series airplanes 734350A, 734350B, 734350C, or 734350D 0666, 0673 through 0684 inclusive, 0686, 0687, or 0689. No Information Submission
(h)Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-29A0066, dated January 2, 2007 (for Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes); and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-29A0110, dated January 2, 2007 (for Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes); specify to submit information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 7, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-11286 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0558; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-365-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Some operators have reported occurrences of loss of the AC BUS 1 with subsequent loss of the AC ESS BUS and DC ESS BUS, resulting in the loss of 5 upper Display Units and the loss of integral lighting. In this situation, flight crew[s] have reported concerns in reading the standby instruments when the DOME lights were selected to OFF. This situation, if not corrected, could increase the workload of the flight crew * * *. The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane in adverse operating conditions. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0558; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-365-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Airworthiness Directive 2007-0286, dated November 14, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Some operators have reported occurrences of loss of the AC BUS 1 with subsequent loss of the AC ESS BUS and DC ESS BUS, resulting in the loss of 5 upper Display Units and the loss of integral lighting. In this situation, flight crews[s] have reported concerns in reading the standby instruments when the DOME lights were selected to OFF. This situation, if not corrected, could increase the workload of the flight crew * * *. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)mandates the modification of the electrical supply logic by adding a back-up supply on the battery hot bus for the under glare shield flood lighting. The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane in adverse operating conditions. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-33-1057, dated May 11, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 550 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 30 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,320,000, or $2,400 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0558; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-365-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by June 19, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category; all certified models; all serial numbers; on which classical standby instruments have been installed per AIRBUS Modification 20011 or 21999 in production, or per Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1280 in service; excluding airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD.
(1)Airplanes on which ISIS equipment was installed per AIRBUS Modification 27620 in production or per Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1261 or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1372 in service.
(2)Airplanes on which AIRBUS Modification 37329 or 37330 was installed in production or per Airbus Service Bulletin A320-33-1057 in service. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 33: Lights. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Some operators have reported occurrences of loss of the AC BUS 1 with subsequent loss of the AC ESS BUS and DC ESS BUS, resulting in the loss of 5 upper Display Units and the loss of integral lighting. In this situation, flight crews[s] have reported concerns in reading the standby instruments when the DOME lights were selected to OFF. This situation, if not corrected, could increase the workload of the flight crew * * *. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)mandates the modification of the electrical supply logic by adding a back-up supply on the battery hot bus for the under glare shield flood lighting. The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane in adverse operating conditions. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 42 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done: Modify the electrical supply logic of the under glare shield flood lighting in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-33-1057, dated May 11, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2007-0286, dated November 14, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-33-1057, dated May 11, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-11284 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0557; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-364-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During approach, a Falcon 2000EX operator experienced a temporary loss of the 4 Electronic Flight Instrumentation System
(EFIS)display units followed by a consecutive restart of the avionics. During initial investigation, a loose connection on the DC load distribution system was discovered and determined to be the root cause of this event. However, further analysis pointed out that large electrical transients on the essential bus bar may possibly cause simultaneous and temporary power shortage on both sides of the electrical system. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)* * * action is necessary to prevent a momentary loss of data on the EFIS screens, which could lead to the pilot's loss of situational awareness during initial climb or approach/landing, and possibly result in reduced control of the airplane. * * * The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0557; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-364-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0290, dated November 26, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: During approach, a Falcon 2000EX operator experienced a temporary loss of the 4 Electronic Flight Instrumentation System
(EFIS)display units followed by a consecutive restart of the avionics. During initial investigation, a loose connection on the DC load distribution system was discovered and determined to be the root cause of this event. However, further analysis pointed out that large electrical transients on the essential bus bar may possibly cause simultaneous and temporary power shortage on both sides of the electrical system. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires a wiring modification of the GCUs (Generator Control Units) to increase the electrical system robustness. This action is necessary to prevent a momentary loss of data on the EFIS screens, which could lead to the pilot's loss of situational awareness during initial climb or approach/landing, and possibly result in reduced control of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F2000EX-141, Revision 1, dated November 26, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect 57 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $36,480, or $640 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Dassault Aviation:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0557; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-364-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by June 19, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes from serial number 1 to 107 inclusive, certificated in any category; which have not been modified by Dassault Service Bulletin
(SB)F2000EX-141. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 24: Electrical Power Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: During approach, a Falcon 2000EX operator experienced a temporary loss of the 4 Electronic Flight Instrumentation System
(EFIS)display units followed by a consecutive restart of the avionics. During initial investigation, a loose connection on the DC load distribution system was discovered and determined to be the root cause of this event. However, further analysis pointed out that large electrical transients on the essential bus bar may possibly cause simultaneous and temporary power shortage on both sides of the electrical system. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires a wiring modification of the GCUs (Generator Control Units) to increase the electrical system robustness. This action is necessary to prevent a momentary loss of data on the EFIS screens, which could lead to the pilot's loss of situational awareness during initial climb or approach/landing, and possibly result in reduced control of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 13 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the GCU electrical wiring as instructed in the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-141, Revision 1, dated November 26, 2007.
(2)Actions done prior to the effective date of this AD according to Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-141, dated February 16, 2007, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2007- 0290, dated November 26, 2007, and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-141, Revision 1, dated November 26, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2008. Michael J. Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-11282 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 15 CFR Part 923 [Docket No. 080416573-8574-01] RIN 0648-AW74 Changes to the Coastal Zone Management Act Program Change Procedures AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (Commerce). ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: NOAA intends to replace the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)program change regulations (15 CFR part 923, subpart H) and associated guidance (OCRM's Program Change Guidance (July 1996)) with new regulations at 15 CFR part 923, subpart H. This notice requests public comment on the CZMA program change process that NOAA should consider when developing a proposed rule to replace 15 CFR part 923, subpart H. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please send comments as an attachment to an e-mail in MS Word (WordPerfect is also acceptable), or in the body of an e-mail, to *CZMA.ProgramChanges.ANPR@noaa.gov.* Address all comments regarding this notice to Mr. Kerry Kehoe, Federal Consistency Specialist, Coastal Programs Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Attention: CZMA Program Change Comments. Written comments may also be sent to this address. All comments received by the comment deadline and this **Federal Register** notice will be posted at OCRM's federal consistency Web page at: *http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/consistency/rule.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Kehoe, Federal Consistency Specialist, 301-713-3155 ext. 151, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The CZMA (16 U.S.C. 1451-1465) was enacted on October 27, 1972, to encourage coastal States, Great Lake States, and United States Territories and Commonwealths (collectively referred to as “coastal States” or “States”) to be proactive in managing the uses and resources of the coastal zone for their benefit and the benefit of the Nation. The CZMA recognizes a national interest in the uses and resources of the coastal zone and in the importance of balancing the competing uses of coastal resources. The CZMA is a voluntary program for States. If a State elects to participate it must develop and implement a coastal management program
(CMP)pursuant to federal requirements. See CZMA section 306(d)(16 U.S.C. 1455(d)); 15 CFR part 923. State CMPs are comprehensive management plans that describe the uses subject to the management program, the authorities and enforceable policies of the management program, the boundaries of the State's coastal zone, the organization of the management program, and related State coastal management concerns. Thirty-five coastal States are eligible to participate in the federal coastal management program. Thirty-four of the eligible States have federally approved CMPs. An important component of the CZMA program is that State CMPs are developed with the full participation of state and local agencies, industry, the public, other interested groups and Federal agencies. See *e.g.* , 16 U.S.C. 145 1(i) and (m), 1452(2)(H) and (I), 1452(4) and (5), 1455(d)(1) and (3)(B), and 1456. Program changes are changes to NOAA-approved components of State CZMA programs and new program components. There are five program approval areas (includes related changes to, or new, enforceable policies related to the five areas). The five areas are: 1. Uses subject to program; 2. Coastal zone boundaries; 3. National interest; 4. Special Area Management Plans; and 5. Authorities & Organization. Program changes are important for several reasons. The statute requires submission to NOAA and NOAA approval (16 U.S.C. 1455(e)); state programs are not static; laws and issues change requiring continual operation of the CZMA State-Federal partnership. The State-Federal partnership is a cornerstone of the CZMA. The primacy of state CZMA decisions and the CZMA federal consistency requirement is balanced with adequate consideration national interest components, Federal agency input into the content of State programs, and NOAA approval. In their federally approved CMPs and state CZMA decisions states must consider national interest areas of the CZMA to benefit national, not just local interests. In addition to the national interest in comprehensive coastal management by states, states must give priority consideration to coastal dependant national interest activities: Defense, energy, ports, transportation. For example, some of the more important issues NOAA must consider when evaluating program changes include whether the proposed change would: Affect CZMA national interest areas; seek to regulate federal agencies or areas outside state jurisdiction; be preempted by federal law; discriminate against particular coastal users or federal agencies; be enforceable under State law; raise issues under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), etc. Program changes are also important because the CZMA has a strong public participation role, combined with the State-Federal partnership. NOAA can only approve CMPs and changes to CMPs after Federal agencies and the public have an opportunity to comment on whether proposed new or revised “enforceable policies” are appropriate under the CZMA authority and other federal and state legal requirements. An enforceable policy is a State policy that is legally binding under State law ( *e.g.* , through constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, land use plans, ordinances, or judicial or administrative decisions) and by which a State exerts control over private and public coastal uses and resources, and which are incorporated in a State's federally approved CMP. See 16 U.S.C. 1453(6a). This means that enforceable policies must be given legal effect by State law and cannot apply to Federal lands, Federal waters, Federal agencies or other areas or entities outside a State's jurisdiction, unless authorized by Federal law. Also, the CZMA section 307 federal consistency provision requires that state enforceable policies are the standards that apply to Federal agency activities, federal license or permit activities, outer continental shelf plans and federal financial assistance activities. 16 U.S.C. 1456. Therefore, Federal agencies and the public must have an opportunity to review proposed changes to a State's enforceable policies. Program changes are also important because the CZMA federal consistency provision is triggered only if the federal action has reasonably foreseeable coastal effects and a State has applicable policies approved by NOAA that are legally enforceable under state law. It is therefore important for states to submit to NOAA for approval timely updates to CZMA enforceable policies. II. Need for Revised Program Change Regulations The current program change regulations, 15 CFR part 923, subpart H, have been in place since the late 1970's. In 1996, NOAA made minor revisions to the regulations and also issued program change guidance that further elaborated on program change requirements. Over the years, states and NOAA have, at times, found the regulations difficult to interpret. For example, determining: When a program change is “routine” or an “amendment;” when a program change is “substantial;” what level of state analysis is required; when preliminary approval can be granted by NOAA. In addition, the CZMA was revised in 1990, in part, to place greater emphasis on state CMP enforceable policies. This has led to the submission to NOAA of many more updates to CMPs. This increase in program change submissions has furthered the complexities of the current program change regulations. States and NOAA have, therefore, recognized the need to clarify the program change procedures and to provide a more administratively efficient submission and review process, while still addressing the importance of program changes, as discussed above. III. Action Requested From the Public NOAA requests input from states, federal agencies and the public on revised program change regulations. Some of NOAA's goals in revising the program change regulations that reviewers should consider are: 1. Establishing a clearer and more efficient and transparent process for program change review; 2. Describing clearer approval/disapproval criteria and how these apply; 3. Using the statutory language of the CZMA, including time lines, extensions, and preliminary approval; 4. Keeping the “routine” concept to streamline the process for truly routine changes, but do away with “routine program changes (RPCs)” and “Amendments” and replace with just “program changes;” 5. Removing the “substantial” evaluations currently done by states and replace with just describing what the change is to the program. Further evaluations (by states or NOAA) would be for specific CZMA, NEPA, ESA, NHPA, etc., purposes, *e.g.* , is a NEPA Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, or ESA consultation needed; 6. Establishing use of NEPA categorical exclusions; 7. Submitting underline/strikeout documents showing changes to previously approved policies; and 8. Creating a program change checklist that states would submit to ease state and NOAA paperwork burdens and promote consistent submissions and NOAA analyses. Comments received by NOAA will help to develop a proposed rule for 15 CFR part 923, subpart H. Any proposed changes to the CZMA program change regulations would be published in the **Federal Register** following compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and other relevant statutes and executive orders. Dated: May 13, 2008. John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator for Oceans and Coastal Zone Management. [FR Doc. E8-11064 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 385 Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice of initiation of rule review. SUMMARY: The Army has initiated a review of the programmatic regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan required by section 601(h)(3)(E) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. As part of scoping the review for the regulations, the public is invited to provide comments on this review. Specifically, we welcome your comments on issues concerning the programmatic regulations, any items in the regulations that should be reviewed, or suggestions to improve the programmatic regulations. DATES: We will accept comments until August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on the review of the programmatic regulations, you may submit your comments by either of these methods: 1. You may submit written comments to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: Stu Appelbaum, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019. 2. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: *ProRegs@usace.army.mil.* If submitting comments by electronic format, please submit them in ASCII file format or Word file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please include your name and return e-mail address in your e-mail message. Please note that your e-mail address will not be retained at the termination of the public comment period. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stu Appelbaum, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019, phone
(904)232-2584; fax
(904)232-1251. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 12, 2003 the Department of the Army published the final rule in the **Federal Register** that established the programmatic regulations required by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 as 33 CFR Part 385. Section 601(h)(3)(E) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 requires that the Secretary of the Army review the programmatic regulations whenever necessary, but at least every five years. Section 385.6 of the programmatic regulations requires that upon completing the review of the regulations, the Secretary of the Army will promulgate any revisions to the regulations after notice and opportunity for public comment in accordance with applicable law, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor, and in consultation with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Commerce, and other Federal, State, and local agencies. The first step of the review process is to scope out issues and concerns. The public is invited to provide comments on the review of the programmatic regulations. We welcome the public to tell us about specific issues that should be addressed or suggestions to improve the programmatic regulations. We will be providing additional opportunities for public involvement throughout the review process. An electronic copy of the current programmatic regulations is available at: *http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/progr_regs_final_rule.aspx* . Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11250 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-AJ-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 50 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735; FRL-8563-7] RIN 2060-AN83 Public Hearings for National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Announcement of public hearings. SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing two public hearings to be held for the proposed rule “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead” which is published elsewhere in this **Federal Register** . The hearings will be held concurrently in Baltimore, Maryland and St. Louis, Missouri on Thursday, June 12, 2008. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA describes making revisions to the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead to provide requisite protection of public health and welfare, respectively, to make corresponding revisions in data handling procedures and ambient air monitoring and reporting requirements for lead, and to provide guidance on its proposed approach for implementing the proposed revised primary and secondary standards for lead. DATES: The public hearings will be held on June 12, 2008. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the public hearings. ADDRESSES: The hearings will be held at the following locations: 1. *Baltimore:* Tremont Grand Historic Venue, 225 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, telephone
(443)573-8444. The hearing will be held in The Marble Room on the First Floor of the hotel. 2. *St. Louis:* Omni Majestic Hotel, 1019 Pine Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, telephone
(314)436-2355. The hearing will be held in Salon A and B. Written comments on this proposed rule may also be submitted to EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking for the addresses and detailed instructions for submitting written comments. A complete set of documents related to the proposal is available for public inspection at the EPA Docket Center, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Documents are also available through the electronic docket system at *http://www.regulations.gov.* The EPA Web site for the rulemaking, which includes the proposal and information about the public hearings can be found at: *http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/actions.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to speak at the public hearings or have questions concerning the public hearings, please contact Ms. Tricia Crabtree at the address given below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Questions concerning the “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead” proposed rule should be addressed to Dr. Deirdre Murphy, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C504-06), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone
(919)541-0729, e-mail: *Murphy.deirdre@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal for which EPA is holding the public hearings is published elsewhere in this **Federal Register** and is also available on the following Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/actions.html.* The public hearings will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rules. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearings. Written comments must be received by the last day of the comment period, as specified in the proposal. The two public hearings will be held concurrently in Baltimore, Maryland and St. Louis, Missouri on June 12, 2008. The public hearings will begin each day at 9 a.m. and continue into the evening until 9 p.m. (local time) or later, if necessary, depending on the number of speakers wishing to participate. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers that arrive and register before 9 p.m. The EPA is scheduling lunch breaks from 12:30 p.m. until 2 p.m. and dinner breaks from 6 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. If you would like to present oral testimony at the hearings, please notify Ms. Tricia Crabtree (C504-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The preferred method for registering is by e-mail ( *crabtree.tricia@epa.gov* ). Ms. Crabtree may be reached by telephone at
(919)541-5688. She will arrange a general time slot for you to speak. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearings. Oral testimony will be limited to five
(5)minutes for each commenter to address the proposal. We will not be providing equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized slide presentations unless we receive special requests in advance. Commenters should notify Ms. Crabtree if they will need specific audiovisual
(AV)equipment. Commenters should also notify Ms. Crabtree if they need specific translation services for non-English speaking commenters. The EPA encourages commenters to provide written versions of their oral testimonies either electronically on computer disk or CD ROM or in paper copy. The hearing schedules, including lists of speakers, will be posted on EPA's Web site for the proposal at *http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/actions.html* prior to the hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and written statements will be included in the rulemaking dockets. How Can I Get Copies Of This Document and Other Related Information? The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735. The EPA has also developed a Web site for lead NAAQS materials, including the notice of proposed rulemaking, at the address given above. Please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking for detailed information on accessing information related to the proposal. Dated: April 29, 2008. Jennifer Edmonds, Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. [FR Doc. E8-10812 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 45 CFR Part 88 RIN 0991-AB46 Office of Global Health Affairs; Regulation on the Organizational Integrity of Entities Implementing Leadership Act Programs and Activities AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Correction of proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document corrects a technical error that appeared in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)on April 17, 2008, entitled “Organizational Integrity of Entities Implementing Leadership Act Programs and Activities.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Steiger, PhD, Office of Global Health Affairs, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 639H, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In FR Doc. 08-1147 of April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20900), there was a technical error that is identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section below. The provisions in this correction notice are applicable as if they had been included in the document published April 17, 2008. Accordingly, the corrections are applicable May 20, 2008. We inadvertently omitted the words “has objective integrity and independence” from section 88.3(d)(1), which describes the required certification that recipients must submit. We are also correcting the Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review section beginning with the second paragraph to read “the” instead of “this”. We are correcting the errors by republishing the corrected paragraph in this section of the proposed rule. II. Correction of Errors In FR Doc. 08-1147 of April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20900), make the following corrections: On Page 20902, in the last column; second paragraph of the Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review section, replace the word “This” with “The”. The corrected paragraph should read: “The benefits of this rule are to ensure that an appropriate separation exists. * * * ” On page 20904, in the second column; in the last paragraph, insert “has objective integrity and independence” before “as defined in 45 CFR part 88, from any * * *” The corrected paragraph should read:
(1)Organizational Integrity Certification: “I hereby certify that [name of recipient], a recipient of the funds made available through this [grant, cooperative agreement, contract, or other funding instrument], has objective integrity and independence as defined in 45 CFR part 88, from any affiliated organization that engages in activities inconsistent with a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” Dated: May 8, 2008. Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary to the Department. [FR Doc. E8-10890 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-38-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R2-ES-2008-0059; 1111 FY07 MO-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of Status Review for the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the Sonoran Desert Area of Central Arizona and Northwestern Mexico AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice; initiation of status review and solicitation of new information. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the initiation of a status review for the bald eagle ( *Haliaeetus leucocephalus* ) in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona and northwestern Mexico, hereafter referred to as the “Sonoran Desert area bald eagle.” Through this action, we encourage all interested parties to provide us with information regarding the status of, and any potential threats to, the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle. DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that information be submitted on or before July 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2008-0059; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information received on *http://www.regulations.gov.* This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021-4951; telephone 602-242-0210; facsimile 602-242-2513. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Solicited To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning the status of the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle ( *Haliaeetus leucocephalus* ). Information gained during this process will be used to evaluate whether the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle is a Distinct Population Segment
(DPS)as described in our policy on determining a DPS (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996) (DPS), and if listing as threatened or endangered is warranted under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If we determine that listing the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle is warranted, we intend to propose critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we prepare a proposed listing rule. At this time, we request any additional information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties on the status of the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle, including:
(1)Information regarding Sonoran Desert area bald eagles' historical and current population status, distribution, and trends; biology and ecology; and habitat selection. We also solicit information of this type on adjacent populations and geographic areas for use in evaluating discreteness and significance of the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle.
(2)Information that supports or refutes the appropriateness of considering the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle to be discrete, as defined in the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), including, but not limited to:
(a)Information indicating that Sonoran Desert area bald eagles are markedly separated from other populations of bald eagles due to physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. This may include information regarding bald eagles of Sonoran Desert area natal origin breeding with bald eagles from populations of different natal origin, and information regarding the Sonoran Desert area bald eagles' isolation from other breeding populations of eagles.
(b)Information indicating whether or not the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which significant differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist.
(3)Information that supports or refutes the appropriateness of considering the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle to be significant, as defined in the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996) including, but not limited to:
(a)Information indicating that the ecological setting, including such factors as temperature, moisture, weather patterns, plant communities, etc., in which the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle persists is unusual or unique when compared to that of bald eagles found elsewhere in the United States or Mexico. This may also include information indicating that the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle has or has not developed adaptations to that unique environment, such as breeding behavior, morphological characteristics, egg development and characteristics, or nest types.
(b)Information indicating that loss of Sonoran Desert area bald eagle would or would not result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
(c)Information indicating that the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle differs markedly from other populations of bald eagles in its genetic characteristics.
(4)Information regarding the availability of suitable, but unoccupied, breeding habitat that might allow for expansion of the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle populations. This may include information on areas outside of the boundaries delineated for the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle in our May 1, 2008, final listing rule (73 FR 23966).
(5)Information on the effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a listing determination under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
(a)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle's breeding habitat or range, including but not limited to the effects on habitat from: Water management (river diversions, dams, dam operations, surface and groundwater withdrawals); human population growth and accompanying increases in water demands; human recreation; reduced riparian health and regrowth of streamside trees for nesting, foraging, and roosting; urban development; and climate change;
(b)Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c)Disease or predation, including but not limited to the effects of avian pox or West Nile virus, Mexican chicken bugs, or ticks;
(d)The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, including but not limited to adequacy or inadequacy of funding for ongoing management; appropriateness and effect of incidental take permitted for Sonoran Desert area bald eagles while listed under the Act; impacts of low-flying aircraft and effectiveness of flight advisories; and the adequacy or inadequacy of protections under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and
(e)Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence, including but not limited to information on: Productivity, survival, and mortality rates of this population; the occurrence and effect of inbreeding; effects to Sonoran Desert area bald eagles while outside the Sonoran Desert area; effects to Sonoran Desert area bald eagles' prey base and productivity, including effects of nonnative predatory fish and native fish restoration; the presence and abundance of pesticides and contaminants such as lead, mercury, or dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE); the effects of climate change; and the effects from eggshell thinning.
(6)Information supporting the existing boundary developed in our May 1, 2008, final listing rule (73 FR 23966) for Sonoran Desert area bald eagles under consideration in this status review, or information indicating that the boundary should be modified to include other areas. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, because section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species shall be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” At the conclusion of the status review, we will determine whether listing is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded. You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via *http://www.regulations.gov,* your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on *http://www.regulations.gov.* Information and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov,* or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act)of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Section 4(b)(3)(B) also requires that, for any petition to revise the Lists of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information that the action may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of the receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is:
(a)Not warranted,
(b)warranted, or
(c)warranted but precluded by other pending proposals. Such 12-month findings are to be published promptly in the **Federal Register** . On October 6, 2004, we received a petition, dated October 6, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Maricopa Audubon Society, and the Arizona Audubon Council requesting that the “Southwestern desert nesting bald eagle population” be classified as a DPS, that this DPS be reclassified from a threatened species to an endangered species, and that we concurrently designate critical habitat for the DPS under the Act. On March 27, 2006, the CBD and the Maricopa Audubon Society filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Service for failing to make a timely finding on the petition. The parties reached a settlement, and the Service agreed to complete its petition finding by August 2006. On August 30, 2006 (71 FR 51549), we announced our 90-day finding that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. On January 5, 2007, the CBD and the Maricopa Audubon Society filed a lawsuit challenging the Service's 90-day finding that the “Sonoran Desert population” of the bald eagle did not qualify as a DPS, and further challenging the Service's 90-day finding that the population should not be up-listed to endangered status. On July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37346), we published the final delisting rule for bald eagles in the lower 48 States. In that final delisting rule, we stated that our findings on the status of the Sonoran Desert population of bald eagles superseded our 90-day petition finding because the final delisting rule constituted a final decision on whether the Sonoran Desert population of bald eagles qualified for listing as a DPS under the Act. On March 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled in favor of the CBD and the Maricopa Audubon Society. The court order ( *Center for Biological Diversity* v. *Kempthorne,* CV 07-0038-PHX-MHM (D. Ariz)) was filed on March 6, 2008. The court ruled for the plaintiffs and ordered the Service to:
(1)Conduct a status review of the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle population pursuant to the Act to determine whether listing that population as a DPS is warranted, and if so, whether listing that DPS as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Act is warranted;
(2)Issue a 12-month finding on whether listing the Sonoran Desert area bald eagle population as a DPS is warranted, and if so, whether listing that DPS as threatened or endangered is warranted; and
(3)Issue the 12-month finding within 9 months of the court order pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B), which translates to on or before December 5, 2008. Further, the court enjoined the Service's application of the July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37346), final delisting rule to the Sonoran Desert population of bald eagles pending the outcome of our status review and 12-month petition finding. The court order was effective as of March 6, 2008, the date it was filed. On May 1, 2008, we published a final rule (73 FR 23966) listing the potential Sonoran Desert area bald eagle DPS as threatened under the Act in response to the court order. Please refer to the map and final rule published on May 1, 2008 (73 FR 23966) for details of the geographic area affected by this action. At this time, we are soliciting new information on the status of and potential threats to the Sonoran Desert population of bald eagles. We will base our new determination as to whether listing is warranted on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all such information received as a result of this notice. For more information on the biology, habitat, and range of the Sonoran Desert population of bald eagles, please refer to our previous 90-day finding published in the **Federal Register** on August 30, 2006 (71 FR 51549), and our final delisting rule for the bald eagle published in the **Federal Register** on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37346). Author The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Arizona Ecological Services Office. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: May 8, 2008. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-11052 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 080306389-8391-01] RIN 0648-AW53 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Allowance of New Gear (Eliminator Trawl) in Specific Special Management Programs AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes approval for using another type of trawl gear known as the “eliminator trawl” in the Regular B Days-at-Sea
(DAS)Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock Special Access Program (SAP). Vessels fishing in the Regular B DAS Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP must use approved trawl gear in order to reduce the catch of multispecies (groundfish) stocks of concern. The Northeast
(NE)Regional Administrator, NMFS, may approve additional gears for use in these programs if research demonstrates that the gear meets specific standards for the reduction of catch of stocks of concern. The intent of this action is to reduce catch of stocks of concern in the NE multispecies fishery. DATES: Comments must be received by June 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW53, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* • Mail: Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the eliminator trawl.” • Fax:
(978)281-9135. Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publically accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only. Copies of the Technical Report “Bycatch Reduction in the Directed Haddock Bottom Trawl Fishery” and a diagram of the eliminator trawl may be obtained from NMFS at the mailing address specified above; telephone
(978)281-9315. NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexiblity Analysis (IRFA), which is contained in the Classification section of this proposed rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Warren, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978)281-9347, fax
(978)281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)contains broadly applied input control regulations that are designed to protect stocks that need reductions in fishing mortality. Because such regulations apply in a broad manner, they not only restrict fishing effort on stocks of concern, but also restrict fishing effort on stocks that do not need reductions in fishing mortality. Therefore, SAPs were implemented in the FMP to increase access to stocks that do not need reductions in fishing mortality. A SAP authorizes additional fishing effort in order to allow an increased yield in specific stocks without undermining the achievement of the goals of the FMP. For example, SAPs may allow the use of Category B DAS or allow temporary access to a closed area to increase access to particular stocks. To help ensure that catch of stocks of concern is reduced to acceptable levels, vessels fishing in a SAP are subject to additional fishing restrictions than those that apply to vessels fishing in the NE multispecies fishery at large. Framework Adjustment
(FW)40-A (69 FR 67780; November 19, 2004) implemented the Regular B DAS Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock special management programs that currently include gear restrictions designed to substantially reduce the catch of stocks of concern. The Regular B DAS Program, which initially did not contain any gear restrictions, was later modified under FW 42 (71 FR 62156; October 23, 2006) to require trawl vessels to use a haddock separator trawl in order to further reduce the potential for vessels to catch stocks of concern-- notably, cod, yellowtail flounder, and winter flounder. The Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, from its inception, contained a more restrictive requirement specifying that any vessel fishing in the program must use a haddock separator trawl. FW 42 also authorized the Regional Administrator to approve other gear types for use in the Regular B DAS Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP to reduce catch of stocks of concern, based upon approved gear standards, but did not contain any standards for evaluating proposed additional gear types. On December 26, 2007, based upon recommendations of the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), NMFS implemented specific gear standards that could be used to evaluate additional gear proposed for use in these programs to reduce catch of stocks of concern and clarified the process by which new gear would be considered (72 FR 72965). The December 26, 2007 rule specified that, to be approved, new gear must first be compared to an appropriately selected control gear. Based on this comparison, new gear can be approved if it meets one of the following two standards:
(1)Use of the gear must result in a statistically significant reduction, compared to the control gear, of at least 50 percent (by weight, on a trip-by-trip basis) in catch of each regulated species stock of concern, or other non-groundfish stocks that are overfished or subject to overfishing identified by the Council; or
(2)the use of the gear must result in a catch of each regulated NE multispecies stock of concern, or other non-groundfish stocks that are overfished or subject to overfishing identified by the Council, that is less than 5 percent of the total catch of regulated groundfish (by weight, on a trip-by-trip basis). Neither of these requirements apply to regulated species identified by the Council as not being subject to gear performance standards. Because many species in the fishery are caught together, and the dynamic nature of the status of stocks, the performance standard must have a reasonable amount of flexibility in order to be practical. One of these standards must be met in a completed experiment, where comparisons of new gear are made to an appropriately selected control gear that has been reviewed according to the standards established by the Council's research policy, before the gear can be considered and approved by the Regional Administrator. In addition, a request for approval of the use of additional gear in the Regular B DAS Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP must be made by either the Council or the Council's Executive Committee. Regarding the proposal to approve the gear specified in this action, an experiment was conducted by the University of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Sea Grant Program, in conjunction with members of the fishing industry, from September 2004 through July 2006, to investigate a large-mesh experimental net known as the “eliminator trawl”, designed to capture haddock while reducing the catch of cod and other species. Two fishing vessels with equivalent length, horsepower, and fishing capacity participated in the study, and compared the eliminator trawl with a control net (constructed with currently legal specifications) using side-by-side tows. Four trips, conducted in the months of June, November, December, and April, resulted in 107 comparison tows, 100 of which were analyzed. The final report, “Bycatch Reduction in the Directed Haddock Bottom Trawl Fishery” (URI Fisheries Center Technical Report: 01-06; October 2006) included the following results and conclusions: Haddock was the dominant species caught in the experimental net, and represented 77 percent of the total catch. The overall rounded ratio of haddock to cod in the experimental and control nets was 20:1 and 3:1, respectively. A statistical comparison by tow indicated that there was a significant difference in the catch weights between the control and the experimental nets for cod, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder, American plaice, white hake, monkfish, skates, and other non- groundfish species. The eliminator trawl caught less of these species than the control net, whereas there was no statistical difference in the weight of haddock caught between the two nets. A February 5, 2007, review by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NMFS's NE State, Federal, and Constituent Programs Office noted the successful conclusion of the research project, and the Council's Research Steering Committee reviewed the research on March 29, 2007. Both reviews agreed that the experiment successfully demonstrated that the net design allowed the harvest of haddock, while reducing catches of cod and other stocks of concern. Although the NE Multispecies Plan Development Team did not review the experimental results, a February 8, 2008, memorandum from the Council's Executive Director to the Council indicated that the Council staff had reviewed the experimental data and concluded that the eliminator trawl clearly met the first regulatory standard for approval of new gear requiring a showing of more than a 50- percent reduction compared to the control gear of catch of regulated species stocks of concern. On February 13, 2008, the Council passed a motion that the haddock eliminator trawl be recommended to the Regional Administrator for use in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP and the Regular B DAS Program, and on February 19, 2008, the Council sent the Regional Administrator a letter requesting approval of this gear. Based upon the final report, “Bycatch Reduction in the Directed Haddock Bottom Trawl Fishery,” and the Council's February 19, 2008, letter, NMFS is proposing approval of the eliminator trawl. The pertinent information indicates that the catch of each regulated species stock of concern, as well as other species, declined by more than 50 percent with use of the eliminator trawl, which complies with the first standard for approval of additional gear. The proposed eliminator trawl net specifications are based upon input from the individuals involved in the eliminator trawl research, and NMFS gear experts. Approval of the eliminator trawl would allow trawl vessels fishing in the Regular B DAS Program or the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP a choice of whether to use the haddock separator trawl or the eliminator trawl. The size of the eliminator trawl specified would be appropriate for fishing vessels with engines of at least 600 horsepower. The results of the experiment cannot be used to extrapolate to smaller scale eliminator trawl gear that could be readily used by smaller horsepower vessels. The Council identified that the gear performance standards do not apply to haddock, pollock, and redfish. Haddock, pollock, and redfish are target stocks for which no reductions in fishing mortality are required. The researchers could not conduct statistical tests on Atlantic halibut because the species was not present in sufficient numbers (defined by the researchers as present in at least 10 paired tows), and therefore the gear standard could not be applied in a meaningful way to Atlantic halibut. Because Atlantic halibut is caught in very low numbers by the trawl fishery, and is subject to a possession limit of one fish per trip, NMFS has determined that the lack of information on the compliance of Atlantic halibut with gear standards is not sufficient justification for disapproval of the eliminator trawl. Furthermore, it is likely that the selectivity of the eliminator trawl for Atlantic halibut is low, given the similarity in body shape and ecology of the Atlantic halibut to the other flatfishes, which were less numerous in the eliminator trawl. This application of the gear standard is consistent with the intent of the Council (i.e., reasonable flexibility in application of the gear standards) and the goal of providing opportunities and incentives for the fishing industry to utilize gear that results in substantial reductions in bycatch. NMFS is not proposing that vessels must have their eliminator trawl net inspected and certified by a net manufacturer, as suggested by Council staff in the attachment to the Council's February 19, 2008, letter to NMFS. The stated concern is that slight modifications in the net configuration could alter the effectiveness of the net in reducing catches of species of concern. Inspection by a net manufacturer would not prevent a vessel operator from modifying his/her net after such an inspection occurred, would impose additional costs to the industry, would be difficult to enforce, and would be redundant, because the net manufacturer can verify to the net purchaser what he/she is purchasing at the time of purchase. The fisherman is responsible for the compliance of his/her gear with the regulations, and NMFS and the United States Coast Guard enforce the gear regulations. Furthermore, this requirement was not proposed by the Council (based on the Council's pertinent motion). Classification NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and has preliminarily determined that this rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA)has been prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), consisting of this proposed rule, the following analysis, and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this action. The IRFA below describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. Allowing the use of the eliminator trawl in the Regular B DAS Program and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP would provide the fishing industry more flexibility in the use of trawl gear that minimizes catch of stocks of concern by providing them with a choice of whether to use the haddock separator trawl or the eliminator trawl. Vessels fishing under a Regular B DAS in these programs must comply with restrictive landing limits of various species. The choice of two nets would enable a vessel owner to decide which net is the most cost effective means of targeting haddock and complying with the landing restrictions. A description of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed eliminator trawl is contained in the SUMMARY of this proposed rule. Under the Small Business Administration
(SBA)size standards for small fishing entities ($ 4.0 million in annual gross sales), all permitted and participating vessels in the groundfish fishery are considered to be small entities and, therefore, there are no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities. Gross sales by any one entity (vessel) do not exceed this threshold. The maximum number of small entities that could be affected by the proposed approval of the eliminator trawl are approximately 1,200 vessels; i.e., those issued limited access NE multispecies DAS permits that have an allocation of Category A or B DAS. Realistically, however, the number of vessels that choose to fish in either of these programs, and that would therefore be subject to the associated restrictions, including the use of either the haddock separator trawl or the eliminator trawl, would be substantially smaller. For example, in fishing year
(FY)2005, 132 vessels fished in either the Regular B DAS Program or the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP. In FY 2006, there were only 45 vessels that fished in either program. Although it is possible that, under future circumstances, more vessels may elect to participate in these programs, a large increase in the numbers of participants is unlikely. Furthermore, some participants in the Regular B DAS Program and in the SAP may not have sufficient engine horsepower to use the eliminator trawl, and, therefore, may not be able to use the trawl. Based on information from a commercial net manufacturer, the cost of purchasing a new eliminator trawl net is approximately $ 13,000. A squid trawl net could be modified into an eliminator trawl for approximately $ 1,000, by replacing the last belly portion of the net and putting in a rockhopper sweep. If 130 vessels fished in either of the special management programs that require the use of a specialized trawl, and the vessel operators decided to purchase the eliminator trawl net, the total cost to the industry would be approximately $1,690,000. It is likely that many vessels that have fished in these programs in the past using a separator trawl may choose not to purchase an eliminator trawl. Vessels choosing to use the eliminator trawl would incur the purchase cost and other adjustment costs. The decision to do so, and to thereby fish in a special management program offering additional revenue opportunities is a voluntary decision based on the individual vessel's assessment of profitability. Because of the context in which this action is proposed, there are only two alternatives under consideration: The no action alternative and approval of the eliminator trawl. Consideration of another trawl gear (i.e., a third alternative) in addition to the eliminator trawl is not proposed at this time. The process of conducting gear research and reviewing such research is time consuming and costly, and the standards for approval must be met. Although other trawl gear research is either underway or proposed, the eliminator trawl is the only gear that has been vetted through the review process and recommended by the Council. Additional research is being proposed by two of the co-authors of “Bycatch Reduction in the Directed Haddock Bottom Trawl Fishery” that will investigate the use of an eliminator trawl net designed for smaller vessels with 250 to 550 horsepower engines. Performance standards rather than design standards are utilized for the evaluation of new trawl gear, in order to provide conservation engineers flexibility in design and a meaningful standard for the achievement of the goal of bycatch reduction. The performance standards under § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)( *2* ) were developed for the specific purpose of evaluating additional fishing gear for these special management programs. The proposed action would not modify any collection of information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. The proposed net does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. Dated: May 14, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.2, new definitions for “fishing circle,” “stretched mesh,” and “sweep” are added in alphabetical order, to read as follows: § 648.2 Definitions. *Fishing circle, with respect to the NE multispecies limited access fishery* , means the calculated circumference of a bottom trawl based on the number of meshes and stretched mesh length at the narrow, aft end of the square of the net. *Stretched mesh, with respect to the NE multispecies eliminator trawl* , means mesh that is pulled so that slack in the mesh is eliminated and the mesh opening is closed. *Sweep, with respect to the NE multispecies limited access fishery* , means the part of a bottom trawl that, during normal use, is in contact with the sea floor along the outer edges of the lower webbing of the net. 3. In § 648.14, paragraphs (a)(132) and (b)(81) are revised to read as follows: § 648.14 Prohibitions.
(a)* * *
(132)If fishing with trawl gear under a NE multispecies DAS in the Eastern U.S./Canada defined in § 648.85(a)(1)(ii), fail to fish with a haddock separator trawl or a flounder trawl net, as specified in § 648.85(a)(3)(iii), unless otherwise allowed under the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP rules in § 648.85(b)(8)(v)(E).
(b)* * *
(81)If fishing in the Regular B DAS Program specified in § 648.85(b)(6), fail to use a haddock separator trawl as described under § 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A), or other approved gear as described under § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J). 4. In § 648.85, paragraphs (b)(6)(iv)(J)( *1* ) and (b)(8)(v)(E) introductory heading and (b)(8)(v)(E)( *1* ) are revised, and paragraph (b)(6)(iv)(J)( *3* ) is added to read as follows: § 648.85 Special management programs.
(b)* * *
(6)* * *
(iv)* * *
(J)* * * ( *1* ) Vessels fishing with trawl gear in the Regular B DAS Program must use the haddock separator trawl or eliminator trawl net, as described under paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(A) and (b)(6)(iv)(J)( *3* ) of this section, respectively, or other type of gear if approved as described under this paragraph (b)(6)(iv)(J). Other gear may be on board the vessel, provided it is stowed when the vessel is fishing under the Regular B DAS Program. ( *3* ) *Eliminator Trawl* . The eliminator trawl is a four-seam bottom groundfish trawl designed to reduce the bycatch of cod while retaining or increasing the catch of haddock, when compared to traditional groundfish trawls. An eliminator trawl must be constructed in accordance with the following standards: ( *i* ) The net must be constructed with four seams (i.e., a net with a top and bottom panel and two side panels), and include at least the following net sections as depicted in Figure 1 of this part “Nomenclature for 4-seam eliminator trawl” (this figure is also available from the Administrator, Northeast Region): Top jib, bottom jib, jib side panels (x 2), top wing, bottom wing, wing side panels (x 2), square, bunt, square side panels (x 2), first top belly, first bottom belly, first belly side panels (x 2), second top belly, second bottom belly, second belly side panels (x 2), and third bottom belly. ( *ii* ) The first bottom belly, bunt, the top and bottom wings, and the top and bottom jibs, jib side panels, and wing side panels (the first bottom belly and all portions of the net in front of the first bottom belly, with the exception of the square and the square side panels) must be at least two meshes long in the fore and aft direction. For these net sections the stretched length of any single mesh must be at least 7.9 ft (240 cm). ( *iii* ) Mesh size in all other sections must be consistent with mesh size requirements specified under § 648.80 and meet the following minimum specifications: Each mesh in the square, square side panels, and second bottom belly must be 31.5 inches (80 cm); each mesh in the first and second top belly, the first belly side panels, and the third bottom belly must be at least 7.9 inches (20 cm); and 6 inches or larger in sections following the second top belly and third bottom belly sections, all the way to the codend. The mesh size requirements of the top sections apply to the side panel sections. ( *iv* ) The trawl must have a fishing circle of at least 398 ft (121.4 m). This number is calculated by separately counting the number of meshes for each section of the net at the wide, fore end of the first bottom belly, and then calculating a stretched length as follows: For each section of the net (first bottom belly, two belly side panels and first top belly) multiply the number of meshes times the length of each stretched mesh to get the stretched mesh length for that section, and then add the sections together. For example, if the wide, fore end of the bottom belly of the eliminator trawl is 22 meshes (and the mesh is at least 7.9 ft (240 cm)), the stretched mesh length for that section of the net is derived by multiplying 22 times 7.9 ft (240 cm) and equals 173.2 ft (52.8 m). The top and sides (x 2) of the net at this point in the trawl are 343 meshes (221 + 61 + 61, respectively) (each 7.9 inches (20 cm)), which equals 225.1 ft (68.6 m) stretched length. The stretched lengths for the different sections of mesh are added together (173.2 ft + 225.1 ft (52.8 + 68.6 m)) and result in the length of the fishing circle, in this case 398.3 ft (121.4 m). ( *v* ) The trawl must have at least three 1-square meter or larger kite panels on the forward end of the square to help maximize headrope height, for the purpose of capturing rising fish. A kite panel is a flat structure, usually semi-flexible used to modify the shape of trawl and mesh openings by providing lift when a trawl is moving through the water. ( *vi* ) The sweep must consist of rockhoppers, which are graduated from 16-inch (40-cm) diameter in the center down to 12-inch (30-cm) diameter at the wing ends. There must be six or fewer 12 to16-inch (30 to 40-cm) rockhopper discs over any 10-ft (3.0 m) length of the sweep. The 12 to16 inch (30 to 40-cm) discs must be spaced evenly, with one disc placed approximately every 2 ft (60 cm) along the sweep. The 12 to 16-inch (30 to 40-cm) discs must be separated by smaller discs, no larger than 3.5 inches (8.8 cm) in diameter.
(8)* * *
(v)* * *
(E)Gear requirement ( *1* ) A NE multispecies vessel fishing in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP must use the haddock separator trawl or eliminator trawl net, as described under paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(A) and (b)(6)(iv)(J)( *3* ) of this section, respectively, or other type of gear, if approved as described under this paragraph (b)(8)(v)(E). No other type of fishing gear may be on the vessel when on a trip in the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP, with the exception of a flounder net, as described in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section, provided that the flounder net is stowed in accordance with § 648.23(b). 5. In part 648, add Figure 1 as follows: BILLING CODE 3510-22-S EP20MY08.015 [FR Doc. E8-11303 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-C DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 071106669-7824-02] RIN 0648-AU26 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species
(CPS)Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)which would provide protection for all species of krill off the West Coast (i.e., California, Oregon and Washington). This rule would prohibit the harvest of all species of krill by any fishing vessel operating in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ)off the West Coast, and would also deny the use of exempted fishing permits to allow krill fishing. DATES: Comments must be received by June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule identified by “I.D. 012607A-PR” by any of the following methods: • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *0648-AU26.SWR@noaa.gov* . Include the I.D. number in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. • Fax: (562)980-4047 Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Copies of Amendment 12, which includes an Environmental Assessment/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review, are available from Donald O. McIssac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua B. Lindsay, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4034 or Mike Burner, Pacific Fishery Management Council, at 503-820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CPS fishery in the EEZ off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP, which was developed by the Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The CPS FMP was approved by the Secretary of Commerce and was implemented by regulations that can be found at 50 CFR part 660, subpart I. Amendment 12 would add all species of krill as a management unit species under the CPS FMP and would place krill under a newly established “prohibited harvest species” category. This new category would differ from the existing “prohibited species” definition in the FMP because “prohibited harvest species” may not be taken by any fishery or gear type in the U.S. EEZ. In contrast, “prohibited species” may not be taken and retained incidentally by CPS fishery participants, but are legally harvested under provisions in Federal regulations implementing other Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) FMPs. As the principal food source for many fish and non-fish species, krill are a critical component of the marine ecosystem. Off the West Coast krill are important prey for a variety of fish species, including many Council managed stocks. Krill are also a principal food source for many species of marine mammals and seabirds; some of which are listed as threatened or endangered and warrant special efforts for protection and recovery. Protecting krill will likely minimize adverse impacts on these fish stocks and living marine resources and in turn, help to maintain ecological relationships and ensure the long-term health and productivity of the West Coast ecosystem. Amendment 12 is an attempt to incorporate ecosystem conservation principles into fishery management programs by protecting, to the extent practicable, krill resources, which are an integral part of that ecosystem. At this time, there are no Federal regulations that limit fishing for krill in the EEZ. While a krill fishery off the U.S. West Coast does not currently exist, NMFS is concerned such a fishery could develop and have an adverse impact on other West Coast fish stocks, marine mammals, and the ecosystem generally. The states of Washington, Oregon, and California prohibit their vessels from fishing for krill and prohibit landings of krill into their respective ports. However, these prohibitions would not prevent a fishery from developing in the West Coast EEZ by vessels from outside of the region, as long as landings were not made into a West Coast port. A market for krill currently exists in Washington and Oregon, where salmon farms use krill products as a supplemental feed. Federal
(EEZ)waters which lie outside of the state prohibitions on krill harvest, may in the future be used for fish farming. These operations will likely demand krill as feed stock, and a fishery could develop around the needs of these aquaculture facilities. Local krill would be an obvious food source, which may significantly increase the likelihood of a krill fishery developing within West Coast EEZ waters. NMFS is concerned about the impacts of a krill fishery based in part on information regarding large-scale krill fishing methods and the impacts of existing krill fisheries in other areas. Krill concentrations attract marine mammal, bird, and fish predators, and due to the trawl-type gear used to catch krill, bycatch and/or disturbance of these predators could occur. In the Antarctic krill fishery, there is known bycatch of fur seals as well as various sea birds. In British Columbia a krill fishery began in 1970 and in 1976 quotas were established due to concerns for harvesting a forage species upon which salmon and other commercially important finfish depend. An annual catch was set at 500 tons with an open season from November to March to minimize the incidental catch of larval and juvenile fish. In the Antarctic, although krill catches are currently well below catch limits, some have questioned whether there is a risk that localized, excessive fishing effort might have an impact on land-based predators that depend on krill for food. This could be of particular concern during the breeding season considering the considerable overlap between the krill fishery and breeding areas for penguins and seals in the South Atlantic Ocean. Some believe that demand for krill has begun to exceed supply in areas of the southwest Atlantic and as a result penguins and albatrosses might be having difficulties in rearing offspring successfully on South Georgia due to this competition for resources. NMFS' examination of this action began in September 2004, when managers of the Cordell Bank, Monterey Bay, and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries (Sanctuaries) requested that the Council consider prohibiting krill fishing in the federal waters portion of the three sanctuaries. The Council moved forward with the request recognizing the need for a more substantive analysis of the krill resource - including an analysis of possible controls that would meet the objectives of the requested action. The analysis also considered the total distribution and importance of krill throughout waters off the West Coast EEZ, not just in sanctuary waters. At the November 2004 Council meeting, NMFS presented the Council with advice on alternative approaches by which krill fishery controls could be implemented. NMFS subsequently prepared an Alternatives Analysis that presented information on the various species of krill that occur off the West Coast, their productivity (as well as the uncertainty of the information available), and the relationship between krill and other fish and non-fish species. The analysis also provided information on potential mechanisms for achieving control over krill fishing in the EEZ as well as evaluated different conservation and management measures that could be applied if krill fishing were to be permitted. The Council discussed the content of the Alternatives Analysis at its October 31, 2005, meeting and after receiving recommendations from its advisory groups and the public, directed that a draft CPS FMP amendment be prepared presenting a preliminary preferred alternative for public review and comment. Once completed, the document was circulated for public review and comment. Following public testimony at its March 2006 meeting the Council adopted Amendment 12 to the CPS FMP. The three alternatives that were analyzed for this amendment are as follows: Alternative 1: No Action Every assessment of potential management strategies by the Council for consideration of implementation by Federal regulation includes a “no action” alternative, as required by National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)implementing regulations and against which other alternatives are compared. Under this alternative, NMFS would not take action at this time. This would mean that the states' prohibitions on landing krill by their vessels would remain in place (see section 3.5 of Environmental Assessment (EA)), but that a fishery by vessels from outside of the region could develop in the EEZ if landings were not made into a West Coast port. If a krill fishery developed, the Council would have an opportunity to develop conservation and management measures in the future. Alternative 2: Manage Krill Fishing Through Amendment of the CPS FMP (Proposed Action) Under this alternative, krill (all species) would be added to the management unit species of the CPS FMP. Further, a new category of management unit species - “prohibited harvest” - would be established under the FMP. Krill would be placed in that category. This means that optimum yield
(OY)for krill would be zero, and the target, harvest and transhipment of krill would be prohibited. Also, exempted fishing permits
(EFPs)would not be issued under the EFP procedures of the CPS FMP to allow individuals to harvest krill as an exception to the prohibition of harvest. These actions would fully achieve the objectives of the amendment to the extent practicable, but would not account for environmental conditions and the responses of krill and other resources to changes in environmental conditions. NMFS recognizes that *de minimis* or trace amounts of krill may be retained by fishermen while targeting other species; such inadvertent action is not intended to be the subject of this prohibition. Alternative 3: Prohibit Krill Fishing but Establish a Process for Allowing Future Fishing This alternative would add krill to the management unit species group contained within the CPS FMP as well as initially prohibit fishing for krill in the West Coast EEZ (i.e., OY would have been zero), but a procedure would be established by which krill fishing in the future could be permitted (subject to conditions). That procedure would involve such steps as completing the modeling described in section 3.1.3.5 of the EA, establishing a firm Maximum Sustainable Yield estimate(s), prohibiting the direct harvest of krill but possibly setting an initial low harvest allowance for EFPs with a complete monitoring and evaluation program. NMFS has considered the potential for development of a krill fishery and the potentially drastic effects a fishery could have on krill resources and on the fish and other species, such as birds and mammals, that are dependent on, or that are sensitive to, the abundance and availability of krill. NMFS believes it is critical to take preventive action at this time to ensure that a krill fishery will not develop that could potentially harm krill stocks, and in turn harm other fish and non-fish stocks. Therefore, NMFS proposes to Alternative 2 prohibit krill fishing in the EEZ off the West Coast. Classification Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I have determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. The Council and NMFS has prepared an EA for this amendment that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the EA is available from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. There are no reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements of the proposed rule. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows: A fishing vessel is considered a “small” business by the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)if its annual receipts are not in excess of $4.0 million. Since all of the vessels fishing for CPS have annual receipts below $4.0 million they would all be considered small businesses under the SBA standards. Therefore this rule will not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses. No small entities would be directly affected if this action were taken. There are currently no entities engaged in fishing for krill off the West Coast. It is possible that, in the absence of this action, a krill fishery could develop, but it is not possible to estimate the number of entities (large or small) that might engage in such fishing in the future. No criteria for such an evaluation were used as no entities (large or small) will be directly affected by the proposed action. No entities now fish for krill so no entities would be disproportionately affected or suffer reductions in profits. No entities now fish for krill so a “substantial number” of small entities would not be affected. NMFS has determined that there will not be a significant economic impact to a substantial number of small entities. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 14, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 660 as follows: PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 660.502 the definitions of “Krill” and “Prohibited harvest species” are added in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 660.502 Definitions. *Krill* means all species of euphausiids that occur in the EEZ off the West Coast. *Prohibited harvest species* means all krill species in the EEZ off the West Coast. 3. In § 660.505, add paragraph
(o)as follows: § 660.505 Prohibitions.
(o)Fish for, target, harvest or land a prohibited harvest species in any fishery within the EEZ off the West Coast. [FR Doc. E8-11253 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 98 Tuesday, May 20, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Public Hearing on New Entrant's 2008—Crop Cane Sugar Marketing Allocation AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Notice of invitation to request a public hearing. SUMMARY: The Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)issues this notice to advise sugarcane processors and growers that they may request a public hearing as a result of an application made by a new sugarcane processor, Andino Energy Enterprises, L.L.C., for a cane sugar allocation starting with the 2008 crop year. Andino Energy Enterprises, L.L.C., is requesting a 2008-crop year allocation of 50,000 short tons, raw value (STRV), with annual increases in its allocation to 60,000, 80,000, 100,000 and 120,000 STRV, for crop years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. The new processor will be located in Louisiana, an existing mainland State in the CCC sugar marketing allotment program. If CCC receives a request for a hearing, CCC will conduct a hearing. DATES: Send requests for hearings by June 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please send hearing requests to Barbara Fecso, Farm Service Agency, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Stop 0516, 1400 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0540, fax:
(202)690-1480, e-mail: *barbara.fecso@wdc.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Fecso Farm Service Agency, telephone:
(202)720-4146, fax:
(202)690-1480, e-mail: *barbara.fecso@wdc.usda.gov.* To view original application, go to *http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=ecpa&topic=dsa.* Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 359d(b)(1)(E) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, authorizes CCC to provide a sugarcane processor, who begins processing after May 13, 2002, with an allocation that provides a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of the allocations from the allotment for the State in which the processor is located. CCC is also required to establish proportionate shares in a quantity sufficient to produce the sugarcane required to satisfy the new allocation. If an allocation is provided by CCC to the new applicant, that processor's allocation will be subtracted, on a pro rata basis, from the allocations otherwise provided to each sugarcane processor in Louisiana. CCC will publicly announce the hearing if one is requested. Signed in Washington, DC on May 13, 2008. Teresa C. Lasseter, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. E8-11213 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Request for Public Comments for Use in Preparing for 2009 Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice announces a request for public comments to help senior officials of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)prepare for the 2009 Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). USDA believes that public input and assessment of the performance of current programs—including WIC, National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, and Special Milk Program—are essential to help the Department plan for reauthorization. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The nutrition assistance programs administered by USDA work together to ensure a nutrition safety net for the Nation's children, elderly, and low-income families. These programs help protect children and low-income households from hunger. They inform all of us about the importance of healthful diets and active lifestyles. They help to prevent the health problems associated with poor nutrition and physical inactivity for all Americans. While these programs are designed to meet the needs of people of all ages who may require assistance, they focus most strongly on the needs of children. The Child Nutrition Programs include the school meal programs (National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program) and the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which support nutritious meals and snacks served to children in schools, child care institutions, and afterschool care programs. In addition, the Summer Food Service Program and the Seamless Summer component of the National School Lunch Program provide nutritious food to children in programs in the summer months, when school is not in session. WIC addresses the special needs of at-risk, low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children up to five years of age. It provides participants with monthly supplemental food packages targeted to their dietary needs, nutrition education, and referrals to a range of health and social services—benefits that promote a healthy pregnancy for mothers and a healthy start for their children. Public Comment Submission The reauthorization process provides Congress with a regular opportunity to examine the operation and effectiveness of the Federal nutrition assistance programs, and consider making improvements to their statutory structure under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751-1769i) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771-1791). In anticipation of these discussions, USDA intends to gather input that will help the Department better understand the needs and concerns of program cooperators and participants at the State and local levels, including representatives from State agencies, local program offices, industry, and State and local advocacy groups. This notice provides the public the opportunity to comment in writing on the issues that USDA expects to address in preparing for this reauthorization process. USDA has developed a framework of three themes to help focus the discussion of reauthorization issues. Commenters will be asked to address, but not be limited to, issues related to specific aspects of WIC, the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, and Special Milk Program. Key among these are: • Strengthening program management and improving nutrition services, • Ensuring that all eligible persons have access to program benefits, and • Advancing technology and innovation. Electronic Access and Filing Addresses USDA invites interested persons to submit written comments electronically or by postal mail. To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before October 15, 2008. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically. *Mail:* Address comments to Mr. Robert M. Eadie, Chief, Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594. *Fax:* Submit comments by facsimile transmission to: 703-305-2879, attention Mr. Robert M. Eadie. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver comments to 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594, during normal business hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that comments, as well as the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments, will be subject to public disclosure. All submissions will be available for public inspection at the address noted above, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. USDA may also make the comments available on the Federal eRulemaking portal. Dated: May 14, 2008. Eric Steiner, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. E8-11236 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No. 080512652-8653-01] Reporting on Offsets Agreements in Sales of Weapon Systems or Defense-Related Items to Foreign Countries or Foreign Firms for Calendar Year 2007 AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice is to remind the public that U.S. firms are required to report annually to the Department of Commerce (Commerce) on contracts for the sale of defense-related items or defense-related services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. U.S. firms are also required to report annually to Commerce on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative. Such reports must be submitted to Commerce no later than June 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Reports should be addressed to “Offsets Program Manager, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room 3878, Washington, DC 20230.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald DeMarines, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: 202-482-3755; fax: 202-482-5650; e-mail: *rdemarin@bis.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In 1984, the Congress enacted amendments to the Defense Production Act (DPA), including the addition of Section 309, which addresses offsets in defense trade ( *See* 50 U.S.C. app. § 2099). Offsets are compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government-to-government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or services, as defined by the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Section 309(a)(1) requires the President to submit an annual report to the Congress on the impact of offsets on the U.S. defense industrial base. In 1992, section 309 was amended to direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to function as the President's executive agent for carrying out the responsibilities set forth in that section. Specifically, section 309 authorizes the Secretary to develop and administer the regulations necessary to collect offsets data from U.S. defense exporters. The authorities of the Secretary regarding offsets have been redelegated to the Under Secretary of the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). The regulations associated with offsets reporting are set forth in Part 701 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The offsets regulations of Part 701 set forth the obligations of U.S. industry to report to the Bureau of Industry and Security, no later than June 15 of each year, offsets agreement and transaction data for the previous calendar year. As described in section 701.1 of the regulations, U.S. firms are required to report on contracts for the sale of defense-related items or defense-related services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. U.S. firms are also required to report annually on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative. The required data elements and filing procedures for such reports are outlined in section 701.4 of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations. The Department's annual report to Congress includes an aggregated summary of the data reported by industry in accordance with the offsets regulation and the DPA. As provided by section 309(c) of the DPA, BIS will not publicly disclose the information it receives through offsets reporting unless the firm furnishing the information specifically authorizes public disclosure. The information collected is sorted and organized into an aggregate report of national offsets data, and therefore does not identify company-specific information. Required information must be submitted to BIS no later than June 15, 2008. Dated: May 13, 2008. Matthew S. Borman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E8-11208 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-588-847 Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act Regarding the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Japan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 8, 2008, the U.S. Trade Representative instructed the Department of Commerce (the Department) to implement its determination under section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(URAA)regarding the investigation of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products from Japan. The Department issued its final results on December 21, 2007, regarding the offsetting of dumped comparisons with non-dumped comparisons when making average-to-average comparisons of export price and normal value in the investigation challenged by Japan before the World Trade Organization in *United States - Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews* . The Department is now implementing this determination. DATES: The effective date of this determination is April 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5831, or
(202)482-5253, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 19, 2007, the Department advised interested parties that it was initiating a proceeding under section 129 of the URAA to issue a determination that would implement the findings of the World Trade Organization
(WTO)dispute settlement panel in United States - Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews (WT/DS322) (September 20, 2006). On November 26, 2007, the Department issued its preliminary results, in which it recalculated the weighted-average dumping margins from the antidumping investigation of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products from Japan 1 by applying the calculation methodology described in *Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted Average Dumping Margin During an Antidumping Investigation; Final Modification* , 71 FR 77722 (December 27, 2006). The Department also invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. On December 3, 2007, we received a case brief from IPSCO Steel Inc. (IPSCO), a domestic interested party. We received no other case briefs. After receiving comments from IPSCO, the Department issued its final results for the section 129 determination on December 21, 2007. 1 *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Japan* , 64 FR 73215 (December 29, 1999). On January 11 and 14, 2008, consistent with section 129(b)(3) of the URAA, the U.S. Trade Representative held consultations with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees with respect to this determination. On April 8, 2008, in accordance with sections 129(b)(4) and 129(c)(1)(B) of the URAA, the U.S. Trade Representative directed the Department to implement this determination. Nature of the Proceedings Section 129 of the URAA governs the nature and effect of determinations issued by the Department to implement findings by WTO dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body. Specifically, section 129(b)(2) provides that “notwithstanding any provision of the Tariff Act of 1930,” within 180 days of a written request from the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department shall issue a determination that would render its actions not inconsistent with an adverse finding of a WTO panel or the Appellate Body. *See* 19 USC 3538(b)(2). The Statement of Administrative Action, URAA, H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.
(1994)(SAA), variously refers to such a determination by the Department as a “new,” “second,” and “different” determination. See SAA at 1025, 1027. After consulting with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees, the U.S. Trade Representative may direct the Department to implement, in whole or in part, the new determination made under section 129. *See* 19 USC 3538(b)(4). Pursuant to section 129(c), the new determination shall apply with respect to unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date on which the U.S. Trade Representative directs the Department to implement the new determination. *See* 19 USC 3538(c). The new determination is subject to judicial review separate and apart from judicial review of the Department's original determination. *See* 19 USC 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vii). Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case brief submitted by an interested party to this proceeding are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Proceeding Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Antidumping Measures on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Japan from Stephen J. Claeys to David M. Spooner, dated December 21, 2007 (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department of Commerce main building. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. Final Antidumping Margins The recalculated margins, unchanged from the preliminary decision in this 129 proceeding, are as follows: • The margin for Kawasaki Steel Corporation decreases from 10.78 percent to 9.46 percent. • The all-others rate decreases from 10.78 percent to 9.46 percent. On April 8, 2008, in accordance with sections 129(b)(4) and 129(c)(1)(B) of the URAA, the U.S. Trade Representative, after consulting with the Department and Congress, directed the Department to implement this determination. Therefore, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from all exporters or producers, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 8, 2008 (the effective date). CBP shall continue to require cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which normal value exceeds the U.S. price. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. The Section 129 Determination “all others” rate will be the new cash deposit rate for all exporters of subject merchandise for whom the Department has not assigned an individual rate, which is 9.46 percent. This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 129(c)(2)(A) of the URAA. Dated: May 13, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Issued Raised in the Issues and Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Whether Customs Instructions Should Be Clarified to Retain the Deposit Rates for Producers Whose Margins Were Not Recalculated *Comment 2:* Whether the Preliminary Results Are Consistent with U.S. Law *Comment 3:* Whether the Statute Equates the Dumping Margin with the Antidumping Duty Assessment *Comment 4:* Whether the Department's Interpretation of the Term Dumping Margin' is Inconsistently Applied to Antidumping Investigations and Administrative Reviews [FR Doc. E8-11299 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 08-00002] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review to Wilco Machine & Fab, Inc. (Application No. 08-00002). SUMMARY: On May 12, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to Wilco Machine & Fab, Inc. (“WILCO”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification has been granted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at
(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number), or by E-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2006). Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR section 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the **Federal Register** . Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR section 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous. *Description of Certified Conduct:* WILCO is certified to engage in the Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation described below in the following Export Trade and Export Markets. I. Export Trade Products All Products manufactured by WILCO, including all fabricated, machined, or assembled pressure vessels, tanks, bulk transport trailers, bulk storage trailers, bulk plants or any components of or tools for the aforementioned items (North American Industry Classification System codes: 333132; 332313; 332420; and 332439). II. Export Markets The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands). III. Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation 1. WILCO, on its own behalf, may: a. *Sales Price:* Establish sale prices, minimum sales prices, target sale prices and/or minimum target sales prices, and other terms of sale in Export Markets. b. *Marketing and Distribution:* Conduct marketing and distribution of Products in Export Markets. c. *Promotion:* Conduct promotion of Products in Export Markets. d. *Quantities:* Determine quantities of Products to be sold in Export Markets. e. *Market and Customer Allocation:* Allocate geographic areas or countries in the Export Markets and/or customers in the Export Markets to Export Intermediaries. f. *Refusals to Deal:* Refuse to quote prices for Products, or to market or sell Products, to or for any customers in the Export Markets, or any countries or geographical areas in the Export Markets. g. *Exclusive and Nonexclusive Export Intermediaries:* Enter into exclusive and nonexclusive agreements appointing one or more Export Intermediaries for the sale of Products in Export Markets with price, quantity, territorial, and/or customer restrictions as provided above. WILCO may meet with customers or Export Intermediaries to discuss or engage in the activities described above. 2. WILCO may, on a one-to-one basis, meet with, exchange, and discuss the following information with its customers and its Export Intermediaries: a. Information about sale and marketing efforts for the export markets, activities and opportunities for sales of Products in the Export Markets, selling strategies for the Export Markets, sales for the Export Markets, contracts and pricing in the Export Markets, project demands in the Export Markets for Products, customary terms of sale in the Export Markets, price and availability of Products from competitors for sale in Export Markets, and specifications for Products by customers in the Export Markets. b. Information about its price, quality, quantity, source, and delivery dates of Products for Export Markets. c. Information about terms and conditions of contracts for sale in the Export Markets to be considered and/or bid on by WILCO. d. Information about bidding, selling, or sales arrangements for the Export Markets. e. Information about expenses specific to exporting to and within the Export Markets, including without limitation, transportation, shipments, insurance, inland freight to port, port storage, commissions, export sales, documentation, financing, customs, duties, and taxes. f. Information about U.S. and foreign legislation and regulations relating to sales in the Export Markets. g. Information about WILCO's export operations, including without limitation, sales and prior export sales information and prior export price information. h. Information about export customer credit terms and credit history. V. Definition • “Export Intermediary” means a person who acts as a distributor, sales representative, sales or marketing agent, import agent, broker, or a person who performs similar functions including providing or arranging for the provision of export trade facilitation services. A copy of the Certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Dated: May 14, 2008. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-11262 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-552-801 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1394. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 1, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) issued the preliminary results of the shipper reviews for Vinh Quang Fisheries Corporation (“Vinh Quang”), Ngoc Thai Company (“Ngoc Thai”), and Anvifish Co., Ltd. (“Anvifish”). *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of the First New Shipper Review* , 73 FR 6125 (February 1, 2008) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The Department extended the final results 30 days until May 21, 2008. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: extension of time Limit for Final Results of the New Shipper Reviews* , 73 FR 15478 (March 24, 2008). Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated and final results of a review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the final results of a new shipper review to 150 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The Department is extending the deadline for the completion of the final results of these new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam because the case is extraordinarily complicated. The Department preliminarily rescinded the new shipper review with respect to Vinh Quang, however, the Department resumed the review of Vinh Quang based on additional analysis and party comments. In addition, the Department has received additional surrogate value information and case and rebuttal briefs concerning complicated issues. The Department needs additional time to properly consider this information for the final results. Therefore, the completion of the final results of these new shipper reviews is extended by an additional 30 days to June 20, 2008. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 13, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, [FR Doc. E8-11298 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI01 File No. 13388 Marine Mammals; Receipt of Application to Import One Beluga Whale AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Sea World, Inc., 7007 Sea World Drive, Orlando, FL 32821, has applied in due form for a permit to import one beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) for the purposes of public display. DATES: Written or telefaxed comments must be received on or before June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone
(301)713-2289; fax
(301)427-2521; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701; phone
(727)824-5312; fax
(727)824-5309. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 13388. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Kate Swails, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The applicant requests authorization to import one male adult beluga whale from the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Center, British Columbia, Canada to Sea World of Texas. The applicant requests this import for the purpose of public display. The receiving facility, Sea World of Texas, 10500 SeaWorld Drive, San Antonio, TX 78251 is:
(1)open to the public on regularly scheduled basis with access that is not limited or restricted other than by charging for an admission fee;
(2)offers an educational program based on professionally accepted standards of the AZA and the Alliance for Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums; and
(3)holds an Exhibitor's License, number 58-C-0077, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 - 59). In addition to determining whether the applicant meets the three public display criteria, NMFS must determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activity is humane and does not represent any unnecessary risks to the health and welfare of marine mammals; that the proposed activity by itself, or in combination with other activities, will not likely have a significant adverse impact on the species or stock; and that the applicant's expertise, facilities and resources are adequate to accomplish successfully the objectives and activities stated in the application. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: May 14, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-11300 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG74 Permits; Foreign Fishing AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; denial of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a request for five transshipment permits regarding a foreign fishing application submitted under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act has been denied. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office: Office of International Affairs, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Olson, Office of International Affairs,
(301)713-2276. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS received an application requesting authorization for five Mexican vessels to receive, within the Pacific waters of the U.S. EEZ south of 34000'N. lat. and east of 121000'W.long., transfers of live tuna from U.S. purse seiners for the purpose of transporting the tuna alive to an aquaculture facility located in Baja California, Mexico. On April 1, 2008 (73 FR 11327), NMFS published a notice of receipt for the application. Because the transshipment of purse seine-caught tuna is prohibited in the Eastern Pacific Ocean under 50 CFR 300.24(d) and 50 CFR 300.25(d), the application has been denied. Dated: May 15, 2008. Jean-Pierre Ple, Acting Director, Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-11251 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket No. [Transmittal Nos. 08-31]] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency ACTION: Notice SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM,
(703)601-3740. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-31 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN20MY08.019 EN20MY08.020 EN20MY08.021 EN20MY08.022 EN20MY08.023 EN20MY08.024 Dated: May 7, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-11142 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0153] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; OMB Circular A-119 AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0153). SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning OMB Circular A-119. A request for public comments was published at 73 FR 4188, January 24, 2008. No comments were received. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Streets, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Ms. Cecelia Davis, Contract Policy Division, GSA
(202)219-0202. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose On February 19, 1998, a revised OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” was published in the **Federal Register** at 63 FR 8545, February 19, 1998. FAR Subparts 11.1 and 11.2 were revised and a solicitation provision was added at 52.211-7, Alternatives to Government-Unique Standards, to implement the requirements of the revised OMB circular. If an alternative standard is proposed, the offeror must furnish data and/or information regarding the alternative in sufficient detail for the Government to determine if it meets the Government's requirements. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 100. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Total Responses:* 100. *Hours Per Response:* 1. *Total Burden Hours:* 100. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone
(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0153, OMB Circular A-119, in all correspondence. Dated: May 13, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-11233 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive Patent License; Vytral Systems Co. Ltd, LLC AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Vytral Systems Co. Ltd, LLC a revocable, nonassignable, partially exclusive license to practice throughout the United States the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 7,281,482: SIDE THRUSTER PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT WITH POWER OPTIMIZATION CONTROLLER; U.S. Patent No. 7,277,573: ENHANCED RANDOMNESS ASSESSMENT METHOD FOR THREE-DIMENSIONS; U.S. Patent No. 7,272,072: METHOD OF CONVERTING RECEIVED DATA TO A TWO-DIMENSIONAL COLOR MAP; U.S. Patent No. 7,269,538: METHOD FOR SPARSE DATA TWO-STAGE STOCHASTIC MENSURATION; U.S. Patent No. 7,259,637: DELAY LOOP CORRECTION FOR A PROCESSOR; U.S. Patent No. 7,251,605: SPEECH TO TOUCH TRANSLATOR ASSEMBLY AND METHOD; U.S. Patent No. 7,236,252: SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING DISPLACEMENTS IN ELECTRO-ACTIVE MATERIALS; U.S. Patent No. 7,212,652: METHOD FOR TRACKING TARGETS WITH HYPER-SPECTRAL DATA; U.S. Patent No. 7,209,240: SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING DISPLACEMENTS IN ELECTRO-ACTIVE MATERIALS; U.S. Patent No. 7,180,416: TIME KEYED INFORMATION TRANSMISSION; U.S. Patent No. 7,177,232: WIRELESS RADIO FREQUENCY HYDROPHONE SYSTEM; U.S. Patent No. 7,155,389: DISCRIMINATING SPEECH TO TOUCH TRANSLATOR ASSEMBLY AND METHOD; U.S. Patent No. 7,143,033: AUTOMATIC MULTI-LANGUAGE PHONETIC TRANSCRIBING SYSTEM; U.S. Patent No. 7,120,089: SELF-CONTAINED AMBIENT NOISE RECORDER; U.S. Patent No. 7,111,577: ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE PROPAGATION SCHEME; U.S. Patent No. 7,110,946: SPEECH TO VISUAL AID TRANSLATOR ASSEMBLY AND METHOD; U.S. Patent No. 7,106,658: NAVIGATION SYSTEM AND METHOD USING DIRECTIONAL SENSOR; U.S. Patent No. 7,106,269: OMNI-AZIMUTHAL PATTERN GENERATOR FOR VLF AND LF COMMUNICATION; U.S. Patent No. 7,103,502: ENHANCED SYSTEM FOR DETECTION OF RANDOMNESS IN SPARSE TIME SERIES DISTRIBUTIONS; U.S. Patent No. 7,062,386: METHOD TO ESTIMATE THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF A SOLID MATERIAL SUBJECTED TO INSONIFICATION; U.S. Patent No. 7,061,431: SEGMENTED MICROSTRIP PATCH ANTENNA WITH EXPONENTIAL CAPACITIVE LOADING; U.S. patent No. 7,032,456: ISOSTATIC PIEZORESISTIVE PRESSURE TRANSDUCER WITH TEMPERATURE OUTPUT; U.S. Patent No. 7,027,211: FIBER OPTIC SWITCH EMPLOYING OPTICAL AMPLIFIERS; U.S Patent No. 7,020,046: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TARGET MOTION ANALYSIS WITH INTELLIGENT PARAMETER EVALUATION PLOT; U.S. Patent No. 7,016,563: FIBER OPTIC SWITCH; U. S. Patent No. 7,013,808: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING A BOUNDING REGION; U.S. Patent No. 7,010,981: INVERSE METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE WAVE PROPAGATION PARAMETERS OF TWO DISSIMILAR WAVE TYPES; U.S Patent No. 6,984,899: WIND DAM ELECTRIC GENERATOR & METHOD; U.S. Patent No. 6,983,222: MULTI-STAGE PLANAR STOCHASTIC MENSURATION; U.S. Patent No. 6,980,926: DETECTION OF RANDOMNESS IN SPARSE DATA SET OF THREE DIMENSIONAL TIME SERIES DISTRIBUTIONS; U.S Patent No. 6,967,899: METHOD FOR CLASSIFYING A RANDOM PROCESS FOR DATA SETS IN ARBITRARY DIMENSIONS; U.S. Patent No. 6,963,690: TERMINATION CLAMP ASSEMBLY FOR A HYBRID ELECTRICAL/FIBER OPTIC CABLE; U.S. Patent No. 6,940,986: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR REMOTELY AND AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLING THE VOLUME OF AUDIO SIGNALS PRODUCED BY A REMOTELY CONTROLLED AUDIO DEVICE; U.S. Patent No. 6,921,990: ELECTRONIC STATUS MONITORING SYSTEM FOR SECURITY CONTAINERS; U.S. Patent No. 6,674,406: MICROSTRIP PATCH ANTENNA WITH PROGRESSIVE SLOT LOADING; U.S. Patent No. 6,611,824: SYSTEM FOR BEARING-ONLY CONTACT STATE ESTIMATION USING RECURRENT NEURAL NETWORKS; U.S. Patent No. 6,564,169: METHOD FOR WIRE GUIDANCE TONE CERTIFICATION; U.S. Patent No. 6,469,666: DIGITAL ANTENNA GONIOMETER AND METHOD; U.S. Patent No. 6,385,130: DUAL CHANNEL SWITCH WITH FREQUENCY BAND LIMITING; U.S. Patent No. 6,374,197: FUZZY LOGIC BASED MODEL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTACT TRACKING; U.S. Patent No. 6,356,600: NON-PARAMETRIC ADAPTIVE POWER LAW DETECTOR; U.S. Patent No. 6,137,909: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FEATURE SET REDUCTION; U.S. Patent No. 5,787,408: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING NODE FUNCTIONALITY IN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS; U.S Patent No. 5,751,260: SENSORY INTEGRATED DATA INTERFACE; U.S. Patent No. 5,727,561: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR NON-INVASIVE DETECTION AND ANALYSIS OF TURBULENT FLOW IN A PATIENT'S BLOOD VESSELS; and, U.S. Patent No. 5,617,869: DEVICE AND METHOD FOR LOCATING FLOW BLOCKAGE IN A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT and all patents or patent applications:
(i)To which any of the above mentioned patents directly claims priority,
(ii)for which any of the above mentioned patents directly forms a basis for priority,
(iii)that were co-owned applications that directly incorporate by reference, or are incorporated by reference into, any of the above mentioned patents;
(iv)reissues, reexaminations, extensions, continuations, continuing prosecution applications, requests for continuing examinations, divisions, and registrations of any of the above mentioned patents; and
(v)foreign patents, patent applications and counterparts relating to any of the above mentioned Patents, including, without limitation, certificates of invention, utility models, industrial design protection, design patent protection, and other governmental grants or issuances. DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has fifteen
(15)days from the date of this notice to file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any. ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, 1176 Howell St., Bldg 990, Code 07TP, Newport, RI 02841. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Theresa A. Baus, Head, Technology Partnership Enterprise Office, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, 1176 Howell St., Bldg 990, Code 07TP, Newport, RI 02841, telephone: 401-832-8728, or e-mail: bausta@npt.nuwc.navy.mil. Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404. Dated: May 14, 2008. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11241 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Partially Closed Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry, as the Board shall deem necessary into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. The meeting will include discussions of personnel issues at the Naval Academy, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The executive session of this meeting will be closed to the public. DATES: The open session of the meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 08, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. The closed Executive Session will be held from 10:45 a.m. to 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Alumni Hall at the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Andrew B. Koy, USN, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, telephone: 410-293-1503. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The executive session of the meeting will consist of discussions of personnel issues at the Naval Academy and internal Board of Visitors matters. The proposed closed session from 1045-1200 will include a discussion of new and pending courts-martial and state criminal proceedings involving the Midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include an update on the pending/ongoing sexual assault cases, rape cases, etc. The proposed closed session from 10:45 a.m. to 12 p.m. will include a discussion of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and nonjudicial punishments involving the Midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade. Discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because it will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(5), (6), and
(7)of title 5, United States Code. Dated: May 14, 2008. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11223 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Nominations for Membership on Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel (ORRAP) is soliciting nominations for new members. DATES: Nominations should be submitted no later than June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Nominations should be submitted via e-mail to Mr. John H. Beadling, at *john.beadling.ctr@navy.mil.* Contact Information: Office of Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street, Suite 1425, ATTN: ONR Code 322B Room 1075, Arlington, VA 22203-1995, telephone: 703-696-4395. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles L. Vincent, Office of Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street, Suite 1425, Arlington, VA 22203-1995, telephone 703-696-4118. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ORRAP, previously named the Ocean Research Advisory Panel, is a statutorily mandated federal advisory committee that provides senior scientific advice to the National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC), the governing body of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). ORRAP advises the NORLC on policies, procedures, selection of projects and allocation of funds, as well as other responsibilities that NORLC considers appropriate. Panel Member Duties and Responsibilities: Members of the panel represent the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, ocean industries, state governments, academia, and others including individuals who are eminent in the fields of marine science, marine policy, or related fields. Members are appointed for not more than four years, and are not normally compensated except for travel expenses and per diem while away from their homes in performance of services for the panel. The panel meets for at least one two-day public meeting per year, but possibly meets three times per year, on dates agreed to by the panel members; attendance at meetings is expected. Intercessional activities may be carried out electronically, and the panel may establish sub-panels composed of less than full membership to carry out panel duties. *Nominations:* Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals for membership on the panel. Nominated individuals should have extended expertise and experience in the field of ocean science. Nominations should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and a brief paragraph describing their qualifications in the context of the ORRAP Charter ( *http://www.nopp.org/Dev2Go.web?id=207773* ). A resume or curriculum vitae should be included. *Process a Deadline for Submitting Nominations:* Submit nominations via e-mail to *john.beadling.ctr@navy.mil* no later than June 30, 2008. Nominations will be acknowledged and nominators will be informed of the new panel members which are ultimately selected and approved. From the nominees identified by respondents to this **Federal Register** Notice, the ORRAP Nominations Committee will down-select to a short-list of available candidates (150% of the available open positions for consideration). These selected candidates will be required to fill out the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Report” OGE form 450. This confidential form will allow Government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between the person's public responsibilities and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by federal regulation. The form and additional guidance may be viewed from the following URL address: *http://www.usoge.gov/pages/forms_pubs_otherdocs/fpo_files/forms/oge450_2006/oge450_automated_06.pdf* . In accordance with section 7903 of title 10, United States Code, the short-list of candidates will then be submitted for approval by the Secretary of the Navy with concurrence by the Secretary of Defense. In order to have the collective breadth of experience in the panel and maintain full panel membership, six new candidates are expected to be selected with terms to begin in December 2008. The selection of new panel members will be based on the nominees' qualifications to provide senior scientific advice to the NORLC; the availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the panel meetings; absence of any conflict of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, and lack of bias; the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications; and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives and expertise on the panel. Dated: May 13, 2008. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11243 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Vocational and Adult Education; Overview Information; Promoting Rigorous Career and Technical Education Programs of Study Through Statewide or Multi-State Articulation Agreements Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards Using Fiscal Year
(FY)2007 Funds. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.051C. *DATES: * *Applications Available:* May 20, 2008. *Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:* May 30, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* July 7, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* September 2, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of the Program:* Section 114(c)(1) of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Act), 20 U.S.C. 2324(c)(1), authorizes the Secretary to carry out research, development, dissemination, evaluation and assessment, capacity building, and technical assistance with regard to the career and technical education
(CTE)programs under the Act. Under that authority, the Secretary plans to support State efforts to offer rigorous CTE programs of study and to institutionalize those rigorous CTE programs of study using articulation agreements. Background Information The current Act continues the commitment to high-quality CTE embodied in the previous Perkins Act. The Act also continues the previous law's focus on developing challenging academic and technical standards and assisting students in meeting such standards, including through preparation for high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations in current or emerging professions and in nontraditional fields. Through this competition, the Department continues its efforts to promote rigorous secondary and postsecondary CTE programs of study and to implement the reauthorized statute. The competition is intended to
(1)build on the efforts of States and localities to develop challenging academic and technical standards and to assist students in meeting such standards, including through preparation for high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations in current or emerging professions, and
(2)promote the development of services and activities that integrate rigorous and challenging academic and career and technical instruction, and that link secondary education and postsecondary education for participating CTE students. Through this competition, we also intend to build States' capacities to offer rigorous CTE programs of study that are implemented through statewide or multi-State articulation agreements that will continue after Federal funding under this competition ends. Definitions The definitions in section 3 of the Act apply to this competition. (20 U.S.C. 2302) Requirements and Priority *Required Cooperative Agreement:* The Secretary will make awards to each grantee under the terms of a cooperative agreement. The Secretary expects to have substantial involvement with grantees during the performance period of funded projects. Substantial involvement on the part of the Department includes—
(a)Reviewing and approving project activities;
(b)Halting an activity immediately if detailed performance specifications or requirements are not met;
(c)Reviewing and approving one stage of work before the grantee can begin a subsequent stage during the project period;
(d)Collaborating or participating jointly in the assisted activities; and
(e)Reviewing and approving plans for developing a CTE program of study and statewide or multi-State articulation agreement. *Required Project Activities:* Through this competition, the Secretary will award cooperative agreements to applicants that propose projects that will build a State's capacity, or the capacity of two or more States in the case of consortia, to promote rigorous CTE programs of study. A project must propose to incorporate all of the following elements.
(a)*Use of Partnership* .
(1)Use a partnership to develop a new program of study, or adopt or adapt an existing program of study, that aligns secondary and postsecondary education courses that are needed to prepare students for further education and employment.
(2)Use a partnership to develop a statewide or multi-State articulation agreement that the grantee will use to implement the program of study. The statewide or multi-State articulation agreement developed under this competition must be designed to continue after Federal funding under this competition ends.
(b)*CTE programs of study* .
(1)Develop a new CTE program of study, or adopt or adapt an existing CTE program of study, that—
(i)Incorporates secondary and postsecondary education elements;
(ii)Includes coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant career and technical content in a coordinated, non-duplicative progression of courses that aligns secondary education with postsecondary education to adequately prepare students to succeed in postsecondary education; and
(iii)Leads to an industry-recognized credential or certificate at the postsecondary level or an associate or baccalaureate degree.
(2)In addition, each grantee's program of study must—
(i)At the secondary education level, align coherent and rigorous academic curriculum with challenging academic content standards and student academic achievement standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science that the State (or States) in a consortium in which the program of study will be implemented has (or have) established under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 6301 *et seq.* ) (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB)(20 U.S.C. 6301 *et seq.* );
(ii)Enable secondary education students to meet State high school graduation requirements;
(iii)Offer the opportunity for CTE secondary education students to participate in dual or concurrent enrollment programs with postsecondary institutions or otherwise acquire postsecondary education credits;
(iv)Include either—
(A)One of the 16 career clusters recognized by the Department (on the Internet at: *http://www.careerclusters.org/16clusters.cfm)* ;
(B)A career cluster approach previously developed by one or more States; or
(C)An approach that a State or a consortium of States wants to develop with funds awarded under this competition;
(v)Incorporate CTE content standards that have been validated by a State, regional, or national third-party entity that is qualified to assess and confirm the rigor of the program of study (e.g., the National Home Builders Association, Oklahoma General Contractor's Association, or NASDCTEc National Advisory Committees) in conjunction with employers and postsecondary institutions that are familiar with the elements of the program of study ( *e.g.* , with the CTE courses, industry-recognized standards, or technical skill proficiencies that will be embedded in the program of study);
(vi)Ensure alignment between the State secondary CTE and postsecondary CTE referred to in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section; and
(vii)Offer academic and career counseling.
(c)*Partnership Activities* .
(1)Establish a partnership that, at a minimum, includes the State agencies responsible for the administration of CTE, secondary education, and postsecondary education (both two- and four-year institutions); at least one State workforce agency; and representatives of employers and of faculty and administrators from the State's or States' secondary and postsecondary education institutions who are familiar with elements of the program of study (e.g., with the CTE courses, industry-recognized standards, or technical skill proficiencies that will be embedded in the program of study).
(i)The partnership must—
(A)Ensure the rigor and quality of the CTE program of study to be developed under the cooperative agreement, as described in paragraph
(b)of this section; and
(B)Develop a statewide or multi-State articulation agreement that will be used to implement the program of study within the State, or within the States within a consortium.
(ii)Ensure that the projects proposing to develop multi-State articulation agreements include each of the partners listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for each State participating in the project.
(2)Actively involve the partners in the project (i.e., each of the partners must have a clearly defined leadership role in planning, developing, and implementing the CTE program of study) as evidenced by clearly delineated responsibilities that are described in the application and by a letter from each State agency committing the agency to carry out the agreed upon partnership responsibilities.
(3)Include in the project representatives of partners who are able to answer questions and influence decisions, have excellent knowledge of the program of study to be developed, adapted, or adopted, and have the authority to communicate information to decision-makers.
(4)Develop a clear rationale for selecting the program of study (e.g., a program of study will provide training in a high-growth, high-demand, or high-wage occupation as reflected in the national, State, or regional labor market), including information about the number of students, schools, and institutions statewide (or within the consortium) that would implement the program of study.
(5)Identify or develop the academic and career content standards, validated by a qualified third-party as described in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section, that students would strive to meet under the program of study.
(6)For the program of study, identify the coherent and rigorous sequence of courses the State will require students to take at the secondary and postsecondary (at both two- and four-year institutions) levels.
(7)Perform a course-by-course analysis of the State's secondary and postsecondary CTE courses to identify courses that meet the requirements of the program of study and, if there are missing courses, design courses to complete the program of study.
(8)Identify or develop courses that provide opportunities for secondary education students to participate in dual or concurrent enrollment programs or otherwise acquire postsecondary education credits.
(9)Identify or develop postsecondary courses that, when successfully completed, allow students to transfer to another community college or institution of higher education without losing credit for courses already completed.
(10)Review State and local policies and issues in the following areas and determine how they enhance or inhibit the establishment of a statewide or multi-State articulation agreement for the program of study:
(i)Funding.
(ii)Faculty certification.
(iii)Assessments documenting student attainment of technical skills.
(iv)Credit transfer.
(v)Tracking student transitions.
(vi)Awarding of credit.
(vii)Statewide program of study availability.
(11)Develop and implement plans addressing issues that inhibit the establishment of a program of study and a statewide or multi-State articulation agreement.
(d)*Statewide or multi-State articulation agreement* .
(1)Prepare a written articulation agreement that is signed by the chief executive of each of the State agencies responsible for the administration of CTE, secondary, and postsecondary education (both two- and four-year institutions) agreeing to implement the program of study.
(2)The articulation agreement must—
(i)Describe the program of study, including—
(A)The specific coursework requirements at the secondary, two-year college, and four-year college levels, including pre-requisites;
(B)As appropriate, course grade requirements, end-of-course exams, certifications, or minimum grade-point average for each secondary and postsecondary level course;
(C)Options available for students to transfer credits to community colleges or four-year institutions; and
(D)The minimum qualifications for faculty teaching courses in the program of study;
(ii)Describe how the program of study meets the requirements in paragraph
(b)of this section of the notice;
(iii)Describe plans for implementing the statewide or multi-State articulation agreement;
(iv)Describe plans for periodically reviewing and updating the program of study and statewide or multi-State articulation agreement and for maintaining the involvement of the partners;
(v)Identify the curriculum standards and admission requirements for two- and four-year postsecondary institutions for the program of study;
(vi)Describe the procedures and requirements for transferring secondary and community college coursework for credit;
(vii)Describe the procedures for secondary education students to participate in dual or concurrent enrollment programs or otherwise acquire postsecondary education credits;
(viii)Explain how credit is awarded to students under the program of study;
(ix)Describe the State's or States' plans for developing statewide or multi-State articulation agreements for additional CTE programs of study after the project ends; and
(x)Describe the State's or States' plans for providing, after Federal funding ends, professional development opportunities, including faculty certification training or in-service training designed to prepare staff for implementation of the program of study developed under the project.
(e)*Documentation.*
(1)Document the process the grantee used to design, adapt, or adopt and reach agreement on the program of study, maintain the partnership, build collaborative relationships, develop the statewide or multi-State articulation agreement, and enhance students' ability to transition from secondary to postsecondary education, including how the grantee analyzed courses and reviewed and negotiated transfer and admissions requirements.
(2)Document the process the qualified third party used to assess and confirm the rigor of the content standards of the program of study, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section.
(3)Document the State and local policies and issues that enhanced or inhibited the development of the program of study and the statewide or multi-State articulation agreement.
(4)Describe the methods the partnership used to incorporate into the program of study and the articulation agreement State and local policies that facilitated the development of a program of study and facilitated the development of the articulation agreement.
(5)Describe the methods the partnership used to address the obstacles in the following areas:
(i)Funding.
(ii)Faculty certification.
(iii)Assessments documenting student attainment of technical skills.
(iv)Credit transfer.
(v)Tracking student transitions.
(vi)Awarding of credit.
(vii)Statewide program of study availability.
(6)Prepare materials for dissemination that describe the process the grantee followed when designing, adapting, or adopting and reaching agreement on the program of study and developing the statewide or multi-State articulation agreement.
(f)*Dissemination* . Disseminate—
(1)Material on the process the grantee followed when designing, adapting, or adopting and reaching agreement on the program of study; and
(2)Program-specific material developed for the program of study.
(g)*Technical assistance* . Plan to participate in technical assistance activities sponsored by the Department, including two meetings in which grantees will describe their projects' progress, make connections with other projects, and discuss common issues, strategies, best practices, and actual or potential barriers to implementation. *Priority:* We are establishing this priority for the FY 2007 funds grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). *Competitive Preference Priority:* This priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award an additional 10 points to an application that meets this priority. The priority is: *Commitment to the project:* In order to build States' capacities to offer rigorous CTE programs of study through statewide or multi-State articulation agreements that will continue after Federal funding ends under this competition, we award 10 points to an application that demonstrates commitment to the project funded under this competition and to enhancing project activities by providing 30 percent of the total cost of the proposed project using either State leadership funds awarded under the Act; or non-Federal contributions, including use of facilities, equipment, supplies, services, third-party in-kind contributions, and other resources; or a combination of both State leadership funds and non-Federal contributions. *Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:* Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed non-statutory requirements, priorities, and selection criteria. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements non-statutory requirements, priorities, and selection criteria governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program under section 114 of the Act and, therefore, qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the non-statutory requirements, priority, and selection criteria under the authority of section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. The non-statutory requirements, priority, and selection criteria set forth in this notice will apply to the FY 2007 funds competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 2324(c)(1). *Applicable Regulations:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative agreements. *Estimated Available Funds:* $750,000 is available from the FY 2007 appropriation for the first 12 months of the project period. $500,000 is available from the FY 2008 appropriation for the second 12 months and is subject to a grantee meeting the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253. Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2009 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $120,000 to $130,000. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $125,000. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 6. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 24 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* The following entities are eligible to apply under this competition:
(a)A State board designated or created consistent with State law as the sole State agency responsible for the administration of CTE in the State or for the supervision of the administration of CTE in the State.
(b)A consortium of State boards identified in paragraph
(a)of this section. Eligible applicants proposing to develop a multi-State articulation agreement must apply for funds as a consortium and must comply with the regulations in 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129, which address group applications. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This program does not require cost sharing or matching. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Scott Hess, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 11073, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7241. *Telephone:*
(202)245-7772 or by *e-mail: scott.hess@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. *Notice of Intent to Apply:* The Department will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if it has a better understanding of the number of entities that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify the Department by sending a short e-mail message indicating the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding. The e-mail should include only the applicant's intent to submit an application; it does not need to include information regarding the content of the proposed application. This e-mail notification should be sent no later than May 30, 2008 to Scott Hess at: *scott.hess@ed.gov.* We will consider an application submitted by the deadline date for transmittal of applications even if the applicant did not provide notice of its intent to apply. *Page Limit:* The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 25 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is 12 point. The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). We will reject your application if you apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* May 20, 2008. *Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:* May 30, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* July 7, 2008. Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* September 2, 2008. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications:* To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. Promoting Rigorous Career and Technical Education Programs of Study Through Statewide or Multi-State Articulation Agreements, CFDA Number 84.051C, is included in this project. We request your participation in Grants.gov. If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov.* Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. You may access the electronic grant application for the Promoting Rigorous Career and Technical Programs of Study Through Statewide Articulation Agreements competition at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.051, not 84.051C). Please note the following: • Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary. • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • 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 do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include
(1)registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition, you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format. • If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail:* If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.051C), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260 or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.051C), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark.
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery:* If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.051C), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The Secretary uses the following selection criteria to evaluate an application for this competition. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses. The maximum score for all of these selection criteria is 150 points.
(a)*Project design (50 points).* In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Assistant Secretary considers the extent to which the project design is an effective strategy for building a State's capacity, or the capacity of the States in the case of consortia, to promote a rigorous CTE program of study and developing a statewide or multi-State articulation agreement that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance under this competition, including by—
(1)Carrying out the project using a partnership among State agencies responsible for the administration of CTE, secondary education, and postsecondary education (both two- and four-year institutions); at least one State workforce agency; representatives of employers and of faculty and administrators from the State's or States' secondary and postsecondary education institutions who are familiar with elements of the program of study (e.g., with CTE courses, industry-recognized standards, or technical skill proficiencies that will be embedded in the program of study);
(2)Making effective use of the partnership described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and its individual members to reach agreement on the content standards for a State program of study that will improve the rigor and quality of CTE programs within the State or States within a consortium and to develop an articulation agreement for implementing the CTE program of study;
(3)For projects proposing to develop a multi-State articulation agreement, including the partners listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section of the notice for each State participating in the project;
(4)Actively involving partners in the project (i.e., each partner will have a clearly defined leadership role in planning, developing, and implementing the program of study) as evidenced by clearly delineated responsibilities that are described in the application and by a letter from the State agency committing the agency to carry out the agreed upon responsibilities; and
(5)Involving partners whose representatives are able to answer questions and influence decisions, have excellent knowledge of the program of study to be developed, and have the authority to communicate information to decision-makers.
(b)*Technical approach (45 points).* In determining the quality of the technical approach of the proposed project, the Assistant Secretary considers the following factors:
(1)The extent to which the application comprehensively addresses each required project activity, clearly defining the actions to be undertaken to accomplish each activity.
(2)The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a thorough understanding of effective practices in the development of articulation agreements and of CTE programs of study.
(3)The extent to which the applicant describes in a clear and sequential manner effective strategies for accomplishing the required project activities.
(c)*Project management (30 points).* In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Assistant Secretary considers the following factors:
(1)The extent to which the Project Director has clearly identified and documented professional qualifications, competencies, and experience necessary to carry out project tasks. (10 points)
(2)The extent to which—
(i)The applicant includes a description, in a clear and sequential manner, of the plan for managing the project; and
(ii)The plan provides credible evidence that the management of personnel, physical resources, and activities will result in orderly and timely completion of work within the project performance period. (15 points)
(3)The extent to which the time commitments of the Project Director, key personnel, and partners are appropriate to the tasks assigned. (5 points)
(d)*Dissemination (15 points).* In determining the quality of the dissemination activities of the proposed project, the Assistant Secretary considers the following factors:
(1)The extent to which the proposed project will result in replicable strategies that are practical and can be packaged for dissemination nationally.
(2)The extent to which the proposed project will develop material that can be packaged for dissemination, particularly the extent to which such material will include a description of the procedure the grantee used to develop the statewide or multi-State articulation agreement and to develop, adapt, or adopt a program of study, including any specific material or curriculum developed for the program of study.
(e)*Adequacy of resources (10 points).* In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Assistant Secretary considers the following factors:
(1)The adequacy of resources for the proposed project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources needed to carry out successfully the purpose and activities of the proposed project.
(2)The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project.
(3)The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the technical approach and significance of the proposed project. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notice (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates the approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting.*
(a)At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.*
(b)In addition, grantees under this competition must submit—
(1)An interim report six months after the grant is awarded; and
(2)An annual report on the GPRA measures identified in the *Performance Measures* section of this notice. 4. *Performance Measures:* Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Federal departments and agencies must clearly describe the goals and objectives of programs, identify resources and actions needed to accomplish goals and objectives, develop a means of measuring progress made, and regularly report on achievement. In determining the overall effectiveness of projects funded under this competition, grantees must be prepared to measure and report on the following measures of effectiveness: a. The percentage of the State's CTE secondary students in the career cluster for the program of study developed by the grantee who can participate in dual or concurrent enrollment programs with postsecondary institutions, or otherwise acquire postsecondary education credits, as determined by the number of CTE concentrators in the career cluster in those secondary schools that commit to implementing the articulation agreement developed by the grantee divided by the total number of CTE concentrators in the State in the career cluster for the program of study. b. The percentage of the State's CTE postsecondary students in the career cluster for the program of study developed by the grantee who can transfer to another community college or four-year college without losing credit for courses already completed, as determined by the number of CTE concentrators in the career cluster in those postsecondary institutions that commit to implementing the articulation agreement developed by the grantee divided by the total number of CTE concentrators in the State's postsecondary institutions in the career cluster for the program of study. c. The percentage of the State's secondary schools offering the career cluster for the grantee's program of study that commit to implementing the articulation agreement developed by the grantee. d. The percentage of the State's postsecondary institutions offering the career cluster for the grantee's program of study that commit to implementing the articulation agreement developed by the grantee. VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Hess, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 11073, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7241. Telephone:
(202)245-7772, or by e-mail: *scott.hess@ed.gov.* If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: May 15, 2008 Troy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education. [FR Doc. E8-11271 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [CFDA No.: 84.133A] Disability and Rehabilitation Research Program AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of intent to fund down the grant slate for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
(DRRP)program for Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS). SUMMARY: The Secretary intends to use the grant slate developed for the TBIMS grant competition in fiscal year
(FY)2007 to make new grant awards for TBIMS centers in FY 2008. The Secretary takes this action because Congress requested that the Secretary fund two additional TBIMS centers in FY 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6030, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone:
(202)245-7462 or via Internet: *donna.nangle@ed.gov* . If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) upon request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 14, 2007, we published a notice in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 7288) inviting applications for new awards under the TBIMS program for FY 2007. We received 23 applications for grants in response to that notice and funded 14 new grants. The explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Education Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 110-161) specifies that the Secretary reserve $8.3 million to carry out the TBIMS program and, more specifically, that in FY 2008 the Secretary fund two additional applicants from the list of unfunded applications for the last TBIMS grant competition. Consistent with the Congressional intent expressed in the explanatory statement, the Secretary intends to fund two additional TBIMS centers in FY 2008 by funding down the grant slate developed for the TBIMS program in FY 2007, which includes several high-quality applications that have not yet been funded. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: May 15, 2008. William W. Knudsen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-11269 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13130-000] Dan River Hydropower LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests May 13, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Preliminary Permit. b. *Project No.:* P-13130-000. c. *Date Filed:* February 25, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Dan River Hydropower, LLC. e. *Name of the Project:* Danville Hydropower Project. f. *Location:* The project would be located on the Dan River in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The Union Street Dam is owned and maintained by Dan Rivers Properties. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kevin Edwards, P.O. Box 143, Mayodan, NC 27027,
(336)589-6138. i. *FERC Contact:* Patricia W. Gillis,
(202)502-8735. j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene:* 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and. the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-13130-000) on any comments or motions filed. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed project would utilize the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Coralville Lake Dam and would consist of:
(1)Two 70-foot-long, 180-inch diameter proposed penstocks;
(2)a proposed powerhouse containing two generating units with a total installed capacity of 5.7-megawatts;
(3)a proposed transmission line; and
(4)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of 50-gigawatts and would be sold to a local utility. l. *Location of Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Competing Preliminary Permit* —Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. o. *Competing Development Application* —Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36. p. *Notice of Intent* —A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice. q. *Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit* —A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project. r. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. s. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, and “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. t. *Agency Comments* —Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11198 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP08-389-000] Coastal Bend Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Application May 13, 2008. Take notice that on May 7, 2008, Coastal Bend Gas Storage, LLC (CBGS), 400, 607—8th Avenue, SW., Calgary, AB, T2P 0A7, Canada, filed in Docket No. CP08-389-000, a petition for Exemption of Temporary Acts and Operations from Certificate Requirements, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and section 7(c)(1)(B) of the Natural Gas Act, seeking approval of an exemption from certificate requirements to perform temporary activities designed to determine the feasibility of developing an underground natural gas storage facility in San Patricio and Refugio Counties, Texas, as more fully set forth in the petition which is open to the public for inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
(202)502-8659 or TTY,
(202)208-3676. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to counsel for CBGS, Douglas F. John, John & Hengerer, 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, or via telephone at
(202)429-8800, facsimile number
(202)429-8805, or e-mail *djohn@jhenergy.com* . Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment
(EA)and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* May 28, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11201 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 May 14, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP08-372-000. *Applicants:* Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C. *Description:* Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC modifies its FERC Gas Tariff to permit Ozark and a firm transportation service customer to negotiate the fuel retention percentage that will be applicable to customers. *Filed Date:* 05/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080513-0195. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 . *Docket Numbers:* RP08-373-000. *Applicants:* Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd. *Description:* Wyoming Interstate Co, Ltd submits Second Revised Sheet 6 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 2, to become effective 6/10/08. *Filed Date:* 05/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080513-0194. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-374-000. *Applicants:* Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. *Description:* Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline LLC submits First Revised Sheet 268 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to become effective 6/11/08. *Filed Date:* 05/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080513-0100. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-375-000. *Applicants:* Energy West Development, Inc. *Description:* Energy West Development, Inc submits First Revised Sheet 1 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Volume 1, to become effective 6/12/08. *Filed Date:* 05/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080513-0196. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 27, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11252 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-256-000] Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Filing May 13, 2008. Take notice that on April 30, 2008, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed an application, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)and Part 157 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Algonquin to construct, own, operate and maintain an approximately 2.3 miles of 14-inch diameter pipeline loop from the head of the existing J-2 Lateral in Medford, Massachusetts (J-2 Loop). The application is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Pursuant to the settlement agreement between Algonquin and NSTAR Gas Company (NSTAR), in Docket No. RP07-395, Algonquin requests authorization to construct the J-2 Loop. The J-2 Loop will allow Algonquin to inspect and, if necessary, repair the existing J-2 Lateral while at the same time continuing to deliver gas to NSTAR. Also, the J-2 Loop will provide NSTAR additional capacity to meet increased demand and to ensure reliability of service. The J-2 Loop will have a total design capacity of 140,000 Dth/d, and a maximum allowable operating pressure of 433 psi. Algonquin proposes to implement initial Section 7(c) rates and related tariff provisions for services on the J-2 Loop pursuant to Rate Schedule AFT-CL and AIT-2. The entire capacity created by the J-2 Loop project has been subscribed by NSTAR under the J-2 Facility Firm Service Agreement, which specifies a long-term firm commitment for 20 years from the in-service date of the project. Algonquin proposes a service date of September 1, 2009. Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to Garth Johnson, General Manager, Certificates and Reporting, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 5400 Westheimer Court, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, TX 77251-1642; phone number
(713)627-5415 or by e-mail at *gjohnson@spectraenergy.com* . Any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see, 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* June 3, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11199 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12615-001] Alaska Power & Telephone Company; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Alternative Licensing Procedures May 13, 2008. a. *Type of Filing:* Notice of Intent to File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Alternative Licensing Procedures. b. *Project No.:* 12615-001. c. *Dated Filed:* March 10, 2008. d. *Submitted by:* Alaska Power & Telephone Company. e. *Name of Project:* Soule River Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Soule River, a tributary to the Portland Canal, approximately 9 miles south of Hyder, Alaska. The project would occupy 1,112 acres of United States lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations. h. *Applicant Contact:* Glen D. Martin, Project Manager, Alaska Power & Telephone Company, 193 Otto Street, P.O. Box 3222, Port Townsend, WA 98368;
(360)385-1733 extension 122; e-mail at *glen.m@aptalaska.com.* i. *FERC Contact:* Matt Cutlip at
(503)552-2762; or e-mail at *matt.cutlip@ferc.gov.* j. Alaska Power & Telephone Company filed its request to use the Alternative Licensing Procedures on March 10, 2008. Alaska Power & Telephone Company provided public notice of its request on March 7, 2008. In a letter dated May 5, 2008, the Director, Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Alaska Power & Telephone Company's request to use the Alternative Licensing Procedures. k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a)The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402;
(b)NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR section 600.920; and
(c)the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2. l. With this notice, we are designating Alaska Power & Telephone Company as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. m. Alaska Power & Telephone Company filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations. n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCONlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h. o. Register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11202 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-355-000] East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization May 13, 2008. Take notice that on May 1, 2008, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed in Docket No. CP08-355-000, an application pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA)as amended, to remove and replace pipe, modify certain underground piping, and install a new inspection and cleaning pipeline pig launcher and appurtenant facilities on Line No. 3300-1 as part of the Greenway/Nora Expansion Project in Washington County, Virginia, under East Tennessee's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-412-000, 1 all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to the public for inspection. 1 20 FERC ¶62,413(1982). East Tennessee proposes to
(1)Remove and replace (relay) approximately 5.65 miles of 8-inch diameter pipe with 24-inch diameter pipe between Mileposts 9.30 and 14.95 on its Line No. 3300-1 between the Bristol and Glade Springs compressor stations in Washington County;
(2)modify underground interconnecting piping at two existing meter stations located within the proposed relay section; and
(3)install a new inspection and cleaning pipeline pig launcher and appurtenant facilities at the beginning of the proposed relay, all at an estimated cost of $18,900,000. East Tennessee states that it would finance this project with funds on hand. East Tennessee also states that the proposed Greenway/Nora Expansion Project facilities would allow East Tennessee to provide firm transportation service for 50,000 dekatherms
(Dth)equivalent per day of natural gas into the growing North Carolina market and other upstream system locations by December 1, 2008. Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Garth Johnson, General Manager, Certificates & Reporting, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, or via telephone at
(713)627-5415, or facsimile number
(713)627-5947. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call toll-free at
(866)206-3676, or, for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages intervenors to file electronically. Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11200 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0353; FRL-8568-1] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Motor Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Economy Compliance: Light Duty Vehicles, Light Duty Trucks, and Highway Motorcycles; EPA ICR No. 0783.54, OMB Control No. 2060-0104 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0353, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-566-9744. • *Mail:* Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mailcode 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* Docket Center, (EPA/DC), EPA, West Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0353. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Sohacki, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4851; fax number: 734-214-4869; e-mail address: *sochacki.lynn@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0353, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov,* or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is 202-566-1742. Use *www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii)Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider when I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES . 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Apply to? Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0353 *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are manufacturers and independent commercial importers into the United States of light duty vehicles, light duty trucks and highway motorcycles. *Title:* Motor Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Economy Compliance: Light Duty Vehicles, Light Duty Trucks, and Highway Motorcycles. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 0783.54, OMB Control No. 2060-0104. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on November 30, 2008. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* Under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 *et seq.* ) manufacturers and importers of light duty vehicles (passenger cars), light trucks, and motorcycles must have a certificate of conformity issued by EPA covering any vehicle they intend to offer for sale. In addition, light duty vehicles and light truck manufacturers and importers must also submit fuel economy information and reports required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (49 U.S.C. 32901 *et seq.* ). EPA reviews vehicle information and manufacturer test data to determine if the vehicle design conforms to applicable requirements and to verify that the required testing has been performed. After a certificate of conformity has been issued, subsequent audit and enforcement actions may be taken based on the initial information submitted as well as on information submitted while the vehicles are in service. Until a vehicle is available for purchase, information is confidential. Some proprietary information is permanently confidential. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 346.24 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 173. *Frequency of response:* Yearly and occasionally. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* 10.82. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 647,100. *Estimated total annual costs:* $58,343,913. This includes an estimated labor burden cost of $39,876,745 and an estimated cost of $18,467,168 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Dated: May 14, 2008. Karl J. Simon, Director, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-11296 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8567-7] EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of a final report titled, “EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment” (EPA/600/R-07/045F), which was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment
(NCEA)within EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD)with significant input from partners across EPA and other federal agencies. EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment (2008 EPA ROE) compiles the most reliable indicators available to help understand important trends in the environment and human health. The indicators are supported by data that are as current as possible (data included in the 2008 EPA ROE are as recent as October 2007). Additionally, the report identifies key limitations of these indicators and gaps where reliable indicators do not yet exist. These gaps and limitations highlight the disparity between the current state of knowledge and the goal of full, reliable, and insightful representation of environmental conditions and trends, and provide direction for future research and monitoring efforts. DATES: This document will be available on or about May 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: The document will be available electronically through the NCEA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea.* The main distribution method for this report will be via the Internet. A limited number of paper copies and compact disks, however, will be available from the EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242; telephone: 1-800-490-9198; facsimile: 301-604-3408; e-mail: *nscep@bps-lmit.com.* Please provide your name, your mailing address, and the title and EPA number of the requested publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Information Management Team, National Center for Environmental Assessment (8601P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 703-347-8561; fax: 703-347-8691; e-mail: *nceadc.comment@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To accomplish its mission to protect human health and the environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)must pay close attention to trends in the condition of the nation's air, water, and land, as well as related trends in human health and ecological systems. To meet this need, EPA embarked on a bold initiative in 2001 to assemble, for the first time, the most reliable available indicators of national environmental and health conditions and trends that are important to EPA's mission. EPA initially presented these indicators in its *Draft Report on the Environment
(ROE)Technical Document (TD), and its publicly oriented companion document, the Draft Report on the Environment (ROE),* both released in 2003. For the 2008 EPA ROE, both the proposed indicators included in the report and the complete draft document were subjected to rigorous, independent, and external peer review, as well as public comment. Complete documentation of the peer review process and responses are available at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea.roe.* Thus, EPA has revised, updated, and refined the 2003 draft ROE in response to scientific developments, as well as feedback from EPA's Science Advisory Board and stakeholders. As a result, the 2008 EPA ROE provides both an update and an improvement over the 2003 draft edition. EPA is also producing a *Highlights of Conditions and Trends* document, which summarizes the findings of the 2008 EPA ROE in an easier-to-understand format. The Highlights Document is expected to be publicly available later in the year. EPA is committed to releasing periodic updates of the ROE so that information on environmental conditions and trends can be provided to interested members of the public. Dated: May 13, 2008. George Gray, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development. [FR Doc. E8-11132 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 4, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City** (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001: *1. Scott K. Martinsen, Overland Park, Kansas, and Dean A. Lanier* , Leavenworth, Kansas, as co-trustees for the CCB Financial Corporation Voting Trust and the Thompson Family Trusts and as members of the Thompson Family Group, to acquire control of CCB Financial Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire control of Country Club Bank, National Association, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, and MidAmerican Bank and Trust Company, National Association, Leavenworth, Kansas. *2. Scott K. Martinsen, Overland Park, Kansas, and Dean A. Lanier* , Leavenworth, Kansas, as co-trustees for the Thompson Family Trusts and as members of the Thompson Family Group, to acquire control of MidAmerican Bancshares, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire control of Allen Bank and Trust Company, Harrisonville, Missouri. *3. Platte County Bancshares Voting Trust and by Scott K. Martinsen* , Overland Park, Kansas, and Dean A. Lanier, Leavenworth, Kansas, as co-trustees for the Platte County Bancshares Voting Trust and as members of the Thompson family group, to acquire control of Platte County Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire control of Platte Valley Bank of Missouri, both in Platte City, Missouri. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 15, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-11234 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 13, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis** (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291: *1. Charter Bankshares, Inc.* , Eau Claire, Wisconsin, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Peregrine Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Community Bank Corporation, both of Chaska, Minnesota. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 15, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-11235 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Consumer Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting of the Consumer Advisory Council The Consumer Advisory Council will meet on Thursday, June 19, 2008. The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will take place at the Federal Reserve Board's offices in Washington, DC, in Dining Room E on the Terrace Level of the Martin Building. Anyone planning to attend the meeting should, for security purposes, register no later than Tuesday, June 17, by completing the form found online at: *https://www.federalreserve.gov/secure/forms/cacregistration.cfm.* Additionally, attendees must present photo identification to enter the building. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and is expected to conclude at 1 p.m. The Martin Building is located on C Street, NW., between 20th and 21st Streets. The Council's function is to advise the Board on the exercise of the Board's responsibilities under various consumer financial services laws and on other matters on which the Board seeks its advice. Time permitting, the Council will discuss the following topics: • Proposed rules regarding credit cards and overdraft services. Members will discuss the Board's proposal under the Federal Trade Commission Act to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices by banks in connection with credit card accounts and overdraft services for deposit accounts. The proposed changes to the Board's Regulation AA (Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices) would be complemented by separate proposals under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the Truth in Savings Act (Regulation DD). • Proposed rules on risk-based pricing notices. Members will discuss proposed regulations that generally would require a creditor to provide a consumer with a risk-based pricing notice when, based in whole or in part on the consumer's credit report, the creditor offers or provides credit to the consumer on terms less favorable than those it offers or provides to other consumers. The proposal would implement section 311 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Reports by committees and other matters initiated by Council members also may be discussed. Persons wishing to submit views to the Council on any of the above topics may do so by sending written statements to Jennifer Kerslake, Secretary of the Consumer Advisory Council, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Information about this meeting may be obtained from Ms. Kerslake, 202-452-6470. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 14, 2008. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-11161 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Toxicology Program (NTP); NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM); Peer Review Panel Report on the Validation Status of New Versions and Applications of the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA): A Test Method for Assessing the Allergic Contact Dermatitis Potential of Chemicals and Products: Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comments AGENCY: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: NICEATM, in collaboration with the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), convened an independent international scientific peer review panel on March 4-6, 2008 to evaluate new versions and applications of the LLNA for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals and products. The peer review panel (“the Panel”) report from this meeting is now available. The report contains
(1)the Panel's evaluation of the validation status of the methods and
(2)the Panel's comments and conclusions on draft ICCVAM test method recommendations. NICEATM invites public comment on the Panel's report. The report is available on the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site at *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/immunotox/llna_PeerPanel.htm* or by contacting NICEATM at the address given below. DATES: Written comments on the Panel report should be received by July 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted preferably electronically via the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site at *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/contact/FR_pubcomment.htm* . Comments can also be submitted by e-mail to *niceatm@niehs.nih.gov* . Written comments can be sent by mail or fax to Dr. William S. Stokes, Director, NICEATM, NIH/NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-17, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (phone) 919-541-2384,
(fax)919-541-0947. Courier address: NICEATM, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Building 4401, Room 3128, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. William S. Stokes, Director, NICEATM (919-541-2384 or *niceatm@niehs.nih.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In January 2007, the Consumer Product Safety Commission submitted a nomination to NICEATM and ICCVAM to assess the validation status of
(1)The use of the LLNA to determine potency for hazard classification purposes;
(2)LLNA protocols using non-radioactive procedures;
(3)the LLNA limit dose procedure; and
(4)the use of the LLNA to test mixtures, aqueous solutions, and metals ( *i.e.* , an updated assessment of the applicability domain of the LLNA). In June 2007, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM) endorsed these activities as high priorities for ICCVAM. NICEATM, on behalf of ICCVAM, also sought input from the public on these activities and requested data from studies using the LLNA or modified versions of the LLNA ( **Federal Register** Vol. 72, No. 95, pages 27815-27817, May 17, 2007). After considering all comments received, ICCVAM endorsed carrying out these activities as high priorities. ICCVAM also developed draft LLNA performance standards to facilitate evaluation of modified LLNA protocols that are functionally and mechanistically similar to the traditional LLNA. These draft LLNA performance standards were made public and comments were requested via the **Federal Register** (Vol. 72, No. 176, pages 52130-52131, Sept. 12, 2007). ICCVAM and NICEATM prepared draft background review documents
(BRDs)that provided comprehensive reviews of available data and relevant information for each of the modifications and new applications of the LLNA. ICCVAM also developed draft test method recommendations regarding the proposed usefulness and limitations, standardized protocols, and future studies. Both the draft BRDs and draft recommendations were made available for public comment, and a public peer review meeting was announced in the **Federal Register** (Vol. 73, No. 5, pages 1360-1362, Jan. 8, 2008). The Panel met in public session on March 4-6, 2008. The Panel reviewed the draft ICCVAM BRDs for completeness, errors, and omissions of any existing relevant data or information. The Panel evaluated the information in the BRDs to determine the extent to which each of the applicable criteria for validation and acceptance of toxicological test methods (ICCVAM, 2003) had been appropriately addressed. The Panel then considered the ICCVAM draft test method recommendations ( *i.e.* , proposed test method uses, proposed recommended standardized protocol, proposed test method performance standards, and proposed additional studies) and commented on whether the recommendations were supported by the information provided in the draft BRDs. The Panel's conclusions and recommendations are detailed in the *Peer Review Panel Final Report: Validation Status of New Versions and Applications of the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA): A Test Method for Assessing the Allergic Contact Dermatitis Potential of Chemicals and Products* (available at *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/immunotox/llna_PeerPanel.htm* ). The draft BRDs, draft ICCVAM test method recommendations, and the draft LLNA Performance Standards are available at *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/immunotox/immunotox.htm* . Request for Comments NICEATM invites the submission of written comments on the Panel's report. When submitting written comments, please refer to this **Federal Register** notice and include appropriate contact information (name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, fax, e-mail, and sponsoring organization, if applicable). All comments received will be made publicly available on the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site at *http://ntp-apps.niehs.nih.gov/iccvampb/searchPubCom.cfm* . In addition, there will be an opportunity for oral public comments on the Panel's report during an upcoming meeting of SACATM scheduled for June 18-19, 2008. Information concerning the SACATM meeting will be published in a separate **Federal Register** notice and available on the SACATM Web site at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/7441* . ICCVAM will consider the Panel report along with SACATM and public comments when finalizing test method recommendations. An ICCVAM test method evaluation report, which will include the final ICCVAM recommendations, will be forwarded to relevant Federal agencies for their consideration. The evaluation report will also be available to the public on the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site and by request from NICEATM (see ADDRESSES above). Background Information on ICCVAM, NICEATM, and SACATM ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 15 Federal regulatory and research agencies that use, generate, or disseminate toxicological information. ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative methods with regulatory applicability and promotes scientific validation, regulatory acceptance, and national and international harmonization of toxicological test methods that more accurately assess safety and hazards of chemicals and products and that refine, reduce, and replace animal use. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285 *l* -3, available at *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/about_docs/PL106545.pdf* ) established ICCVAM as a permanent interagency committee of the NIEHS under NICEATM. NICEATM administers ICCVAM and provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM-related activities. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved test methods applicable to the needs of Federal agencies. Additional information about ICCVAM and NICEATM can be found at the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site ( *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov* ). Additional information about SACATM, including the charter, roster, and records of past meetings, can be found at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/167* . References ICCVAM, 2003, ICCVAM Guidelines for the Nomination and Submission of New, Revised, and Alternative Test Methods. NIH Publication No. 03-4508. Research Triangle Park, NC: NIEHS. Available at: *http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov* . Dated: May 8, 2008. Samuel H. Wilson, Acting Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program. [FR Doc. E8-11195 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0230] Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Plasmodium Species Antigen Detection Assays; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: *Plasmodium* Species Antigen Detection Assays.” This guidance document describes a means by which antigen detection assays for *Plasmodium* species may comply with the requirement of special controls for class II devices. It includes recommendations for validation of performance characteristics and recommendations for product labeling. Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is publishing a final rule to classify these device types into class II (special controls). This guidance document is immediately in effect as the special control for antigen detection assays for *Plasmodium* species, but it remains subject to comment in accordance with the agency's good guidance practices. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: *Plasmodium* Species Antigen Detection Assays” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 240-276-3151. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written comments concerning this guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Freddie Poole, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-440), Food and Drug Administration,2098 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-0712. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** , FDA is publishing a final rule classifying *Plasmodium* species antigen detection assays into class II (special controls) under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360(c)(f)(2)). This guidance document will serve as the special control for *Plasmodium* species antigen detection assays. Section 513(f)(2) of the act provides that any person who submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified may, within 30 days after receiving an order classifying the device in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the act, request FDA to classify the device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. FDA shall, within 60 days of receiving such a request, classify the device by written order. This classification shall be the initial classification of the device. Within 30 days after the issuance of an order classifying the device, FDA must publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing such classification. Because of the timeframes established by section 513(f)(2) of the act, FDA has determined, under § 10.115(g)(2) (21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)), that it is not feasible to allow for public participation before issuing this guidance as a final guidance document. Therefore, FDA is issuing this guidance document as a level 1 guidance document that is immediately in effect. FDA will consider any comments that are received in response to this notice to determine whether to amend the guidance document. II. Significance of Guidance This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (§ 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on “ *Plasmodium* species antigen detection assays.” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations. III. Electronic Access Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by using the Internet. To receive “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: *Plasmodium* Species Antigen Detection Assays” you may either send an e-mail request to *dsmica@fda.hhs.gov* to receive an electronic copy of the document or send a fax request to 240-276-3151 to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number 1646 to identify the guidance you are requesting. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, **Federal Register** reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented information. The CDRH Web site may be accessed at *http://www.fda.gov/cdrh* . A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at *http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html* . Guidance documents are also available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485. V. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or submit two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Dated: April 30, 3008. Daniel G. Schultz, Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. [FR Doc. E8-11261 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines; Notice of Meeting In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting: *Name:* Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV). *Date and Time:* June 5, 2008, 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. EDT. June 6, 2008, 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EDT. *Place:* Parklawn Building (and via audio conference call), Conference Rooms G & H, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. The ACCV will meet on Thursday, June 5 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
(EDT)and Friday, June 6 from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (EDT). The public can join the meeting via audio conference call by dialing 1-888-593-8429 on June 5 & 6 and providing the following information: *Leader's Name:* Dr. Geoffrey Evans. *Password:* ACCV. *Agenda:* The agenda items for the June meeting will include, but are not limited to: updates from the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC), Department of Justice, National Vaccine Program Office, Immunization Safety Office (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (National Institutes of Health), and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (Food and Drug Administration). Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. *Public Comments:* Persons interested in providing an oral presentation should submit a written request, along with a copy of their presentation to: Michelle Herzog, DVIC, Healthcare Systems Bureau (HSB), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Room 11C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 or e-mail: *mherzog@hrsa.gov.* Requests should contain the name, address, telephone number, and any business or professional affiliation of the person desiring to make an oral presentation. Groups having similar interests are requested to combine their comments and present them through a single representative. The allocation of time may be adjusted to accommodate the level of expressed interest. DVIC will notify each presenter by mail or telephone of their assigned presentation time. Persons who do not file an advance request for a presentation, but desire to make an oral statement, may announce it at the time of the comment period. These persons will be allocated time as it permits. *For Further Information Contact:* Anyone requiring information regarding the ACCV should contact Michelle Herzog, DVIC, HSB, HRSA, Room 11C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone
(301)443-6593 or e-mail: *mherzog@hrsa.gov.* Dated: May 14, 2008. Alexandra Huttinger, Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination. [FR Doc. E8-11237 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Toxicology Program (NTP); Office of Liaison, Policy and Review; Meeting of the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors: Amended Notice AGENCY: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health. ACTION: Availability of a Public Telephone Call-In Line. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a public telephone call-in line for the June 11-12, 2008 meeting of the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors. The meeting will be held at the Radisson Hotel Research Triangle Park, 150 Park Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 and videocast through the Internet at *http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/video/live* . Information regarding the meeting was announced in the **Federal Register** (73FR20289) published on April 15, 2008. The guidelines published in the April 15 **Federal Register** notice for submitting written public comments or making an oral presentation at the meeting still apply. In response to the public interest in the peer review of the Draft NTP Brief on Bisphenol A, the NTP will provide a telephone call-in line for public comments. The line will be open from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. on June 11, although public comments will be received only during the formal public comment period on the draft brief. The exact time for the presentation of public comments is not set, but will follow the overview presentation on the draft brief and the talk on biomonitoring of bisphenol A exposures (the preliminary agenda is available at ( *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/165* ) or by contacting Dr. Barbara Shane, see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below). ADDRESSES: Public comments on all agenda topics and any other correspondence should be submitted to Dr. Barbara Shane, Executive Secretary for the NTP BSC, NTP Office of Liaison, Policy and Review, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD A3-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone: 919-541-4253; fax: 919-541-0295; or e-mail: *shane@niehs.nih.gov* . Courier address: NIEHS, 111 T.W. Alexander Drive, Room A322, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Barbara Shane (telephone: 919-541-4253 or e-mail: *shane@niehs.nih.gov* ). Telephone Call-in Line The following information is required for telephone access: • USA Toll Free Number: 877-915-2768. • Passcode: NTP. • Leader Name: Barbara Shane. The NTP has reserved 50 telephone lines for this call and access availability will be on a first come first served basis. Telephone comments should not exceed three minutes in length and each organization is allowed only one oral slot (in person at the meeting or by telephone) per agenda topic. Calls will be taken as time permits and at the discretion of the BSC chairperson. Every effort will be made to accommodate callers, but the total time allotted for comments and the time allotted per speaker via the telephone will depend on how many people register online to speak. Registration to present oral public comments or to submit written comments can be completed online at the BSC meeting site ( *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/165* ). Details about the meeting, Internet access, and telephone call-in are also available at this site. The public telephone call-in is a new remote access option for the BSC, thus its technical quality cannot be guaranteed. Persons who register online to make oral comments by telephone are asked, if possible, to send a copy of their statement to the Executive Secretary for the NTP BSC (see ADDRESSES above) by June 4, 2008, to enable review by the NTP BSC prior to the meeting. Written statements can supplement and may expand the oral presentation. Dated: May 8, 2008. Samuel H. Wilson, Acting Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program. [FR Doc. E8-11206 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Toxicology Program (NTP); Report on Carcinogens (RoC); Availability of the Draft Background Document for Styrene; Request for Comments on the Draft Background Document for Styrene; Announcement of the Styrene Expert Panel Meeting AGENCY: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); National Institutes of Health (NIH). ACTION: Availability of Background Documents; Request for Comments; and Announcement of a Meeting. SUMMARY: The NTP announces the availability of the draft background document for styrene on May 22, 2008, on the RoC Web site ( *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/29679* ) or in printed text from the RoC (see ADDRESSES below). The NTP invites the submission of public comments on the draft background document for styrene. The expert panel will meet on July 21-22, 2008, at the Radisson Hotel Research Triangle Park, 150 Park Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 to peer review the draft background document for styrene and, once completed, make a recommendation regarding the listing status for styrene (i.e., *known to be a human carcinogen, reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen* , or not to list) in the 12th Edition of the RoC (12th RoC). The RoC expert panel meeting is open to the public with time scheduled for oral public comments. Attendance is limited only by the available meeting room space. Following the expert panel meeting and completion of the expert panel report, the NTP will post the final version of the background document and the expert-panel peer review report on the RoC Web site. DATES: The expert panel meeting for styrene will be held on July 21-22, 2008. The draft background document for styrene will be available for public comment on May 22, 2008. The deadline to submit written comments is July 07, 2008, for pre-registration to attend the meeting is July 14, 2008, and for pre-registration to provide oral comments at the meeting is July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: The RoC expert panel meeting on styrene will be held at Radisson Hotel Research Triangle Park, 150 Park Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Access to on-line registration and materials for the meeting are available on the RoC Web site ( *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/29679* ). Comments on the draft background document should be sent to Dr. Ruth M. Lunn, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-14, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, FAX:
(919)316-4637, or *lunn@niehs.nih.gov* . Courier address: Report on Carcinogens Office, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Building 4401, Room 3118, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Persons needing interpreting services in order to attend should contact 301-402-8180 (voice) or 301-435-1908 (TTY). Requests should be made at least seven business days in advance of the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ruth M. Lunn (telephone: 919-316-4637, or *lunn@niehs.nih.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The NTP announced the RoC review process for the 12th RoC on April 16, 2007, in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 18999 available at *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/15208* ). An expert panel meeting is being convened on July 21-22, 2008, to review styrene for possible listing in the 12th RoC. The draft background document for styrene will be available on the RoC Web site on May 22, 2008, in printed text from the RoC Office (see ADDRESSES above). Persons can register free-of-charge with the NTP listserv to receive notification when draft RoC background documents for other candidate substances for the 12th RoC are made available on the RoC Web site *(http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/231)* . Styrene is a very important monomer used worldwide in the production of polymers, which are incorporated into products such as rubber, plastic, insulation, fiberglass, pipes, automobile parts, food containers, and carpet backing. Most of these products contain both free styrene monomer and styrene polymerized in long chains (polystyrene). Sources of exposure to the general public include inhalation of indoor and outdoor ambient air, smoking, and ingestion of foods. Occupational exposure occurs mainly in the reinforced plastics, styrene-butadiene rubber, and styrene monomer and polymer industries. Preliminary Agenda, Availability of Meeting Topics and Registration Preliminary agenda topics include: • Oral public comments on styrene. • Peer review of the draft background document on styrene. • Recommendation for listing status for styrene in the 12th RoC. The meeting is schedule for July 21-22, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to adjournment each day. A copy of the preliminary agenda, expert panel roster, and any additional information, when available, will be posted on the RoC Web site or may be requested from the Director of the RoC Office (see ADDRESSES above). Individuals who plan to attend the meeting are encouraged to register on-line by July 14, 2008, to facilitate planning for the meeting. Request for Comments The NTP invites both written and oral public comments on the draft background document on styrene. All written comments received will be posted on the RoC website prior to the meeting and distributed to the expert panel and RoC staff for their consideration in the peer review of the draft background document and/or preparation for the expert panel meeting. Persons submitting written comments are asked to include their name and contact information (affiliation, mailing address, telephone and facsimile numbers, e-mail, and sponsoring organization, if any) and send them to Dr. Lunn (see ADDRESSES above) for receipt by July 07, 2008. Time will be set-aside at the expert panel meeting for the presentation of oral public comments. Seven minutes will be available for each speaker (one speaker per organization). Persons can register on-line to present oral comments or contact Dr. Lunn (see ADDRESSES above). When registering to comment orally, please provide your name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone and facsimile numbers, e-mail and sponsoring organization (if any). If possible, send a copy of the statement or talking points to Dr. Lunn by July 14, 2008. This statement will be provided to the expert panel to assist them in identifying issues for discussion and will be noted in the meeting record. Registration for presentation of oral comments will also be available at the meeting on July 21-22, 2008, from 7:30-8:30 a.m. Time allowed for comments by on-site registrants may be less than for pre-registered speakers and will be determined by the number of persons who register at the meeting. Persons registering at the meeting are asked to bring 25 copies of their statement or talking points for distribution to the expert panel and for the record. Background Information on the RoC The RoC is a congressionally mandated document [Section 301(b)(4) of the Public Health Services Act, 42 U.S.C. 241(b)(4)] that identifies and discusses agents, substances, mixtures, or exposure circumstances (collectively referred to as “substances”) that may pose a hazard to human health by virtue of their carcinogenicity. Substances are listed in the report as either *known or reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens* . The NTP prepares the RoC on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Information about the RoC and the nomination process can be obtained from its homepage ( *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc* ) or by contacting Dr. Lunn (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). The NTP follows a formal, multi-step process for review and evaluation of selected chemicals. The formal evaluation process is available on the RoC Web site ( *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/15208* ) or in printed copy from the RoC Office. Dated: May 8, 2008. Samuel H. Wilson, Acting Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program. [FR Doc. E8-11207 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health ODS Analytical Methods and Reference Materials Program—Vitamin Methodology Workshop; Notice Notice is hereby given of the National Institutes of Health
(NIH)Office of Dietary Supplements
(ODS)Analytical Methods and Reference Materials Program, Vitamin Methodology Workshop to be held Monday, July 7th and Tuesday, July 8th, 2008 at the Marriott Gaithersburg Washingtonian Center Hotel in Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20878. Summary In FY 2002, Congress addressed the need for support of analytical methods and reference materials development related to dietary supplements. The congressional appropriation language supported an increased ODS budget for several topics, including analytical methods and reference materials. The Senate language called for: “ODS to allocate sufficient funds to speed up an ongoing collaborative effort to develop and disseminate validated analytical methods and reference materials for the most commonly used botanicals and other dietary supplements.” On February 8, 2002, ODS held a public meeting to solicit comments to assist ODS in designing an overall strategy for implementing the Congressional mandate to foster development and validation of analytical methods and reference materials for dietary supplements. In FY 2004 and 2005, Congress again used similar language supporting the Analytical Methods and Reference Materials program in the ODS appropriations. On September 10, 2007 ODS held a Stakeholders' Meeting to state the progress that had been made by the Analytical Methods and Reference Materials program since its inception in 2002 and to receive comments on the future directions for the next five years. The Vitamin Methodology Workshop is a follow-up to the recommendations from the stakeholders. The purpose of the workshop is to evaluate the state of analytical methodology on vitamins suitable for dietary supplements and identify gaps in the analytical science for the purpose of meeting future methods needs of stakeholders. The sponsor of this meeting is the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements. Registration Seating at this workshop is very limited. To register please forward your name and complete mailing addresses including phone number via e-mail to Mr. Mike Bykowski at *mbyskowski@csion.com* . Mr. Bykowski will be coordinating the registration for this meeting. If you wish to make an oral presentation during the meeting, you must indicate this when you register and submit the following information:
(1)A brief written statement of the general nature of the statement that you wish to present,
(2)the names and addresses of the person(s) who will give the presentation, and
(3)the approximate length of time that you are requesting for your presentation. Depending on the number of people who register to make presentations, we may have to limit the time allotted for each presentation. If you don't have access to e-mail please call Mr. Bykowski at 301-670-0270. Dated: May 12, 2008. Paul Coates, Director, Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. E8-11192 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [USCG-2008-0383] Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0028, 1625-0034, and 1625-0043 AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests
(ICRs)and Analyses to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)requesting an extension of their approval for the following collections of information:
(1)1625-0028, Course Approvals for Merchant Marine Training Schools;
(2)1625-0034, Ships' Stores Certification for Hazardous Materials Aboard Ships, and
(3)1625-0043, Ports and Waterways Safety—Title 33 CFR Subchapter P. Before submitting these ICRs to OMB, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below. DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2008-0383], please use only one of the following means:
(1)Online: *http://www.regulations.gov.*
(2)Mail: Docket Management Facility
(DMF)(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3)Hand deliver between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4)Fax: 202-493-2251. The DMF maintains the public docket for this notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Copies of the completed ICRs are available through this docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Additionally, copies are available from Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, (Attn: Mr. Arthur Requina), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. The telephone number is 202-475-3523. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3523, or fax 202-475-3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this information collection request should be granted based on it being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing:
(1)The practical utility of the collections;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the collections; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. We will post all comments received, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov.* They will include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the paragraph on DOT's “Privacy Act Policy” below. *Submitting comments:* If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2008-0383], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change the documents supporting this collection of information or even the underlying requirements in view of them. *Viewing comments and documents:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* to view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket. Enter the docket number [USCG-2008-0383] in the Search box, and click, “Go>>.” You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Privacy Act:* Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy Act Statement of DOT in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or by visiting *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* Information Collection Request 1. *Title:* Course Approval and Records for Merchant Marine Training Schools. *OMB Control Number:* 1625-0028. *Summary:* The information is needed to ensure that merchant marine training schools meet minimal statutory requirements. The information is used to approve the curriculum, facility and faculty for these schools. *Need:* 46 U.S.C. 7315 authorizes an applicant for a license or document to substitute the completion of an approved course for a portion of the required sea service. 46 CFR 10.302 prescribes the Coast Guard regulations for course approval. *Respondents:* Merchant marine training schools. *Frequency:* Five years for reporting; one year for recordkeeping. *Burden Estimate:* The estimated burden has increased from 27,675 hours to 97,260 hours a year. 2. *Title:* Ships' Stores Certification for Hazardous Materials Aboard Ships. *OMB Control Number:* 1625-0034. *Summary:* The information is needed to ensure that personnel aboard ships are made aware of the proper usage and stowage instructions for certain hazardous materials. Provisions are made for waivers of products in special DOT hazard classes. *Need:* 46 U.S.C. 3306 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe regulations for the transportation, stowage, and use of ships' stores and supplies of a dangerous nature. 46 CFR Part 147 prescribes the regulations for hazardous ships' stores. *Respondents:* Suppliers and manufacturers of hazardous products used on ships. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Burden Estimate:* The estimated burden has increased from 9 hours to 12 hours a year. *3. Title:* Ports and Waterways Safety—Title 33 CFR Subchapter P. *Summary:* This collection of information allows the master, owner, or agent of a vessel affected by these rules to request a deviation from the requirements governing navigation safety equipment to the extent that there is no reduction in safety. *Need:* Provisions in 33 CFR chapter I, subchapter P, allow any person directly affected by the rules in that subchapter to request a deviation from any of the requirements as long as it does not compromise safety. This collection enables the Coast Guard to evaluate the information the respondent supplies, to determine whether it justifies the request for a deviation. *Respondents:* Master, owner, or agent of a vessel. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Burden Estimate:* The estimated burden has decreased from 3,171 hours to 2,865 hours a year. Dated: May 13, 2008. D.T. Glenn, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-11231 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-IA-2008-N0107; 96300-1671-0000-P5] Issuance of Permits AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits for marine mammals. SUMMARY: The following permits were issued. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. Marine Mammals Permit No. Applicant Receipt of application Federal Register notice Permit issuance date 773494 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish ad Wildlife Research Institute 72 FR 68176; Decemer 4, 2007 April 22, 2008. 165727 Niladri Basu, University of Michigan 73 FR 10282; February 26, 2008 April 21, 2008. 166346 Matson's Laboratory 73 FR 14266; March 17, 2008 April 21, 2008. Dated: April 25, 2008. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E8-11259 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-ES-2008-N0123; 40120-1112-0000-F5] Receipt of Applications for Endangered Species Permits AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with threatened and endangered species. DATES: We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given below, by *June 19, 2008.* ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Attn: David Dell, HCP Coordinator). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dell, telephone 404/679-7313; facsimile 404/679-7081. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). This notice is provided under section 10(c) of the Act. If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES section) or via electronic mail (e-mail) to *david_dell@fws.gov* . Please include your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the Fish and Wildlife Service that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly at the telephone number listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Finally, you may hand deliver comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service office listed above (see ADDRESSES section). Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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 comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. There may also be other circumstances in which we would withhold from the administrative record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Applicant: Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, TE697819 The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to take or remove and reduce to possession listed species occurring in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southeast Region for scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival, and for approved recovery activities. The applicant also requests amendment of their existing permit to add or remove all newly listed or de-listed species since the last permit renewal, as well as to add candidate species expected to be listed in the near future. Applicant: Harold Schramm, USGS, Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Mississippi State, Mississippi, TE178448 The applicant requests authorization to capture, implant acoustic transmitters into, and release pallid sturgeon ( *Scaphirhynchus albus* ) for tracking purposes in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers in Mississippi and Louisiana. Applicant: Scott Slankard, Eco-Tech Consultants, Inc., Frankfort, Kentucky, TE810274 The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to capture, handle, radio-tag, and release Indiana bats ( *Myotis sodalis* ) and gray bats ( *Myotis grisescen* ) for presence/absence surveys and scientific research aimed at recovery of the species throughout the states of New Jersey, West Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Applicant: Peggy Measel, Round Mountain Biological and Environmental Studies, Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky, TE121059 The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to capture, identify, measure, sex, and release Indiana bats and gray bats while conducting presence/absence surveys throughout the species ranges in Tennessee. Applicant: Norman Wagoner, Forest Supervisor, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas, TE125605 The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture, handle, band, and release the Indiana bat while conducting inventory and monitoring surveys within the boundaries of Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Applicant: Chris Fleming, BDY Environmental, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, TE111326 The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture, identify, sex, photograph, temporarily hold, release, and relocate the Nashville crayfish ( *Orconectes shoupi* ) while conducting presence/absence surveys and translocation activities in Mill Creek Watershed, Davidson and Williamson Counties, Tennessee. Applicant: Robert Oney, Palmer Engineering, Winchester, Kentucky, TE178524 The applicant requests authorization to capture, identify, temporarily hold, and release Indiana bats, gray bats, and Virginia big-eared bats ( *Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus* ); cumberlandian combshell ( *Epioblasma brevidens* ), Cumberland elktoe ( *Alasmidonta atropurpurea* ), Cumberland bean ( *Villosa trabalis* ), fanshell ( *Cyprogenia stegaria* ), ring pink ( *Obovaria retusa* ), orangefoot pimpleback ( *Plethobasus cooperianus* ), rough pigtoe ( *Pleurobema plenum* ), pink mucket ( *Lampsilis abrupta* ), clubshell ( *Pleurobema clava* ), and fat pocketbook ( *Potamilus capax* ); and locate white-haired goldenrod ( *Solidago albopilosa* ), running buffalo clover ( *Trifolium stoloniferum* ), and Virginia spiraea ( *Spiraea virginiana* ) while conducting presence/absence surveys throughout the range of the species. Applicant: Paul Stone, Crosby Resource Management, LLC, DeRidder, Louisiana, TE179330 The applicant requests authorization to harass the red-cockaded woodpecker ( *Picoides borealis* ) while surveying population occurrence and conducting management activities for this species throughout Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Applicant: Jeffrey Walters, Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, TE070846 The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to monitor nests, capture, band, radio-tag, collect blood, construct cavities, and translocate red-cockaded woodpeckers for the purposes of banding juveniles and adults, monitoring populations and nest cavities, and various research projects throughout the species range in Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Applicant: Michael Keys, North Florida Wildlife, Crawfordville, Florida, TE834056 The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture, band, and release red-cockaded woodpeckers for the purposes of banding juveniles and adults and monitoring populations and nest cavities throughout the species range in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Texas. Applicant: Shaun Williamson, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi, TE020890 The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to harass red-cockaded woodpeckers for the purposes of constructing and monitoring artificial nest cavities and restrictors; for capturing, banding, and translocation of birds; and for monitoring populations and nest cavities throughout the species range in Mississippi. Applicant: Charles Rabolli, CCR Environmental, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, TE096132 The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to harass red-cockaded woodpeckers while conducting presence/absence surveys, constructing artificial nest cavities, controlling vegetation, and monitoring activities in clusters throughout the species range in Virginia, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Applicant: Curtis Garriock, Pittsboro, North Carolina, TE179329 The applicant requests authorization to capture, identify, photograph, temporarily hold, and release the Saint Francis Satyr butterfly ( *Neonympha mitchellii francisci* ) while conducting presence/absence surveys for this species throughout North Carolina and Virginia. Applicant: Eric Hoffman, Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, TE179312 The applicant requests authorization to capture, examine, draw blood, collect hairs, and release the Lower Keys marsh rabbit ( *Sylvilagus palustris hefneri* ) to assess genetic diversity in Monroe County, Florida. Applicant: Chris Isaac, Appalachian Technical Services, Inc., Wise, Virginia, TE009638 The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to capture, handle, radio-tag, and release Indiana bats, gray bats, Virginia big-eared bats, and blackside dace ( *Phoxinus cumberlandensis* ) for presence/absence surveys and scientific research aimed at recovery of the species throughout the species ranges in Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Applicant: Brian Estes, Jordan, Jones, and Goulding, Inc., Norcross, Georgia, TE087127 The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture, identify, and release blue shiner ( *Cyprinella caerulea* ), Etowah darter ( *Etheostoma etowahae* ), Cherokee darter ( *Etheostoma scotti* ), amber darter ( *Percina antesella* ), goldline darter ( *Percina aurolineata* ), snail darter ( *Percina tanasi* ), Conasauga logperch ( *Percina jenkinsi* ), and the eastern indigo snake ( *Drymarchon corais couperi* ) for presence/absence surveys throughout the species ranges in Georgia. Applicant: Jeffrey West, Columbia, South Carolina, TE178643 The applicant requests authorization to harass the Carolina heelsplitter ( *Lasmigona decorate* ) for presence/absence surveys throughout the species range in North Carolina and South Carolina. Applicant: John Alford, Ecological Solution, Inc., Roswell, Georgia, TE070800 The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to harass all threatened and endangered fish, mussel, and snail species native to Georgia and Alabama for presence/absence surveys. Applicant: Julie Lockwood, North Brunswick, New Jersey, TE075916 The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to capture, band, collect blood samples, release, and monitor nests of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow ( *Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis* ) while conducting demographic studies in Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve, Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida. Dated: May 5, 2008. Cynthia K. Dohner, Acting Regional Director. [FR Doc. E8-11292 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-IA-2008-N0119; 96300-1671-0000-P5] Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for permit. SUMMARY: The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and/or marine mammals. DATES: Written data, comments or requests must be received by June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Endangered Species The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director ( ADDRESSES above). Applicant: Dr. M.K. Gonder, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, PRT-180709 The applicant requests a permit to import hair and fecal samples collected from chimpanzee ( *Pan troglodytes* ) sleep nests in the wild in Cameroon for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 3-year period. Applicant: James M. Falco, Phoenixville, PA, PRT-179951 The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Applicant: Tyler D. Hutt, Dallas, TX, PRT-162777 The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one scimitar-horned oryx ( *Oryx dammah* ) culled from a captive herd in the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Applicant: Earl D. Robinson, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, PRT-161751 The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male scimitar-horned oryx ( *Oryx dammah* ) culled from a captive herd in the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Applicant: John S. MacDonnell, Arcadia, CA, PRT-181059. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one female scimitar-horned oryx ( *Oryx dammah* ) culled from a captive herd in the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Applicant: Timothy D. Akers, Richmond, KY, PRT-182065 The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male scimitar-horned oryx ( *Oryx dammah* ) culled from a captive herd in the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Endangered Marine Mammals The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing endangered species (50 CFR part 17) and marine mammals (50 CFR part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director. Applicant: Terrie M. Williams, Center for Ocean Health, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, PRT-045447 The applicant requests a permit to take up to 24 captive-held southern sea otters ( *Enhydra lutris nereis* ) annually for the purpose of scientific research on the physiology of and metabolic demands on southern sea otters related to energetics, diving, and thermoregulation. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , the Division of Management Authority is forwarding copies of the above applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors for their review. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E8-11260 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [MT-922-08-1310-FI-P; NDM 95197] Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease NDM 95197 AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), LoneTree Energy & Associates, LLC timely filed a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease NDM 95197, Divide County, North Dakota. The lessee paid the required rental accruing from the date of termination. No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16 2/3 percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate. The lessee paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $163 cost for publishing this Notice. The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31
(d)and
(e)of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of termination subject to: • The original terms and conditions of the lease; • The increased rental of $10 per acre; • The increased royalty of 16 2/3 percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate; and • The $163 cost of publishing this Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section, BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, 406-896-5098. Dated: May 14, 2008. Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section. [FR Doc. E8-11220 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service [Docket No. MMS-2007-OMM-0063] MMS Information Collection Activity: 1010-0151 (30 CFR 250, Subpart B) Plans and Information, Extension of a Collection; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of extension of an information collection (1010-0151). SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request
(ICR)to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under 30 CFR 250, Subpart B, Plans and Information, and related documents. This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements. DATE: Submit written comments by June 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: You should submit comments directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (1010-0141), either by fax
(202)395-6566 or e-mail ( *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* ). *Please also send a copy to MMS by either of the following methods:* • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Under the tab “More Search Options,” click “click Advanced Docket Search”, then select “Minerals Management Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “submit.” In the Docket ID column, select MMS-2008-OMM-xxxx to submit public comments and to view supporting and related materials available for this rulemaking. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. The MMS will post all comments. • Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Cheryl Blundon; 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please reference “Information Collection 1010-0151” in your subject line and mark your message for return receipt. Include your name and return address in your message text. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch,
(703)787-1607. You may also contact Cheryl Blundon to obtain a copy, at no cost, of the regulations and forms that require the subject collection of information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* 30 CFR 250, Subpart B, Plans and Information. *Forms:* MMS-137, MMS-138, MMS-139, MMS-141, and MMS-142. *OMB Control Number:* 1010-0151. *Abstract:* The Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.* , 31 U.S.C. 9701), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Sections 11 and 25 of the amended OCS Lands Act require the holders of OCS oil and gas or sulphur leases to submit exploration plans
(EPs)or development and production plans
(DPPs)to the Secretary for approval prior to commencing these activities. As a Federal agency, we have a continuing affirmative duty to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This includes a substantive duty to carry out any agency action in a manner that is not likely to jeopardize protected species as well as a procedural duty to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) before engaging in a discretionary action that may affect a protected species. To provide supplementary guidance and procedures, MMS issues Notices to Lessees and Operators
(NTLs)on a regional or national basis. Regulation 30 CFR 250.103 allows MMS to issue NTLs to clarify, supplement, or provide more detail about certain requirements. Regulations at 30 CFR part 250 subpart B, implement these statutory requirements. The MMS engineers, geologists, geophysicists, environmental scientists, and other Federal agencies analyze and evaluate the information and data collected under subpart B to ensure that planned operations are safe; will not adversely affect the marine, coastal, or human environment; and will conserve the resources of the OCS. We use the information to:
(a)Report annually to NOAA Fisheries the effectiveness of mitigation, any adverse effects of the proposed action, and any incidental take, in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(i)(3), and
(b)allow the Regional Supervisor to make an informed decision on whether to approve the proposed exploration or development and production plans as submitted, or whether modifications are necessary without the analysis and evaluation of the required information. The affected States also review the information collected for consistency with approved Coastal Zone Management
(CZM)plans. Specifically, MMS uses the information to evaluate, analyze, determine, or ensure that: • Ancillary activities comply with appropriate laws or regulations and are conducted safely, protect the environment, and do not interfere or conflict with the other uses of the OCS ( *i.e.* , military use, subsistence activity). • Points of contact and responsible parties are designated for proposed activities. • Surveying, monitoring, or other activities do not interfere or conflict with preexisting and other uses of the area. • Plans or actions meet or implement lease stipulation requirements. • Proposed exploration, drilling, production, and pipeline activities are conducted in a safe and acceptable manner for the location and water depth proposed and conserve reservoir energy to allow enhanced recovery operations in later stages of lease development. • Unnecessary or incompatible facilities are not installed on the OCS. • Shallow drilling hazards (such as shallow gas accumulations or mudslide areas) are avoided. • Areas are properly classified for H 2 S, and appropriate procedures are in place. • Appropriate oil spill planning measures and procedures are implemented. • Expected meteorological conditions at the activity site are accommodated. • Environmentally sensitive areas are identified, and the direct and cumulative effects of the activities are minimized. • Offshore and onshore air quality is not significantly affected by the proposed activities. • Waste disposal methods and pollution mitigation techniques are appropriate for local conditions. • State CZM requirements have been met. • Archaeological or cultural resources are identified and protected from unreasonable disturbances. • Socioeconomic effects of the proposed project on the local community and associated services have been determined. • Support infrastructures and associated traffic are adequately covered in plans. The following forms used in the Gulf of Mexico Region
(GOMR)are also submitted to MMS. • Form MMS-137 (Plan Information Form) is submitted to summarize plan information. • Forms MMS-138 (GOM Air Emission Calculations for Exploration Plans) and MMS-139 (GOM Air Emission Calculations for Development Operations Coordination Documents (DOCDs)) are submitted to standardize the way potential air emissions are estimated and approved as part of the OCS plan. • MMS-141 (ROV Survey Report) is submitted to report the observations and information recorded from 2 sets of ROV monitoring surveys to identify high-density biological communities that may occur on the seafloor in deep water. We also use the information to help assess the effectiveness of avoidance criteria and expand the knowledge base regarding the benthic habitats of the deep water seafloor. • MMS-142 (Environmental Impact Analysis Worksheet) is a fill in the blank form that is submitted to identify the environmental impact-producing factors
(IPFs)for the listed environmental resources. We use the information to assess impact and determine compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Estimated Number and Description of Respondents:* Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil and gas lessees and operators. *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden:* The estimated annual “hour” burden for this information collection is a total of 291,414 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden. BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P EN20MY08.016 EN20MY08.017 EN20MY08.018 BILLING CODE 4310-MR-C *Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden:* We have identified seven non-hour costs associated with this information collection. Four of these non-hour cost burdens are cost recovery fees. They consist of fees being submitted with EP's, DPP's or DOCD's, DWOP's, and CID's. There are also three non-hour cost burdens that are associated with the Protected Species Observer Program. The costs associated with this program are due to activities that are, for the most part, subcontracted to other service companies with expertise in these areas. To allow for in-house training by lessees/operators, we have retained a minimal hour burden in the burden table for the Protected Species Observer Program training requirement. Since all the observation duty and reporting would be done while on the vessel and by contractors, these requirements were calculated as non-hour burden costs. See the hours, fees, and costs in the burden table. We estimate that the annual non-hour cost burden is $4,853,530. We have not identified any other “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this collection of information. *Public Disclosure Statement:* The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. *Comments:* Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” *Agencies must specifically solicit comments to:*
(a)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful;
(b)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. To comply with the public consultation process, on November 15, 2007, we published a **Federal Register** notice (72 FR 64238) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, 250.199 provides the OMB control number for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR 250 regulations and forms. The regulation also informs the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information and provides the address to which they should send comments. We have received no comments in response to these efforts. If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by June 19, 2008. *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. *MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer:* Arlene Bajusz,
(202)208-7744. Dated: March 21, 2008. E.P. Danenberger, Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. [FR Doc. E8-11287 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-588] In the Matter of Certain Digital Multimeters, and Products With Multimeter Functionality; Issuance of General Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed to two defaulting domestic respondents in the above-identified investigation. The investigation is terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Haldenstein, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)205-3041. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on
(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on November 13, 2006, based on a complaint filed on October 6, 2006, and supplemented on October 27 and 30, 2006, by Fluke Corp. of Everett, Washington, alleging violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain digital multimeters and products with multimeter functionality by reason of infringement of United States Trademark Registration No. 2,796,480 (“the ‘480 mark”) and also by reason of infringement of trade dress, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States. 71 FR 661940 (November 13, 2006). Complainant requested that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders. The complaint named eighteen respondents in China, Hong Kong, and the United States. Fourteen respondents were terminated from the investigation by settlement agreement, consent order, or both. The four remaining respondents were found in default. On July 3, 2007, complainant filed a motion seeking summary determination of violation of section 337. On January 14, 2008, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination (“ID”) granting complainant's motion for summary determination of violation of section 337 as to the four defaulting respondents. He recommended issuance of a general exclusion order, issuance of cease and desist orders against respondents Electronix Express and HandsOnTools, and that the amount of bond for temporary importation during the Presidential review period be set at 100 percent of the entered value of the articles concerned. No petitions for review were filed. On February 12, 2008, the Commission determined not to review the ID and requested written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On February 28 and March 6, 2008, respectively, the complainant Fluke and the Investigative Attorney (“IA”) filed briefs and the IA filed a reply brief on these issues. Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the ALJ's recommended determination and the parties' written submissions, the Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is a general exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of digital multimeters that infringe the ‘480 mark or Fluke's protected trade dress and cease and desist orders directed to Electronix Express and HandsOnTools. The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the general exclusion order. Finally, the Commission determined that the amount of bond to permit temporary importation during the Presidential review period (19 U.S.C. *1337(j)) shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the value of the digital multimeters that are subject to the order. The Commission's order and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in sections 210.42-46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42-46. Issued: May 14, 2008. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-11196 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-595] In the Matter of Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 19) granting the joint motion to terminate the captioned investigation based on a settlement agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov.* The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on
(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted on March 1, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Renesas. The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain dynamic random access memory devices and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,115,344 and 7,116,128. The complaint named as respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., of Seoul, Korea, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey (collectively, “Samsung”). On April 25, 2008, Renesas and Samsung jointly moved to terminate the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement. On April 28, 2008, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response supporting the motion. On April 29, 2008, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement. The ALJ found that the motion complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21 (19 CFR 210.21). The ALJ also concluded that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2) (19 CFR 210.50(b)(2)), there is no evidence that termination of this investigation will prejudice the public interest. No petitions for review of this ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ID. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). By order of the Commission. Issued: May 13, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-11197 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on May 14, 2008, a proposed consent decree in *United States* v. *Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. et al.* , Civil Action No. 06cv6880, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In this cost recovery action brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607, the United States sought recovery of approximately $1.15 million in unreimbursed past response costs and prejudgment interest incurred by the United States Environmental Protection Agency at the H.O.D. Landfill Superfund Site located near Antioch in Lake County, Illinois. Under the proposed consent decree, Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., on behalf of itself, Morton International, Inc., and Rohm and Haas Chemicals, LLC will pay a total of $900,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The Department of Justice will accept comments relating to the proposed consent decree for a period of thirty
(30)days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and mailed either electronically to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or in hard copy to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Comments should refer to *United States* v. *Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., et al.* , Civil No. 06cv6880 (N.D. Ill.) and D.J. Reference No. 90-11-3-1006/1. The proposed consent decree may be examined at:
(1)The Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 500, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)353-5300; and
(2)the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 (contact Jeffrey A. Cahn (312-886-6670)). During the comment period, the proposed consent decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decree.html* . A copy of the proposed consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.
(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number
(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please refer to the referenced case and D.J. Reference No. 90-11-3-1006/1, and enclose a check in the amount of $60.75 for the consent decree (243 pages at 25 cents per page reproduction costs), made payable to the U.S. Treasury. William D. Brighton, Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-11204 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (08-046)] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Dr. Walter Kit, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Dr. Walter Kit, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JE0000, Washington, DC 20546,
(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The information submitted by recipients is to provide a tracking mechanism for property on an annual basis, at the end of the grant, or on the occurrence of certain event. This information is used by NASA to effectively maintain an appropriate internal control system for equipment and property provided or acquired under grants and cooperative agreements with institutions of higher education and other non-profit organizations, and to comply with statutory requirements. II. Method of Collection NASA is participating in Federal efforts to extend the use of information technology to more Government processes via Internet. III. Data *Title:* NASA Inventory Report: Property Management & Control, Grants. *OMB Number:* 2700-0047. *Type of review:* Revision of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions and State, Local or Tribal. Government *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 141. *Estimated Time per Response:* 12.28 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1732 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0.00. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) 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 automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record. Gary Cox, Associate Chief Information Officer (Acting). [FR Doc. E8-11193 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (08-047)] NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Heliophysics Subcommittee; Meeting AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The Meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting from the scientific community and other persons scientific and technical information relevant to program planning. DATES: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Friday, June 13, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., room 3H46, Washington, DC 20546. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marian Norris, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546,
(202)358-4452, fax
(202)358-4118, or *mnorris@nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics: —Heliophysics Division Overview and Program Status. —Report of the Mission Planning Working Group. —Assessment of Heliophysic Scientific Progress for Fiscal Year 2008. It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide the following information no less than 5 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa/green card information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizenship can provide identifying information 3 working days in advance by contacting Marian Norris via e-mail at *mnorris@nasa.gov* or by telephone at
(202)358-4452. Dated: May 12, 2008. P. Diane Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. [FR Doc. E8-11194 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Office of the Federal Register Agreements In Force as of December 31, 2007, Between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States AGENCY: Office of the Federal Register, NARA. ACTION: Notice of availability of agreements. SUMMARY: The American Institute in Taiwan has concluded a number of agreements with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (formerly the Coordination Council for North American Affairs) in order to maintain cultural, commercial and other unofficial relations between the American people and the people of Taiwan. The Director of the Federal Register is publishing the list of these agreements on behalf of The American Institute in Taiwan in the public interest. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cultural, commercial and other unofficial relations between the American people and the people of Taiwan are maintained on a non-governmental basis through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a private nonprofit corporation created under the Taiwan Relations Act (Pub. L. 96-8; 93 Stat. 14). The Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA) was established as the nongovernmental Taiwan counterpart to AIT. On October 10, 1995, the CCNAA was renamed the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO). Under section 12 of the Act, agreements concluded between AIT and TECRO (CCNAA) are transmitted to the Congress, and according to sections 6 and 10(a) of the Act, such agreements have full force and effect under the law of the United States. The texts of the agreements are available from the American Institute in Taiwan, 1700 North Moore Street, Suite 1700, Arlington, Virginia 22209. For further information, please telephone
(703)525-8474, or fax
(703)841-1385. Following is a list of agreements between AIT and TECRO (CCNAA) which were in force as of December 31, 2007. Barbara J. Schrage, Managing Director, American Institute in Taiwan Dated: May 15, 2008. Raymond A. Mosley, Director of the Federal Register. AIT-TECRO Agreements In Force as of December 31, 2007 Status of TECRO The Exchange of Letters concerning the change in the name of the Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA) to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO). Signed December 27, 1994 and January 3, 1995. Entered into force January 3, 1995. Agriculture 1. Guidelines for a cooperative program in the agriculture sciences. Signed January 15 and 28, 1986. Entered into force January 28, 1986. 2. Amendment amending the 1986 guidelines for a cooperative program in the agricultural sciences. Effected by exchange of letters September 1 and 11, 1989. Entered into force September 11, 1989. 3. Cooperative service agreement to facilitate fruit and vegetable inspection through their designated representatives, the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Taiwan Provincial Fruit Marketing Cooperative (TPFMC) supervised by the Taiwan Council of Agriculture (COA). Signed April 28, 1993. Entered into force April 28, 1993. 4. Memorandum of agreement concerning sanitary/phytosanitary and agricultural standards. Signed November 4, 1993. Entered into force November 4, 1993. 5. Agreement amending the guidelines for the cooperative program in agricultural sciences. Signed October 30, 2001. Entered into force October 30, 2001. 6. Memorandum of Understanding Establishing Consultative Committee on Agriculture Terms of Reference. Signed July 10, 2007. Entered into force July 10, 2007. 7. Consultative Committee on Agriculture Terms of Reference. Signed July 10, 2007. Entered into force July 10, 2007. Aviation 1. Memorandum of agreement concerning the arrangement for certain aeronautical equipment and services relating to civil aviation (NAT-I-845), with annexes. Signed September 24 and October 23, 1981. Entered into force October 23, 1981. 2. Amendment amending the memorandum of agreement concerning aeronautical equipment and services of September 24 and October 23, 1981. Signed September 18 and 23, 1985. Entered into force September 3, 1985. 3. Agreement amending the memorandum of agreement of September 24 and October 23, 1981, concerning aeronautical equipment and services. Signed September 23 and October 17, 1991. Entered into force October 17, 1991. 4. Air transport agreement, with annexes. Signed at Washington March 18, 1998. Entered into force March 18, 1998. 5. Agreement for promotion of aviation safety. Signed June 30, 2003. Entered into force June 30, 2003. 6. Exchange of Letters concerning removal from the agreement of provisions relating to regulations of computer reservation systems in Annex III to the Air Transport Agreement signed March 18, 1998. Signed December 11, 2006 and January 2, 2007. Entered into force January 2, 2007. Conservation 1. Memorandum on cooperation in forestry and natural resources conservation. Signed May 23 and July 4, 1991. Entered into force July 4, 1991. 2. Memorandum on cooperation in soil and water conservation under the guidelines for a cooperative program in the agricultural sciences. Signed at Washington October 5, 1992. Entered into force October 5, 1992. 3. Agreement on technical cooperation in forest management and nature conservation. Signed October 24, 2003 and February 27, 2004. Entered into force February 27, 2004. Consular 1. Agreement regarding passport validity. Effected by exchange of letters of August 26 and November 13, 1998. Entered into force December 10, 1998. Consumer Product Safety 1. Memorandum of Understanding for cooperation associated with consumer product safety matters. Signed April 29 and July 27, 2004. Entered into force July 27, 2004. Customs 1. Agreement for technical assistance in customs operations and management, with attachment. Signed May 14 and June 4, 1991. Entered into force June 4, 1991. 2. Agreement on TECRO/AIT carnet for the temporary admission of goods. Signed June 25, 1996. Entered into force June 25, 1996. 3. Agreement regarding mutual assistance between their designated representatives, the United States Customs Administration and the Taiwan Customs Administration. Signed January 17, 2001. Entered into force January 17, 2001. Education and Culture 1. Agreement amending the agreement for financing certain educational and cultural exchange programs of April 23, 1964. Effected by exchange of letters at Taipei April 14 and June 4, 1979. Entered into force June 4, 1979. 2. Agreement concerning the Taipei American School, with annex. Signed at Taipei February 3, 1983. Entered into force February 3, 1983. Energy 1. Agreement relating to the establishment of a joint standing committee on civil nuclear cooperation. Signed at Taipei October 3, 1984. Entered into force October 3, 1984. 2. Agreement amending and extending the agreement of October 3, 1984, relating to the establishment of a joint standing committee on civil nuclear cooperation. Signed October 19, 1989. Entered into force October 19, 1989. 3. Agreement abandoning in place in Taiwan the Argonaut Research Reactor loaned to National Tsing Hua University. Signed November 28, 1990. 4. Agreement Amending and Extending the Agreement of October 3, 1984, as amended and extended, relating to the establishment of a joint standing committee on civil nuclear cooperation. Signed October 3, 1994. Entered into force October 3, 1994. 5. Agreement concerning safeguards arrangements for nuclear materials transferred from France to Taiwan. Effected by exchange of letters February 12 and May 13, 1993. Entered into force May 13, 1993. 6. Memorandum of Agreement for release of an Energy and Power Evaluation Program (ENPEP) computer software package. Signed January 25 and February 27, 1995. Entered into force February 27, 1995. 7. Agreement regarding terms and conditions for the acceptance of foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel at the Department of Energy's Savannah River site. Signed December 28, 1998 and February 25, 1999. Entered into force February 25, 1999. 8. Agreement in the area of probabilistic risk assessment research. Signed July 20 and December 27, 1998. Entered into force January 1, 1999. 9. Agreement for technical cooperation in clean coal and advanced power systems technologies. Signed October 31, 2003 and January 20, 2004. Entered into force January 20, 2004. 10. Agreement in the area of probabilistic risk assessment research. Signed October 18 and December 29, 2004. Entered into force December 29, 2004, effective January 1, 2005. 11. Agreement relating to participation in the USNRC program of thermal-hydraulic code applications and maintenance research. Signed December 13, 2004 and December 13, 2004. Entered into force December 13, 2004. 12. Joint determination of safeguard ability for alteration in form or content of irradiated fuel elements pursuant to article VIII.C of the agreement for cooperation concerning civil uses of atomic energy signed April 4, 1972. Signed May 17, 2006 and May 17, 2006. Entered into force May 17, 2006. Environment 1. Agreement for technical cooperation in the field of environmental protection, with implementing arrangement. Signed June 21, 1993. Entered into force June 21, 1993. 2. Agreement extending the agreement of June 21, 1993 for technical cooperation in the field of environmental protection. Effected by exchanges of letters June 30 and July 20 and 30, 1998. Entered into force July 30, 1998, effective June 21, 1998. 3. Agreement extending the agreement for technical cooperation in the field of environmental protection. Signed September 23, 2003. Entered into force September 23, 2003. Health 1. Guidelines for a cooperative program in the biomedical sciences. Signed May 21, 1984. Entered into force May 21, 1984. 2. Guidelines for a cooperative program in food hygiene. Signed January 15 and 28, 1985. Entered into force January 28, 1985. 3. Agreement amending the 1984 guidelines for a cooperative program in the biomedical sciences, with attachment. Signed April 20, 1989. Entered into force April 20, 1989. 4. Agreement amending the 1984 guidelines for a cooperative program in the biomedical sciences, as amended, with attachment. Signed August 24, 1989. Entered into force August 24, 1989. 5. Guidelines for a cooperative program in public health and preventive medicine. Signed at Arlington and Washington June 30 and July 19, 1994. Entered into force July 19, 1994. 6. Agreement for technical cooperation in vaccine and immunization-related activities, with implementing arrangement. Signed at Washington October 6 and 7, 1994. Entered into force October 7, 1994. 7. Agreement regarding the mutual exchange of information on medical devices, including quality systems requirements inspectional information. Effected by exchange of letters January 9, 1998. Entered into force January 9, 1998. Homeland Security 1. Declaration of Principles for governing cooperation, on the basis of reciprocity, including the posting of AIT Representatives at the Port of Kaohsiung, and the posting of TECRO Representatives at certain U.S. seaports. Signed August 18, 2004 and August 18, 2004. Entered into force August 18, 2004. 2. Memorandum of understanding concerning cooperation to prevent the illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive material. Signed May 25, 2006 and May 25, 2006. Entered into force May 25, 2006. 3. Declaration of Principles for governing cooperation, on the basis of reciprocity, including the posting of AIT Representatives at seaports in Taiwan. Signed September 22, 2006 and September 22, 2006. Entered into force September 22, 2006. 4. Exchange of Letters to facilitate the implementation of the MOU concerning cooperation to prevent the illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive material signed May 25, 2006. Signed April 30, 2007 and July 5, 2007. Entered into force July 5, 2007. Intellectual Property 1. Agreement concerning the protection and enforcement of rights in audiovisual works. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington June 6 and 27, 1989. Entered into force June 27, 1989. 2. Understanding concerning the protection of intellectual property rights. Signed at Washington June 5, 1992. Entered into force June 5, 1992. 3. Agreement for the protection of copyrights, with appendix. Signed July 16, 1993. Entered into force July 16, 1993. 4. Memorandum of understanding regarding the extension of priority filing rights for patent and trademark applications. Signed April 10, 1996. Entered into force April 10, 1996. Judicial Assistance 1. Memorandum of understanding on cooperation in the field of criminal investigations and prosecutions. Signed at Taipei October 5, 1992. Entered into force October 5, 1992. 2. Agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. Signed March 26, 2002. Entered into force March 26, 2002. Labor 1. Guidelines for a cooperative program in labor affairs. Signed December 6, 1991. Entered into force December 6, 1991. Mapping 1. Agreement concerning mapping, charting, and geodesy cooperation. Signed November 28, 1995. Entered into force November 28, 1995. Maritime 1. Agreement concerning mutual implementation of the 1974 Convention for the safety of life at sea. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington August 17 and September 7, 1982. Entered into force September 7, 1982. 2. Agreement concerning mutual implementation of the 1969 international convention on tonnage measurement. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington May 13 and 26, 1983. Entered into force May 26, 1983. 3. Agreement concerning mutual implementation of the protocol of 1978 relating to the 1974 international convention for the safety of life at sea. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington January 22 and 31, 1985. Entered into force January 31, 1985. 4. Agreement concerning mutual implementation of the protocol of 1978 relating to the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington January 22 and 31, 1985. Entered into force January 31, 1985. 5. Agreement concerning mutual implementation of the 1966 international convention on load lines. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington March 26 and April 10, 1985. Entered into force April 10, 1985. 6. Agreement concerning the operating environment for ocean carriers. Effected by exchange of letters at Washington and Arlington October 25 and 27, 1989. Entered into force October 27, 1989. Military 1. Agreement for foreign military sales financing by the authorities on Taiwan. Signed January 4 and July 12, 1999. Entered into force July 12, 1999. 2. Letter of Agreement concerning exchange of research and development information. Signed August 4, 2004 and August 4, 2004. Entered into force August 4, 2004. 3. Master Information Exchange Agreement Information Exchange Annex AF-05-TW-9301 Concerning Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Signed December 15, 2005 and December 15, 2005. Entered into force December 15, 2005. 4. Information and communication technologies
(ICT)forum terms of reference. Signed October 31, 2007 and October 31, 2007. Entered into force October 31, 2007. Postal 1. Agreement concerning establishment of INTELPOST service. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington April 19 and November 26, 1990. Entered into force November 26, 1990. 2. International business reply service agreement, with detailed regulations. Signed at Washington February 7, 1992. Entered into force February 7, 1992. 3. Agreement on the application of an EMS (express mail service) pay-for-performance plan. Signed March 5, 2004 and August 25, 2004. Entered into force January 1, 2005. Privileges and Immunities 1. Agreement on privileges, exemptions and immunities, with addendum. Signed at Washington October 2, 1980. Entered into force October 2, 1980. 2. Agreement governing the use and disposal of vehicles imported by the American Institute in Taiwan and its personnel. Signed at Taipei April 21, 1986. Entered into force April 21, 1986. Scientific & Technical Cooperation 1. Agreement on scientific cooperation. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington on September 4, 1980. Entered into force September 4, 1980. 2. Agreement concerning renewal and extension of the 1980 agreement on scientific cooperation. Signed March 10, 1987. Entered into force March 10, 1987. 3. Guidelines for a cooperative program in atmospheric research. Signed May 4, 1987. Entered into force May 4, 1987. 4. Agreement for technical assistance in dam design and construction, with appendices. Signed August 24, 1987. Entered into force August 24, 1987. 5. Agreement for a cooperative program in the sale and exchange of technical, scientific, and engineering information. Signed November 17, 1987. Entered into force November 17, 1987. 6. Agreement extending the agreement of November 17, 1987, for a cooperative program in the sale and exchange of technical, scientific and engineering information. Signed August 8, 1990. Entered into force August 8, 1990. 7. Cooperative program on Hualien soil-structure interaction experiment. Signed September 28, 1990. Entered into force September 28, 1990. 8. Agreement for technical cooperation in geodetic research and use of advanced geodetic technology, with implementing arrangement. Signed January 11 and February 21, 1991. Entered into force February 21, 1991. 9. Agreement amending and extending the agreement of August 24, 1987, for technical assistance in dam design and construction. *Name changed to Agreement for Technical Assistance in Areas of Water Resource Development. Signed May 11 and June 9, 1992. Entered into force June 9, 1992. 10. Agreement for technical cooperation in seismology and earthquake monitoring systems development, with implementing arrangement. Signed July 22 and 24, 1992. Entered into force July 24, 1992. 11. Agreement amending the Agreement of August 24, 1987 for technical assistance in areas of water resource development. Signed August 30 and September 3, 1996. Entered into force September 3, 1996. 12. Agreement concerning joint studies on reservoir sedimentation and sluicing, including computer modeling. Signed February 14 and March 8, 1996. Entered into force March 8, 1996. 13. Guidelines for a cooperative program in physical sciences. Signed January 2 and 10, 1997. Entered into force January 10, 1997. 14. Agreement for scientific and technical cooperation in ocean climate research. Signed February 18, 1997. Entered into force February 18, 1997. 15. Agreement amending the agreement of August 24, 1987 for technical assistance in areas of water resource development. Signed October 14, 1997. Entered into force October 14, 1997. 16. Agreement for technical cooperation in scientific and weather technology systems support. Signed October 22 and November 5, 1997. Entered into force November 5, 1997. 17. Agreement for technical cooperation associated with establishment of advanced operational aviation weather systems. Signed February 10 and 13, 1998. Entered into force February 13, 1998. 18. Agreement for technical cooperation associated with development, launch and operation of a constellation observing system for meteorology, ionosphere and climate. Signed May 29 and June 30, 1999. Entered into force June 30, 1999. 19. Agreement for technical cooperation associated with establishment of advanced data assimilation and modeling systems. Signed December 20, 2004 and January 12, 2005. Entered into force January 12, 2005. 20. Agreement for cooperation in the micro pulse lidar network and the aerosol robotic network. Signed July 13, 2007 and April 17, 2007. Entered into force July 13, 2007. 21. Agreement for technical cooperation in meteorology and forecast systems development. Signed September 5, 2007 and June 25, 2007. Entered into force September 5, 2007. Security of Information 1. Protection of information agreement. Signed September 15, 1981. Entered into force September 15, 1981. Taxation 1. Agreement concerning the reciprocal exemption from income tax of income derived from the international operation of ships and aircraft. Effected by exchange of letters at Taipei May 31, 1988. Entered into force May 31, 1988. 2. Agreement for technical assistance in tax administration, with appendices. Signed August 1, 1989. Entered into force August 1, 1989. Trade 1. Agreement concerning trade matters, with annexes. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington October 24, 1979. Entered into force October 24, 1979; effective January 1, 1980. 2. Agreement concerning trade matters. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington December 31, 1981. Entered into force December 31, 1981. 3. Agreement concerning measures that the CCNAA will undertake in connection with implementation of the GATT Customs Valuation Code. Effected by exchange of letters at Bethesda and Arlington August 22, 1986. Entered into force August 22, 1986. 4. Agreement concerning the export performance requirement affecting investment in the automotive sector. Effected by exchange of letters at Washington and Arlington October 9, 1986. Entered into force October 9, 1986. 5. Agreement concerning beer, wine and cigarettes. Signed at Washington December 12, 1986. Entered into force December 12, 1986, effective January 1, 1987. 6. Agreement implementing the agreement of December 12, 1986 concerning beer, wine and cigarettes. Effected by exchange of letters at Taipei April 29, 1987. Entered into force April 29, 1987, effective January 1, 1987. 7. Agreement concerning trade in whole turkeys, turkey parts, processed turkey products and whole ducks, with memorandum of understanding. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington March 16, 1989. Entered into force March 16, 1989. 8. Agreement concerning the protection of trade in strategic commodities and technical data, with memorandum of understanding. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington December 4, 1990 and April 8, 1991. Entered into force April 8, 1991. 9. Administrative arrangement concerning the textile visa system. Effected by exchange of letters at Arlington and Washington April 18 and May 1, 1991. Entered into force May 1, 1991. 10. Agreement regarding new requirements for health warning legends on cigarettes sold in the territory represented by CCNAA. Effected by exchange of letters at Washington and Arlington October 7 and 16, 1991. Entered into force October 16, 1991. 11. Memorandum of understanding concerning a new quota arrangement for cotton and man-made fiber trousers. Signed at Washington December 18, 1992. Entered into force December 18, 1992. 12. Memorandum of understanding on the exchange of information concerning commodity futures and options matters, with appendix. Signed January 11, 1993. Entered into force January 11, 1993. 13. Agreement concerning a framework of principles and procedures for consultations regarding trade and investment, with annex. Signed at Washington September 19, 1994. Entered into force September 19, 1994. 14. Visa arrangement concerning textiles and textile products. Effected by exchange of letters of April 30 and September 3 and 23, 1997. Entered into force September 23, 1997. 15. Agreement concerning trade in cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other non-cotton vegetable fiber textile products, with attachment. Effected by exchange of letters December 10, 1997. Entered into force December 10, 1997, effective January 1, 1998. 16. Agreed minutes on government procurement issues. Signed December 17, 1997. Entered into force December 17, 1997. 17. Understanding concerning bilateral negotiations on the WTO accession of the separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) and the United States. Signed February 20, 1998. Entered into force February 20, 1998. 18. Agreement on mutual recognition for equipment subject to electro-magnetic compatibility
(EMC)regulations. Signed March 16, 1999. Entered into force March 16, 1999. 19. Agreement concerning the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation mutual recognition arrangement for conformity assessment of telecommunications equipment (APEC Telecon MRA). Signed March 16, 1999. Entered into force March 16, 1999. 20. Memorandum of understanding on the extension of trade in textile and apparel products. Signed February 9, 2001. Entered into force February 9, 2001. [FR Doc. E8-11316 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-49-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation
(NSF)is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 8, 2008, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the **Federal Register** of a permit application received. A permit was issued on May 14, 2008 to: Peter West; Permit No. 2009-002. Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11189 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from April 24 to May 7, 2008. The last biweekly notice was published on May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25034). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not
(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room T6-D44, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/* . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the Internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five
(5)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* , or by calling
(301)415-1677, to request
(1)a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or
(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html* . Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html* . Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* . A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is
(800)397-4209 or locally,
(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:
(1)First-class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station (CPS), Unit No.1, DeWitt County, Illinois *Date of amendment request:* January 26, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification 3.3.1.1, “Reactor Protection System
(RPS)Instrumentation,” Table 3.3.1.1-1, “Reactor Protection System Instrumentation,” Function 8, “Scram Discharge Volume Water Level—High,” item b, “Float Switch,” by replacing Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.3.1.1.9 with SR 3.3.1.1.12. This change will effectively revise the surveillance frequency for the scram discharge volume level float switch from every 92 days to every 24 months. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed TS change involves a change in the surveillance frequency for the SDV water level float switch channel functional test. The proposed TS change does not physically impact the plant. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SDV water level instruments, the operational characteristics or function of the instruments, the interfaces between the instruments and the RPS, or the reliability of the SDV water level instruments. The proposed TS change does not degrade the performance of, or increase the challenges to, any safety systems assumed to function in the accident analysis. As noted in the Bases to TS 3.3.1.1, even though the two types of SDV Water Level—High Functions are an input to the RPS logic, no credit is taken for a scram initiated from these functions for any of the design basis accidents or transients evaluated in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). An inoperable SDV water level instrument is not considered as an initiator of any analyzed event. The proposed TS change does not impact the usefulness of the SRs in evaluating the operability of required systems and components, or the way in which the surveillances are performed. In addition, the frequency of surveillance testing is not considered an initiator of any analyzed accident, nor does a revision to the frequency introduce any accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The consequences of a previously analyzed event are dependent on the initial conditions assumed in the analysis, the availability and successful functioning of equipment assumed to operate in response to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at which these actions are initiated. The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not significantly increased by the proposed change. The proposed change does not affect the performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the radiological consequences of an accident. The risk assessment of the proposed changes has concluded that there is an insignificant increase in the core damage frequency as well as the total population dose rate. Historical review of surveillance test results and associated maintenance records did not find evidence of failures that would invalidate the above conclusions. Therefore, the proposed change does not alter the ability to detect and mitigate events and, as such, does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any [accident] previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed TS change does not introduce any failure mechanisms of a different type than those previously evaluated, since there are no physical changes being made to the facility. No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed equipment is being operated in a different manner. There is no change being made to the parameters within which CPS is operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated that are affected by this proposed action. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. This proposed action will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No alteration in the procedures, which ensure the unit remains within analyzed limits, is proposed, and no change is being made to procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. The way surveillance tests are performed remains unchanged. A historical review of surveillance test results and associated maintenance records indicated there was no evidence of any failures that would invalidate the above conclusions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any [accident] previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. Margins of safety are established in the design of components, the configuration of components to meet certain performance parameters, and in the establishment of setpoints to initiate alarms or actions. The proposed TS change involves a change in the surveillance frequency for the SDV water level float switch channel functional test. There is no change in the design of the affected systems, no alteration of the setpoints at which alarms or actions are initiated, and no change in plant configuration from original design. The proposed change does not significantly impact the condition or performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon for accident mitigation. The proposed change does not result in any hardware changes or in any changes to the analytical limits assumed in accident analyses. Existing operating margin between plant conditions and actual plant setpoints is not significantly reduced due to these changes. The proposed change does not significantly impact any safety analysis assumptions or results. AmerGen has conducted a risk assessment to determine the impact of a change to the SDV water level instrument surveillance frequency from the current once every 92 days to once every 24 months for the risk measures of Core Damage Frequency
(CDF)and Large Early Release Frequency (LERF). This assessment indicated that the proposed CPS surveillance frequency extension has a very small change in risk to the public and is an acceptable plant change from a risk perspective. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. *NRC Branch Chief:* Russell Gibbs. Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina *Date of amendments request:* July 17, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, technical specifications
(TS)requirements regarding control room envelope habitability in TS 3.7.3, “Control Room Emergency Ventilation
(CREV)System,” and TS Section 5.5, “Programs and Manuals.” The changes would be consistent with NRC-approved industry Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF)standard TS change traveler, TSTF-448, Revision 3. The NRC staff issued a “Notice of Availability of Technical Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Control Room Envelope Habitability Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process,” associated with TSTF-448, Revision 3, in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The notice included a model safety evaluation, a model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination, and a model license amendment request. In its application dated July 17, 2007, Carolina Power and Light Company (the licensee) affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of NSHC is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the control room envelope
(CRE)emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee and, based on this review it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel II—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina *Date of amendment request:* January 4, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would modify technical specification
(TS)requirements related to control room envelope
(CRE)habitability in accordance with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Revision 3 of Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specifications
(STS)Change Traveler TSTF-448, “Control Room Habitability.” The NRC staff published a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61075), on possible license amendments adopting TSTF-448, which included a model safety evaluation
(SE)and model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022), which included the resolution of public comments on the model SE and model NSHC determination. The licensee affirmed the applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application dated January 4, 2008. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant ( *i.e.* , no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation as determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel II—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-352 and No. 50-353, Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* February 28, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would clarify the wording of the Radioactive Effluent Controls Program
(RECP)administrative technical specifications to reflect the intent of Generic Letter 89-01, “Implementation of Programmatic Controls for Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications [TS] in the Administrative Controls Section of the Technical Specifications and the Relocation of Procedural Details of RETS to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual or to the Process Control Program,” regarding the determination requirements for cumulative and projected dose contributions. The proposed change will address ambiguity in the current TS where the program element could be interpreted to require determining projected dose contributions for the calendar quarter and current calendar year every 31 days. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change revises the applicable TS Section to conform to TSTF-308-A, Revision 1[, “Determination of Cumulative and Projected Dose Contributions in RECP.”] The proposed change is administrative and simply provides enhanced clarity of current requirements. Therefore, this change does not affect any accident initiators, does not affect the ability to successfully respond to previously evaluated accidents, and does not affect radiological assumptions used in the evaluations. This change will not alter the operation of process variables, structures, systems, or components as described in the affected stations' Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). As such, the probability of occurrence for a previously evaluated accident is not increased. The consequences of a previously analyzed event are dependent on the initial conditions assumed in the analysis, the availability and successful functioning of equipment assumed to operate in response to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at which these actions are initiated. The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not increased by the proposed change. The proposed change does not affect the performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the radiological consequences of an accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. No system or component setpoints will be changed, and the proposed change will not impose any new or eliminate any old requirements. There are no new accident initiators or equipment failure modes resulting from the proposed changes. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and support the implementation of common programs. Thus, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed change revises the applicable TS Section for the affected EGC and AmerGen stations to provide clarity concerning the determination requirements for cumulative and projected dose contributions. The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not modify the safety limits or setpoints at which protective actions are initiated, and does not change the requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. In addition, there are no changes proposed to equipment operability requirements, setpoints, or limiting parameters specified in the stations' Technical Specifications. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. *NRC Branch Chief:* Russell Gibbs. Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida *Date of amendment request:* July 12, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify Crystal River Unit 3 Improved Technical Specifications
(ITS)requirements related to control room envelope habitability in ITS Section 3.7.12, “Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS),” and ITS Section 5.6.2.21, “Control Complex Habitability Envelope Integrity Program.” The changes would be consistent with the NRC-approved industry Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF)standard TS change traveler, TSTF-448, Revision 3. The NRC staff issued a “Notice of Availability of Technical Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Control Room Envelope Habitability Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process,” associated with TSTF-448, Revision 3, in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The notice included a model safety evaluation, a model no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC)determination, and a model license amendment request. In its application dated July 12, 2007, Florida Power Corporation (the licensee) affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of NSHC is presented below: Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the control room envelope
(CRE)emergency ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee and, based on this review it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel II—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida *Date of amendment request:* January 17, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise the Crystal River Unit 3
(CR3)Improved Technical Specification SR [surveillance requirement] 3.7.5.2, “Emergency Feedwater System,” and would align the text for the surveillance test frequency with the text in the NRC technical report, NUREG-1430, Volume 1, Revision 3, “Standard Technical Specifications Babcock and Wilcox Plants-Specifications.” *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Changing the test frequency of SR 3.7.5.2 from “45 days on a STAGGERED TEST BASIS” to “In accordance with the Inservice Testing Program” will not affect any CR3 structure, system or component (SSC). As such, there will be no effect on plant operation, to any design function or analysis that verifies the capability of a SSC to perform a design function, or to any of the previously evaluated accidents in the CR3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The proposed amendment will not change any operating procedure or administrative control. Since the proposed amendment does not involve a change to any SSC, their operation or design, and since the proposed amendment will not change any of the previously evaluated accident in the CR3 FSAR, the probability and consequences of any accident or operating scenario will be unchanged by its implementation. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change will not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not alter any assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin on safety. The proposed change will not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or Limiting Conditions for Operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside of the accepted design basis. As such, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel II—Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee *Date of amendment request:* April 15, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would change and realign several containment isolation subject matter Technical Specifications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulation (NUREG)—1431, Revision 3, “Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants.” *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. TVA's proposed change that involves administrative changes, including relocation of actions or SRs [surveillance requirements] to another LCO [limiting condition of operation] or to the TS administrative controls section; revision of text to conform with NUREG-1431 and add clarity; minor revision to definitions and other LCOs for fidelity; and deletion of Type A leakage test performance deferral information, do not result in technical changes to requirements currently present in the TS. These changes are administrative in nature and do not impact initiators of analyzed events. They also do not impact the assumed mitigation of accidents or transients events. Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. TVA's proposed change eliminates an hourly time limit for operation of the containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves. This change also eliminates associated actions and SRs. The containment purge and ventilation system is qualified and designed to isolate in the event of a design basis accident (DBA). The probability of occurrence of an accident is not increased by deletion of the time limit nor will it affect the system's capability for purge valve closure or containment isolation. This change does not result in a modification of the reactor building purge ventilation
(RBPV)system. Consequently, the 10 CFR 100 limits for site boundary dose will not be exceeded in the event of an accident during containment purge operation. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. TVA proposes to implement a new required action for systems that meet the criteria of general design requirement
(GDC)57 for closed system. The change would provide relaxation of the completion time for isolation of a penetration flow path for the identified systems. This change does not result in any plant modification and therefore the systems will continue to mitigate the consequences of a DBA. The proposed completion time is reasonable and is consistent with standard industry guidelines to ensure the accident mitigation equipment will be restored in a timely manner. The allow[ed] completion time for isolation is not a precursor to any DBE [Design Basis Event]; thus, no increase in the probability of accident previously evaluated is considered. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. TVA's proposed change reduces the amount of technical details of an SR and relocates it to a licensee controlled document under the control of 10 CFR 50.59. The reduction in information is consistent with NUREG-1431. This change does not result in any hardware or operating procedure changes. Requirements to perform surveillances of the systems detailed in the information are not eliminated. The details being removed from the TSs are not assumed to be an initiator of any analyzed event and therefore would not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident. This information also does not impact the assumed mitigation of accidents or transient events. Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. TVA's proposed change adds a more restrictive requirement to conform to NUREG-1431 in support of eliminating the hourly time limit for the operation of the containment purge isolation valves. This change will require a verification that open travel restrictors are in the containment purge valves during modes of applicability. The change will also require conditional leakage testing of a containment purge valve used to isolate a penetration. This change does not result in a modification of the RBPV system as the restrictors were installed during initial plant licensing. Leakage testing is not a new requirement for these valves. These changes provide a more stringent requirement that previously existed in the TSs. These more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event. This change assists in the operability of the containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. TVA's proposed changes that involve administrative change, including relocation of actions or SRs to another LCO or to the TS administrative controls section; revision of text to conform with NUREG-1431 and add clarity; minor revision to definitions and other LCOs for fidelity; and deletion of Type A leakage test performance deferral information, do not result in technical changes to requirements currently present in the TS. These changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in the methods governing normal plant operations. These changes will not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. TVA's proposed change eliminates an hourly time limit for operation of the containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves. This change also eliminates associated actions and SRs. This change does not involve a change to plant systems, components, or operating practices that could result in a change in accident generation potential. The containment purge supply and exhaust valves are utilized for the isolation of flow paths to the environs and are not a feature that could generate a postulated accident. Elimination of the operational time restriction of the containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves will not impact the potential for accidents. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. TVA proposes to implement a new required action for systems that meet the closed system design. The change would provide relaxation of the completion time for isolation of a penetration flow path for the identified systems. This change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or require any unusual operator actions. The proposed change will not alter the way any structure, system, or component functions, and will not alter the manner the plant is operated. The response of the plant and the operators following an accident will not be different. The change does not introduce any new failure modes. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. TVA's proposed change reduces the amount of technical details of an SR and relocates it to a licensee controlled document under the control of 10 CFR 50.59. The reduction in information is consistent with NUREG-1431 and adequate control of the information will be maintained. This change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in testing requirements of these systems. This change will not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. TVA's proposed change adds a more restrictive requirement to conform to NUREG-1431 in support of eliminating the hourly time limit for the operation of the containment purge isolation valves. This change will require a verification that open travel restrictors are in the containment purge valves during modes of applicability. The change will also require conditional leakage testing of a containment purge valve used to isolate a penetration. This change does not result in a modification of the RBPV system as the restrictors were installed during initial plant licensing. Leakage testing is not a new requirement for these valves. Verification of restrictors does not modify normal plant operations, but does impose different administrative requirements. Action required leakage rate testing of an isolated containment purge valve does create new requirements. However, these changes will maintain the assumptions in the safety analyses and licensing basis. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. TVA's proposed changes that involve administrative change, including relocation of actions or SRs to another LCO or to the TS administrative controls section; revision of text to conform with NUREG-1431 and add clarity; minor revision to definitions and other LCO for fidelity; and deletion of Type A leakage test performance deferral information, do not result in technical changes to requirements currently present in the TS. These changes will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions. Also, since these changes are administrative in nature, no question of safety is involved. Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. TVA's proposed change eliminates an hourly time limit for operation of the containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves. This change also eliminates associated actions and SRs. The proposed change does not alter plant systems or their setpoints that are used to maintain the margin of safety. Operability will continue to be maintained by testing and verification requirements on the containment purge valves. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety. TVA proposes to implement a new required action for systems that meet the closed system design. The change would provide relaxation of the completion time for isolation of a penetration flow path for the identified systems. This change does not result in any plant modification, testing requirements to ensure operability, or a change in safety limits or safety system settings. The proposed completion time is reasonable and is consistent with standard industry guidelines to ensure the accident mitigation equipment will be restored in a timely manner. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety. TVA's proposed change reduces the amount of technical details of an SR and relocates it to a licensee controlled document under the control of 10 CFR 50.59. This change does not reduce the margin of safety since the location of the details has no impact on any safety assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety. TVA's proposed change adds a more restrictive requirement to conform to NUREG-1431 in support of eliminating the hourly time limit for the operation of the containment purge isolation valves. This change will require a verification that open travel restrictors are in the containment purge valves during modes of applicability. The change will also require conditional leakage testing of a containment purge valve used to isolate a penetration. Adding more stringent requirements, by definition, provides additional restrictions to enhance plant safety. As such, no question of safety is involved. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas H. Boyce. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia *Date of amendment request:* April 2, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed change revises Technical Specification
(TS)Section 5.0, “Design Features,” to delete certain design details and descriptions included in TS 5.0 that are already contained in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), or are redundant to existing TS requirements, and are not required to be included in the TSs pursuant to Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.36(c)(4). The proposed change also revises the format of, and incorporates design descriptions into, TS 5.0 consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)policy and NUREG-1431, Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, Revision 3.0, to the extent practical. An editorial change is also proposed to address a minor TS discrepancy introduced by a previous license amendment. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change to Section 5.0, “Design Features,” deletes certain details from the TS that are not required to be maintained in the TS by 10 CFR 50.36(c)(4), adds new TS limits that meet the 10 CFR 50.36(c)(4) inclusion criteria and revises the TS for consistency with NUREG-1431, Revision 3.0. The remaining change addresses a minor editorial discrepancy. The proposed change does not add or modify any plant system, structures or component and has no impact on plant equipment operation. Thus, the proposed change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, it does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed TS change is administrative in nature and as such does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined, and the dose analysis acceptance criteria are not affected. The proposed change does not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the analyses or design basis and does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2 Richmond, VA 23219. *NRC Branch Chief:* Melanie C. Wong. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the **Federal Register** as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see
(1)the applications for amendment,
(2)the amendment, and
(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey *Date of application for amendment:* April 12, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment establishes more effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, “Control Room Habitability.” *Date of Issuance:* April 30, 2008. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 265. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-16:* Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: The January 23, 2008, letter provided clarifying information within the scope of the original application and did not change the staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination dated June 5, 2007 (72 FR 31100). The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 30, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland *Date of application for amendments:* November 8, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated March 11, 2008. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments modify Technical Specification
(TS)1.1, “Definitions,” to clarify the definitions of Channel Calibration and Channel Functional Test. The amendments incorporate TS Task Force
(TSTF)Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-205-A, “Revision of Channel Calibration, Channel Functional Test, and Related Definitions,” Revision 3, dated July 31, 2003. *Date of issuance:* April 23, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 286 and 263. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:* Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (72 FR 71705). The letter dated March 11, 2008, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 23, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina *Date of application for amendments:* September 26, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated December 7, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise Technical Specification
(TS)5.5.6, “Inservice Testing Program,” to reflect changes to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code requirements for inservice testing of pumps and valves, and corresponding changes to Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), Section 50.55a, “Codes and standards.” The changes are based on Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Traveler TSTF-479, “Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 50.55a,” as modified by TSTF-497, “Limit Inservice Testing Program SR [Surveillance Requirement] 3.0.2 Application to Frequencies of 2 Years or Less.” *Date of issuance:* April 23, 2008. *Effective date:* Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 247 and 275. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62:* Amendments change the TSs and licenses. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5217). The staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, as published in the **Federal Register** was based on the letter dated December 7, 2007. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 23, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio *Date of application for amendment:* September 18, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* This amendment would modify Technical Specification
(TS)requirements related to control room envelope habitability in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3. *Date of issuance:* April 25, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days. *Amendment No.:* 148. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-58:* This amendment revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5221). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida *Date of application for amendment:* April 13, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated September 4 and 13, 2007, and February 25, 2008. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment changes the technical specifications
(TSs)to extend the completion time associated with an inoperable low pressure injection train, reactor building spray train, decay heat closed cycle cooling water train, and decay heat seawater train, from 72 hours to 7 days. The change has been requested consistent with NRC-approved T-S Task Force
(TSTF)traveler TSTF-430 Revision 2. Additional changes to the TSs implement TSTF-439 Revision 2, to eliminate second completion times. *Date of issuance:* April 30, 2008. *Effective date:* Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 229. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-72:* Amendment revises the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: September 12, 2007 (72 FR 52167). The supplements dated September 4 and 13, 2007, and February 25, 2008, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated April 30, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire *Date of amendment request:* March 7, 2008, as supplemented by letter dated March 26, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment revises the Seabrook Technical Specifications to extend the time allowed to collect initial plateau curves for the intermediate and power range neutron detectors to 24 hours after reaching 100 percent of rated thermal power. *Date of issuance:* April 29, 2008. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 5 days. *Amendment No.:* 118. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-86:* The amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 19, 2008 (73 FR 14850). A correction to the notice was published on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16327) and a duplicate, bi-weekly notice was published on April 8, 2008 (73 FR 19111). The licensee's March 26, 2008, supplement provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the proposed amendment as described in the original notice of proposed action published in the **Federal Register** , and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCCNP-1 and DCCNP-2), Berrien County, Michigan *Date of application for amendments:* July 30, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated February 13, 2008. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments added a Surveillance Requirement, SR 3.8.2.2, that is applicable when offsite electrical power is supplied to a unit via backfeed through the main transformer and the unit is in either MODE 5, MODE 6, or during movement of irradiated fuel. *Date of issuance:* April 28, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 45 days. *Amendment No.:* 304 (for DCCNP-1) and 287 (for DCCNP-2). *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74:* Amendments revised the Renewed Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72 FR 54475). The supplemental letter contained clarifying information, did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated April 28, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCCNP-1 and DCCNP-2), Berrien County, Michigan *Date of application for amendments:* June 13, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated February 13, 2008. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised Section 5.5.9, “Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),” changing the specified pressure drop values for the combined high efficient particulate air filters and charcoal adsorbers for three engineered safety feature ventilation systems from less than 6 inches water gauge to less than 4 inches water gauge at the specified flow rates. *Date of issuance:* April 28, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 45 days. *Amendment No.:* 305 (for DCCNP-1) and 288 (for DCCNP-2). *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74:* Amendments revised the Renewed Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45458). The supplemental letter contained clarifying information, did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated April 28, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska *Date of amendment requests:* July 30 and October 19, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated August 31 and December 12, 2007, and February 21, March 28, and April 4 and 10, 2008. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification
(TS)Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO)2.4, “Containment Cooling,” LCO 2.14, “Engineered Safety Features System Initiation Instrumentation Settings,” and LCO 2.15, “Instrumentation and Control Systems”; TS Surveillance Requirement
(SR)3.1, “Instrumentation and Control,” SR 3.5(4), “Containment Isolation Valves Leak Rate Tests (Type C Tests),” and SR 3.6(3), “Containment Recirculating Air Cooling and Filtering System”; and associated TS Basis documents and Updated Safety Analysis Report sections to modify the containment spray system actuation logic to preclude automatic start of the containment spray pumps for a loss-of-coolant accident. The amendment also revised TS SR 3.6(3)a. to delete SRs for testing of the containment air cooling and filtering system emergency mode dampers and replace it with a surveillance to verify that the dampers are in the accident positions in all operating plant modes and deletes the requirement in TS SR 3.6(3)b. to remotely operate dampers. The amendment added license conditions related to the replacement and testing of containment air cleaning and filtering
(CACF)unit HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters and surveillance testing of the CACF unit relief ports. The license conditions require administrative controls pending the completion of detailed analysis and confirm commitments for the licensee to submit TS amendments by October 31, 2008. *Date of issuance:* May 2, 2008. *Effective date:* The license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from the 2008 refueling outage. *Amendment No.:* 255. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:* The amendment revised the Technical Specifications and added additional conditions to the Renewed Facility Operating License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49581), and January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5227). The supplemental letters dated August 31 and December 12, 2007, and February 21, March 28, and April 4 and 10, 2008, provided additional information that clarified the applications, did not expand the scope of the applications as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated May 2, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of May 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-11246 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the Subcommittee on Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR); Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on ESBWR will hold a meeting on June 3, 2008, Room T2 B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary to General Electric-Hitachi
(GEH)Nuclear Energy and its contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday June 3, 2008—9 a.m. Until 5:30 p.m. The Subcommittee will review several chapters of the Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items associated with the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) Design Certification Application. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, GEH, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. David Bessette (telephone 301/415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:45 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: May 9, 2008. Cayetano Santos, Branch Chief, ACRS. [FR Doc. E8-11228 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on June 3, 2008, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b
(2)and
(6)to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 8 a.m. Until 9 a.m. The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
(ET)five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Officer between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: May 13, 2008. Cayetano Santos, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch. [FR Doc. E8-11230 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS)will hold a meeting on June 4-6, 2008, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was previously published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, October 22, 2007 (72 FR 59574). Wednesday, June 4, 2008, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman* (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: ARTIST Test Program* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the findings from the ARTIST Tests on aerosol retention in the secondary side of a steam generator, and related matters. *10:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Risk Assessment Standardization Project* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the Risk Assessment Standardization Project
(RASP)and related matters. *1:45 p.m.-3:45 p.m.: Overview of the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor
(EPR)Design* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and AREVA Nuclear Power Inc., regarding design features of the EPR and related matters. *4 p.m.-5 p.m.: Status of the Development of Rules and Regulatory Guidance in the areas of Safeguards and Security* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the status of activities associated with the development of rules and regulatory guidance in the safeguards and security areas. *5 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Status of the Quality Assessment of Selected Research Projects* (Open)—The Committee will hold discussions with the Chairmen of the ACRS Panels regarding the status of the quality assessment of the research projects on: FRAPCON/FRAPTRAN Code work at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; and NUREG-6943, “Study of Remote Visual Methods to Detect Cracking in Reactor Components.” *5:45 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Report* (Open)—The Committee will prepare and discuss the proposed ACRS report on the ARTIST Test Program. Thursday, June 5, 2008, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman* (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *8:35 a.m.-9:30 a.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee* (Open)—The Committee will discuss the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the full Committee during future ACRS meetings. It will hear a report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated workload and member assignments. *9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations* (Open)—The Committee will discuss the responses from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and letters. *10 a.m.-11:15 a.m.: Preparation for Meeting with the Commission* (Open)—The Committee will hold discussions in preparation for their meeting with the Commission on the following topics: Safety Research Program Report, Digital I&C Matters, State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis Program, ESBWR Design Certification, and Extended Power Uprates and related Technical Issues. *1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Meeting with the Commission* (Open)—The Committee will meet with the Commission to discuss topics noted above. *3:45 p.m.-6 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Report* (Open)—The Committee will continue its discussion of a proposed ACRS report on the ARTIST Test Program. Friday June 6, 2008, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman* (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *8:35 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Overview of the US-Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR) Design* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., regarding design features of the US-APWR and related matters. *10:45 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Status of NRC Staff Activities Associated with the Resolution of Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191, “Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized-Water Reactor
(PWR)Sump Performance”* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the status of NRC staff activities associated with the resolution of GSI-191. *1:15 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous* (Open)—The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public, including representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the Cognizant ACRS staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Mr. Girija S. Shukla, Cognizant ACRS staff (301-415-6855), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., (ET). ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at *pdr@nrc.gov* , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System
(PARS)component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ACRS/. Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Dated: May 14, 2008. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11232 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dates: Weeks of May 19, 26, June 2, 9, 16, 23, 2008. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Week of May 19, 2008 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of May 19, 2008. Week of May 26, 2008—Tentative Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:30 p.m.—NRC All Hands Meeting (Public Meeting), Marriott Bethesda North Hotel, 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, MD 20852. Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:30 a.m.—Briefing on Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO)and Workforce Planning (Public Meeting) (Contact: Kristin Davis, 301-492-2266). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Week of June 2, 2008—Tentative Wednesday, June 4, 2008 9 a.m.—Briefing on Results of the Agency Action Review Meeting
(AARM)(Public Meeting) (Contact: Shaun Anderson, 301-415-2039). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Thursday, June 5, 2008 1:30 p.m.—Meeting with Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS)(Public Meeting) (Contact: Tanny Santos, 301-415-7270). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Week of June 9, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of June 9, 2008. Week of June 16, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of June 16, 2008. Week of June 23, 2008—Tentative Friday, June 27, 2008 9:30 a.m.—Periodic Briefing on New Reactor Issues (Public Meeting) (Contact: Donna Williams, 301-415-1322). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301-415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, 301-415-1662. Additional Information The start time for the Briefing on Results of the Agency Action Review Meeting
(AARM)(Public Meeting) on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, has been changed from 9:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/schedule.html.* The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format ( *e.g.* braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Rohn Brown, at 301-492-2279, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at *REB3@nrc.gov.* Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to *dkw@nrc.gov.* Dated: May 15, 2008. Rochelle C. Bavol, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1281 Filed 5-16-08; 11:40 am]
Connectionstraces to 132
Traces to 132 documents
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Definitions; applicability; rulemaking considerations§ 80a–2
- Acquisition of assets by business development companies§ 80a–54
- Purposes§ 3501
- Final regulatory flexibility analysis§ 604
- Initial regulatory flexibility analysis§ 603
- Findings and declaration of policy§ 80a–1
- Classification of devices intended for human use§ 360c
- Registration of producers of drugs or devices§ 360
- Premarket approval§ 360e
- Adulterated drugs and devices§ 351
- Rules and regulations§ 7805
- Rules relating to expatriated entities and their foreign parents§ 7874
- Rule making§ 553
- Public information collection activities; submission to Director; approval and delegation§ 3507
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Regulations§ 3306
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Transferred§ 1226
- Transferred§ 191
- SHORT TITLE.§ 9701
- General definitions§ 2101
- Records§ 7502
- Copyright Office regulations§ 702
- Definitions§ 601
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Congressional findings and declaration of purposes and policy§ 1531
- Taking and using of the bald and golden eagle for scientific, exhibition, and religious purposes§ 668a
- Definitions§ 668c
- Definitions§ 1532
- Interagency cooperation§ 1536
- Exceptions§ 1539
- Permits for dredged or fill material§ 1344
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Regulatory process§ 1531
- Importation or shipment of injurious mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibia, and reptiles; permits, specimens for museums; regulations§ 42
- Harmonized Tariff Schedule§ 1202
- Administrative grants§ 1455
- Exchange of lands§ 145
- Definitions§ 1453
- Coordination and cooperation§ 1456
- Determination of endangered species and threatened species§ 1533
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Administrative action following WTO panel reports§ 3538
- Judicial review in countervailing duty and antidumping duty proceedings§ 1516a
- Congressional findings and declaration of policy§ 1361
- Congressional statement of policy§ 2131
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Domestic and foreign protection of federally owned inventions§ 207
- National activities§ 2324
- Definitions§ 2302
- Statement of purpose§ 6301
- Regulations§ 1232
- Emission standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines§ 7521
- Definitions§ 32901
- Assessments§ 1817
- Definitions§ 1841
- Acquisition of bank shares or assets§ 1842
- Interests in nonbanking organizations§ 1843
- Purpose of Institute§ 285
- Research and investigations generally§ 241
- Training§ 7315
- Failure to comply with provisions of lease§ 188
- Definitions§ 1331
- Unfair practices in import trade§ 1337
- Liability§ 9607
- Open meetings§ 552b
- Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; composition; tenure; duties; compensation§ 2039
register
CFR
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Form S-3, for registration under the Securities Act of 1933 of securities of certain issuers offered pursuant to certain types of transactions.§ 239.13
- Form 10-K, for annual and transition reports pursuant to sections 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.§ 249.310
- Small entities under the Investment Company Act for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.§ 270.0-10
- Small entities under the Securities Act for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.§ 230.157
- Small entities under the Securities Exchange Act for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.§ 240.0-10
- Definitions of terms.§ 230.405
- Plasmodium species antigen detection assays.§ 866.3402
- Devices and electronic products.§ 25.34
- Limit on exposure to diesel particulate matter.§ 57.5060
- Compliance determinations.§ 57.5061
- Vessel Security Officer (VSO).§ 104.215
- Company Security Officer (CSO).§ 104.210
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- Company or vessel personnel with security duties.§ 104.220
- Security training for all other vessel personnel.§ 104.225
- Statements of Account covering compulsory licenses for secondary transmissions by cable systems.§ 201.17
- How do the classification and attainment date provisions in section 181 of subpart 2 of the CAA apply to areas subject to § 51.902(a)?§ 51.903
- Publishing notices in the Federal Register.§ 325.6
- Judicial review.§ 325.11
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Annual absolute, competitive preference, and invitational priorities.§ 75.105
- Continuation of a multiyear project after the first budget period.§ 75.253
- Eligible parties may apply as a group.§ 75.127
- Requirements for a continuation award.§ 75.118
- Financial and performance reports.§ 75.720
- Filings and Other Submissions.§ 385.2001
- Competing applications: deadlines for filing; notices of intent; comparisons of plans of development.§ 4.36
- Applicability and definitions.§ 4.30
- Method of notice; dates established in notice (Rule 210).§ 385.210
- Notice of application and notice of schedule for environmental review.§ 157.9
- Intervention (Rule 214).§ 385.214
- Interventions and protests.§ 157.10
- Protests other than under Rule 208 (Rule 211).§ 385.211
- Process selection.§ 5.3
- Participants in the Section 106 process.§ 800.2
- Pre-application document.§ 5.6
- Notice procedure.§ 157.205
- Transactions requiring prior notice.§ 225.41
- Good guidance practices.§ 10.115
- Where can I find more information about the requirements in this part?§ 250.103
- Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.§ 250.197
- Termination of investigations.§ 210.21
- Commission action, the public interest, and bonding by respondents.§ 210.50
- Initial determinations.§ 210.42
- Issuance of amendment.§ 50.92
- Hearing requests, petitions to intervene, requirements for standing, and contentions.§ 2.309
- Filing of documents.§ 2.302
- Notice for public comment; State consultation.§ 50.91
- Changes, tests, and experiments.§ 50.59
- Technical specifications.§ 50.36
- Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review.§ 51.22
- Conditions of construction permits, early site permits, combined licenses, and manufacturing licenses.§ 50.55
112 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 25
- 14 CFR 34
- 14 CFR 36
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- 17 CFR 270
- 17 CFR 270.2
- 15 USC 80a
- Pub. L. 96-477
- 94 Stat. 2274
- 17 CFR 270.55
- 17 CFR 240.12
- 21 CFR 866
- 21 CFR 807
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 26 CFR 1
- T.D. 9399
- T.D. 9238
- 315 U.S. 179
- 30 CFR 57
- 476 F.3d 946
- 33 CFR 104
- 46 CFR 15.1101
- 46 CFR 7
- 46 CFR 15.103(e)
- 46 CFR 10
- Pub. L. 107-295
- 46 CFR 10.811
- 46 CFR 10.205(d)(1)
- 46 CFR 15.1113
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 5 CFR 1320.3(c)
- 5 CFR 1320.3(f)(3)
- 529 U.S. 89
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- 46 CFR 15
- 46 CFR 10.205(e)
+ 72 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final special conditions; request for comments
SCOTUS315 U.S. 179
F. App'x476 F.3d 946
SCOTUS529 U.S. 89
Cites 244 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources