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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-06-05 · Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Food Safety and Inspection Service See Forest Service Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Inte · Unknown

Unknown. Interim rule and request for comments

88,027 words·~400 min read·/register/2008/06/05/08-1321

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-06-05.xml --- 73 109 Thursday, June 5, 2008 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Food Safety and Inspection Service See Forest Service Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Interim Rule and Request for Comments: Mexican Fruit Fly; Designation of Portion of Willacy County, TX, as a Quarantined Area, 31929-31930 E8-12542 Temporary Importation of Horses:
Noncompetitive Entertainment Horses from Countries Affected with Contagious Equine Metritis, 31930-31937 E8-12543 Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES The National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Cooperative Research Group on Clean Diesel V, 32051 E8-12529 Army Army Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 32002-32003 E8-12580 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Hospice Conditions of Participation, 32088-32220 08-1305 Civil Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings:
Agenda; Kansas Advisory Committee, 31961 E8-12557 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Patent and Trademark Office Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Exemptive Order for SPDR Gold Futures Contracts, 31979-31981 E8-12579 Order exempting the trading and clearing of certain products related to SPDR Gold Trust Shares, 31981-31983 E8-12624 Defense Defense Department See Army Department NOTICES 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification, 31983-31997 E8-12456 E8-12457 Privacy Act;
Systems of Records, 31997-32002 E8-12581 E8-12582 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32004 E8-12562 Meetings: Reading First Advisory Committee, 32004-32005 E8-12587 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; List of Correspondence, 32005-32006 E8-12639 Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program Regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education Centers, 32006-32010 E8-12633 Rehabilitation Training;
Continuing Education Program, 32010-32016 E8-12636 Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities; Technical Assistance Coordination Center, 32016-32022 E8-12634 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 32022-32023 E8-12507 EPA Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Schuylkill County Area, PA, 31947-31949 E8-12601 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32023-32024 E8-12586 Executive Executive Office of the President See Management and Budget Office See Presidential Documents Farm Farm Credit Administration RULES Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Funding and Fiscal Affairs; Risk-Based Capital Requirements, 31937-31943 E8-12245 FCC Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32024-32026 E8-12626 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Final Flood Elevation Determinations, 31944-31945 E8-12516 NOTICES Amendments to Major Disaster Declarations:
Arkansas, 32038-32039 E8-12521 Maine, 32039 E8-12522 Oklahoma, 32039-32040 E8-12518 E8-12528 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Colorado, 32040 E8-12526 Georgia, 32040-32041 E8-12524 Iowa, 32041 E8-12527 Mississippi, 32041-32042 E8-12530 Missouri, 32042 E8-12525 South Dakota, 32042-32043 E8-12523 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: Clark County, Washington, 32070-32071 E8-12307 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Meetings:
Federal Maritime Commission, 32026 E8-12269 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 32053 08-1327 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Informational Filing, 32071 E8-12545 Petition for Waiver of Compliance, 32071-32072 E8-12544 FTC Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32026-32029 E8-12590 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Privacy Act;
Systems of Records, 32072-32073 E8-12615 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32029-32030 E8-12648 Meetings: Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology, 32030-32031 E8-12647 Arthritis Advisory Committee, 32031-32032 E8-12646 Food Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES International Standard-Setting Activities, 31950-31960 E8-12563 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings:
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447), 31961 E8-12306 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Food and Drug Administration See Indian Health Service See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Biodefense Science Board, 32029 08-1321 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32037-32038 E8-12551 Meetings:
Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program Governing Board, 32038 E8-12554 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects, 32043-32048 E8-12610 Indian Indian Health Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Behavioral Health Preventive Care Assessment Focus Group Guide; Correction, 32032 E8-12509 Interior Interior Department See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau NOTICES Renewal of the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee, 32043 E8-12617 IRS Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32080-32084 E8-12547 E8-12549 E8-12550 E8-12552 E8-12553 E8-12555 E8-12556 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Grant Program, 32084-32085 08-1318 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping Duty: Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 31961-31964 E8-12603 Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 31964 E8-12605 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China, Brazil, and Thailand, 31964-31965 E8-12612 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation:
Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews, 31965-31966 E8-12609 Countervailing Duty: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 31966-31970 E8-12606 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 31970-31974 E8-12608 Initiation of Five-Year (”Sunset”) Reviews, 31974-31975 E8-12611 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations:
Certain Automotive Parts, 32049-32050 E8-12598 Investigation Termination: Certain Personal Computer/ Consumer Electronic Convergent Devices, etc., 32049 E8-12600 Justice Justice Department See Antitrust Division NOTICES Lodging of Consent Decree: Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 32050-32051 E8-12514 Labor Labor Department See Mine Safety and Health Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):
GMI Natural Gas Development Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, WY, 32048-32049 E8-12620 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations; Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement, 32059 E8-12561 Marine Marine Mammal Commission NOTICES Availability of Grant Funds (FY 2008), 32051-32053 E8-12459 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Petitions for Modification, 32051 E8-12597 Mine Mine Safety and Health Federal Review Commission See Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32073-32074 E8-12491 Denial of Petition for Compliance Investigation: Motley Rice, LLC., 32074-32075 E8-12546 Meetings: Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services, 32075-32076 E8-12607 Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Chrysler, LLC., 32076-32077 E8-12548 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research Committee, 32032 E8-12282 Center for Scientific Review, 32032-32036 E8-12275 E8-12278 E8-12279 E8-12280 E8-12281 E8-12534 E8-12535 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 32036 E8-12272 E8-12273 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 32036-32037 E8-12274 National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research, 32037 E8-12276 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 32037 E8-12537 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Availability of Seats for the Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, 31975-31976 E8-12283 Meetings:
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 31976 E8-12593 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 31976 E8-12592 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 31976-31977 E8-12594 Nominations to the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, 31977 E8-12602 Revised Management Plan for Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve System, 31977-31978 E8-12541 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 32054 E8-12508 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES NUREG-1886, “Joint Canada—United States Guide for Approval of Type B(U) and Fissile Material Transportation Packages, Draft Report for Comment,” 31946-31947 E8-12583 NOTICES Availability of Regulatory Issue Summary 2008-12 Considerations for Extended Interim Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste etc., 32054-32055 E8-12575 Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Facility Operating Licenses and Materials License and Conforming Amendments, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 32055-32057 E8-12576 Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License and Conforming Amendment;
Opportunity for a Hearing, 32057-32058 E8-12578 Meetings: ACRS Subcommittee on Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, 32058-32059 E8-12570 Office Office of Management and Budget See Management and Budget Office Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 31978-31979 E8-12564 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Pipeline Safety: Installation of Excess Flow Valves into Gas Service Lines, 32077-32078 E8-12566 Postal Postal Service RULES Service Barcode Required for Priority Mail Open and Distribute Container Address Labels, 31943-31944 E8-12056 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* National Oceans Month (Proc. 8268), 32231-32234 08-1330 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Regional Office Reorganization, 32222-32229 E8-12244 NOTICES Applications for Deregistration under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act (1940), 32059-32061 E8-12595 Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Proposed Rule Changes: American Stock Exchange LLC.; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.; et al., 32061-32063 E8-12520 Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 32064-32065 E8-12481 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 32065-32066 E8-12482 The Options Clearing Corp., 32066-32067 E8-12519 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declaration: Arkansas, 32067 E8-12533 E8-12536 Florida, 32067-32068 E8-12637 Maine, 32068 E8-12568 Mississippi, 32068-32069 E8-12532 E8-12569 Missouri, 32069 E8-12538 Oklahoma, 32069 E8-12539 E8-12540 South Dakota, 32069-32070 E8-12567 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisition and Operation Exemption:
R.J. Corman Railroad Co./Pennsylvania Lines Inc. (Line of Norfolk Southern Railway Co.), 32078 E8-12584 Thrift Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Approval of Conversion Application: Home Federal Savings and Loan Association, Home Federal Mutual Holding Company of Louisiana, et al., 32085 E8-12270 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See Federal Transit Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board See Transportation Statistics Bureau Transportation Transportation Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32078-32080 E8-12604 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service See Thrift Supervision Office Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 32088-32220 08-1305 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 32222-32229 E8-12244 Part IV Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 32231-32234 08-1330 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. 73 109 Thursday, June 5, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 301 [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0057] Mexican Fruit Fly; Designation of Portion of Willacy County, TX, as a Quarantined Area AGENCY:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are amending the Mexican fruit fly regulations by designating a portion of Willacy County, TX, as a quarantined area and restricting the interstate movement of regulated articles from that area. This action is necessary to prevent the spread of the Mexican fruit fly into noninfested areas of the United States. DATES: This interim rule is effective June 5, 2008. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 4, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0057* to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0057, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0057. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne D. Burnett, Domestic Coordinator, Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234;
(301)734-4387. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Mexican fruit fly ( *Anastrepha ludens* ) is a destructive pest of citrus and many other types of fruit. The short life cycle of the Mexican fruit fly allows rapid development of serious outbreaks that can cause severe economic losses in commercial citrus-producing areas. The Mexican fruit fly regulations, contained in 7 CFR 301.64 through 301.64-10 (referred to below as the regulations), were established to prevent the spread of the Mexican fruit fly to noninfested areas of the United States. The regulations impose restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas. Section 301.64-3 provides that the Deputy Administrator for Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), shall list as a quarantined area each State, or each portion of a State, in which the Mexican fruit fly has been found by an inspector, in which the Deputy Administrator has reason to believe the Mexican fruit fly is present, or that the Deputy Administrator considers necessary to regulate because of its proximity to the Mexican fruit fly or its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities in which the Mexican fruit fly occurs. Less than an entire State is designated as a quarantined area only if the Deputy Administrator determines that the State has adopted and is enforcing a quarantine or regulation that imposes restrictions on the intrastate movement of the regulated articles that are substantially the same as those that are imposed with respect to the interstate movement of the articles by the APHIS regulations and the designation of less than the entire State as a quarantined area will otherwise be adequate to prevent the artificial interstate spread of the Mexican fruit fly. Recent trapping surveys by county agencies reveal that a portion of Willacy County, TX, is infested with the Mexican fruit fly. Accordingly, to prevent the spread of the Mexican fruit fly to noninfested areas of the United States, we are amending the regulations in § 301.64-3 by designating that portion of Willacy County, TX, as a quarantined area for the Mexican fruit fly. The quarantined area is described in detail in the regulatory text at the end of this document. The Deputy Administrator has determined that it is not necessary to designate the entire State of Texas as a quarantined area. Emergency Action This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the Mexican fruit fly from spreading to noninfested areas of the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the **Federal Register** . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. This rule amends the Mexican fruit fly regulations by designating a portion of Willacy County, TX, as a quarantined area and restricting the interstate movement of regulated articles from that area. This action is necessary to prevent the spread of the Mexican fruit fly into noninfested areas of the United States. Within the quarantined area there are approximately 20 small entities that may be affected by this rule. These include two grocery stores, three fruit stands, four citrus producers, six truck vendors, four nurseries, and one recycling center. These 20 entities comprise less than 1 percent of the total number of similar entities operating in the State of Texas. Additionally, these small entities sell regulated articles primarily for local intrastate, not interstate movement, so the effect, if any, of this regulation on these entities appears to be minimal. The effect on those few entities that do move regulated articles interstate will be minimized by the availability of various treatments that, in most cases, will allow these small entities to move regulated articles interstate with very little additional cost. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act This interim rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 301 as follows: PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Section 301.75-15 issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). 2. In § 301.64-3, paragraph
(c)is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, under the heading “Texas,” an entry for Willacy County to read as follows: § 301.64-3 Quarantined areas.
(c)* * * Texas *Willacy County* . That portion of the county in the Raymondville/Lasara area bounded by a line as follows: Beginning at the intersection of FM 498 and FM 2845; then east on FM 498 to FM 2099; then north on FM 2099 to FM 490; then east on FM 490 to a point described as latitude 26.45360 and longitude −97.69919; then north from that point along an imaginary line to CR 3796; then west on CR 3796 to Santa Margarita Road; then north on Santa Margarita Road to Riggin Road; then west on Riggin Road to Cantu Road; then northwest along an imaginary line to a point described as latitude 26.57423 and longitude −97.70461; then west from that point along an imaginary line to the Willacy County line; then south, east, and south along the Willacy County line to FM 1921; then east on FM 1921 to FM 2845; then south on FM 2845 to the point of beginning. Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2008. Cindy J. Smith, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-12542 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 93 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0164] RIN 0579-AC35 Temporary Importation of Horses; Noncompetitive Entertainment Horses From Countries Affected With Contagious Equine Metritis AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations to allow noncompetitive entertainment horses from countries affected with contagious equine metritis to be temporarily imported into the United States under certain conditions. The regulations currently provide for the temporary importation of horses from countries affected with contagious equine metritis to compete in specified events. In recent years it has become evident that similar provisions are needed for noncompetitive entertainment horses. This action will allow the temporary importation of horses into the United States solely for public exhibition and entertainment purposes while continuing to protect against the introduction and dissemination of contagious equine metritis. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ellen M. Buck, Veterinary Medical Officer, Import/Export Animals, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals into the United States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. Subpart C—Horses, §§ 93.300 through 92.326 of the regulations, pertains to the importation of horses into the United States. Section 93.301 of the regulations contains specific provisions for the quarantine and testing of horses from regions affected with contagious equine metritis (CEM), a highly contagious bacterial venereal disease that affects breeding and fertility. This section also identifies regions where CEM exists and regions that trade horses freely with those where CEM exists without testing for CEM. To prevent the introduction of CEM into the United States, § 93.301(c)(1) prohibits the importation of horses into the United States from listed regions unless the horses are imported in accordance with certain requirements. To be eligible for importation, the horses must fall into one of the following categories: • Wild (non-domesticated) species of equidae if captured in the wild or imported from a zoo or other facility where it would be unlikely that the animal would come in contact with domesticated horses used for breeding; • Geldings; • Weanlings or yearlings whose age is certified on the import health certificate required under § 93.314(a); • Horses imported in accordance with conditions prescribed by the Administrator as provided in § 93.301(a); • Spanish Pure Breed horses imported for permanent entry from Spain or thoroughbred horses imported for permanent entry from France, Germany, Ireland, or the United Kingdom as provided in § 93.301(d); • Stallions or mares over 731 days of age imported for permanent entry as provided in § 93.301(e); • Horses over 731 days of age imported into the United States for no more than 90 days to compete in specified events as provided in § 93.301(f); and • U.S. horses returning to the United States as provided in § 93.301(g). The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has used the provisions in § 93.301(f), relating to the temporary importation of horses for competition, to allow the temporary importation of noncompetitive entertainment horses into the United States. Several performance horse groups have asked APHIS to extend the 90-day limit provided for in § 93.301(f) so that they may exhibit and show their horses in the United States for longer periods of time. In addition, the United States Animal Health Association has recommended that APHIS amend the regulations to establish a category for noncompetitive entertainment horses. Accordingly, on August 2, 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 42318-42326, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0164) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations in § 93.301 to establish conditions under which noncompetitive entertainment horses from CEM-affected regions may be imported into the United States for longer than 90 days solely for public exhibition and entertainment purposes. Because the conditions are very similar to the conditions in § 93.301(f), which provides for the temporary importation of horses to compete in specified events, we proposed that § 93.301(f) apply to both types of imported horses. We also proposed to amend the regulations pertaining to import permits in § 93.304 to require the submission of additional information with the application for an import permit. 1 To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0164.* We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending October 1, 2007. We received four comments by that date. The comments were from a private citizen, State animal health department, horse industry group, and a horse entertainment company. These comments are discussed below. In the proposed rule we stated that, “[b]ecause CEM is a venereal disease transmitted by sexual contact, there is virtually no risk that a horse will transmit the disease through casual contact with other horses during a performance, exhibition, or exercise.” One commenter stated that APHIS should not lift the CEM restrictions unless there is absolutely no risk of spreading the disease. This commenter suggested that APHIS reconsider the proposed rule and tighten the CEM restrictions instead. We disagree. As discussed in the proposed rule, APHIS has conducted a risk assessment to evaluate the risk of allowing the extended importation of noncompetitive entertainment horses from countries affected with CEM without requiring CEM testing, and the risk of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)losing track of these horses during extended importation. The risk assessment, titled “Assessment of the Risk of Introduction of Contagious Equine Metritis
(CEM)through the Extended Importation of Noncompetitive Entertainment Horses from CEM-affected countries,” concluded that the risk posed by allowing the extended importation of noncompetitive entertainment horses from CEM-affected countries would be extremely low, with the application of the restrictions described in the rule. In addition, the risk assessment concluded that the risk of USDA losing track of the animals was extremely low due to the extensive supervision and involvement of APHIS personnel and the accredited veterinarian. The risk assessment is supported by our experiences with the importation of horses to compete in specified events under conditions very similar to those proposed for noncompetitive entertainment horses. Accordingly, we are making no changes based on this comment. Another commenter stated that the regulations should protect the health of U.S. horses from imported horses regardless of the reason for their importation. Therefore, the commenter recommended that the health certificate and testing requirements set forth in proposed § 93.301(f)(3) for noncompetitive entertainment horses also be required for horses temporarily imported for competition. In the proposed rule, we proposed to amend the regulations to require that, at the time of importation, each horse imported for competition or public exhibition and entertainment purposes be accompanied by an import permit in accordance with § 93.304 and a health certificate in accordance with § 93.314. However, for noncompetitive entertainment horses, we also proposed to require that the health certificate certify that cultures negative for CEM have been collected on three separate occasions within a 7-day period, with the last within 30 days of exportation. We proposed more stringent CEM testing requirements for noncompetitive entertainment horses because these horses could be imported for long periods of time, compared to horses imported for competition. Currently, § 93.301(f) provides that horses may be imported for competition for no more than 90 days under certain conditions. The requirement for CEM testing prior to importation for noncompetitive entertainment horses will help to ensure that horses infected with CEM do not enter this country and jeopardize the health of the U.S. horse population. For these reasons, we are making no change in response to this comment. The commenter also requested that APHIS clarify that the average salary used in the trust fund/costs is the salary for APHIS personnel. Proposed § 93.301(f)(10) provides that the costs associated with the supervision and maintenance of the horse by an APHIS representative be reimbursed by the horse's owner or importer through user fees payable under 9 CFR part 130, which lists the hourly rate and minimum user fee for certain import-related services provided by APHIS. Proposed § 93.301(f)(11) set out the requirements for trust fund agreements. More specifically, that paragraph provided that the horse's owner or importer deposit with APHIS an amount equal to the estimated cost, as determined by APHIS, for the APHIS representative to inspect the premises at which the horse will compete, perform, or be exhibited and to conduct the monitoring and supervision required by the regulations. We do not believe that additional clarification is needed. We are making no change based on this comment. One commenter supported the proposed rule but was concerned that USDA may not be able to provide the monitoring required by the regulations over extended periods of time. APHIS is committed to providing the services specified in the proposed rule and this final rule to prevent the introduction of CEM into the United States by noncompetitive entertainment horses. As discussed in the proposed rule, we would require noncompetitive entertainment horses to be imported and maintained in the United States in accordance with a trust fund agreement executed by the horse's owner or importer. Such an agreement would ensure that the government is reimbursed for the services it provides while the horses are in the United States. We are making no change based on this comment. A commenter stated that proposed § 93.301(f)(5)(iv)(B), which provides that horses must be kept on a premises that is or contains a building, is too restrictive. The commenter noted that entertainment horse shows often use stable installations, such as tents, that may be set up and taken down in each city. Thus, the commenter recommended that the regulations be amended to define the term “building” to include tent structures. We agree that the regulations should be flexible enough to cover buildings as well as tent stables or other temporary structures for housing horses. Therefore, in this final rule, we are amending § 93.301(f)(5)(iv)(B) to provide that the horse must be kept on a premises that is or contains a building or temporary structure in which the horse can be kept in a stall that is separated from other stalls that contain horses that are not listed on the import permit, either by an empty stall, by an open area across which horses cannot touch each other, or by a solid wall that is at least 8 feet (2.4 meters) high. The horse may be kept only on premises that have been approved by an APHIS representative. The commenter also recommended amending § 93.301(f)(5)(iv)(B) to allow APHIS to approve isolation measures other than those set out in that paragraph. Specifically, the commenter recommended revising that paragraph to read as follows: “Must be or contain a building in which the horse can be kept in a stall that is separated from other stalls that contain horses that are not listed on the import permit, either by an empty stall, by an open area across from which horses cannot touch each other, by a solid wall that is at least 8 feet (2.4 meters) high, or by such other means deemed appropriate by APHIS in the circumstances.” As noted in the proposed rule, one of the primary safeguards against the horses transmitting CEM while in the United States is the stringent measures in the regulations to ensure that the horses are kept apart from horses that are not listed on the import permit. This final rule provides several means by which the necessary isolation from horses that are not listed on the import permit could be accomplished. We do not believe that additional flexibility is needed. Accordingly, we are making no change in response to this comment. The same commenter recommended that proposed § 93.301(f)(6) be amended to allow last-minute changes to the itinerary in an emergency. Section 93.301(f)(6) provides that, if an owner or importer wishes to change the horse's itinerary or the methods by which the horse is transported from those specified on the import permit, the owner or importer must make the request for change in writing to the Administrator at least 15 days before the proposed date of change. The commenter noted that touring inevitably entails unforeseen changes of plans, venues, dates, etc. We agree that the regulations should allow for changes to the itinerary or methods of transportation in an emergency. In this final rule, we are adding a new paragraph to provide that the horse's itinerary or methods of transportation may be changed, with the prior approval of an APHIS representative, in order to respond to an emergency or other unforeseen circumstances or events (e.g., weather-related transportation delays, vehicle breakdown, medical emergencies, etc.). Requests for such a change may be submitted to APHIS by telephone, postal mail, commercial delivery service, fax, or e-mail. We may approve the request for change orally or in writing. If the approval is oral, it will be confirmed in writing by the Administrator as soon as possible. These changes will provide greater flexibility for a horse's owner or importer to respond to emergencies or other unforeseen circumstances or events. In this final rule, we are also amending paragraph (f)(6) to make it clear that written requests for change may be submitted via postal mail, commercial delivery service, fax, or e-mail. APHIS has always allowed such written requests for change; however, we are adding that provision to the regulations to make it clear to the public. The commenter also recommended that APHIS amend proposed § 93.301(f)(8) to provide the Administrator the discretion to allow horses to perform pending resolution of an appeal of the cancellation of an import permit, provided that such performances would not pose a risk to U.S. horses and the owner or importer could demonstrate material harm from the interruption of performances. Proposed § 93.301(f)(7) provides that the Administrator may cancel an import permit whenever the Administrator finds that the owner or importer of the horse has not complied with certain provisions in the regulations or any conditions imposed under those provisions. Proposed § 93.301(f)(8) provides that the horse is not permitted to enter competition, perform, or be exhibited from the date the owner or importer receives the notice of cancellation until the horse is moved out of the United States or until resolution of an appeal in favor of the owner or importer. The potential cancellation of an import permit for noncompliance with the regulations provides an incentive for a horse owner or importer to remain in compliance with the regulations; allowing the horse to continue to perform or be exhibited pending the resolution of an appeal would be counterproductive. Accordingly, we are making no change based on this comment. Finally, the commenter recommended that proposed § 93.304(a)(1)(iii)(D) through (H), relating to the proposed length of stay and itinerary, be amended to allow the applicant for an import permit to provide some of this information to APHIS at the time of application and the rest at intervals to be set by APHIS and the applicant. In the proposed rule, we listed the information that must be supplied to APHIS by the owner or importer with the application for an import permit. We noted that the specified information would allow APHIS to monitor the location of the horse while it is in the United States and to confirm compliance with the required isolation and handling procedures to ensure that the horse does not transmit CEM to any other horse while in this country. Given the potential for long stays in the United States for noncompetitive entertainment horses and our need for current information to monitor compliance with the regulations, we also proposed to require that, while in the United States, the owner or importer apply for and obtain from APHIS an import permit each year prior to the anniversary date of the horse's arrival in the United States. To accommodate changes to the itinerary following importation, in proposed § 93.301(f)(6), we also established provisions by which a horse owner or importer could request APHIS approval of a change to the horse's itinerary or the methods of transportation from those specified in the application for an import permit. We believe these provisions, in combination, provide the flexibility that the commenter is seeking. Accordingly, we are making no change in response to this comment. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the changes discussed in this document. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. We are amending the regulations to establish conditions under which noncompetitive entertainment horses (stallions and mares) over 731 days of age from CEM-affected countries could remain in the United States for longer than 90 days for public exhibition and entertainment purposes without undergoing the CEM quarantine and testing prescribed in the regulations. The horse industry plays an important role in the U.S. economy. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, there were 542,223 farms with 3.644 million horses valued at $9.9 billion in the United States in 2002. According to a recent study done for the American Horse Council, the number and value of horses are much larger than those reported in the 2002 Census of Agriculture: 2 million people owning 9.2 million horses with direct value of about $39 billion. 1 Both sets of data underscore the importance of the equine industry. In addition, other agricultural and nonagricultural sectors are dependent on the horse industry for their economic activity. Horses are a highly valued asset, especially those with a specific pedigree. Horses also play an important role in U.S. international trade. The value of U.S. horse exports ($449 million) was more than the combined export value of cattle, hogs and sheep and goats ($65 million) between 2003 and 2005. 2 1 Deloitte Consulting LLP for American Horse Council, National Economic Impact of the U.S. Horse Industry, 2005. 2 Global Trade Information Services, World Trade Atlas. The United States imported a total of 31,198 horses in 2005. Nearly 67 percent of horses imported were from Canada and 7.6 percent were from Mexico. Of the total imports, 25,564 were from non-CEM countries and the remaining 5,634 were from CEM countries. The proportion of horse imports that are pure breeding horses is small. Of the above total, 2,341 were purebred breeding horses. Only 340 purebred breeding horses were imported from CEM countries. 3 However, horses supplied by CEM-affected countries are generally highly valued. In 2005, for example, the average value of purebred breeding horses imported from CEM-affected regions was $41,220, whereas the average value of purebred breeding horses imported from countries not affected by CEM was $17,180. 3 Id. Although the disease does not result in death, CEM can be economically costly. The direct consequence may include the closing of breeding operations, production losses as a result of abortion, and costs of disease control. A CEM outbreak would result in the quarantine of affected horse farms, temporary cessation of breeding operations, and restriction of both intrastate and interstate movement. For some breeders, this could mean the loss of thousands or even millions of dollars in stud fees and breeding losses. Other consequences include trade restrictions that may be imposed by international trading partners. The noncompetitive entertainment horses that will be affected by this rule will not be allowed to have direct contact with horses outside those listed on their permit and may not be used for breeding purposes at any time while in the United States, including breeding with horses in the same show. Additionally, these horses may not undergo any genital examinations (unless required for diagnosis and treatment of a medical condition with prior approval of an APHIS representative), semen collection, or artificial insemination. Furthermore, since these are very specialized performance animals, domestic breeders will not be affected if this rule were to increase the amount of time the imported horses are in the United States. Horses arriving in the United States from abroad are quarantined at a USDA animal import center, generally for 3 days. Horses temporarily imported are required to exit the United States and be readmitted, following quarantine and testing, every 90 days. Each entry after 90 days is considered a new entry into the United States. The USDA charges a minimum of $810 for the 3-day quarantine. In addition to this facility charge, user fees of $80 are charged for blood testing, resulting in a total quarantine and testing cost per horse of $890. The final rule will allow imported performance horses to stay in the United States longer than 90 days without their owners having again to pay USDA import quarantine and testing costs. This is a savings that accrues to the importing entities and likely to counterbalance their costs associated with supervisory activities of APHIS and/or an accredited veterinarian. The number of entities and horses expected to be directly affected by this rule is not large. We anticipate that between 1 and 10 performing groups varying in size from 5 to 40 horses (or a total of between 5 and 400 horses) will utilize the proposed exception each year. Given that there are over 1 million domestic show horses, even the upper quantity represents a very small fraction of the total supply (0.04 percent). The Small Business Administration
(SBA)has established guidelines for determining which types of firms are to be considered small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule may affect operations such as zoological parks (North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] code 712130), and animal performances including circuses, carnivals, and amusement parks (NAICS code 711190). SBA classifies these operations as small entities if their annual receipts are not more than $6.5 million. Of the approximately 850 such establishments, about 12.5 percent are considered to be large. The subset of these entities that temporarily import noncompetitive entertainment horses from CEM countries will benefit from the forgone costs associated with the horses having to exit and reenter the United States every 90 days. On the other hand, they will bear the cost of supervisory activities by APHIS and/or an accredited veterinarian. The overall impact is expected to be insignificant, given the relatively small number of noncompetitive entertainment horses imported from CEM countries. Other operations that may remotely be affected are domestic suppliers of similar horses (NAICS code 112920). According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, that year there were 542,223 horse farms with 3,644,278 horses in the United States, of which 124,596 farms sold 470,423 horses that had a total value of over $1.13 billion. 4 An unknown share of these farms supply show horses that could be comparable to the noncompetitive entertainment horses imported temporarily from CEM-affected countries. SBA classifies horse farms as small entities if their annual receipts are not more than $750,000; 5 over 99 percent are considered to be small. 4 As stated above, the census total is much less than the total reported by the American Horse Council Foundation. According to that report, there were 9,222,847 horses in 2005 (Deloitte Consulting LLP, National Economic Impact of the U.S. Horse Industry). Of this total, 9 percent were racing, 30 percent showing, 42 percent recreation, and 19 percent other ( *http://www.horsecouncil.org/statistics.htm* ). 5 SBA, Small Business Size Standards matched to NAICS, Effective July 31, 2006; and U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census: Manufacturing-Industries Series, Wholesale Trade-Subject Series and Transportation and Warehousing-Subject Series, Issued August, 2006. Entities that may be affected by the rule are principally small businesses, but the impact of the rule is not expected to be significant. Because the pool of noncompetitive entertainment horses that are temporarily imported is a small fraction of the total number of show horses in the United States, any effects of the rule on U.S. entities will be very small. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB control number 0579-0324. E-Government Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)851-2908. List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 93 Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 93 as follows: PART 93—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND POULTRY, AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; REQUIREMENTS FOR MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS 1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 2. Section 93.301 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (c)(2)(vii), by removing the words “paragraph (f)” and adding the words “paragraph (f)(1)” in their place, and by removing the word “and” at the end of the sentence. b. By redesignating paragraph (c)(2)(viii) as paragraph (c)(2)(ix) and adding a new paragraph (c)(2)(viii) to read as set forth below. c. In footnote 6, by removing the words “Jefatura de Cria Caballar Registro Matricula for Spain” and adding the words “Asociacion National de Criadores de Caballos de Pura Raza Espanola for Spain” in their place. d. By revising paragraph
(f)and the Office of Management and Budget citation at the end of the section to read as set forth below. § 93.301 General prohibitions; exceptions.
(c)*Specific prohibitions regarding contagious equine metritis; exceptions* — * * *
(2)* * *
(viii)Horses over 731 days of age imported into the United States for noncompetitive public exhibition and entertainment purposes if the horses meet the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section; and
(f)*Special provisions for temporary importation for competition or entertainment purposes.*
(1)Horses over 731 days of age may be imported into the United States for no more than 90 days to compete in specified events provided that the conditions in paragraphs (f)(3) through (f)(12) of this section are met.
(2)Horses over 731 days of age may be temporarily imported into the United States solely for noncompetitive public exhibition and entertainment purposes provided that the conditions in paragraphs (f)(3) through (f)(12) of this section are met.
(3)At the time of importation, each horse must be accompanied by an import permit in accordance with § 93.304 and a health certificate issued in accordance with § 93.314. For horses imported in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the health certificate must also certify that cultures negative for CEM were obtained from sets of specimens collected on three separate occasions within a 7-day period from the mucosal surfaces of the clitoral fossa and the clitoral sinuses of any female horses and from the surfaces of the prepuce, the urethral sinus, and the fossa glandis, including the diverticulum of the fossa glandis, of any male horses. For both female and male horses, the sets of specimens must be collected on days 1, 4, and 7 of the 7-day period, and the last of these sets of specimens must be collected within 30 days of exportation. All specimens required by this paragraph must be collected by a licensed veterinarian who either is, or is acting in the presence of, the veterinarian signing the certificate.
(4)Following the horse's arrival in the United States:
(i)A horse imported in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this section may remain in the United States for not more than 90 days, except as provided in paragraph (f)(9) of this section.
(ii)A horse imported in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section may remain in the United States indefinitely, except as provided in paragraph (f)(9) of this section, as long as the conditions of paragraphs (f)(3) through (f)(12) of this section are met and the horse's owner or importer applies for and obtains from APHIS an import permit, as provided for in § 93.304, each year prior to the anniversary date of the horse's arrival in the United States.
(5)While the horse is in the United States, the following conditions must be met:
(i)A horse imported in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section:
(A)Must not be entered in competitions.
(B)Must be regularly used in performances or exhibitions, unless sick or injured. A horse that is no longer performing or being exhibited must be exported or made eligible for permanent entry in accordance with paragraph (f)(9) of this section.
(C)Must be kept with the other horses listed on the import permit, unless otherwise approved by an APHIS representative.
(ii)Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5)(viii) of this section, the horse must be moved according to the itinerary and methods of transport specified in the import permit provided for in § 93.304.
(iii)The horse must be monitored by an accredited veterinarian or APHIS representative to ensure that the provisions of paragraphs (f)(5)(ii), (f)(5)(vi), and (f)(5)(vii) of this section are met. If the monitoring is performed by an accredited veterinarian, the Veterinarian in Charge will ensure that the accredited veterinarian is familiar with the requirements of this section and spot checks will be conducted by an APHIS representative to ensure that the requirements of this section are being met. If an APHIS representative finds that requirements are not being met, the Administrator may require that all remaining monitoring be conducted by APHIS representatives to ensure compliance.
(iv)Except when in transit, the horse must be kept on a premises that has been approved by an APHIS representative. For horses imported in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this section, such approval may be oral or in writing. If the approval is oral, it will be confirmed in writing by the Administrator as soon as circumstances permit. For horses imported in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the approval will be in writing. To receive approval, the premises:
(A)Must not be a breeding premises; and
(B)Must be or contain a building or temporary structure in which the horse can be kept in a stall that is separated from other stalls that contain horses that are not listed on the import permit, either by an empty stall, by an open area across which horses cannot touch each other, or by a solid wall that is at least 8 feet (2.4 meters) high.
(v)While in transit, the horse must be moved in either an aircraft or a sealed van or trailer. If the horse is moved in a sealed van or trailer, the seal may be broken only by an APHIS representative at the horse's destination, except in situations where the horse's life is in danger.
(vi)Except when actually competing, performing, or being exhibited or exercised, the horse must be kept in a pasture approved by APHIS or in a stall that is separated from other stalls containing horses that are not listed on the import permit, either by an empty stall, by an open area across which horses cannot touch each other, or by a solid wall that is at least 8 feet (2.4 meters) high.
(vii)The horse may not be used for breeding purposes (including artificial insemination or semen collection) and may not have any other sexual contact with other horses. The horse may not undergo any genital examinations, except that a horse imported in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section may undergo genital examinations for diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition with the prior approval of an APHIS representative.
(viii)The horse may be moved for diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition with the prior approval of an APHIS representative.
(ix)After the horse is transported anywhere in the United States, any vehicle in which the horse was transported must be cleaned and disinfected in the presence of an APHIS representative, according to the procedures specified in §§ 71.7 through 71.12 of this chapter, before any other horse is transported in the vehicle.
(x)The cleaning and disinfection specified in paragraph (f)(5)(ix) of this section must be completed before the vehicle is moved from the place where the horse is unloaded. In those cases where the facilities or equipment for cleaning and disinfection are inadequate at the place where the horse is unloaded, the Administrator may allow the vehicle to be moved to another location for cleaning and disinfection when the move will not pose a disease risk to other horses in the United States.
(xi)The owner or importer of the horse must comply with any other provisions of this part applicable to him or her.
(6)Except as provided in paragraph (f)(7) of this section, if the owner or importer wishes to change the horse's itinerary or the methods by which the horse is transported from that which he or she specified in the application for the import permit, the owner or importer must make the request for change in writing to the Administrator. Requests for change must be submitted to APHIS no less than 15 days before the proposed date of the change. Requests may be submitted to APHIS by postal mail, commercial delivery service, fax, or e-mail. The change in itinerary or method of transport may not be made without the written approval of the Administrator, who may grant the request for change when he or she determines that granting the request will not endanger other horses in the United States and that sufficient APHIS personnel are available to provide the services required by the owner or importer.
(7)In response to an emergency or other unforeseen circumstances or events (e.g., weather-related transportation delays, vehicle breakdown, medical emergencies, etc.), the horse's itinerary or methods of transportation may be changed, with the prior approval of an APHIS representative, from that which is specified in the application for an import permit. Requests for such a change may be submitted to APHIS by telephone, postal mail, commercial delivery service, fax, or e-mail. Approval may be oral or in writing. If the approval is oral, it will be confirmed in writing by the Administrator as soon as circumstances permit.
(8)The Administrator may cancel, orally or in writing, the import permit provided for under § 93.304 whenever the Administrator finds that the owner or importer of the horse has not complied with the provisions of paragraphs (f)(3) through (f)(7) of this section or any conditions imposed under those provisions. If the cancellation is oral, the Administrator will confirm the cancellation and the reasons for the cancellation in writing as soon as circumstances permit. Any person whose import permit is canceled may appeal the decision in writing to the Administrator within 10 days after receiving oral or written notification of the cancellation, whichever is earlier. If the appeal is sent by mail, it must be postmarked within 10 days after the owner or importer receives oral or written notification of the cancellation, whichever is earlier. The appeal must include all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the import permit was wrongfully canceled. The Administrator will grant or deny the appeal in writing as promptly as circumstances permit, stating the reason for his or her decision. If there is a conflict as to any material fact, a hearing will be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of practice concerning the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
(9)Except in those cases where an appeal is in process, any person whose import permit is canceled must move the horse identified in the import permit out of the United States within 10 days after receiving oral or written notification of cancellation, whichever is earlier. The horse is not permitted to enter competition, perform, or be exhibited from the date the owner or importer receives the notice of cancellation until the horse is moved out of the United States or until resolution of an appeal in favor of the owner or importer. Except when being exercised, the horse must be kept, at the expense of the owner or importer, in a stall on the premises where the horse is located when the notice of cancellation is received or, if the horse is in transit when the notice of cancellation is received, on the premises where it is next scheduled to compete, perform, or be exhibited according to the import permit. The stall in which the horse is kept must be separated from other stalls containing horses that are not listed on the import permit, either by an empty stall, by an open area across which horses cannot touch each other, or by a solid wall that is at least 8 feet (2.4 meters) high. In cases where the owners of the above specified premises do not permit the horse to be kept on those premises, or when the Administrator determines that keeping the horse on the above specified premises will pose a disease risk to horses in the United States, the horse must be kept, at the expense of the owner or importer, on an alternative premises approved by the Administrator.
(10)Stallions or mares over 731 days of age that are imported in accordance with paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section may be eligible to remain in the United States if the following is completed:
(i)Following completion of the itinerary specified in the import permit provided for in § 93.304, the horse's owner or importer applies for and receives a new import permit that specifies that the stallion or mare will be moved to an approved State listed in paragraph (h)(6) or (h)(7) of this section; and
(ii)The stallion or mare is transported in a sealed vehicle that has been cleaned and disinfected to an approved facility in an approved State where it is quarantined under State or Federal supervision until the stallion or mare has met the testing and treatment requirements of paragraph (e)(3) or (e)(5) of this section.
(11)All costs and charges associated with the supervision and maintenance of a horse imported under paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section will be borne by the horse's owner or importer. The costs associated with the supervision and maintenance of the horse by an APHIS representative at his or her usual places of duty will be reimbursed by the horse's owner or importer through user fees payable under part 130 of this chapter.
(12)In the event that an APHIS representative must be temporarily detailed from his or her usual place of duty in connection with the supervision and maintenance of a horse imported under this paragraph (f), the owner or importer of the horse must execute a trust fund agreement with APHIS to reimburse all expenses (including travel costs, salary, per diem or subsistence, administrative expenses, and incidental expenses) incurred by the Department in connection with the temporary detail. Under the trust fund agreement, the horse's owner or importer must deposit with APHIS an amount equal to the estimated cost, as determined by APHIS, for the APHIS representative to inspect the premises at which the horse will compete, perform, or be exhibited; to conduct the monitoring required by paragraph (f)(5)(iii) of this section; and to supervise the cleaning and disinfection required by paragraph (f)(5)(ix) of this section. The estimated costs will be based on the following factors:
(i)Number of hours needed for an APHIS representative to conduct the required inspection and monitoring;
(ii)For services provided during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except holidays), the average salary, per hour, for an APHIS representative;
(iii)For services provided outside regular business hours, the applicable rate for overtime, night differential, or Sunday or holiday pay, based on the average salary, per hour, for an APHIS representative;
(iv)Number of miles from the premises at which the horse competes, performs, or is exhibited to the APHIS office or facility that is monitoring the activities;
(v)Government rate per mile for automobile travel or, if appropriate, cost of other means of transportation between the premises at which the horse competes, performs, or is exhibited and the APHIS office or facility;
(vi)Number of trips between the premises at which the horse competes, performs, or is exhibited and the APHIS office or facility that APHIS representatives are required to make in order to conduct the required inspection and monitoring;
(vii)Number of days the APHIS representative conducting the inspection and monitoring must be in “travel status”;
(viii)Applicable Government per diem rate; and
(ix)Cost of related administrative support services.
(13)If a trust fund agreement with APHIS has been executed by the owner or importer of a horse in accordance with paragraph (f)(12) of this section and APHIS determines, during the horse's stay in the United States, that the amount deposited will be insufficient to cover the services APHIS is scheduled to provide during the remainder of the horse's stay, APHIS will issue to the horse's owner or importer a bill to restore the deposited amount to a level sufficient to cover the estimated cost to APHIS for the remainder of the horse's stay in the United States. The horse's owner or importer must pay the amount billed within 14 days after receiving the bill. If the bill is not paid within 14 days after its receipt, APHIS will cease to perform the services provided for in paragraph (f)(5) of this section until the bill is paid. The Administrator will inform the owner or importer of the cessation of services orally or in writing. If the notice of cessation is oral, the Administrator will confirm, in writing, the notice of cessation and the reason for the cessation of services as soon as circumstances permit. In such a case, the horse must be kept, at the expense of the owner or importer and until the bill is paid, in a stall either on the premises at which the horse is located when the notice of cessation of services is received or, if the horse is in transit when the notice of cessation of services is received, on the premises at which it is next scheduled to compete, perform, or be exhibited according to the import permit. The stall in which the horse is kept must be separated from other stalls containing horses that are not listed on the import permit, either by an empty stall, by an open area across which horses cannot touch each other, or by a solid wall that is at least 8 feet (2.4 meters) high. In cases where the owners of the premises where the horse would be kept following a cessation of services do not permit the horse to be kept on those premises, or when the Administrator determines that keeping the horse on the premises will pose a disease risk to other horses in the United States, the horse must be kept, at the expense of the owner or importer, on an alternative premises approved by the Administrator. Until the bill is paid, the horse is not permitted to enter competition, perform, or be exhibited. Any amount deposited in excess of the costs to APHIS to provide the required services will be refunded to the horse's owner or importer. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0040, 0579-0165, and 0579-0324). 3. Section 93.304 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), by removing the citation “§ 93.301(f)” both times it occurs and adding the citation “§ 93.301(f)(1)” in its place. b. By redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(iii) as paragraph (a)(1)(iv) and adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as set forth below. c. By adding an Office of Management and Budget citation at the end of the section to read as set forth below. § 93.304 Import permits for horses from regions affected with CEM and for horse specimens for diagnostic purposes; reservation fees for space at quarantine facilities maintained by APHIS.
(a)*Application for permit; reservation required.*
(1)* * *
(iii)Horses intended for importation under § 93.301(f)(2) must meet the permit requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. Additionally, for horses intended for importation under § 93.301(f)(2), the horse's owner or importer must include the following information with the application for permit that is required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section:
(A)The individual identifying information required in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section for all horses to be imported.
(B)The permanent electronic identification of each horse to be imported, if applicable. In the event that a horse has permanent electronic identification, the horse must be accompanied by a compatible reader.
(C)Photographs (head and lateral views) that are sufficient to identify each horse on an electronic medium approved by APHIS.
(D)The proposed total length of stay in the United States.
(E)A description of the shows or events in which the horse will perform while in the United States.
(F)The names, dates, and locations of the venues in which the horse will perform while in the United States.
(G)The names and locations of the premises on which the horse will be kept while in the United States, and the dates the horse will be kept on each premises.
(H)The methods and routes by which the horse will be transported while in the United States.
(I)A written plan for handling sick or injured horses that includes: ( *1* ) The name, address, and phone number of each accredited veterinarian who will provide veterinary services in the United States; ( *2* ) The name, address, and phone number of medical facilities to be used to diagnose or treat sick or injured horses while in the United States; and ( *3* ) A plan to return sick or injured horses to performance condition.
(J)An application for a trust fund or escrow account agreement with APHIS in accordance with § 93.301(f)(12). (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0040 and 0579-0324). Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2008. Cindy J. Smith, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-12543 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 652 RIN 3052-AC36 Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Funding and Fiscal Affairs; Risk-Based Capital Requirements AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, Agency, or we) adopts a final rule that amends capital regulations governing the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac or the Corporation). The final rule updates the Risk-Based Capital Stress Test (RBCST, RBC model, model) in response to recent changes in Farmer Mac's operations that are not addressed in the current version (Version 2.0). The final rule also amends the current model's assumption regarding the carrying costs of nonperforming loans to better reflect Farmer Mac's actual business practices. In addition, the final rule adds a new component to the model to recognize counterparty risk on nonprogram investments through application of discounts or “haircuts” to the yields of those investments and makes technical amendments to the layout of the model's Credit Loss Module. The effect of the rule is to update the model so that it continues to appropriately reflect risk in a manner consistent with statutory requirements for calculating Farmer Mac's regulatory minimum capital level under a risk-based capital stress test. DATES: *Effective Date:* This regulation will be effective the later of 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** during which time either or both Houses of Congress are in session, or June 30, 2008. We will publish a notice of the effective date in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph T. Connor, Associate Director for Policy and Analysis, Office of Secondary Market Oversight, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,
(703)883-4280, TTY
(703)883-4434; or Rebecca S. Orlich, Senior Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,
(703)883-4420, TTY
(703)883-4020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Purpose Under section 8.32 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, 1 the FCA established the RBCST for Farmer Mac in 2001. It is the Agency's objective that the RBCST continues to determine regulatory capital requirements in a manner consistent with statutory requirements and constraints. The purpose of this final rule is to revise the risk-based capital regulations that apply to Farmer Mac to more accurately reflect changes in Farmer Mac's operations and business practices. The substantive issues addressed in this final rule include the treatment of program loan volume with certain credit enhancement features (e.g., Off-Balance Sheet AgVantage volume, subordinated interests, and program loan collateral pledged in excess of Farmer Mac's guarantee obligation (hereafter, “overcollateral”)), counterparty risk on nonprogram investments, and the carrying costs associated with the funding of nonperforming loans. We also describe minor formatting changes to the structure of the Credit Loss Module and the RBC model that are in the nature of technical changes. The preamble to the proposed rule, which was published in the **Federal Register** on September 13, 2007, contains a full description of the proposed changes. The proposed rule provided for a 45-day comment period that ended on October 29, 2007. 2 Below we discuss only those provisions on which we received comments. 1 12 U.S.C. 2279bb-1. 2 72 FR 52301 (Sept. 13, 2007). The final rule (Version 3.0 of the RBC model) is adopted with one revision from the proposed rule. The revision permits the Director of the Office of Secondary Market Oversight to reduce the haircut level applied to unrated investments. II. Background Our analysis of the RBCST has identified a need to update the model in response to changing financial markets, new business practices and the evolution of the loan portfolio at Farmer Mac, as well as continuing development of industry best practices among leading financial institutions. Our goal is to ensure that the RBCST reflects changes in the Corporation's business structure and loan portfolio that have occurred since the model was originally developed by FCA, while complying with the statutory requirements and constraints on the model's design. III. Comments We received one comment letter on the proposed rule from Farmer Mac. In general, Farmer Mac agreed with FCA's objective to revise the RBCST to reflect Farmer Mac's actual business risks more accurately but offered specific comments on three aspects of the proposed rule—the method of calculating the loan loss resolution time factor (LLRT), funding rate assumptions applied to nonperforming loan volume, and the treatment of unrated Government-sponsored enterprises
(GSE)for purposes of applying discounts (or “haircuts”) to nonprogram investments. IV. Description of Comments on the Proposed Rule and FCA's Response Below is a description of the three specific comments on the proposed rule and FCA's responses to the comments. A. Treatment of Unresolved Nonperforming Loans in the LLRT Calculation The proposed rule's method for calculating the LLRT called for first calculating the average LLRT of nonperforming loans for all such loans that have resolved by the calculation date. 3 This average is then adjusted to incorporate the LLRT to date of unresolved nonperforming loans currently on Farmer Mac's books where the individual unresolved loan's LLRT to date is greater than the average LLRT of resolved loans. The average is calculated on an Unpaid Principal Balance (UPB)-weighted basis. Farmer Mac did not object to the proposed UPB weighting or generally to the method for measuring time in nonperforming loan status. Farmer Mac disagreed with the specific method for incorporating the influence of censored data. 4 Farmer Mac asserted that excluding data from the portion of the data set made up of unresolved nonperforming loans with individual LLRTs lower than the average of resolved loans would bias the overall LLRT calculation. To correct this perceived bias, Farmer Mac suggested either using only loans that have resolved or employing statistical tests that formally accommodate censored observations in order to accommodate the influence of the unresolved defaults in the data set. Farmer Mac suggested that such an approach would improve the LLRT accuracy by providing an unbiased estimate of “life expectancy” of a nonperforming loan (i.e., LLRT). 3 By “resolved,” we mean loans that were in default for some period but were later paid current, paid off, liquidated, or transferred to real estate-owned, and are therefore no longer in nonperforming loan status. 4 Censored data are loans that have entered nonperforming loan status but have not resolved as of the calculation date. In developing the proposed approach, we considered several issues related to the application of duration or survival models, including the uniformity of the “arrivals” into default, the possible impact of UPB at time of default on remaining resolution experience, and general sample characteristics including length of observation window, fraction censored, and average life relative to observation window. The proposed approach was intended to balance the demands of a more complex modeling approach with the limits of the data set over the relatively short window (roughly 11 years), the relatively small set of loans in default and the observed high relative rate of default in a period centered near 2002 that substantially departs from a uniform arrival pattern. Farmer Mac correctly implies that excluding loans with relatively short durations in default as of the calculation date avoids a downward influence on the calculated LLRT. However, the treatment of unresolved nonperforming loans that have individual LLRTs greater than the average of those that have resolved as of the calculation date carries the opposite effect (i.e., avoids an upward influence) relative to their eventual resolution experience, because the current life at the calculation date is used in the weighted average calculation rather than its yet-to-be-determined actual life. The current life of this subset of loans at the calculation date necessarily understates their eventual LLRT and, thus, exerts an offsetting influence on the excluded subset. While there is not a formal statistical test for the relative impact of these two effects (treatment of both longer-than- and shorter-than-average LLRT), the adopted approach is intended to balance the two offsetting influences. Farmer Mac suggested consideration of a more formal method to accommodate censored data in a duration or life-survival type model, and we conducted several related analyses. Importantly, the bulk of the defaults occurred in a period of time relatively early in the observation window. While the rate of arrival into default is non-uniform, the censored distribution displays the statistically useful property of increasing smoothly toward the censoring date. We calculated several measures of mean time in default on both UPB-weighted and unweighted bases, with alternative treatments of the unresolved data. Under all subsets of data examined, the UPB-weighted LLRT values are consistently 15 to 20 percent larger than the unweighted LLRT estimates. We also estimated alternative specifications of the related hazard and survival functions using data supplied by Farmer Mac on all loans that had entered default status as of October 1, 2007, under
(i)standard direct life tables with censored data,
(ii)Kaplan-Meier methods, and
(iii)Cox censored regression methods. The Kaplan-Meier method provides a direct method for recovery of the mean survival time accommodating the influence of the censored data at 1.79 years on an unweighted UPB basis. This value can be contrasted with a value of 1.60 on an unweighted basis using the method in the proposed rule for the same data set. Including the influence of UPB-weighting results in the proposed rule's method increasing from 1.6 to 1.88, a value below that which we expect to find from any form of a censored regression or Lifetest model after weighting by UPB. Importantly, the survival function models we estimated generally confirm the significance of UPB on time-in-default and further argue for the use of UPB-weighted LLRT. Our testing of the suggested general approaches has shown that the joint treatment of excluded loans with lower than average current LLRTs and the conservative treatment of loans with longer than average but currently unresolved LLRTs results in a similar but slightly lower LLRT value compared with the censored regression methods suggested by Farmer Mac. We conclude that the simplicity of the proposed approach is warranted because of the similarity in estimated values and the fact that Farmer Mac would have to re-run this test every quarter to update the LLRT. We note that, as the observation window continues to lengthen and the influence of censored loan data continues to decline, the specific treatment employed becomes less important because we expect the censored data effects to become more diluted. B. Carrying Costs of Nonperforming Loans Farmer Mac commented that the proposed funding rates applied to nonperforming loan volume do not reflect its actual operations and reiterated the comments in its letter of April 17, 2006, which related to the proposed rule for Version 2.0 of the RBC model. 5 That letter encouraged FCA to treat on- and off-balance sheet nonperforming loans in the model as being funded at the less than 1 year (short-term) rate or in keeping with Farmer Mac's actual practice of using the lowest funding rate available at the time a loan became nonaccrual given yield curve conditions existing at that time. Given the consolidated reporting of funding in only two categories—less than 1 year and greater than 1 year—we determined that tying the incremental carrying costs to the short-term rate was acceptable. 5 70 FR 69692 (Nov. 17, 2005). We discussed this comment in the preamble to the 2007 proposed rule (72 FR at 52305, Sept. 13, 2007). The Agency acknowledged in the proposed rule that, under unusual conditions, the short-term rate may not be the minimum rate, and Farmer Mac could potentially reallocate to some degree debt on its books in order to fund nonperforming loans at a point on its corporate yield curve that might be more advantageous than the short-term rate. Such a reallocation could necessitate a corresponding reallocation of funding to a different asset to offset the debt associated with the now-optimally funded nonperforming loan position. We did not attempt to reflect forward discretionary management behavior or develop an “optimal” funding practice that would result in effective funding durations changing throughout the modeled 10-year period of the RBCST. In the proposed rule, we discussed this possibility and rejected a more complex LLRT funding assumption in favor of the proposed approach, particularly in light of the fact that the model is cast with only two maturity groupings (“buckets”) of debt securities. To do otherwise would require adding substantial complexity to the components of the model reflecting funding costs—components which we believe are reasonably well calibrated to actual operations of Farmer Mac in their current aggregated form (i.e., two duration buckets). We believe the proposed approach reflects Farmer Mac's typical practices under normal conditions, and Farmer Mac has confirmed this is true in the preponderance of cases. To attempt to build an “optimal” or “discretionary” future duration-of-funding model that depends on the projected forward balance sheet composition in the model is beyond the scope of the model. C. Treatment of Unrated GSE Securities Farmer Mac commented that the proposed method of applying haircuts to unrated GSE securities should be changed. Specifically, Farmer Mac believes the model should treat such securities as AAA-rated, rather than limiting such treatment only to GSE securities that are fully guaranteed by a GSE. Farmer Mac asserts that this approach would both reflect the low risk of default on all GSE securities and be consistent with FCA's approach to risk-weighting similar assets on the balance sheets of other Farm Credit System (System) institutions. 6 FCA regulations of other System institutions permit a 20-percent risk weighting to “all securities” of GSEs without regard to credit rating. Farmer Mac asserts that FCA has recognized the low risk associated with GSE securities in the context of Agency regulations governing nonprogram investments and liquidity because they permit much higher obligor limits for eligible GSE investments than other types of nonprogram investments. 7 Lastly, Farmer Mac asserts that the Agency would be justified in applying an automatic AAA-rating equivalent treatment to both unrated and GSE securities rated lower than AAA because the GSEs are closely regulated by Federal regulatory agencies that have access to more comprehensive and current information concerning the financial condition of the regulated GSE. The comment effectively encourages FCA to supersede the ratings of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSRO). This would be contrary to our stated goal for the regulation to avoid such a de facto re-rating process by the Agency in applying investment haircuts. However, we acknowledge there could be circumstances under which a reduction in the haircuts applicable to unrated investments that are not guaranteed by a GSE might be appropriate based on the risk characteristics of the investment. We believe that such circumstances could exist for non-GSE instruments as well as for GSE instruments. Therefore, in the final rule, while the default haircut on unrated instruments will remain as proposed, we have made a change in response to this comment that gives the Director of the Office of Secondary Market Oversight the discretion to apply a lower haircut on unrated investments on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the risk characteristics of the instrument. 6 The FCA's capital rules for System banks and associations are set forth at 12 CFR part 615, subparts H and K. The risk weightings are in 12 CFR 615.5210-615.5212. 7 *See* 12 CFR 615.5140. We disagree with Farmer Mac's assertion that the risk-based capital framework for other System institutions provides support for a policy that would apply AAA haircuts to all GSE securities regardless of their rating. The risk-based capital framework for other System institutions is fundamentally different from the RBCST applied to Farmer Mac as required by section 8.32 of the Farm Credit Act. The purpose of the regulations governing System capital requirements is to protect a System institution against unexpected losses arising from all types of risk, unlike this component of the RBC model, the purpose of which is to estimate counterparty risk. Comparing the proposed haircuts with capital requirements is not a relevant comparison because equity requirements to cover all types of unexpected losses applied as a percentage of volume are not comparable to haircuts to reflect counterparty risk that are applied by reducing estimated future cashflows over the RBC model's 10-year time horizon on a gradually increasing basis. Accordingly, GSE investments with ratings will be haircut in accordance with the schedule in this rule. V. Technical Changes to the RBCST in the Final Rule In Version 3.0, we have revised the loan seasoning codes previously used in the Credit Loss Module to make off-balance sheet loan seasoning codes the same as those used for on-balance sheet loans and made other conforming data entry changes in the RBCST module. We have also incorporated a specification for senior subordinated loans in the Credit Loss Module to reduce the loss impact by the degree of subordination as referenced in the proposed rule. VI. Impact of Changes on Required Capital Our tests indicate that changes related to the LLRT would have the most significant impact on risk-based capital calculated by the model. The table below provides an indication of the relative impact of each revision for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, using preliminary model submission information for the fourth quarter 2007. The lines labeled “Impact of Carrying Costs of Nonperforming Loans within Ver. 3.0 (estimated),” “Impact of Investment Haircuts within Ver. 3.0 (estimated),” and “Impact of Treatment of Off-Balance Sheet AgVantage Program Volume and Other Credit-Enhanced Program Volume (e.g., Subordinated Interests) within Ver. 3.0 (estimated)” present the minimum risk-based capital level calculated if that revision were excluded from the final rule, Version 3.0 of the RBCST. The scenario used to estimate the impact of AgVantage Program Volume and Other Credit-Enhanced Program Volume excluded those two portfolios completely. As the table shows, the individual estimated impacts do not have an additive relationship to the total impact on the model relative to Version 2.0. This is due to the interrelationship of the changes with one another when they are combined in Version 3.0. Calculated regulatory capital ($ in thousands) 12/31/2007 RBCST Version 2.0 42,754 RBCST Version 3.0 (estimated) 59,965 Impact of Carrying Costs of Nonperforming Loans within Version 3.0 (estimated) 20,623 Impact of Investment Haircuts within Version 3.0 (estimated) 707 Impact of the Treatment of Off-Balance Sheet AgVantage Program Volume and Other Credit-Enhanced Program Volume (e.g., Subordinated Interests) within Version 3.0 (estimated) (2,620) VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), FCA hereby certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Farmer Mac has assets and annual income over the amounts that would qualify it as a small entity. Therefore, Farmer Mac is not considered a “small entity” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 652 Agriculture, Banks, Banking, Capital, Investments, Rural areas. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 652 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as follows: PART 652—FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION FUNDING AND FISCAL AFFAIRS 1. The authority citation for part 652 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4.12, 5.9, 5.17, 8.11, 8.31, 8.32, 8.33, 8.34, 8.35, 8.36, 8.37, 8.41 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2183, 2243, 2252, 2279aa-11, 2279bb, 2279bb-1, 2279bb-2, 2279bb-3, 2279bb-4, 2279bb-5, 2279bb-6, 2279cc); sec. 514 of Pub. L. 102-552, 106 Stat. 4102; sec. 118 of Pub. L. 104-105, 110 Stat. 168. Subpart B—Risk-Based Capital Requirements 2. Amend § 652.65 by redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as new paragraph (b)(6) and adding a new paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows: § 652.65 Risk-based capital stress test.
(b)* * *
(5)You will further adjust losses for loans that collateralize the general obligation of Off-Balance Sheet AgVantage volume, and for loans where the program loan counterparty retains a subordinated interest in accordance with Appendix A to this subpart. 3. Amend § 652.85 by revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 652.85 When to report the risk-based capital level.
(d)You must submit your quarterly risk-based capital report for the last day of the preceding quarter by the earlier of the reporting deadlines for Securities and Exchange Commission Forms 10-K and 10-Q, or the 40th day after each of the quarters ending March 31st, June 30th, and September 30th, and the 75th day after the quarter ending on December 31st. 4. Appendix A of subpart B, part 652 is amended by: a. Revising the table of contents; b. Revising the first and second sentences of section 2.0; c. Redesignating existing section 2.4 as new section 2.5; d. Adding a new section 2.4; e. Revising section 4.1 e.; f. Revising the last sentence of section 4.2 b.(3) introductory text; g. Redesignating existing section 4.2 b.(3)(C) and
(D)as new paragraphs (3)(F) and (G); h. Adding new section 4.2 b. (3)(C), (D), and (E); i. Revising section 4.4; j. Revising section 4.5 a.; k. Removing the word “unretained” and adding in its place, the word “retained” in the ninth sentence of section 4.6 b. Appendix A—Subpart B of Part 652—Risk-Based Capital Stress Test 1.0 Introduction. 2.0 Credit Risk. 2.1 Loss-Frequency and Loss-Severity Models. 2.2 Loan-Seasoning Adjustment. 2.3 Example Calculation of Dollar Loss on One Loan. 2.4 Treatment of Loans Backed by an Obligation of the Counterparty and Loans for Which Pledged Loan Collateral Volume Exceeds Farmer Mac-Guaranteed Volume. 2.5 Calculation of Loss Rates for Use in the Stress Test. 3.0 Interest Rate Risk. 3.1 Process for Calculating the Interest Rate Movement. 4.0 Elements Used in Generating Cashflows. 4.1 Data Inputs. 4.2 Assumptions and Relationships. 4.3 Risk Measures. 4.4 Loan and Cashflow Accounts. 4.5 Income Statements. 4.6 Balance Sheets. 4.7 Capital. 5.0 Capital Calculations. 5.1 Method of Calculation. 2.0 Credit Risk Loan loss rates are determined by applying the loss-frequency equation and the loss-severity factor to Farmer Mac loan-level data. Using this equation and severity factor, you must calculate loan losses under stressful economic conditions assuming Farmer Mac's portfolio remains at a “steady state.” * * * 2.4 Treatment of Loans Backed by an Obligation of the Counterparty and Loans for Which Pledged Loan Collateral Volume Exceeds Farmer Mac-Guaranteed Volume You must calculate the age-adjusted loss rates for these loans that include adjustments to scale losses according to the proportion of total submitted collateral to the guaranteed amount as provided for in the “Dollar Losses” column of the transformed worksheets in the Credit Loss Module based on new data inputs required in the “Coefficients” worksheet of the Credit Loss Module. Then, you must adjust the calculated loss rates as follows. a. For loans in which the seller retains a subordinated interest, subtract from the total estimated age-adjusted dollar losses on the pool the amount equal to current unpaid principal times the subordinated interest percentage. b. Some pools of loans underlying specific transactions could include loan collateral volume pledged to Farmer Mac in excess of Farmer Mac's guarantee amount (“overcollateral”). Overcollateral can be either:
(i)Contractually required according to the terms of the transaction, or
(ii)not contractually required, but pledged in addition to the contractually required amount at the discretion of the counterparty, often for purposes of administrative convenience regarding the collateral substitution process, or
(iii)both
(i)and (ii). 1. If a pool of loans includes collateral pledged in excess of the guaranteed amount, you must adjust the age-adjusted, loan-level dollar losses by a factor equal to the ratio of the guarantee amount to total submitted collateral. For example, consider a pool of two loans serving as security for a Farmer Mac guarantee on a note with a total issuance face value of $2 million and on which the counterparty has submitted 10-percent overcollateral. The two loans in the example have the following characteristics and adjustments. Loan Origination balance Age-adjusted loss rate (percent) Estimated age-adjusted losses Guarantee amount scaling adjustment (2/2.2) (Percent) Losses adjusted for overcollateral 1 $1,080,000 7.0 $75,600 90.91 $68,727 2 1,120,000 5.0 56,000 90.91 50,909 2. If a pool of loans includes collateral pledged in excess of the guaranteed amount that is required under the terms of the transaction, you must further adjust the dollar losses as follows. Calculate the total losses on the subject portfolio of loans after age adjustments and any adjustments related to total submitted overcollateral as described in “1.” above. Calculate the total dollar amount of contractually required overcollateral in the subject pool. Subtract the total dollars of contractually required overcollateral from the adjusted total losses on the subject pool. If the result is less than or equal to zero, input a loss rate of zero for this transaction pool in the Data Inputs worksheet of the RBCST. A new category must be created for each such transaction in the RBCST. If the loss rate after subtracting contractually required overcollateral is greater than zero, proceed to additional adjustment for the risk-reducing effects of the counterparty's general obligation described in “3.” below. 3. Loans with a positive loss estimate remaining after adjustments in “1.” and “2.” above are further adjusted for the security provided by the general obligation of the counterparty. To make this adjustment, multiply the estimated dollar losses remaining after adjustments in “1.” and “2.” above by the appropriate general obligation adjustment factor based on the counterparty's whole-letter issuer credit rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO). A. The following table sets forth the general obligation adjustment factors and their components by whole-letter credit rating (Adjustment Factor = Default Rate × Severity Rate). 15 15 Emery, K., Ou S., Tennant, J., Kim F., Cantor R., “Corporate Default and Recovery Rates, 1920-2007,” published by Moody's Investors Service, February 2008—the most recent edition as of March 2008; Default Rates, page 24, Recovery Rates (Severity Rate = 1 minus Senior Unsecured Average Recovery Rate) page 20. Whole-letter rating Default rate (percent) Severity rate (percent) General obligation adjustment factor (percent) AAA 0.897 54 0.48 AA 2.294 54 1.24 A 2.901 54 1.57 BBB 7.061 54 3.82 Below BBB and Unrated 26.827 54 14.50 B. The adjustment factors will be updated annually as Moody's annual report on Default and Recovery Rates of Corporate Bond Issuers becomes available, normally in January or February of each year. In the event that there is an interruption of Moody's publication of this annual report, or FCA determines that the format of the report has changed enough to prevent or call into question the identification of updated factors, the prior year's factors will remain in effect until FCA revises the process through rulemaking. 4. Continuing the previous example, the pool contains two loans on which Farmer Mac is guaranteeing a total of $2 million and with total submitted collateral of 110 percent of the guaranteed amount. Of the 10-percent total overcollateral, 5 percent is contractually required under the terms of the transaction. The pool consists of two loans of slightly over $1 million. Total overcollateral is $200,000, of which $100,000 is contractually required. The counterparty has a single “A” credit rating, and after adjusting for contractually required overcollateral, estimated losses are greater than zero. The net loss rate is calculated as described in the steps in the table below. Loan A Loan B 1 Guaranteed Volume $2,000,000 2 Origination Balance of 2-Loan Portfolio $1,080,000 $1,120,000 3 Age-adjusted Loss Rate 7% 5% 4 Estimated Age-adjusted Losses $75,600 $56,000 5 Guarantee Volume Scaling Factor 90.91% 90.91% 6 Losses Adjusted for Total Overcollateral $68,727 $50,909 7 Contractually required Overcollateral on Pool (5%) $100,000 8 Net Losses on Pool Adjusted for Contractually Required Overcollateral $19,636 9 General Obligation Adjustment Factor for “A” Issuer 1.57% 10 Losses Adjusted for “A” General Obligation $308 11 Loss Rate Input in the RBCST for this Pool 0.02% A. The net, fully adjusted losses are distributed over time on a straight-line basis. When a transaction reaches maturity within the 10-year modeling horizon, the losses are distributed on a straightline over a timepath that ends in the year of the transaction's maturity. B. [Reserved] 4.1 Data Inputs e. *Weighted Haircuts for Non-Program Investments.* For non-program investments, the stress test adjusts the weighted average yield data referenced in section 4.1 b. to reflect counterparty risk. Non-program investments are defined in § 652.5. The Corporation must calculate the haircut to be applied to each investment based on the lowest whole-letter credit rating the investment received from a NRSRO using the haircut levels in effect at the time. Haircut levels shall be the same amounts calculated for the general obligation adjustment factor in section 2.4 b.3.A. above. The first table provides the mappings of NRSRO ratings to whole-letter ratings for purposes of applying haircuts. Any “+” or “−” signs appended to NRSRO ratings that are not shown in the table should be ignored for purposes of mapping NRSRO ratings to FCA whole-letter ratings. The second table provides the haircut levels by whole-letter rating category. FCA Whole-Letter Credit Ratings Mapped to Rating Agency Credit Ratings FCA Ratings Category AAA AA A BBB Below BBB and Unrated. Standard & Poor's Long-Term AAA AA A BBB Below BBB and Unrated. Fitch Long-Term AAA AA A BBB Below BBB and Unrated. Moody's Long-Term Aaa Aa A Baa Below Baa and Unrated. Standard & Poor's Short-Term A-1+, SP-1+ A-1, SP-1 A-2, SP-2 A-3 SP-3, B, or Below and Unrated. Fitch Short-Term F-1+ F-1 F-2 F-3 Below F-3 and Unrated. Moody's Prime-1, MIG1, VMIG1 Prime-2, MIG2, VMIG2 Prime-3, MIG3, VMIG3 Not Prime, SG and Unrated. Fitch Bank Ratings A B, A/B C, B/C D, C/D E, D/E. Moody's Bank Financial Strength Rating A B C D E. Farmer MAC RBCST Maximum Haircut by Ratings Classification Ratings classification Non-program investment counterparties (excluding derivatives) (percent) Cash 0.00 AAA 0.48 AA 1.24 A 1.57 BBB 3.82 Below BBB and Unrated 14.50 1. Certain special cases will receive the following treatment. For an investment structured as a collateralized obligation backed by the issuer's general obligation and, in turn, a pool of collateral, reference the Issuer Rating or Financial Strength Rating of that issuer as the credit rating applicable to the security. Unrated securities that are fully guaranteed by Government-sponsored enterprises
(GSE)such as the Federal National Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae) will receive the same treatment as AAA securities. Unrated securities backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government will not receive a haircut. Unrated securities that are not fully guaranteed by a GSE will receive the haircut level in place at that time for “Below BBB and Unrated” investments unless the Director, at the Director's discretion, determines to apply a lesser haircut. In making this determination, the Director will consider the risk characteristics associated with the structure of individual instruments. 2. If portions of investments are later sold by Farmer Mac according to their specific risk characteristics, the Director will take reasonable measures to adjust the haircut level applied to the investment to recognize the change in the risk characteristics of the retained portion. The Director will consider relevant similar methods for dealing with capital requirements adopted by other Federal financial institution regulators in similar situations. 3. Individual investment haircuts must then be aggregated into weighted-average haircuts by investment category and submitted in the “Data Inputs” worksheet. The spreadsheet uses these inputs to reduce the weighted-average yield on the investment category to account for counterparty insolvency according to a 10-year linear phase-in of the haircuts. Each asset account category identified in this data requirement is discussed in section 4.2, “Assumptions and Relationships.” 4.2 Assumptions and Relationships b. * * *
(3)*Elements related to income and expense assumptions.* * * * These parameters are the gain on agricultural mortgage-backed securities
(AMBS)sales, miscellaneous income, operating expenses, reserve requirement, guarantee fees and loan loss resolution timing.
(C)The stress test assumes that short-term cost of funds is incurred in relation to the amount of defaulting loans purchased from off-balance sheet pools. The remaining unpaid principal balance on this loan volume is the origination amount reduced by the proportion of the total portfolio that has amortized as of the end of the most recent quarter. This volume is assumed to be funded at the short-term cost of funds and this expense continues for a period equal to the loan loss resolution timing period
(LLRT)period minus 1. We will calculate the LLRT period from Farmer Mac data. In addition, during the LLRT period, all guarantee income associated with the loan volume ceases.
(D)The stress test generates no interest income on the estimated volume of defaulted on-balance sheet loan volume required to be carried during the LLRT period, but continues to accrue funding costs during the remainder of the LLRT period.
(E)You must update the LLRT period in response to changes in the Corporation's actual experience with each quarterly submission. 4.4 Loan and Cashflow Accounts The worksheet labeled “Loan and Cashflow Data” contains the categorized loan data and cashflow accounting relationships that are used in the stress test to generate projections of Farmer Mac's performance and condition. As can be seen in the worksheet, the steady-state formulation results in account balances that remain constant except for the effects of discontinued programs, maturing Off-Balance Sheet AgVantage positions, and the LLRT adjustment. For assets with maturities under 1 year, the results are reported for convenience as though they matured only one time per year with the additional convention that the earnings/cost rates are annualized. For the pre-1996 Act assets, maturing balances are added back to post-1996 Act account balances. The liability accounts are used to satisfy the accounting identity, which requires assets to equal liabilities plus owner equity. In addition to the replacement of maturities under a steady state, liabilities are increased to reflect net losses or decreased to reflect resulting net gains. Adjustments must be made to the long- and short-term debt accounts to maintain the same relative proportions as existed at the beginning period from which the stress test is run with the exception of changes associated with the funding of defaulted loans during the LLRT period. The primary receivable and payable accounts are also maintained on this worksheet, as is a summary balance of the volume of loans subject to credit losses. 4.5 Income Statements a. Information related to income performance through time is contained on the worksheet named “Income Statements.” Information from the first period balance sheet is used in conjunction with the earnings and cost-spread relationships from Farmer Mac supplied data to generate the first period's income statement. The same set of accounts is maintained in this worksheet as “Loan and Cashflow Accounts” for consistency in reporting each annual period of the 10-year stress period of the test with the exception of the line item labeled “Interest reversals to carry loan losses” which incorporates the LLRT adjustment to earnings from the “Risk Measures” worksheet. Loans that defaulted do not earn interest or guarantee and commitment fees during LLRT period. The income from each interest-bearing account is calculated, as are costs of interest-bearing liabilities. In each case, these entries are the associated interest rate for that period multiplied by the account balances. Dated: May 28, 2008. Roland E. Smith, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. E8-12245 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Service Barcode Required for Priority Mail Open and Distribute Container Address Labels AGENCY: Postal Service TM . ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this final rule the Postal Service provides new mailing standards to require the use of a concatenated UCC/EAN Code 128 Service barcode with a unique Service Type Code “55” on all Priority Mail® Open and Distribute container address labels. A proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** on May 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 100), requiring the use of a concatenated UCC/EAN Code 128 Delivery Confirmation TM service barcode. Although no comments were received in response to the proposed rule, because of the modification we decided to publish a second proposed rule. No comments were received in response to the second proposed rule published on April 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 77). However, we have extended the effective date from May 12, 2008, to July 1, 2008. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl DuBois at 202-268-3146 or Garry Rodriguez at 202-268-7281. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments There were no comments received on the May 24, 2007, or April 21, 2008 proposed rules. Background Priority Mail Open and Distribute is designed to enhance the Postal Service's ability to provide mailers with expedited service to destination delivery units and other mail processing facilities. Mailers are currently provided an option to use Delivery Confirmation service to receive performance information and confirmation that their containers arrived at the destination facility, along with the date, ZIP Code TM , and time their Priority Mail Open and Distribute containers are received at the destination facility. Summary In order to verify the arrival at the destination facility for all Priority Mail Open and Distribute containers, the Postal Service is requiring mailers to place a barcode on all Priority Mail Open and Distribute address labels. The barcode is required to be a concatenated UCC/EAN 128 Service barcode with a unique Service Type Code
(STC)“55”. The text, “USPS SCAN ON ARRIVAL,” above the barcode is exclusive to this service and will assist in facilitating correct scan behavior. The decision to require the use of the Service barcode instead of the Delivery Confirmation barcode will lessen any confusion as to the appropriate scans the barcode should receive and ensure the customer gets the appropriate performance information. This will provide better visibility to the customer and enable the USPS® to monitor service performance based on the product. The requirement is in accordance with instructions for barcode specifications, electronic file format and testing, and certification process, in Publication 91, *Confirmation Services Technical Guide* . Updates to this guide were published in the April 10, 2008, *Postal Bulletin* . Implementation The required use of a Service barcode with Priority Mail Open and Distribute service will be effective July 1, 2008. The Postal Service adopts the following changes to *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service* , Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®), which is incorporated by reference in the *Code of Federal Regulations* . See 39 CFR 111.1. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service. Accordingly, 39 CFR 111 is amended as follows: PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001. 2. Revise the following sections of *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service* , Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), as follows: 700 Special Standards 705 Advanced Preparation and Special Postage Payment Systems 16.0 Express Mail Open and Distribute and Priority Mail Open and Distribute 16.4 Additional Standards for Priority Mail Open and Distribute 16.4.2 Extra Services *[Revise the first sentence in the introductory text of 16.4.2 as follows:]* No extra services are available for Priority Mail Open and Distribute containers. * * * 16.5 Preparation 16.5.4 Tags 161 and 190—Priority Mail Open and Distribute *[Delete item c.]* 16.5.6 Address Labels *[Revise the text in 16.5.6 as follows:]* In addition to Tag 157, Label 23, Tag 161, or Tag 190, USPS-supplied containers and envelopes and mailer-supplied containers used for Express Mail Open and Distribute or Priority Mail Open and Distribute must bear an address label that states “OPEN AND DISTRIBUTE AT:” followed by the facility name. Find the facility name and other information for addressing the labels, according to the type of facility, in 16.5.8 through 16.5.12. * [Replace heading of 16.5.7, Delivery Confirmation Service, with new 16.5.7 heading, Address Label Barcode Requirement, and revise text as follows:] * 16.5.7 Address Label Service Barcode Requirement An electronic Service barcode using the concatenated UCC/EAN Code 128 symbology must be incorporated in the address label. Mailers must prepare address labels using the formats in 16.5.8 through 16.5.12, including the service type code “55” to identify the service and the human-readable text “USPS SCAN ON ARRIVAL” above the barcode. USPS certification is required from the National Customer Support Center
(NCSC)for each printer used to print barcoded open and distribute address labels, except for barcodes created using USPS Shipping Assistant. NCSC contact information, formatting specifications for barcodes and electronic files, and certification, are included in Publication 91, *Confirmation Services Technical Guide* . Mailers can use any of the following options available to create a label with a Service barcode for Priority Mail Open and Distribute address labels: a. Select a service software developer from the list of companies that have met Postal Service specifications for the electronic file and barcode available at *http://www.usps.com/shipping/shipsystems.htm* . b. Register and download the USPS Shipping Assistant desktop application available at *http://www.usps.com/shippingassistant/* . c. Register and integrate the USPS Web Tools Application Program Interface
(API)for Priority Mail Open and Distribute using your own developers, available at *http://www.usps.com/webtools/* . d. Use Publication 91, *Confirmation Services Technical Guide* , for technical specifications and requirements. 16.5.8 DDU Address Labels *[Revise the second sentence in 16.5.8 as follows:]* * * * For the DDU address label, use the destination facility name, the street address, city, state, and ZIP+4 found in the Drop Entry Point View File available at USPS' FAST Web site: *https://fast.usps.com* (click on “Reports,” “Mail Direction Search,” then “Drop Entry Point View”). * * * Exhibit 16.5.8 DDU Address Label *[Revise Exhibit 16.5.8 to replace the Delivery Confirmation barcode and human-readable text above and below, with a Service barcode and human-readable text.]* 16.5.9 SCF Address Labels *[Revise the first sentence in 16.5.9 as follows:]* For the SCF address label, use SCF followed by the city, state, and ZIP Code found in the Drop Entry Point View File available at USPS' FAST Web site: *https://fast.usps.com* . * * * Exhibit 16.5.9 SCF Address Label *[Revise Exhibit 16.5.9 to replace the Delivery Confirmation barcode and human-readable text above and below, with a Service barcode and human-readable text.]* 16.5.10 ADC Address Labels *[Revise the first sentence in 16.5.10 as follows:]* For the ADC address label, use ADC followed by the city, state, and ZIP Code found in the Drop Entry Point View File available at USPS' FAST Web site: *https://fast.usps.com* . * * * Exhibit 16.5.10 ADC Address Label *[Revise Exhibit 16.5.10 to replace the Delivery Confirmation barcode and human-readable text above and below, with a Service barcode and human-readable text.]* 16.5.11 BMC Address Labels *[Revise the first sentence in 16.5.11 as follows:]* For the BMC address label, use BMC followed by the city, state, and ZIP Code found in the Drop Entry Point View File available at USPS' FAST Web site: *https://fast.usps.com* . * * * Exhibit 16.5.11 BMC Address Label *[Revise Exhibit 16.5.11 to replace the Delivery Confirmation barcode and human-readable text above and below, with a Service barcode and human-readable text.]* *[Renumber current 16.5.12, Markings on Enclosed Mail, as 16.5.13. Add new 16.5.12, ASF Address Labels, and Exhibit 16.5.12, ASF Address Label, as follows:]* 16.5.12 ASF Address Labels For the ASF address label, use ASF followed by the city, state, and ZIP Code found in the Drop Entry Point View File under BMC available at USPS' FAST Web site: *https://fast.usps.com* . See Exhibit 16.5.12 for an example of an ASF address label. Exhibit 16.5.12 ASF Address Label *[Add new Exhibit 16.5.12, as follows:]* Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. [FR Doc. E8-12056 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule, correction. SUMMARY: On May 7, 2008, FEMA published in the **Federal Register** a final rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information published at 73 FR 25542. The table provided here represents the flooding source, location of referenced elevation, effective and modified elevation, and communities affected for the Union County and Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it addresses flooding source “Blythe Creek.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151 or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and modified BFEs for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These final BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These final elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. Correction In the final rule published at 73 FR 25542 in the May 7, 2008 issue of the **Federal Register** , FEMA published a table under the authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled “Union County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas” addressed flooding source “Blythe Creek.” That table contained inaccurate information as to the location of referenced elevation, effective and modified elevation in feet, or communities affected for these flooding sources. In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information, to address these prior errors. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation** *Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+Elevation in feet
(NAVD)#Depth in feet above ground Modified Communities affected Union County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Docket Nos.: FEMA-D-7668 and FEMA-D-7808 Blythe Creek Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Bud Huey Road (State Route 115) +549 Unincorporated Areas of Union County, Town of Waxhaw. At the confluence with East Fork Twelvemile Creek +510 Dated: May 27, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-12516 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P 73 109 Thursday, June 5, 2008 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 71 NUREG-1886, “Joint Canada—United States Guide for Approval of Type B(U) and Fissile Material Transportation Packages, Draft Report for Comment” AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of document availability and request for public comment. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is announcing the availability of and is seeking public comment on the draft NUREG-1886, “Joint Canada—United States Guide for Approval of Type B(U) and Fissile Material Transportation Packages.” DATES: Comments on this document should be submitted by August 19, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, however we are only able to assure consideration for comments received on or before this date. To ensure efficient and complete comment resolution, comments should include reference to the section, page, and line numbers of the document to which the comment applies, if possible. ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit written comments to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to *nrcrep@nrc.gov* . Comments may also be hand delivered to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be viewed at the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland. This document, NUREG-1886 [ML073300230], is available at the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet, accessible through the NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov* . This Web site provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. The public can gain entry into ADAMS through the agency's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* , under Accession No. ML073300230. The document may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1-F21, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference Staff at
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele M. Sampson, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone:
(301)492-3292; e-mail: *Michele.Sampson@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)“Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material” (TS-R-1) are designed to provide a uniform and adequate level of safety for the transport of radioactive materials. The standards for packaging of radioactive material, the IAEA regulations, TS-R-1, are adopted by member states, providing the basis for each member state's transport package approval. In principle, this “unilateral” approval can be accepted by all other member states, with little or no requirement for additional technical review. However, the U.S. and other member states have routinely performed some form of technical review for Type B(U) and fissile material transport packages. 1 1 See 10 CFR 71.4 for definitions of Type B(U) and fissile material transport package classifications. Under the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT)regulations, 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part 173.471-473, for a Type B or fissile material package design, a “U.S. Competent Authority Certificate” must be obtained from the DOT prior to import or export of Type B or fissile material packages. The June 8, 1979, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU; 44 FR 38690, July 2, 1979) describes the roles and responsibilities of both DOT and NRC in jointly regulating the transportation of radioactive material in the U.S. DOT, assisted by NRC as needed, performs a technical review as part of validation for each foreign-approved package design prior to issuance of a U.S. Certificate of Competent Authority. In practice, the acceptance of approvals for Type B(U) and fissile material packages, without additional package review by affected member states, has remained an elusive goal. Implementation of a separate technical review is influenced by the perspectives that individual member states have concerning risk, safety margins, and because of other differences in engineering standards, documentation, and quality assurance requirements. Progress towards member state acceptance of Type B(U) and fissile materials transportation packages requires a framework in which these different perspectives, as well as the qualification of technical reviewers, can be addressed, resolved, and documented. The purpose of this NUREG is to provide the framework to achieve United States and Canadian validation of Competent Authority Type B(U) and fissile materials transportation package approvals for export and import without significant additional technical review. The NUREG was developed by a working group of DOT, NRC, and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC)staff. The NUREG is to be used by applicants in submitting safety analysis reports for the certification of packages and by DOT and NRC reviewers in assessing these reports. The NUREG describes a method that is acceptable to the staffs of the DOT, NRC, and CNSC for complying with the United States regulations in 10 CFR part 71 and 49 CFR part 173, the Canadian Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations, and TS-R-1, upon which the domestic United States and Canadian regulations are based. Where differences in the regulatory requirements exist, guidance is provided in the NUREG to assist the applicant in appropriately addressing the specific regulatory requirement. The NUREG is not intended as an interpretation of the regulations, and does not have the force or effect of regulations. The NUREG applies specifically to applications for approval of Type B(U) and fissile material (Type A and Type B) transportation packages for import or export. The NUREG does not apply to approval of special form materials, certain air shipments of Type B packages, low dispersible material, Type C packages, or fissile materials in less than Type A packages. The NUREG does not change the certification requirements for domestic shipment within the United States or Canada. The CNSC has a companion Regulatory Document, “Joint Canada—United States Guide for Approval of Type B(U) and Fissile Material Transportation Packages” (RD-364) which provides the same guidance to applicants in submitting safety analysis reports to the CNSC for the certification of packages and to CNSC reviewers in assessing these reports, as NUREG-1886. The CNSC document is being published for public comment in Canada. II. Bi-Lateral Agreement The United States and Canada, through the working group process, envision a formal process, such as a Memorandum of Agreement, to implement use of NUREG-1886 in the United States and RD-364 in Canada. The protocol for implementation of this formal agreement is expected to detail the process to be followed by the United States and Canada. The following elements have been identified for implementation: • Procedures for periodic review of both NUREG-1886 and RD-364 to ensure the documents remain current with regulatory changes. • NRC and CNSC agreement on minimum qualification of staff assigned to review packages that are part of the bi-lateral agreement. • Periodic audit by NRC and CNSC of each other's review process. • Periodic full review by both NRC and CNSC of packages that are part of the bi-lateral agreement. • Periodic meetings between NRC, DOT, and CNSC staff to discuss technical issues related to package approvals that are part of the bi-lateral agreement. The formal bi-lateral agreement between NRC, DOT, and CNSC will be made available to the public through a separate notice in the **Federal Register** . III. Public Participation The NRC is seeking public comment in order to receive feedback from the widest range of interested parties and to ensure that all information relevant to developing NUREG-1886 is available to the NRC staff. The NRC will provide copies of public comments received to the CNSC and DOT. In addition, public comments received by the CNSC on RD-364 will be provided to the NRC and DOT. The NRC will review all public comments, incorporate suggested changes as necessary, and then issue the final NUREG-1886 for use. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of May 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Edwin Hackett, Acting Director, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E8-12583 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0189; FRL-8576-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Schuylkill County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Schuylkill County Area. EPA is proposing approval of the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0189 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.* C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0097, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 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-R03-OAR-2008-0189. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,
(215)814-2096, or by e-mail at *linden.melissa@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2007, PADEP formally submitted for approval, under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, a SIP revision for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Schuylkill County Area. I. Background Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states submit to EPA plans to maintain the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require that areas that were maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies to areas that are designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The purpose of this guidance is to address the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and to assist the states in the development of a SIP. The components from EPA's guidance include:
(1)An attainment emissions inventory, which is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) for a 10-year maintenance period, from a base-year chosen by the state;
(2)a maintenance demonstration, which demonstrates how the area will remain in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard for a period of 10 years following the effective date of designation unclassifiable/attainment (June 15, 2004);
(3)an ambient air monitoring network, which will be in continuous operation in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard;
(4)a contingency plan, that will ensure that in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, measures will be implemented as promptly as possible;
(5)a verification of continued attainment, indicating how the state intends on tracking the progress of the maintenance plan. II. Summary of SIP Revision The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has requested approval of its 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Schuylkill County Area. The PADEP 8-hour ozone maintenance plan addresses the five components of EPA's May 20, 2005 guidance, which pertains to the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. *Attainment Emission Inventory:* An attainment emissions inventory includes emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP has provided an emissions inventory for VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> , using 2002 as the base-year from which to project emissions. The 2002 inventory is consistent with EPA guidance, is based on actual “typical summer day” emissions of VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> , and consists of a list of sources and their associated emissions. PADEP prepared comprehensive VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions inventories for the Schuylkill County Area. In the maintenance plan, PADEP included information on the man-made sources of ozone precursors, VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> (e.g., “stationary sources,” “stationary area sources,” “highway vehicles,” and “nonroad sources”). Pennsylvania projected emissions for beyond 10 years from the effective date of the April 30, 2004 designations for the 8-hour ozone standard. PADEP has developed an emissions inventory for ozone precursors for the year 2002, 2009, and 2018. Tables 1 and 2 show the VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions reduction summary for 2002, 2009, and 2018. Table 1.—VOC Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 1.16 0.92 1.09 Stationary Area Sources 7.74 7.19 7.56 Highway Vehicles 9.02 4.89 2.73 Nonroad Sources 2.59 2.38 1.86 Total 20.51 15.38 13.24 Table 2.—NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018 [tons per summer day] Major source category 2002 2009 2018 Stationary Point Sources 3.62 4.42 4.37 Stationary Area Sources 0.86 0.92 0.94 Highway Vehicles 16.71 9.00 3.80 Nonroad Sources 2.42 1.85 1.11 Total 23.61 16.19 10.22 EPA believes Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions in the Schuylkill County Area will improve due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted measures. *Maintenance demonstration:* As Tables 1 and 2 indicate, the Schuylkill County Attainment Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that future emissions of VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> remain at or below the 2002 base-year emissions levels through the year 2018. Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the 2002 base-year inventory emissions, along federal and state measures, EPA concludes that PADEP successfully demonstrates that the 8-hour ozone standard will be maintained in the Schuylkill County Area. Further details of Schuylkill County Attainment Area's 8-hour ozone maintenance demonstration can be found in a Technical Support Document
(TSD)prepared for this rulemaking. *Ambient Air Quality Monitoring:* With regard to the ambient air monitoring component of the maintenance plan, Pennsylvania commits to continue operating its current air quality monitoring stations in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area, with no reductions in the number of sites from those in the existing network unless pre-approved by EPA. *Contingency Plan:* Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that the state develop a contingency plan which will ensure that any violation of a NAAQS is promptly corrected. The purpose of the contingency plan is to adopt measures, outlined in the maintenance plan, in order to assure continued attainment in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). Since the Schuylkill County Area does not have a monitor, contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the design monitor for the Reading Area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb). If this trigger point occurs, PADEP will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in Schuylkill County in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing the contingency measures outlined in their maintenance plan. *Verification of continued attainment:* PADEP will track the attainment status of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Schuylkill County by reviewing air quality at the design monitor for the Reading Area and emissions data during the maintenance period. An annual evaluation of vehicle miles traveled and emissions reported from stationary sources will be performed and compared to the assumptions about the factors used in the maintenance plan. PADEP will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51, Subpart A) for any unanticipated increases. Based on these evaluations, PADEP will consider whether any further emission control measures should be implemented. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Schuylkill County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Schuylkill County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ); • 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); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Schuylkill County Area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 28, 2008. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-12601 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 73 109 Thursday, June 5, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [FDMS Docket No. FSIS-2008-0004] International Standard-Setting Activities AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), in accordance with section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809. This notice also provides a list of other standard-setting activities of Codex, including commodity standards, guidelines, codes of practice, and revised texts. This notice, which covers the time periods from June 1, 2007, to May 31, 2008, and June 1, 2008, to May 31, 2009, seeks comments on standards under consideration and recommendations for new standards. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. FSIS prefers to receive comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Food Safety and Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, and then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2008-0004 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. After the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the “Advanced Search” function in Regulations.gov. • Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROMs, and hand- or courier-delivered items: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 2534, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2008-0004. Please state that your comments refer to Codex and, if your comments relate to specific Codex committees, please identify those committees in your comments and submit a copy of your comments to the delegate from that particular committee. All comments submitted in response to this proposal will be posted to the regulations.gov Web site. The comments also will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The comments also will be posted on the Agency's Web site at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/2008_Notices_Index/index.asp.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Hulebak, PhD, Acting Manager, U.S. Codex Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700;
(202)205-7760. For information pertaining to particular committees, the delegate of that committee may be contacted. (A complete list of U.S. delegates and alternate delegates can be found in Attachment 2 to this notice.) Documents pertaining to Codex are accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* The U.S. Codex Office also maintains a Web site at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/Codex_Alimentarius/index.asp.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The World Trade Organization
(WTO)was established on January 1, 1995, as the common international institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). U.S. membership in the WTO was approved and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act was signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994. The Uruguay Round Agreements became effective, with respect to the United States, on January 1, 1995. Pursuant to section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, the President is required to designate an agency to be “responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary
(SPS)standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization.” The main organizations are Codex, the World Organisation for Animal Health, and the International Plant Protection Convention. The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the agency responsible for informing the public of SPS standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated to the Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the responsibility to inform the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex. The FSIS Administrator has, in turn, assigned the responsibility for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex to the U.S. Codex Office, FSIS. Codex was created in 1962 by two U.N. organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO)and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the principal international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trade practices in the food trade, and promote coordination of food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations. In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)manage and carry out U.S. Codex activities. As the agency responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, FSIS publishes this notice in the **Federal Register** annually. Attachment 1 (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Activities of Codex) sets forth the following information: 1. The SPS standards under consideration or planned for consideration; and 2. For each SPS standard specified: a. A description of the consideration or planned consideration of the standard; b. Whether the United States is participating or plans to participate in the consideration of the standard; c. The agenda for United States participation, if any; and d. The agency responsible for representing the United States with respect to the standard. *To Obtain Copies of Those Standards Listed in Attachment 1 That Are Under Consideration by Codex, Please Contact the Codex Delegate or the U.S. Codex Office.* This notice also solicits public comment on those standards that are currently under consideration or planned for consideration and recommendations for new standards. The delegate, in conjunction with the responsible agency, will take the comments received into account in participating in the consideration of the standards and in proposing matters to be considered by Codex. The United States delegate will facilitate public participation in the United States Government's activities relating to Codex Alimentarius. The United States delegate will maintain a list of individuals, groups, and organizations that have expressed an interest in the activities of the Codex committees and will disseminate information regarding United States delegation activities to interested parties. This information will include the status of each agenda item; the United States Government's position or preliminary position on the agenda items; and the time and place of planning meetings and debriefing meetings following Codex committee sessions. In addition, the U.S. Codex Office makes much of the same information available through its Web page, *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/Codex_Alimentarius/index.asp.* Please visit the Web page or notify the appropriate U.S. delegate or the U.S. Codex Office, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, if you would like to access or receive information about specific committees. The information provided in Attachment 1 describes the status of Codex standard-setting activities by the Codex Committees for the time periods from June 1, 2007, to May 31, 2008, and June 1, 2008, to May 31, 2009. Attachment 2 provides the list of U.S. Codex Officials (includes U.S. delegates and alternate delegates). A list of forthcoming Codex sessions may be found at: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/current.jsp?lang=en.* Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2008_Notices_Index/.* FSIS will also make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/.* Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts. Done at Washington, DC on: May 30, 2008. Paulo Almeida, Acting Manager U.S. Codex. Attachment 1:—Sanitary and Phytosanitary Activities of Codex Codex Alimentarius Commission and Executive Committee The Codex Alimentarius Commission will hold its Thirty-First Session June 30-July 4, 2008, in Rome, Italy. At that time, it will consider standards, codes of practice, and related matters brought to its attention by the general subject committees, commodity committees, *ad hoc* Task Forces and member delegations. It will also consider options to implement recommendations from the review of Codex committee structure and mandates of Codex committees and task forces, the management of the Trust Fund for the Participation of Developing Countries and Countries in Transition in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius, as well as budgetary and strategic planning issues. At this Session, the Commission will elect a Chairperson and three Vice Chairpersons. Prior to the Commission meeting, the Executive Committee will have met at its Sixty-First Session on June 24-27, 2008. It is composed of the chairperson, vice-chairpersons, and seven members elected from the Commission, one from each of the following geographic regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East, North America, and South-West Pacific. Additionally, regional coordinators from the six regional committees serve as members of the Executive Committee. It will consider the Codex Strategic Plan 2008-2013; review the Codex committee structure and mandate of Codex committees and task forces; review matters arising from reports of Codex Committees, proposals for new work, and standards management issues; and review the Trust Fund. *Responsible Agency:* USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods The Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods determines priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods and recommends Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs)for veterinary drugs. The Committee also develops codes of practice as may be required and considers methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of veterinary drug residues in food. A veterinary drug is defined as any substance applied or administered to a food producing animal, such as meat or milk producing animals, poultry, fish or bees, whether used for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic purposes or for modification of physiological functions or behavior. A Codex Maximum Limit for Residues of Veterinary Drugs (MRLVD) is the maximum concentration of residue resulting from the use of a veterinary drug (expressed in mg/kg or ug/kg on a fresh weight basis) that is recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be permitted or recognized as acceptable in or on a food. An MRLVD is based on the type and amount of residue considered to be without any toxicological hazard for human health as expressed by the Acceptable Daily Intake
(ADI)or on the basis of a temporary ADI that utilizes an additional safety factor. The MRLVD also takes into account other relative public health risks as well as food technological aspects. When establishing an MRLVD, consideration is also given to residues that occur in food of plant origin or the environment. Furthermore, the MRLVD may be reduced to be consistent with good practices in the use of veterinary drugs and to the extent that practical analytical methods are available. An Acceptable Daily Intake
(ADI)is an estimate by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the amount of a veterinary drug, expressed on a body weight basis, that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk (standard man = 60 kg). The 17th Session of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods met in Breckenridge, Colorado, on September 3-7, 2007. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 31st Session in June 2008. To be considered at Step 8: • Draft MRLs for Colistin in cattle, sheep, goat, pig, chicken, turkey and rabbit tissues, in cattle and sheep's milk and in chicken eggs, Ractopamine in cattle and pig tissues To be considered at Step 5/8: • Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Erythromycin in chicken and turkey tissues The Committee completed work on the following: • At the 17th CCRVDF, the Committee completed a Priority of Veterinary Drugs Requiring Evaluation or Reevaluation by JECFA. These drugs are Dexamethasome, Tylosin, Avilamycin, Malachite Green, Tilmicosin, Monensin, Narasin, Triclabendazole, Melengestrol acetate. The Committee will continue work on the following: • Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Erythromycin. • Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Melengesterol Acetate
(MGA)in cattle tissue. • Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Triclabendazole in cattle, sheep and goat tissues. • Draft Guidelines for the Design and Implementation of National Regulatory Food Safety Assurance Programmes Associated with the Use of Veterinary Drugs in Foods. • Proposed Draft Risk Management Recommendation/Guidance for Veterinary Drugs for which no ADI and MRL have been recommended by JECFA due to specific health concerns. • Discussion Paper on Consideration of Methods of Analysis and Sampling in CCRVDF (Report of the Electronic Working Group on Methods of Analysis and Sampling). • Draft Priority List of Veterinary Drugs Requiring Evaluation or Re-evaluation by JECFA and Working Document Listing Veterinary Drugs of Potential Interest (Report of the Electronic Working Group on Priority). • Discussion Paper on Current Practices and Needs for Further Work by the Committee on the Use of the Estimated Daily Intake
(EDI)concept; Utilization of full ADI; Starter culture; and Appending Risk Management. Recommendation(s) to MRLs (Report of the Electronic Working Group on Risk Management Topics and Options for the CCRVDF) The following work will be discontinued: • Draft and Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Flumequine (Black tiger shrimp and shrimps). *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods The Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods
(CCCF)was established by the 29th Session of the Commission when it decided to split the former Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants into two committees. The CCCF establishes or endorses permitted maximum levels for contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed, prepares priority lists of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), considers methods of analysis and sampling for the determination of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed, considers and elaborates standards or codes of practice for related subject, and considers other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed. The Committee held its second session in The Hague, Netherlands from March 31st-April 4, 2008. The relevant document is ALINORM 08/31/41. The following items are to be considered by the 31st Session of the Commission from June 30-July 4, 2008. To be considered for adoption: • Proposed Draft Provisions Applied to Contaminants in the “Relations between Commodity Committees and General Committees” in the Procedural Manual. • Priority List of Contaminants and Naturally Occurring Toxicants Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA. To be considered at Step 8: • Draft Maximum Level for 3-MCPD in Liquid Condiments Containing Acid-Hydrolyzed Vegetable Oriteins (Excluding Naturally Fermented Soy Sauce). • Draft Code of Practice for Reduction of 3-Monocloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD) during the Production of Acid-Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein (Acid-HVPs) and Products that Contain Acid-HVPs. • Draft Maximum Level for Ochratoxin A in Raw Wheat, Barley and Rye. • Draft Maximum Levels for Total Aflatoxins in Almonds, Hazelnuts, and Pistachios “For further processing” and “Ready to eat.” To be considered at Step 5/8: • Proposed Draft Aflatoxin Sampling Plans for Aflatoxin Contamination in Ready-to-Eat Treenuts and Treenuts Destined for Further Processing: Almonds, Hazelnuts and Pistachios. • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Aflatoxin Contamination in Dried Figs. To be considered at Step 5: • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of Acrylamide in Food. • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of Contamination of Food with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAH)from Smoking and Direct Drying Processes. *New Work:* • Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for Total Aflatoxins in Brazil Nuts. • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Ochratoxin A Contamination in Coffee. The Committee is continuing to work on: • Proposed Draft Revision of the Preamble of the GSCTF. • Discussion Paper on Fumonisins. • Discussion Paper on Benzene in Soft Drinks. • Discussion Paper on Cyanogenic Glycosides. • Discussion Paper on Mycotoxins in Sorghum. • Discussion Paper on Ethyl Carbamate in Alcoholic Beverages. *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Food Additives The Codex Committee on Food Additives was re-established by the 29th Session of the Commission, which split the former Codex Committee on Additives and Contaminants into two committees. The Committee is to establish or endorse permitted maximum levels for individual food additives, prepare a priority list of food additives for risk assessment by JECFA, assign functional classes to individual food additives, recommend specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Commission, consider methods of analysis for the determination of additives in food, and to consider and elaborate standard for codes for related subjects such as the labeling of food additives when sold as such. The Committee met in Beijing, China, on April 15-25, 2008. The relevant document is ALINORM 8/31/12. The following items will be considered by the 31st Session of the Commission in June 2008. To be considered for adoption: • Amendment to the Annex to Table 3 of the GFSA. • Amendment to the provisions for colours of GFSA. • Priority List of Food Additives Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA. To be considered at Step 8 and 5/8: • Draft and proposed draft food additive provisions of the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA). • Draft and proposed draft Guidelines for the Use of Flavourings for adoption at Step 8 (Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7) and Step 5/8 (Section 4). To be considered at Step 8: • Draft revision of the Codex Class Names and International Numbering System for Food Additives—CAC/GL 36-2003. To be considered at Step 5/8: • Proposed draft revision of the Food Category System
(FCF)of the GSFA. • Proposed draft amendments to the International Numbering System
(INS)for Food Additives. • Proposed and Draft Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives. The Committee will continue to work on: • Draft and proposed draft Food Additive Provisions of the GSFA. • Guidelines and Principles for the Use of Substances used as Processing Aids. • Amendments to the INS List. • Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives arising from the 69th JECFA meeting. • Discussion Paper on Scope of Selected Food Categories and Use of Colours. • Report of the Electronic Working Group on the GSFA. • Discussion Paper on Identification of Problems and Recommendations Related to the Inconsistent Presentation of Food Additive Provisions in Codex Commodity Standards. • Inventory of Substances Used as Processing Aids (IPA). • Discussion Paper on Inconsistencies in the Names of Compounds in Codex Specifications and the INS. • Priority List of Food Additives Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA (including proposals for the revision of the Circular Letter). • Working Document for Information and Support to the Discussion on the GSFA. *Discontinued work:* • Food Additive Provisions of the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA). • Codex *General Requirements for Natural Flavourings* • Codex *Specifications for Identity and Purity of Food Additives.* • Draft and Proposed Draft Food Additive Provisions of the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA). *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues recommends to the Codex Alimentarius Commission establishment of maximum limits for pesticide residues for specific food items or in groups of food. A Codex Maximum Residue Limit for Pesticide
(MRLP)is the maximum concentration of a pesticide residue (expressed as mg/kg), recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be legally permitted in or on food commodities and animal feeds. Foods derived from commodities that comply with the respective MRLPs are intended to be toxicologically acceptable, that is, consideration of the various dietary residue intake estimates and determinations both at the national and international level in comparison with the ADI*, should indicate that foods complying with Codex MRLPs are safe for human consumption. Codex MRLPs are primarily intended to apply in international trade and are derived from reviews conducted by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR).
(a)Review of residue data from supervised trials and supervised uses, including those reflecting national good agricultural practices (GAP). Data from supervised trials conducted at the highest nationally recommended, authorized, or registered uses are included in the review. In order to accommodate variations in national pest control requirements, Codex MRLPs take into account the higher levels shown to arise in such supervised trials, which are considered to represent effective pest control practices.
(b)Toxicological assessments of the pesticide and its residue. The 40th Session of the Committee met in Hangzhou, China, on April 14-19, 2008. The relevant document is ALINORM 08/31/24. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 31st Session in June 2008. To be considered at Step 8: • Draft and Revised Draft Maximum Residue Limits. To be considered at Step 5/8: • Proposed Draft and Revised Draft Maximum Residue Limits. To be considered at Step 5: • Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits. The committee is continuing work on: • Proposed Draft and Draft Maximum Residue Limits Retained at Steps 7 and 4. • Draft Maximum Residue Limits returned to Step 6. • Proposed Draft Revision of the Codex Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds. *New Work:* • Achieving Globally Harmonized Maximum Residue Limits through Codex. • Priority List of Pesticides (New Pesticides and Pesticides under Periodic Review). • The Estimation of Measurement Uncertainty. • Revision of the CCPR Risk Analysis Principles. • Establishing a CCPR working group on Minor Uses and Specialty Crops. *Discontinued work:* • Discontinuation of work on the Proposed Draft and Draft Maximum Residues Limits for Pesticides. • Codex Maximum Residue Limits Recommended for Revocation. *Responsible Agencies:* EPA; USDA/AMS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling:
(a)Defines the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling;
(b)Serves as a coordinating body for Codex with other international groups working in methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories;
(c)Specifies, on the basis of final recommendations submitted to it by the other bodies referred to in
(b)above, Reference Methods of Analysis and Sampling appropriate to Codex Standards which are generally applicable to a number of foods;
(d)Considers, amends if necessary, and endorses as appropriate methods of analysis and sampling proposed by Codex (Commodity) Committees, except that methods of analysis and sampling for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in food, the assessment of microbiological quality and safety in food, and the assessment of specifications for food additives do not fall within the terms of reference of this Committee;
(e)Elaborates sampling plans and procedures, as may be required;
(f)Considers specific sampling and analysis problems submitted to it by the Commission or any of its Committees; and
(g)Defines procedures, protocols, guidelines or related texts for the assessment of food laboratory proficiency, as well as quality assurance systems for laboratories. The 29th Session of the Committee met in Budapest, Hungary, on March 10-14, 2008. The relevant document is ALINORM 08/31/23. The following items will be considered by the 31st Session of the Commission in June 2008: To be adopted: • Proposed Amendment to the Working Instructions for the Implementation of the Criteria Approach in Codex. • Endorsement of Methods of Analysis in Draft Standards and Existing Standards. To be adopted at Step 5: • Proposed Draft Guidelines on Analytical Terminology. The Committee will continue to work on: • Draft Guidelines for Evaluating Acceptable Methods of Analysis. • Draft Guidelines for Settling of Disputes on Analytical
(Test)Results. • Guidance on Uncertainty from Sampling. • Consideration of Methods of Analysis for Dioxins and Dioxin-like PCBs. • Conformity Assessment in the Presence of Significant Measurement Error (Question referred by the Committee on Milk and Milk Products). *New Work:* • Proposed Draft Guidelines for Criteria for Methods for the Detection and Identification of Foods Derived from Biotechnology. • Guidance on measurement uncertainty and uncertainty of sampling (Proposed Draft Revision of the Guidelines on Measurement Uncertainty). • Guidelines for establishing methods criteria for identification of relevant analytical methods. *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/GIPSA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems The Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems is charged with developing principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification systems to protect consumers and to facilitate trade. Additionally, the Committee develops principles and guidelines for the application of measures by competent authorities to provide assurance that foods comply with essential requirements, especially statutory health requirements. This encompasses work on equivalence of food inspection systems, including equivalence agreements, processes and procedures to ensure that sanitary measures are implemented; guidelines on food import control systems; and guidelines on food product certification and information exchange. The development of guidelines for the appropriate utilization of quality assurance systems to ensure that foodstuffs conform to requirements and to facilitate trade also are included in the Committee's terms of reference. The Committee met November 26-30, 2007. The reference document is ALINORM 08/31/30. The following will be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 31st Session in June 2008. To be considered at step 5/8: • Proposed Draft Appendix to the Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification (N04-2004). Certificates The committee is continuing work on: • Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Conduct of Foreign Audit Team Inspections. • Proposed Draft Generic Template for Health Certificates. • Discussion Paper on the Need for Guidance for National Food Inspection Systems. • Discussion Paper on the Need for Guidance on Traceability/Product Tracing. *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on General Principles The Codex Committee on General Principles deals with procedure and general matters as are referred to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The 25th Session is tentatively scheduled to be held in Paris, France, in April 2009. The Committee will continue to work on the following items: • Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Application by Governments. • Proposed Draft Revised Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food. • Recommendations from CCFICS related to the code of ethics. *Responsible Agency:* USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Food Labelling The Codex Committee on Food Labelling drafts provisions on labeling applicable to all foods; considers, amends, and endorses draft specific provisions on labeling prepared by the Codex Committees drafting standards, codes of practice and guidelines; and studies specific labeling problems assigned by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. This Committee also studies problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions. The Committee held its 36th Session in Ottawa, Canada, on April 28-May 2, 2008. The reference document is ALINORM 08/31/22. The following items are to be considered by the 31st Session of the Commission from June 30-July 4, 2008. To be considered at Step 8: • Draft Amendment to the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods: Annex 1 (inclusion of Ethylene for Kiwifruit and Bananas). • Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods: Quantitative Declaration of Ingredients. • Draft Definition of Advertising in Relation to Nutrition and Health Claims (Draft Amendment to the Guidelines for Use of Nutrition and Health Claims). The Committee will continue to work on: • Draft Amendment to the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods: Annex 1 (inclusion of Ethylene for Other Products). • Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods Obtained through Certain Techniques of GM/GE): Definitions. • Proposed Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained through Certain Techniques of GM/GE. The Committee agreed to undertake new work on: • Amendment to the Guidelines for Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods (rotenone). • Revision of the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (Implementation of the Global Strategy for Diet, Physical Activity and Health). The Committee agreed to discontinue work on: • Draft Amendment to the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods: Annex 2—Permitted Substances: Table 3. *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Food Hygiene The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene has four primary responsibilities. The first is to draft basic provisions on food hygiene applicable to all food. These provisions normally take the form of Codes of Hygienic Practice for a specific commodity (e.g. bottled water) or group of commodities (e.g., milk and milk products). The second is to suggest and prioritize areas where there is a need for microbiological risk assessment at the international level and to consider microbiological risk management matters in relation to food hygiene and in relation to the risk assessment activities of FAO and WHO. The third is to consider, amend if necessary, and endorse food hygiene provisions that are incorporated into specific Codex commodity standards by the Codex Commodity Committees. The fourth and final responsibility is to provide such other general guidance to the Commission on matters relating to food hygiene as may be necessary. The 39th Session of the Committee met in New Delhi, India, on October 30-November 4, 2007. The relevant document is ALNORM 08/31/13. The following items related to the activities of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene will be considered by the Commission at its 31st Session in June 2008. To be considered for adoption at Step 5/8: • Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Powdered Formulae for Infants and Young Children. • Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Validation of Food Safety Control Measures. • Annex II: Guidance on Microbiological Risk Management Metrics (annex to the Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Management). To be considered for approval as New Work: • Proposed Draft Annex on Leafy Green Vegetables Including Leafy Herbs (annex to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables). • Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for *Vibrio* spp. in Seafood. To be considered for discontinuance of work: • Application of Food Safety Metrics in Risk Management Decision Making—Pasteurized Liquid Whole Eggs (Annex to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Egg and Egg Products). The Committee will continue or begin work on: • Annex on the Proposed Draft Microbiological Criteria for *Listeria monocytogenes* in Ready-to-eat Foods (Annex to the Guidelines on the Application of General Principles of Food Hygiene to the Control of *Listeria monocytogenes* in Ready-to-Eat Foods). • Annex II: Microbiological Criteria for Powdered Follow-up Formula and Formula for Special Medical Purposes for Young Children (Annex to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Powdered Formulae for Infants and Children). • Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Control of *Campylobacter* and *Salmonella* spp. in Chicken Meat. • Risk Analysis Policy of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene. *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables The Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables is responsible for elaborating world-wide standards and codes of practice for fresh fruits and vegetables. The 14th Session of the Committee met in Mexico City, Mexico on May 12-17, 2008. The relevant document is ALINORM 08/31/35. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 31st Session in June 2008. To be considered at Step 8: • Draft Codex Standard for Tomatoes. • Draft Codex Standard for Bitter Cassava. To be considered at Step 5: • Draft Codex Standard for Apples. The Committee will continue working on: • Layout for Codex Standards on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. • Amendments to the Priority List for the Standardization of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. *New Work:* • Revision of the Codex Standard for Avocado. • Proposed New Codex Standard for Durian. • Proposed New Codex Standard for Chili Pepper. • Proposed New Codex Standard for Tree Tomatoes. *Discontinued Work:* • Draft Codex Guidelines for the Inspection and Certification of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables for Conformity to Quality Standards. *Responsible Agencies:* USDA/AMS; HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) is responsible for studying nutrition issues referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Committee also drafts general provisions, as appropriate, on nutritional aspects of all foods and develops standards, guidelines, or related texts for foods for special dietary uses. The Committee met November 12-16, 2007, in Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany. The relevant document is ALINORM 08/31/26. The following items will be considered by the 31st Session of the Commission in June 2008. To be adopted at Step 8: • Draft Revised Codex Standard for Foods for Special Dietary Use for Persons Intolerant to Gluten. • Draft Advisory Lists of Nutrient Compounds for Use in Foods for Special Dietary Uses Intended for Infants and Young Children. To be adopted at Step 5: • Draft Nutritional Risk Analysis Principles and Guidelines for Application to the Work of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses. The Committee will continue work on: • Guidelines for Use of Nutrition Claims: Draft Table of Conditions for Nutrient Contents (Part B Containing Provisions on Dietary Fibre). • Draft Advisory Lists of Nutrient Compounds for Use in Foods for Special Dietary Uses Intended for Infants and Young Children: Part D Advisory List of Food Additives for Special Nutrient Forms: Provisions on gum arabic (gum acacia). • Proposed Draft Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims. • Proposal for New Work to Amend the Codex General Principles for the Addition of Essential Nutrients to Foods (CAC/GL 09-1987). • Proposal for New Work to Establish a Standard for Processed Cereal-based Foods for Underweight Infants and Young Children. *New Work:* • Additional or Revised Nutrient Reference Values
(NRVs)for Labelling Purposes; project document is available in Appendix VII of ALINORM 08/31/26. *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/ARS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products The Fish and Fishery Products Committee is responsible for elaborating standards for fresh, frozen and otherwise processed fish, crustaceans, and molluscs. The Committee met on February 18-23, 2008 in Trondheim, Norway. The relevant document is ALINORM 08/31/18. The following items will be considered by the 31st Session of the Commission in June 2008. To be considered at Step 8: • Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs, Lobsters and Relevant Definitions). • Draft Standard for Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs. The Committee will continue to work on: • Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (Crabs and Relevant Definitions). • Draft Standard for Sturgeon Caviar. • Proposed Draft List of Methods for the Determination of Biotoxins in the Draft Standard for Raw and Live Bivalve Molluscs. • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (other sections). • Proposed Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Scallop Adductor Muscle Meat. • Proposed Draft Code of Practice on the Processing of Scallop Meat. • Proposed Draft Standard for Smoked Fish, Smoke-Flavoured Fish and Smoke-Dried Fish. • Revision of the Procedure for the Inclusion of Additional Species in Standards for Fish and Fishery Products. • Proposed Draft Standard for Fish Sauce. • Amendment to the Standard for Quick Frozen Fish Sticks (Nitrogen Factors). • Proposed Draft Standard for Fresh/Live and Frozen Abalone. *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDC/NOAA/NMFS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products The Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products is responsible for establishing international codes and standards for milk and milk products. The Committee held its 8th Session February 4-8, 2008, in Queenstown, New Zealand. The relevant document is ALINORM 08/31/11. The following items will be considered by the 31st Session of the Commission in June 2008. To be considered for adoption: • Maximum levels for annatto extracts in Codex Standards for Milk and Milk Products, including consequential changes to the provision for beta carotene (vegetable). • Food additive listings of the Standard for Fermented Milks. • Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Milk and Milk Products Standards. At Step 8: • Draft Model Export Certificate for Milk and Proposed Milk Products. At Step 5/8: • Proposed Draft Amendment to the List of Additives of the Codex Standard for Creams and Prepared Creams. At Step 5: • Proposed Draft Amendment to the Codex Standard for Fermented Milks pertaining to Drinks based on Fermented Milk . *Other Committee Work:* • Proposed Draft Standard for Processed Cheese. • Maximum levels for annatto extracts in Codex individual cheese standards. • Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Milk and Milk Products Standards, including AOAC standards. *Responsible Agencies:* USDA/AMS; HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Fats and Oils The Codex Committee on Fats and Oils is responsible for elaborating standards for fats and oils of animal, vegetable, and marine origin. The Committee will hold its 21st Session in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, on February 16-20, 2009. The Committee is working on: • Proposed Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes. • Proposed Draft Criteria (Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Fats and Oils in Bulk). • Proposed Draft Amendments to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Total carotenoids in unbleached palm oil. • Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils: Linolenic acid. • Proposed Draft Amendments to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Inclusion of palm kernel olein and palm kernel stearin. *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/ARS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables The Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables is responsible for elaborating standards for processed fruits and vegetables. The Committee will hold its 24th Session in Washington, DC, on September 15-19, 2008. The Committee is working on: • Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Jams, Jellies and Marmalades. • Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Certain Canned Vegetables. • Proposed draft annexes specific to the draft Codex Standard for certain canned vegetables (proposed draft for Codex Standard for Certain Canned Vegetables). • Project Document on Sampling Plan Including Metrological Provisions for Controlling Minimum Drained Weight of Canned Fruits and Vegetables. • Proposed Layout for Codex Standards for Processed Fruits and Vegetables. • Proposals for Amendments to the Priority List for Standardization of Processed Fruits and Vegetables. • Methods of Analysis for Processed Fruits and Vegetables—Aqueous Coconut Products. • Food Additives Provisions for Processed Fruits and Vegetables. *Responsible Agencies:* USDA/AMS; HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters The Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters is responsible for elaborating standards for all types of natural mineral water products. The Committee was reactivated by the 30th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to address discrepancies of the health-related limits of certain substances between the Codex Standard for Natural Mineral Waters (CODEX STAN 108-1981) and the current version of the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. The Committee should complete the task in no more than two sessions and should propose a revised Section 3.2, “Health-related limits for certain substances,” of the Codex Standard for Natural Mineral Waters for final adoption by the Commission at its Session in 2009. The 8th Session of the Committee for Natural Mineral Waters was held on February 11-15, 2008, in Lugano, Switzerland. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 31st Session in June 2008. To be considered at Step 5/8: • Proposed Draft Amendment to Sections 3.2 and 6.3.2 of the Codex Standard for Natural Mineral Waters (CODEX STAN 108-1981). *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Certain Codex Commodity Committees Several Codex Alimentarius Commodity Committees have adjourned *sine die* . The following Committees fall into this category: • *Cocoa Products and Chocolate.* *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. • *Meat Hygiene.* *Responsible Agency:* USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. • *Sugars.* *Responsible Agencies:* USDA/ARS; HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. • *Vegetable Proteins.* *Responsible Agencies:* USDA/ARS; HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. • *Cereals, Pulses and Legumes.* *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/GIPSA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance The *ad hoc* Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance was created by the 29th Session of the Commission. The Task Force, hosted by the Republic of Korea, has a time frame of four sessions, which started with its first meeting in October 2007. Its objective is to develop science-based guidance to assess the risks to human health associated with the presence in food and feed, including aquaculture, of antimicrobial resistant microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance genes and to develop appropriate risk management advice based on that assessment to reduce such risk. The first session of the Committee met in Seoul, Republic of Korea, on October 23-26, 2007. The relevant document is Alinorm 08/31/42. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 31st Session in June 2008: To be considered for approval: • Proposed Amendments to the Terms of Reference of the Codex *ad hoc* Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance. The Committee will continue to work on: • Proposed Draft Risk Assessment Guidance Regarding Foodborne Antimicrobial Resistant Microorganisms. • Proposed Draft Risk Management Guidance to Contain Foodborne Antimicrobial Resistant Microorganisms. • Proposed Draft Guidance on Creating Risk Profiles for Antimicrobial Resistant Foodborne Microoganisms for Setting Risk Assessment and Management Priorities. *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived From Biotechnology The Commission established this task force to develop standards, guidelines, or recommendations, as appropriate, for foods derived from biotechnology or traits introduced into foods by biotechnology, on the basis of scientific evidence, risk analysis and having regard, where appropriate, to other legitimate factors relevant to the health of consumers and the promotion of fair trade practices. The Task Force, established by the 23rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for a four-year period of time, completed its work, but was re-established at the 27th Session of the Commission. The relevant document is ALINORM 08/31/34. The Committee held its 7th Session in Chiba, Japan, September 24-28, 2007. The following are to be considered at Step 5/8 by the Commission at its 31st Session in June 2008. • Proposed Draft Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Animals. • Proposed Draft Annex: Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants Modified for Nutritional or Health Benefits. • Proposed Draft Annex: Food Safety Assessment in Situations of Low-level Presence of Recombinant-DNA Plant Material in Foods. *Responsible Agencies:* HHS/FDA; USDA/APHIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods The *Ad hoc* Intergovernmental Task Force on the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods was created by the 29th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to resolve all outstanding issues, including the quality and safety provisions, of the *Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods.* The Task Force, hosted by Thailand, was given two years to finalize the Code. Thailand and the United States prepared a Circular Letter requesting comments on a revised Code. The resulting document prepared from these comments served as the basis for discussion at the Session of the Task Force that took place on February 25-29, 2008. The following item will be considered by the 31st Session of the Commission in June 2008: To be considered at Step 5/8: • Proposed draft Recommended International Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods. *Responsible Agencies:* FDA/HHS, USDA/AMS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. FAO/WHO Regional Coordinating Committees The Codex Alimentarius Commission is made up of an Executive Committee, as well as approximately 30 subsidiary bodies. Included in these subsidiary bodies are coordinating committees for groups of countries located in proximity to each other who share common concerns. There are currently six Regional Coordinating Committees: • Coordinating Committee for Africa. • Coordinating Committee for Asia. • Coordinating Committee for Europe. • Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean. • Coordinating Committee for the Near East. • Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific. The United States participates as an active member of the Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific, and is informed of the other coordinating committees through meeting documents, final reports, and representation at meetings. Each regional committee: • Defines the problems and needs of the region concerning food standards and food control; • Promotes within the committee contacts for the mutual exchange of information on proposed regulatory initiatives and problems arising from food control and stimulates the strengthening of food control infrastructures; • Recommends to the Commission the development of world-wide standards for products of interest to the region, including products considered by the committee to have an international market potential in the future; and • Serves a general coordinating role for the region and performs such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Commission. Codex Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific The Coordinating Committee (CCNASWP) is responsible for defining problems and needs concerning food standards and food control of all Codex member countries of the region. The next session of the committee is tentatively scheduled for October 27-30, 2008 in Tonga. Items on the agenda for the next meeting may include: • Draft new Strategic Plan for CCNASWP. • Report of the Electronic Working Group on Objective 6 of the Strategic Plan (on promoting the development of standards for food products produced in Pacific Island countries). • Discussion Paper on the Development of a Standard for Kava. • Discussion Paper on the Development of a Standard for Nonu
(Noni)Products. • *Progress Report:* Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards. • Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Trust Fund for the participation of developing countries in Codex. • Nomination of regional coordinator. *Responsible Agency:* USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Attachment 2—U.S. Codex Alimentarius Officials Codex Committee Chairpersons Codex Committee on Food Hygiene Dr. Karen Hulebak, Chief Scientist, Office of Public Health Science, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4861, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone:
(202)205-7760, Fax:
(202)720-3157, E-mail: *karen.hulebak@fsis.usda.gov.* Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables Mr. Terry Bane, Branch Chief, Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, Room 0709, South Building, Stop 9247, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0247, Phone:
(202)720-4693, Fax:
(202)690-1087, E-mail: *terry.bane@usda.gov.* Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods Dr. Bernadette Dunham, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Place (MPN4), Rockville, MD 20855, Phone:
(240)276-9000, Fax:
(240)276-9001, E-mail: *Bernadette.dunham@fda.hhs.gov.* Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes (adjourned *sine die* ) Vacant. Listing of U.S. Delegates and Alternates Worldwide General Subject Codex Committees Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (Host Government—United States) U.S. Delegate, Steven D. Vaughn, D.V.M., Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine, FDA, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone:
(301)827-1796, Fax:
(301)594-2297, E-mail: *SVaughn@cvm.fda.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Emilio Esteban, PhD, Laboratory Director, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, 950 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30605, Phone:
(706)546-3429, Fax:
(706)546-3428, *Emilio.Esteban@fsis.usda.gov.* Codex Committee on Food Additives (Host Government—China) U.S. Delegate, Dennis M. Keefe, PhD, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-200), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(202)418-3113, Fax:
(202)418-3131, E-mail: *dennis.keefe@fda.hhs.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Susan E. Carberry, PhD, Supervisory Chemist, Division of Petition Review, Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-265), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:
(301)436-1269, Fax:
(301)436-2972, E-mail: *Susan.Carberry@fda.hhs.gov.* Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (Host Government—the Netherlands) U.S. Delegate, Nega Beru, PhD, Director, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods (HFS-300), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:
(301)436-1700, Fax:
(301)436-2651, E-mail: *Nega.Beru@fda.hhs.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Kerry Dearfield, PhD, Scientific Advisor for Risk Assessment, Office of Public Health Science, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 380, Aerospace Center, Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)690-6451, Fax:
(202)690-6337, E-mail: *Kerry.Dearfield@fsis.usda.gov.* Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (Host Government—China) U.S. Delegate, Lois Rossi, Director of Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone:
(703)305-5035, Fax:
(703)305-5147, E-mail: *rossi.lois@epa.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Robert Epstein, PhD, Associate Deputy Administrator, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Room 3522S, Mail Stop 0222, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20090, Phone:
(202)720-2158, Fax:
(202)720-1484, E-mail: *robert.epstein@usda.gov.* Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (Host Government—Hungary) U.S. Delegate, Gregory Diachenko, PhD, Director, Division of Product Manufacture and Use, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Food and Drug Administration (HFS-300), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-2387, Fax:
(301)436-2364, E-mail: *gregory.diachenko@fda.hhs.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Donald C. Kendall, Technical Services Division, Grain, Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 10383 N. Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153-1394, Phone:
(816)891-0463, Fax:
(816)891-0478, E-mail: *Donnald.C.Kendall@usda.gov.* Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (Host Government—Australia) U.S. Delegate, Catherine Carnevale, D.V.M, Director, International Affairs Staff, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-550), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-2380, Fax:
(301)436-2612, E-mail: *catherine.carnevale@fda.hhs.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Mary Stanley, Director, Import Inspection Division, Office of International Affairs, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2147-South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)720-0287, Fax:
(202)720-6050, E-mail: *Mary.Stanley@fsis.usda.gov.* Codex Committee on General Principles (Host Government—France) U.S.Delegate. Note: A member of the Steering Committee heads the delegation to meetings of the General Principles Committee. Codex Committee on Food Labeling (Host Government—Canada) U.S. Delegate, Barbara O. Schneeman, PhD, Director, Office of Nutritional Products, Labelling and Dietary Uses, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway (HFS-800), College Park, MD 20740, Phone:
(301)436-2373, Fax:
(301)436-2636, E-mail: *barbara.schneeman@fda.hhs.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Heejeong Latimer, Risk Analyst, Risk Assessment Division, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Rm. 333, Aerospace Center, Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)690-0823, Fax:
(202)205-3625, E-mail: *Heejeong.Latimer@fsis.usda.gov.* Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (Host Government—United States) U.S. Delegate, Robert L. Buchanan, PhD, Lead Scientist, Food Safety Initiative, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-006), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-2369, Fax:
(301)436-2360, E-mail: *robert.buchanan@fda.hhs.gov.* Alternate Delegates, Kerry Dearfield, PhD, Scientific Advisor for Risk Assessment, Office of Public Health Science, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 380, Aerospace Center, Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)690-6451, Fax:
(202)690-6337, E-mail: *Kerry.Dearfield@fsis.usda.gov.* Rebecca Buckner, PhD, Consumer Safety Officer, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Room 3B-0033 Harvey Wiley Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:
(301)436-1486, Fax:
(301)436-2632, E-mail: *rebecca.buckner@fda.hhs.gov.* Codex Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary Uses (Host Government—Germany) U.S. Delegate, Barbara O. Schneeman, PhD, Director, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Highway (HFS-800), College Park, MD 20740, Phone:
(301)436-2373, Fax:
(301)436-2636, E-mail: *barbara.schneeman@fda.hhs.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Allison Yates, PhD, Director, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Bldg 307C, Room 117, Beltsville, MD 20705, Phone:
(301)504-8157, Fax:
(301)504-9381, E-mail: *Allison.Yates@ars.usda.gov.* Worldwide Commodity Codex Committees Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables *(Host Government—Mexico)* U.S. Delegate, Dorian LaFond, International Standards Coordinator, Fruit and Vegetables Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2086, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)690-4944, Fax:
(202)720-4722, E-mail: *dorian.lafond@usda.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Michelle Smith, PhD, Interdisciplinary Scientist, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-2024, Fax:
(301)436-2651, E-mail: *Michelle.Smith@fda.hhs.gov.* Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products *(Host Government—Norway)* U.S. Delegate, Donald Kraemer, Acting Director, Office of Seafood, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-2300, Fax:
(301)436-2599, E-mail: *donald.kraemer@fda.hhs.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Timothy Hansen, Director, Seafood Inspection Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, Room 10837, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone:
(301)713-2355, Fax:
(301)713-1081, E-mail: *Timothy.Hansen@noaa.gov.* Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes (adjourned—sine die) *(Host Government—United States* U.S. Delegate, Henry Kim, PhD, Supervisory Chemist, Division of Plant Product Safety, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:
(301)436-2023, Fax:
(301)436-2651, E-mail: *henry.kim@fda.hhs.gov.* Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products *(Host Government—New Zealand)* U.S. Delegate, Duane Spomer, Food Defense Advisor, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2750, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)720-1861, Fax:
(202)205-5772, E-mail: *duane.spomer@usda.gov.* Alternate Delegate, John F. Sheehan, Director, Division of Dairy and Egg Safety, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:
(301)436-1488, Fax:
(301)436-2632, E-mail: *john.sheehan@fda.hhs.gov.* Codex Committee on Fats and Oils *(Host Government—United Kingdom)* U.S. Delegate, Dennis M. Keefe, PhD, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-200), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-1284, Fax:
(301)436-2972, E-mail: *dennis.keefe@fda.hhs.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Kathleen Warner, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, 1815 N. University Street, Peoria, IL 61604, Phone:
(309)681-6584, Fax:
(309)681-6668, E-mail: *warnerk@ncaur.usda.gov.* Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate *(Host Government—Switzerland)* U.S. Delegate, Michelle Smith, PhD, Food Technologist, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-2024, Fax:
(301)436-2651, E-mail: *michelle.smith@fda.hhs.gov.* Codex Committee on Sugars *(Host Government—United Kingdom)* U.S. Delegate, Martin Stutsman, J.D., Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-1642, Fax:
(301)436-2651, E-mail: *martin.stutsman@fda.hhs.gov.* Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables *(Host Government—United States)* U.S. Delegate, Dorian LaFond, International Standards Coordinator, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2086, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)690-4944, Fax:
(202)720-0016, E-mail: *dorian.lafond@usda.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Paul South, PhD, Division of Plant Product Safety, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:
(301)436-1640, Fax:
(301)436-2561, E-mail: *paul.south@fda.hhs.gov.* Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins (Adjourned—sine die) *(Host Government—Canada)* U.S. Delegate, Dr. Wilda H. Martinez, Area Director, ARS North Atlantic Area, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, 600 E. Mermaid Lane, Wyndmoor, PA 19038, Phone:
(215)233-6593, Fax:
(215)233-6719, E-mail: *wmartinez@ars.usda.gov.* Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene (Adjourned—sine die) *(Host Government—New Zealand)* U.S. Delegate, Perfecto Santiago, D.V.M., Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Food Security and Emergency Preparedness, Room 3130, South Building, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)205-0452, Fax:
(202)690-5634, E-mail: *perfecto.santiago@fsis.usda.gov.* Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters *(Host Government—Switzerland)* U.S. Delegate, Lauren Robin, PhD, Review Chemist, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-1639, Fax:
(301)436-2651, E-mail: *Lauren.Robin@fda.hhs.gov.* Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces—Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology (Adjourned—sine die) *(Host Government—Japan)* U.S. Delegate, Eric Flamm, PhD, Senior Advisor, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Room 1561, Parklawn Building, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone:
(301)827-0591, Fax:
(301)827-4774, E-mail: *eflamm@oc.fda.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Cindy Smith, Deputy Administrator, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Unit 98, Ste. 5B05, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone:
(301)734-7324, Fax:
(301)734-6352, E-mail: *Cindy.J.Smith@aphis.usda.gov.* Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance *(Host Government—Republic of Korea)* Delegate, David G. White, D.V.M., Director, National Antimicrobial Resistance, Monitoring System (NARMS), U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Office of Research, 8401 Muirkirk Rd., Laurel, MD 20708, Phone:
(301)210-4181, Fax:
(301)210-4685, E-mail: *David.White@fda.hhs.gov.* Alternate Delegate, Neena Anandaraman, D.V.M., Veterinary Medical Officer, Zoonotic Diseases & Residue Surveillance Division, Office of Public Health Science, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 343, Aerospace Center, Washington, DC 20250, Phone:
(202)690-6429, Fax:
(202)690-6565, E-mail: *neena.anandaraman@fsis.usda.gov.* Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Quick Frozen Foods *(Host Government—Thailand)* Delegate, Donald Zink, PhD, Senior Scientist, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-302), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:
(301)436-1692, Fax:
(301)436-2632, E-mail: *Donald.Zink@fda.hhs.gov.* *There are six regional coordinating committees:* Coordinating Committee for Africa Coordinating Committee for Asia Coordinating Committee for Europe Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean Coordinating Committee for the Near East Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific. *Contact:* Paulo Almeida, Associate Manager for Codex, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone:
(202)205-7760, Fax:
(202)720-3157, E-mail: *paulo.almeida@fsis.usda.gov.* [FR Doc. E8-12563 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Meeting; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) AGENCY: Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: The Pacific Northwest Recreation Resource Advisory Committee
(RAC)will meet in Portland, Oregon. The purpose of the meeting is to review and provide recommendations concerning recreation fee proposals for facilities and services offered on lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in Oregon and Washington. Proposals for this meeting include the jurisdictions of the Bureau of Land Management Salem, Vail, and Spokane Districts, the Okanogan-Wenatchee, Olympic, Rogue River-Siskiyou, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, and Willamette National Forests. Other items of interest related to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 may be discussed. DATES: The meeting will be held on June 26, 2008, from 8:15 a.m. to 5 p.m. and June 27, 2008, from 8:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. A public input time is provided at 9 a.m. on both days. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. The Designated Federal Official has the discretion to adjourn the meeting early if business is completed. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be at the Red Lion Hotel, located at 1021 NE Grand Ave., Portland, Oregon, 97232. Send written comments to Dan Harkenrider, Designated Federal Official for the Pacific Northwest Recreation RAC, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, 902 Wasco Ave, Suite 200, Hood River, Oregon 97031, or *dharkenrider@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Harkenrider, Designated Federal Official, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, 902 Wasco Ave, Suite 200, Hood River, Oregon 97031, 541-308-1700. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The agenda for June 26, 2008, includes fee proposals from the Rogue River-Siskiyou, Wallowa Whitman, and Umatilla Forests and the Salem, Vail, and Spokane Districts of the Bureau of Land Management. The agenda for June 27, 2008, includes fee proposals from the Okanogan-Wenatchee, Olympic, and Willamette Forests. Individuals from the public will have the opportunity to address the Committee at 9 a.m. both days. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management staff and Recreation Resource Advisory Committee members. However; persons who wish to bring recreation fee matters to the attention of the Committee may address the committee at 9 a.m. both days. The agenda and proposals can be found at *http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/passespermits/rrac.shtml* on the internet. The Recreation RAC is authorized by the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act, which was signed into law by President Bush in December 2004. Dated: May 28, 2008. Liz Agpaoa, Acting Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service. [FR Doc. E8-12306 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 1 p.m and adjourn at 3 p.m at the Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, & Stewart Law Firm, 4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 300, Kansas City, MO 64108. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct orientation and program planning for future SAC activities. Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Central Regional Office by July 8, 2008. The address is 400 State Avenue, Suite 908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who desire additional information should contact Farella E. Robinson, Regional Director, Central Regional Office, at
(913)551-1400 or by e-mail *frobinson@usccr.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten
(10)working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Central Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of the advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, *http://www.usccr.gov,* or to contact the Central Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address. The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA. Dated in Washington, DC, May 30, 2008. Christopher Byrnes, Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. [FR Doc. E8-12557 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-820] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 31, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review for certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 74267 (December 31, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers four 1 manufacturers and exporters (respondents) of the subject merchandise: Ispat, Tata, JSW, and Essar. The period of review
(POR)is December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006. 1 Ispat Industries Limited (Ispat), Essar Steel Limited (Essar), JSW Steel Limited (JSW), and Tata Steel Limited (Tata Steel) (collectively, respondents). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett (Ispat), Joy Zhang (Tata Steel), Stephanie Moore
(JSW)or Victoria Cho (Essar), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4161,
(202)482-1168,
(202)482-3692, and
(202)482-5075, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 31, 2007, the Department published the *Preliminary Results.* Since the *Preliminary Results,* the following events have occurred. From January 28 through February 1, 2008, we verified the sales questionnaire responses of Tata, JSW and Ispat. From February 4 through 8, 2008, we verified Ispat's cost questionnaire response. On March 12 and 13, 2008 the Department issued its verification reports. We provided the interested parties an opportunity to comment on the *Preliminary Results* and the Department's verification findings. On April 4, 2008, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) and Nucor Corporation (Nucor) (collectively, petitioners) filed case briefs. On April 4, 2008, Essar and JSW filed case briefs. On April 11, 2008, petitioners filed rebuttal briefs. Also, on April 11, 2008, Ispat, Essar, JSW, and Tata filed rebuttal briefs. On April 7, 2008, the Department published the notice of extension of final results of the antidumping administrative review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, extending the deadline for these final results to no later than May 14, 2008. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 73 FR 18753 (April 7, 2008). The Department published a second notice extending the deadline for these final results to no later than May 30, 2008. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 73 FR 28100 (May 15, 2008). Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is hot-rolled carbon steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included in the scope of this order are vacuum-degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high-strength low-alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low-carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which:
(i)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(ii)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(iii)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: • Alloy hot-rolled carbon steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, *e.g.* , American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506)). • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute
(AISI)grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • United States Steel
(USS)Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel covered by this order, including: vacuum-degassed fully stabilized; high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. Affiliation As stated in the *Preliminary Results,* Nucor alleged that JSW is affiliated with the O.P. Jindal Group, pursuant to section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and that they should be collapsed. The Department preliminarily determined that JSW is affiliated with the O.P. Jindal Group under sections 771(33)(A) and
(F)of the Act, as they are under the common control of a family group. *See Preliminary Results,* at 74268. However, the evidence on the record did not indicate that the other companies in the O.P. Jindal Group have production facilities which would not require substantial retooling for producing similar or identical products. Thus, we did not find that the criteria for collapsing JSW into the O.P. Jindal Group had been satisfied. We continue to find that JSW is affiliated with the O.P. Jindal Group, but there still is no evidence on the record that indicates that any of the other companies in the group produces the subject merchandise at its own facility or could produce the merchandise without substantially retooling their facilities, or that any other company in the group besides JSW sells the subject merchandise. Regarding JSW's affiliation with another steel company as alleged by Nucor, the Department preliminarily determined that the companies are not affiliated. *See Preliminary Results,* at 74269. Although the Department finds that there is a long-standing business relationship between these entities, the Department does not find that control exists where one person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person and the relationship has the potential to impact decisions concerning the production, pricing, or cost of the subject merchandise or foreign like product. *See* section 771(33) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b). Therefore, we continue to find that there is no affiliation between JSW and the other steel company. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.* The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. *Final Results of Review:* We determine that the following weighted-average margins exist: Producer/manufacturer Weighted-average margin Ispat 0.00%. Tata Steel 0.09% ( *de minimis* ). JSW 0.24% ( *de minimis* ). Essar 5.22%. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where the rate is above *de minimis* , we will issue importer-specific assessment instructions for entries of subject merchandise during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Tata, JSW, Ispat and Essar for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,* 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by sections 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies other than those covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 38.72 percent, the all-others rate published in the *Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India,* 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001). 2 These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. 2 The all-others cash deposit rate, applied by CBP, is reduced to account for the export subsidy rate found in the countervailing duty investigation. The adjusted all-others rate is 23.87 percent. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period of review. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping and or countervailing duties. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO as explained in the APO itself. See 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX I List of Comments in the Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum Tata Steel Limited Comment 1: Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available
(AFA)to Tata's Reported Costs Comment 2: Sales of Overruns in the Home Market Comment 3: U.S. Credit Expense Calculations Comment 4: Procurement Expenses Comment 5: Deduction of DINDIRSU from CEP Comment 6: Deduction of CEP Profit Comment 7: Home Market Indirect Selling Expense Calculations JSW Steel Comment 8: Home Market Deduction of Taxes Comment 9: Deduction of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Deposits Comment 10: Application of AFA for JSW Comment 11: Finding Affiliation Based on AFA for JSW Comment 12: Collapsing of the O.P. Jindal Group Ispat Steel Limited Comment 13: Date of Sale Comment 14: Freight Charges in Home Market Sales Comment 15: Treatment of Inland Freight Comment 16: Calculation of Indirect Selling Expense Comment 17: Calculation of General and Administrative Expenses Essar Steel Co. Ltd. Comment 18: Duty Drawback Comment 19: Level of Trade Comment 20: Countervailing Duty Offset Comment 21: Treatment U.S. Date of Sale Comment 22: Treatment of U.S. Credit Expense Comment 23: Treatment of Sales Tax Comment 24: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses Comment 25: DINDIRSU for CEP Sales Comment 26: CEP Offset Comment 27: Treatment of Rebates Comment 28: Home Market Indirect Selling Expenses Comment 29: Treatment of Commission [FR Doc. E8-12603 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-901] Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-4161. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 31, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from the People's Republic of China, covering the period April 17, 2006 to August 31, 2007. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 2007). The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than June 1, 2008. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period specified, the administering authority may extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary results to up to 365 days. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable for the following reasons. The mandatory respondent has complex cost allocation issues which require the Department to gather and analyze a significant amount of information associated with the factors of production and manufacturing costs. In addition, petitioner, Association of American School Paper Suppliers, has raised other issues which require the collection of additional information and has requested that the Department extend the preliminary results to allow more time to analyze these issues. Given the number and complexity of issues in this case and the Department's resource constraints, and in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 120 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than September 29, 2008. The final results continue to be due 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) and 771(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2008. Stephan J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-12605 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-924, A-351-841, A-549-825 Postponement of Final Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of China, Brazil, and Thailand AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Toni Dach for the People’s Republic of China, Mike Heaney for Brazil, and Stephen Bailey for Thailand, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1442,
(202)482-1655,
(202)482-4475, and
(202)482-0193, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Postponement of Final Determination On October 18, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated the antidumping duty investigations of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (“PET Film”) from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), Brazil, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations* , 72 FR 60801 (October 26, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). On May 5, 2008, the Department published the *Preliminary Determinations* in the antidumping duty investigations of PET Film from the PRC, Brazil, and Thailand. 1 *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 73 FR 24552 (May 5, 2008), * Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil * , 73 FR 24560 (May 5, 2008), and *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Thailand* , 73 FR 24565 (May 5, 2008) (collectively, “ *Preliminary Determinations* ”). The final determinations of the antidumping duty investigations are currently due on July 9, 2008. 2 1 The Department postponed the final determination of the investigation of PET Film from the UAE on May 5, 2008. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 24547 (May 5, 2008). 2 The Department inadvertently stated in the PRC preliminary determination that it would make its final determination no later than 75 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination, instead of no later than 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination. Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by petitioner. In addition, the Department’s regulations, at Section 351.210(e)(2), require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. *See* 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). On May 2, 2008, DuPont Teijin Films China Limited, the sole active mandatory respondent in the PRC investigation, along with its affiliates DuPont Teijin Hongji Films Ningbo Co., Ltd., and DuPont-Hongji Films Foshan Co., Ltd., and Terphane Ltda., the sole mandatory respondent in the Brazil investigation, requested extension of the final determinations and extension of the provisional measures. 3 Thus, because the preliminary determinations in the PRC and Brazil investigations are affirmative, and the respondents requesting extension of the final determinations and extension of the provisional measures account for significant proportions of exports of the subject merchandise, and no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are extending the due date for the final determination in the PRC and Brazil investigations to no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination. 3 Terphane Ltda.'s original request did not mention its agreement to the extension of provisional measures, as required by 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) . However, on May 19, 2008, Terphane Ltda. submitted a letter agreeing to the extension of the provisional measures. On May 2, 2008, DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, Inc., SKC, Inc. and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (collectively, “petitioners”), requested an extension of the final determination in the Thailand investigation. Thus, as the request for extension in the Thailand investigation was made by petitioners because the preliminary determination in the Thailand investigation is negative, and no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are extending the due date for the final determination in the Thailand investigation to no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination. For the reasons identified above, we are postponing the final determinations in the PRC, Brazil, and Thailand investigations until September 17, 2008. This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 777(i) and 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g). Dated: May 29, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-12612 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Upcoming Sunset Reviews Background Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury. *Upcoming Sunset Reviews for July 2008* The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in July 2008 and will appear in that month’s Notice of Initiation of Five-year Sunset Reviews. *Antidumping Duty Proceedings* *Department Contact* Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam (A-522-801) Alex Villanueva
(202)482-3208 Crawfish Tailmeat from the PRC (A-570-848) Lyn Johnson
(202)482-5287 *Countervailing Duty Proceedings* Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Korea (C-580-851) Nancy Decker(202) 482-0196 *Suspended Investigations* No Sunset Review of suspended investigations are scheduled for initiation in July 2008. The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) . The Notice of Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation. This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community. Dated: May 30, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-12609 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-911] Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has determined that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (“CWP”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). For information on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section, below. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler, Damian Felton or Salim Bhabhrawala, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0189,
(202)482-0133 or
(202)482-1784 respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petitioner The Petitioners in this investigation are the Ad Hoc Coalition for Fair Pipe Imports from the People's Republic of China and the United States Steel Workers (collectively, “Petitioners”). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Case History The following events have occurred since the announcement of the preliminary determination published in the **Federal Register** on November 13, 2007. *See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances; and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination* , 72 FR 63875 (November 13, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). On November 13, 2007, the Department issued questionnaires to Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“East Pipe”); Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd., Kingland Group Co., Ltd., Beijing Kingland Century Technologies Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd., and Shanxi Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Kingland”) and, the Government of the People's Republic of China (“GOC”) regarding new subsidy allegations made by petitioners on October 3, 2007. We received responses to these questionnaires from Kingland on November 22, 2007, and from the GOC and East Pipe on December 5, 2007. We issued supplemental questionnaires to East Pipe and Kingland on November 16, 2007, and to the GOC on November 19, 2007. We received responses to these questionnaires from Kingland on December 4, 2007, from East Pipe on December 12, 2007, and from the GOC on December 17, 2007. We issued additional supplemental questionnaires to Kingland on December 14, 2007, and East Pipe on December 17, 2007. We received responses to these questionnaires from Kingland and East Pipe on December 27, 2007. The GOC, East Pipe, Kingland, Petitioners, and interested parties also submitted factual information, comments, and arguments at numerous instances prior to the final determination based on various deadlines for submissions of factual information and/or arguments established by the Department subsequent to the *Preliminary Determination* . From January 14 through January 23, 2008, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC, Kingland, and East Pipe. On April 9, 2008, we issued our post-preliminary determination regarding the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration and new subsidy allegations. We addressed our preliminary findings in an April 9, 2008, memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled *Post-Preliminary Findings for the Provision of Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration and New Subsidy Allegations* , which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”). We received case briefs from the GOC, East Pipe, Kingland, Petitioners, certain members of the Specialty Steel Industry of North America (“SSINA”), United States Steel Corporation (“US Steel”), Western International Forest Products, LLC (“Western”), MAN Ferrostaal, Inc., Commercial Metals Company and QT Trading LP (collectively, “MAN Ferrostaal”), and SeAH Steel America (“SSA”) on April 17, 2008. The same parties submitted rebuttal briefs on April 22 and April 29, 2008. We held a hearing for this investigation on May 5, 2008. Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation covers certain welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and with an outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish ( *e.g.* , black, galvanized, or painted), end finish ( *e.g.* , plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification ( *e.g.* , ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may also be referred to as circular, structural, or mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which
(a)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(b)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(c)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:
(i)1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii)2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii)1.00 percent of copper;
(iv)0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v)1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi)0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii)0.40 percent of lead;
(viii)1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix)0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x)0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi)0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii)0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii)0.15 percent of vanadium; or
(xiv)0.15 percent of zirconium. Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specifications, but can be made to other specifications. Standard pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A-53, A-135, and A-795. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A-252 and A-500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications. This is often the case, for example, with fence tubing. Pipe multiple-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to any other specification, such as the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) API-5L specification, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above and also has one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish. (The term “painted” does not include coatings to inhibit rust in transit, such as varnish, but includes coatings such as polyester.) The scope of this investigation does not include:
(a)pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn;
(b)mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn;
(c)finished electrical conduit;
(d)finished scaffolding;
(e)tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;
(f)oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications; and
(g)line pipe produced to only API specifications. The pipe products that are the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable in HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.10.00, 7306.50.50.50, 7306.50.50.70, 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and 7306.19.51.50. However, the product description, and not the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope of the investigation. Scope Comments The scope listed above has changed from the *Preliminary Determination* . On December 19, 2007, Petitioners requested that the Department clarify the scope of this investigation and the companion antidumping duty investigation of CWP from the PRC. We have analyzed the request and comments of the interested parties regarding the scope of this investigation. Our position on these comments is discussed in the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of CWP from the PRC. Injury Test Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act), section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to a U.S. industry. On August 3, 2007, the ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe. 72 FR 43295. Critical Circumstances In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department determined that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of circular welded pipe from certain PRC exporters, pursuant to section 703(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206. *Preliminary Determination* , 72 FR at 63879-80. The Department continues to find critical circumstances in this final determination. For further discussion on this issue, see “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination,” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 29, 2008 (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”) at Comments 10, 11, and 12, and Memorandum to the File Re “Critical Circumstances Analysis for Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. Import Shipment Analysis for Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. and “All Others” (May 29, 2008) (“Final Critical Circumstances Memorandum”) (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the *Decision Memorandum* , which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an Appendix is a list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Use of Adverse Facts Available Sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person:
(A)withholds information that has been requested;
(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (“AFA”) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See Statement of Administrative Action* (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, attached to H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. I at 870 (1994), *reprinted in* 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3773, 4163 (“SAA”). Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *See* SAA at 869. The Department has concluded that it is appropriate to base the final determination for Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd. (“Shuangjie”) on facts otherwise available. Shuangjie failed to respond at all to the Department's October 24, 2007, request for shipment data relating to the allegation of critical circumstances, did not respond to the Department's October 25, 2007, supplemental questionnaire, and finally, on October 31, 2007, withdrew all of its proprietary information from the record. Consequently, the use of facts otherwise available is warranted under section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In selecting from among the facts available, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act because, in addition to not fully responding to all of our requests for information, Shuangjie withdrew from all participation in the investigation and did not provide the Department with the opportunity to verify the information it did submit. Thus, Shuangjie failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability, and our final determination is based on total AFA. We have also determined that it is appropriate to apply facts available with respect to certain information that the GOC failed to provide, or information that could not be verified. Specifically, despite the Department's requests to submit sub-national government plans relating to the steel industry in the PRC, the GOC stated that none existed. However, at verification the Department discovered the existence of the Shandong Provincial Steel Plan. Additionally, the Department was unable to verify information regarding the level of state ownership in the HRS industry in the PRC because the GOC misrepresented the source of the data. In both instances, the GOC failed to act to the best of its ability and, consequently, application of AFA is warranted. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from
(1)the petition,
(2)a final determination in the investigation,
(3)any previous review or determination, or
(4)any information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the proceeding. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Analysis of Programs” & Comment 1. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, for every program based on the provision of goods at less than adequate remuneration, the Department used the Kingland rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. For value added tax (“VAT”) programs, we are unable to utilize company-specific rates from this proceeding because neither respondent received any countervailable subsidies from these subsidy programs. Therefore, for VAT programs we are also applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. Similarly, for the grant programs, we are not relying on the highest calculated final rate because it is *de minimis* . Instead, we are applying the highest calculated final subsidy rate, which in this instance is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. Finally, for the six alleged income tax programs pertaining to either the reduction of the income tax rates or exemption from income tax, we have applied an adverse inference that Shuangjie paid no income tax during the period of investigation ( *i.e.* , calendar year 2006). The standard income tax rate for corporations in the PRC is 30 percent, plus a 3 percent provincial income tax rate. Therefore, the highest possible benefit for these six income tax rate programs is 33 percent. We are applying the 33 percent AFA rate on a combined basis ( *i.e.* , the six programs combined provided a 33 percent benefit). This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to income tax deduction or credit programs. For income tax deduction or credit programs, we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled-steel at less than adequate remuneration. In a change from the *Preliminary Determination* , we are not assigning rates for alleged provincial subsidy programs where record evidence shows that Tianjin Shuangjie was not located in those provinces. *See Decision Memorandum* at Comment 15. We do not need to corroborate these rates because they are not considered secondary information as they are based on information obtained in the course of this investigation, pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. *See also* SAA at 870. Regarding the application of adverse facts available to the GOC, we have treated companies as state-owned where the GOC did not provide information regarding the companies' ownership. Also, where the provincial steel plan was not provided, we are finding that policy lending existed in that province. *See Decision Memorandum* at “Analysis of Programs;” Comment 3; and Comment 8. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for the companies under investigation, East Pipe, Kingland and Shuangjie. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for companies not investigated, we will determine an “all others” rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and *de minimis* countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776. As Shuangjie's rate was calculated under section 776 of the Act, it is not included in the “all others” rate. Nothwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have not calculated the “all others” rate by weight averaging the rates of East Pipe and Kingland, because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, we have calculated a simple average of the two responding firms' rates. Since there were either no or *de minimis* countervailable export subsidies for Kingland and East Pipe and because the “all others” rate is a simple average based on the individually investigated exporters and producers, the “all others” rate does not include export subsidies. Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 29.57%% Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd., and affiliated companies. 44.86 %% Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Wa Song Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin Shuanglian Galvanizing Products Co., Ltd. 615.92%% All Others 37.22%% Because we preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist for entries of CWP manufactured/exported by Kingland, Shuangjie and “all other” Chinese manufacturers/exporters and pursuant to sections 703(d)(1)(B) and
(2)and 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of entries of CWP manufactured/exported by Kingland, Shuangjie and “all other” Chinese exports of CWP which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 13, 2007, and to apply the suspension of liquidation to any unliquidated entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after August 15, 2007 (90 days before the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* . Also, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty purposes for subject merchandise entered on or after March 12, 2008, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries made from August 15, 2007, through March 12, 2008. *Preliminary Determination* , 72 FR at 6386. For entries of CWP manufactured/exported by East Pipe, we did not instruct CBP to suspend liquidation because we preliminarily determined that East Pipe did not receive any countervailable subsidies. We will issue a countervailing duty order and reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act (for all companies including East Pipe) if the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issues a final affirmative injury determination, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 29, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* The Department's Authority to Apply the Countervailing Duty Law to China *Comment 2:* Subsidies Prior to China's Accession to the World Trade Organization *Comment 3:* Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”) *Comment 4:* Attribution of Subsidies Received by Affiliates of Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. *Comment 5:* Scope of the Investigation *Comment 6:* Sales Denominator for Weifang East Steel Pipe Company Ltd. *Comment 7:* Provision of Hot-rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate Remuneration *Comment 8:* Government Policy Lending *Comment 9:* Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration *Comment 10:* Critical Circumstances on an Importer Specific Basis *Comment 11:* Base and Comparison Period for Critical Circumstances *Comment 12:* Kingland Export Subsidy and Finding of Critical Circumstances *Comment 13:* East Pipe Debt Forgiveness *Comment 14:* Discount Rate *Comment 15:* Programs Included in AFA Rate for Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. *Comment 16:* Double Remedy [FR Doc. E8-12606 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-910 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has determined that circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (“CWP”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Maisha Cryor, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3936 or
(202)482-5831, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History On January 15, 2008, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary determination that CWP from PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in the Act. *See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination* , 73 FR 2445, 2451 (January 15, 2008) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). For the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department calculated a zero percent dumping margin for Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Yulong”). On March 12, 2008, Petitioners, 1 mandatory respondent Yulong, separate rate applicants Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Tianjin Baloai International Trade Co., Ltd., Shijiazhuang Zhongqing Import and Export Co., Ltd., and Shandong Fubo Group Co. (collectively, “Weifang East Pipe”), and two U.S. importers of subject merchandise, SeAH Steel America, Ltd. (“SeAH”) and Western International Forest Products, LLC (“Western”), filed case briefs pursuant to the *Preliminary Determination* . 2 On March 20, 2008, Petitioners, Yulong, and one U.S. importer, MAN Ferrostaal Inc., Commercial Metals Company, and QT Trading LP (collectively, “MAN Ferrostaal”), filed rebuttal briefs. 3 On March 24, 2008, the Department held a public hearing. Subsequent to the submission of briefs and the hearing, the Department received an allegation that a PRC pipe company involved in the investigation submitted falsified documents to the Department. Following the Department's request for comments on this allegation, on April 7, 2008, Yulong withdrew from the investigation and stated that it did not contest the allegation. *See Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China* , 73 FR 22130, 22131 (April 24, 2008) (“ *Amended Preliminary Determination* ”) In light of Yulong's withdrawal from the investigation, on April 24, 2008, the Department published its *Amended Preliminary Determination* , in which the Department applied total adverse facts available (“AFA”) to Yulong and denied Yulong a separate rate, treating it as part of the PRC-wide entity. In addition, the Department assigned a new rate to the PRC-wide entity and provided parties with the opportunity to submit a second set of case briefs and rebuttal briefs. On April 28, 2008, Weifang East Pipe submitted a case brief pursuant to the *Amended Preliminary Determination* . 4 On April 30, 2008, Petitioners submitted a rebuttal brief in response to Weifang East Pipe's April Case Brief. 5 1 Petitioners in this investigation are Allied Tube & Conduit, Sharon Tube Company, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Western Tube & Conduit Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Wheatland Tube Co., *i.e.* , the Ad Hoc Coalition For Fair Pipe Imports From China, and the United Steelworkers. 2 Petitioners' March 12, 2008, case brief is hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioners' March Case Brief.” The Yulong March 12, 2008, case brief is hereinafter referred to as the “Yulong March Case Brief.” The Weifang East Pipe March 12, 2008, case brief is hereinafter referred to as the “Weifang East Pipe March Case Brief.” The SeAH March 12, 2008, case brief is hereinafter referred to as the “SeAH March Case Brief.” The Western March 12, 2008, case brief is hereinafter referred to as the “Western March Case Brief.” 3 Petitioners' March 20, 2008, rebuttal brief is hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioners' March Rebuttal Brief.” The Yulong March 20, 2008, rebuttal brief is hereinafter referred to as the “Yulong March Rebuttal Brief.” The MAN Ferrostaal March 20, 2008, rebuttal brief is hereinafter referred to as the “MAN Ferrostaal March Rebuttal Brief.” 4 The Weifang East Pipe April 28, 2008, case brief is hereinafter referred to as the “Weifang East Pipe April Case Brief.” 5 Petitioners' April 30, 2008, rebuttal brief is hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioners' April Rebuttal Brief.” Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by the parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice in its entirety (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Main Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is accessible on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. Changes Since the Amended Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made no changes in our margin calculations since the Department's *Amended Preliminary Determination* . Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation covers certain welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and with an outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish ( *e.g.* , black, galvanized, or painted), end finish ( *e.g.* , plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification ( *e.g.* , ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may also be referred to as circular, structural, or mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which
(a)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(b)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(c)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated: (i)1.80 percent of manganese; (ii)2.25 percent of silicon; (iii)1.00 percent of copper; (iv)0.50 percent of aluminum; (v)1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi)0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii)0.40 percent of lead;
(viii)1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix)0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x)0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi)0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii)0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii)0.15 percent of vanadium; or
(xiv)0.15 percent of zirconium. Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specifications, but can be made to other specifications. Standard pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A-53, A-135, and A-795. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A-252 and A-500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications. This is often the case, for example, with fence tubing. Pipe multiple-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to any other specification, such as the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) API-5L specification, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above and also has one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish. (The term “painted” does not include coatings to inhibit rust in transit, such as varnish, but includes coatings such as polyester.) The scope of this investigation does not include:
(a)pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn;
(b)mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn;
(c)finished electrical conduit;
(d)finished scaffolding;
(e)tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;
(f)oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications; and
(g)line pipe produced to only API specifications. The pipe products that are the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable in HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.10.00, 7306.50.50.50, 7306.50.50.70, 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and 7306.19.51.50. However, the product description, and not the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope of the investigation. Scope Comments In its March case brief, Petitioners argued that the Department should revise; 1) the scope of the investigation to be based upon end-use application, and 2) the definition of “painted.” For the reasons discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have not revised the scope of the investigation. However, we have revised the definition of the term “painted,” and have updated the scope accordingly. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Non-Market Economy Treatment In the *Preliminary Determination* and *Amended Preliminary Determination* , the Department considered the PRC to be a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). In its March case brief, Weifang East Pipe argued that the PRC should be granted market economy status. *See* Weifang East Pipe March Case Brief, at 6. For the reasons discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we disagree with Weifang East Pipe and have continued to treat the PRC as an NME. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”), and Section 351.107(d) of the Department's regulations. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we found that the following separate rate applicants demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status: Wai Ming (Tianjin) Int'l Trading Co., Ltd.; Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Fastube Industry Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Eric Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd.; Wah Cit Enterprises; Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shijiazhuang Zhongqing Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Baolai Int'l Trade Co., Ltd.; Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd.; Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.; Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co. Ltd.; Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Rizhao Xingye Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Yongjie Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial Company, Ltd.; Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd.; Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd.; and Shenyang BOYU M/E Co., Ltd. No party has commented on the eligibility of these companies for separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by these companies demonstrates both a *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation. Thus, we continue to find that they are eligible for separate-rate status. Normally the separate rate is determined based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins based entirely on AFA. *See* section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In this case, given the absence of participating respondents and having calculated no margins, we have assigned to the separate rate companies the simple average of the margins alleged in the petition. *See Amended Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 22133. We determined in the *Preliminary Determination* that Shandong Fubo Group Co. (“Fubo”) and Tianjin Youcheng Galvanized Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Youcheng”) are not entitled to a separate rate. We received no comments on this denial of separate rates and, for the final determination, continue to find that Fubo and Youcheng are not entitled to a separate rate. The PRC-Wide Rate In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that certain companies did not respond to our requests for information. See Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 2451. In the *Preliminary Determination* we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate that they operate free of government control over their export activities. In addition, in the *Amended Preliminary Determination* , the Department applied total AFA to Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Yulong”). We determined, as AFA, that Yulong was not eligible for a separate rate, and, for the final determination, we are treating Yulong as part of the PRC-wide entity. No additional information was placed on the record with respect to any of these companies after the *Preliminary Determination* or the *Amended Preliminary Determination* . Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department continues to find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). *See also “Statement of Administrative Action”* accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870
(1994)(“SAA”). We determined that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity. Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a NME country are subject to government control and because only the companies listed under the “Final Determination Margins” section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate ( *i.e.* , the PRC-wide entity rate) to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. *See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide entity rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the respondents which are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below. In the *Amended Preliminary Determination* , we assigned to the PRC-wide entity the highest margin alleged in the petition, as revised in Petitioners' supplemental responses, 85.55 percent. *See Amended Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 22133. We received no comments on this rate. Therefore, for the final determination, we have continued to assign to the PRC-wide entity the rate of 85.55 percent. Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have interpreted “corroborate” to mean that we will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information submitted. *See Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); *see, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). Because there are no cooperating mandatory respondents, to corroborate the 85.55 percent margin used as adverse facts available for the PRC-wide entity, we relied upon our pre-initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition. *See* Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, (Initiation Checklist) (“Initiation Checklist”) (July 5, 2007). During the initiation stage, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition and the supplemental information provided by Petitioners to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the petition. During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the information used as the basis of export price and NV in the petition, and the calculations used to derive the alleged margins. Also during our pre-initiation analysis, we examined information from various independent sources provided either in the petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the petition, which corroborated key elements of the export price and NV calculations. *Id* . We received no comments as to the relevance or probative value of this information. Therefore, for the final determination, the Department finds that the rates derived from the petition for purposes of initiation have probative value for the purpose of being selected as the AFA rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity. Final Critical Circumstances Determination On December 11, 2007, the Department preliminarily found that critical circumstances existed for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise, including the separate rate applicant companies and companies subject to the PRC-wide rate. The Department affirmed this preliminary finding in the *Preliminary Determination* and the *Amended Preliminary Determination* . Pursuant to the *Preliminary Determination* , we received comments on this issue from SeAH and Western. *See* SeAH March Case Brief, at 3; *see also* Western March Case Brief, at 1. These companies argued that we should no longer find that critical circumstances exist for certain importers that had placed information on the record of the proceeding to support claims that their imports were not part of the “massive” imports found by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206. We also received comments from Petitioners, who support the preliminary finding of critical circumstances for all PRC exporters, but who recommend certain modifications to the Department's analysis. *See* Petitioners' March Rebuttal Brief, at 19. Based on the comments from interested parties, we have revised our analysis, but continue to find that critical circumstances exist with regard to all imports of CWP from the PRC. For further details, *see* the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 11-13; *see also* , Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe (“CWP”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) - Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances,” dated May 29, 2008. Combination Rates In *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 36663 (July 5, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”), the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. *See Initiation Notice* . This change in practice is described in *Policy Bulletin 05.1* , available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. *Policy Bulletin 05.1* , states: {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. *See Policy Bulletin 05.1* , “Separate Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries.” Final Determination Margins We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the POI: Exporter Producer Weighted-Average Margin Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. Xuzhou Guang Huan Steel Tube Products Co., Ltd. 69.20 Wuxi Fastube Industry Co., Ltd. Wuxi Fastube Industry Co., Ltd. 69.20 Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial.Co.,Ltd. 6 Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial Co., Ltd. 69.20 Wuxi Eric Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Wuxi Eric Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20 Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20 Wah Cit Enterprises Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. 69.20 Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co.,.Ltd. 69.20 Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe Co.,Ltd. 69.20 Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd. Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co, Ltd. 69.20 Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20 Shijiazhuang Zhongqing Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. Bazhou Zhuofa Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20 Tianjin Baolai Int'l Trade Co., Ltd. Tianjin Jinghai County Baolai Business and Industry Co., Ltd. 69.20 Wai Ming (Tianjin) Int'l Trading Co., Ltd. Bazhou Dong Sheng Hot-dipped Galvanized Steel Pipes Co., Ltd. 69.20 Kunshan Lets Win Steel MachineryCo., Ltd. Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd. 69.20 Shenyang Boyu M/E Co., Ltd. Bazhou Dong Sheng Hot-dipped Galvanized Steel Pipes Co., Ltd. 69.20 Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd. Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd. 69.20 Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd. Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd. 69.20 Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp. Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. 69.20 Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp. Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd. 69.20 Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. 69.20 Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co., Ltd. Tianjin Lifengyuanda Steel Group 69.20 Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co., Ltd. Tianjin Xingyunda Steel Pipe Co. 69.20 Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co., Ltd. Tianjin Lituo Steel Products Co. 69.20 Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Xinlida Export Co., Ltd. Tangshan Fengnan District Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20 Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. 69.20 Rizhao Xingye Import & Export Co., Ltd. Shandong Xinyuan Group Co., Ltd. 69.20 Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd. Tianjin Hexing Steel Co., Ltd. 69.20 Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd. Tianjin Ruitong Steel Co., Ltd. 69.20 Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd. Tianjin Yayi Industrial Co. 69.20 Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery Manufacture Co., Ltd. Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery Manufacture Co., Ltd. 69.20 Qingdao Yongjie Import & Export Co., Ltd. Shandong Xinyuan Group Co., Ltd. 69.20 PRC-Wide Entity 7 85.55 6 In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department incorrectly identified Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial Company, Ltd., as Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Co., Ltd. We note, however, that in the Department's subsequent instructions to CBP to suspend liquidation and require cash deposits for CWP from PRC, the Department correctly identified Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial Company, Ltd. 7 In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that the Tianjin Shuangjie Group is part of the PRC-wide entity. In the *Amended Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that Yulong is part of the PRC-wide entity. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, that are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 17, 2007, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** , except for imports from Yulong. In specific regard to Yulong, we are directing CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 25, 2008, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the amended preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** . *See Amended Preliminary Determination* . We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 29, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix *Comment 1:* Whether the Scope Language Should Include End-Use Definition and Reference to End-Use Applications *Comment 2:* Whether the Department Should Graduate the People's Republic of China to Market Economy Status *Comment 3:* Whether the Department Should Calculate a Company-Specific Separate Rate for Weifang East Pipe *Comment 4:* Whether the Department Should Find Weifang East Pipe to be a Market-Oriented Enterprise *Comment 5:* Whether the Department Should Utilize Weifang East Pipe's Actual Hot-Rolled Costs When Calculating an AD Margin Due to the Existence of the Companion Countervailing Duty Investigation *Comment 6:* Whether a Double-Remedy Results from the Simultaneous Application of Non-Market Economy AD and Countervailing Duty Methodologies *Comment 7:* Whether the Department's Amended Preliminary Determination Violated Legal Principles *Comment 8:* Whether the Department Should Employ Weifang East Pipe's Suggested Analytical Approach For Calculating Its Company-Specific Margin *Comment 9:* Whether the Department Should Assign Weifang East Pipe's Company-Specific AD Rate to All Cooperative Separate Rate Respondents *Comment 10:* Whether the Department Should Make an Adjustment for Countervailable Export Subsidies *Comment 11:* Whether the Department Should Use the Highest Petition Margin as the Adverse Facts Available Rate *Comment 12:* Whether the Department Should Find That Critical Circumstances Do Not Exist for Yulong *Comment 13:* Whether the Department Should Analyze Critical Circumstances on an Importer-Specific Basis in its Critical Circumstances Analysis *Comment 14:* Whether the Department Should Include June 2007 in the Base Period Rather than the Comparison Period in its Critical Circumstances Analysis [FR Doc. E8-12608 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating a five-year review (“Sunset Review”) of the antidumping duty orders listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of *Institution of Five-Year Review* which covers the same orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Department official identified in the *Initiation of Review* section below at AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at
(202)205-3193. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing *Duty Orders,* 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3— *Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-Year (”Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy Bulletin,* 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). Initiation of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Review of the following antidumping duty orders: DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact A-570-879 731-TA-1014 PRC Polyvinyl Alcohol Brandon Farlander,
(202)482-0182. A-588-861 731-TA-1016 Japan Polyvinyl Alcohol Brandon Farlander,
(202)482-0182. A-580-850 731-TA-1017 Korea Polyvinyl Alcohol Brandon Farlander,
(202)482-0182. A-570-878 731-TA-1013 PRC Saccharin Andrea Berton,
(202)482-4037. Filing Information As a courtesy, we are making information related to Sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's sunset Internet Web site at the following address: “ *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.* ” All submissions in this Sunset Review must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, service, and certification of documents. These rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for this proceeding. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) immediately following publication in the **Federal Register** of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii) as set forth below. Information Required From Interested Parties Domestic interested parties defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and
(G)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing to participate in this Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically revoke the order without further review. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Please consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews. 1 Please consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department. 1 In comments made on the interim final sunset regulations, a number of parties stated that the proposed five-day period for rebuttals to substantive responses to a notice of initiation was insufficient. This requirement was retained in the final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the Department will consider individual requests of that five-day deadline based upon a showing of good cause. This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). Dated: May 30, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-12611 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Seats for the Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council AGENCY: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DCC). ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary (GRNMS or sanctuary) is seeking applicants for the following vacant seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (council) Charter/Commercial Fishing and University Education. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve three-year terms, pursuant to the council's Charter. DATES: Applications are due by July 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained from Becky Shortland, Council Coordinator ( *becky.shortland@noaa.gov* ), 10 Ocean Science Circle, Savannah, GA 31411; 912-598-2381). Completed applications should be sent to the same address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Shortland, Council Coordinator ( *becky.shortland@noaa.gov* ), 10 Ocean Science Circle, Savannah, GA 31411; 912-598-2381. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The sanctuary advisory council was established in August 1999 to provide advice and recommendations on management and protection of the sanctuary. The advisory council, through its members, also serves as liaison to the community regarding sanctuary issues and represents community interests, concerns, and management needs to the sanctuary and NOAA. Authority: 16 U.S.C. Section 1431, *et seq.* (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429, Marine Sanctuary Program) May 27, 2008. Daniel J. Basta, Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-12283 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XI28 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Annual Catch Limit Plan Development Group
(ACLG)DATES: The ACLG will meet on June 24-25, 2008. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Best Western San Juan Airport Hotel and Casino, located at the Luis Munoz Marin Airport, in Carolina, Puerto Rico. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918; telephone:
(787)766-5926. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ACLG will meet to discuss the items contained in the following agenda: •Call to Order •Overview of ACLG (Annual Catch Limit Plan Development Group) Tasks •Report from the Technical Monitoring and Compliance Team
(TMCT)on: -Fisheries Overfished and undergoing overfishing -Other fisheries •Determination of ACLs and AMs -By Fishery (SFA Units: Groupers Unit 4, Parrotfishes, Queen Conch. etc.) -By Species -By Area -By Gear •Recommendations to the SSC •Other Business •Next Meeting Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone
(787)766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: June 2, 2008 Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-12593 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XI27 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public committee meeting. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Crab Socioeconomic Data Collection Committee will meet in Anchorage, AK. DATES: The meeting will be held on June 24, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Anchorage Hilton Hotel, Iliamna Room, 500 West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONT ACT: Mark Fina, NPFMC, telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The committee will have discussions concerning the collection of social and economic fisheries data, and potential analytical uses of those data. These data include revenue, cost, crew, labor, and community information, which may be collected from vessels and processing plants participating in the fisheries, as well as data from other sources. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen,
(907)271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: June 2, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-12592 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XI29 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Groundfish Management Team
(GMT)will hold a working meeting, which is open to the public. DATES: The GMT meeting will be held Monday, June 23, 2008 from 1 p.m. until business for the day is completed. The GMT meeting will reconvene Tuesday, June 24 through Friday, June 27, from 8:30 a.m. until business for each day is completed. ADDRESSES: The GMT meeting will be held at the Pacific Fishery Management Council office, Large Conference Room, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. *Council address* : Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John DeVore, Groundfish Management Coordinator; telephone:
(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the GMT working meeting is to complete analyses for the 2009-10 Groundfish Harvest Specifications and Management Measures Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The main task will be completing any analysis of the Council's preferred alternative for groundfish harvest specifications and management measures for the next biennium. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the GMT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal GMT action during this meeting. GMT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the GMT's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at
(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: June 2, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-12594 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI23 Nominations to the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for nominations. SUMMARY: Nominations are being sought for appointment by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to serve on the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC or Committee) beginning in October 2008. MAFAC is the only Federal advisory committee with the responsibility to advise the Secretary on all matters concerning living marine resources that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The Committee makes recommendations to the Secretary to assist in the development and implementation of Departmental regulations, policies and programs critical to the mission and goals of the NMFS. Nominations are encouraged from all interested parties involved with or representing interests affected by NMFS actions in managing living marine resources. Nominees should possess demonstrable expertise in a field related to the management of living marine resources and be able to fulfill the time commitments required for two annual meetings. Individuals serve for a term of three years for no more than two consecutive terms if re-appointed. NMFS is seeking qualified nominees to fill upcoming vacancies being created by the expiration of existing appointments this October, thereby bringing the Committee to its full complement of 21 members. DATES: Nominations must be received by July 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Nominations must be sent to Dr. Mark Holliday, Executive Director, MAFAC, Office of Policy, NMFS F-14451, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Holliday, MAFAC Executive Director;
(301)713-2239 x120; e-mail: *Mark.Holliday@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The establishment of MAFAC was approved by the Secretary on December 28, 1970, and subsequently chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, on February 17, 1971. The Committee meets twice a year with supplementary subcommittee meetings as determined necessary by the Committee Chairperson. No less that 15 and no more than 21 individuals may serve on the Committee. Membership is comprised of highly qualified individuals representing commercial and recreational fisheries interests, environmental organizations, academic institutions, governmental, tribal and consumer groups from a balance of U.S. geographical regions, including Puerto Rico and the Western Pacific and the U.S. Virgin Islands. A MAFAC member cannot be a Federal employee or a member of a Regional Fishery Management Council. Selected candidates must pass security checks and submit financial disclosure forms. Membership is voluntary, and except for reimbursable travel and related expenses, service is without pay. Each submission should include the submitting person or organization's name and affiliation, a cover letter describing the nominee's qualifications and interest in serving on the Committee, a curriculum vitae and or resume of the nominee, and no more than three supporting letters describing the nominee's qualifications and interest in serving on the Committee. Self-nominations are acceptable. The following contact information must accompany each nominee's submission: name, address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address (if available). Nominations should be sent to (see ADDRESSES ) and must be received by (see DATES ). The full text of the Committee Charter and its current membership can be viewed at the NMFS's web page at *www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mafac.htm* . Dated: May 30, 2008. James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-12602 Filed 6-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Estuarine Research Reserve System AGENCY: Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public comment period for the Revised Management Plan for the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce is announcing a thirty-day public comment period on the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan Revision. The Sapelo Island Reserve (Georgia) was designated in 1976 pursuant to Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1461. The Reserve has been operating under a management plan approved in 1999. Pursuant to 15 CFR 921.33(c), a state must revise their management plan every five years. The submission of this plan fulfills this requirement and sets a course for successful implementation of the goals and objectives of the Reserve. New facilities and updated programmatic objectives are notable revisions to the 1999 approved management plan. The mission of the Sapelo Island Reserve is to perpetuate the protection of the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve and to provide a platform for conservation-based research, education and stewardship through the Reserve. The revised management plan identifies priority resource issues that are addressed through active management. These priority issues include addressing public access and visitor impact on Reserve uplands and marsh areas, addressing impacts related to activities on the Reserve by the island's population and addressing the projected increase in development and population growth on the Georgia coast. By addressing these priority resource issues, the Sapelo Island Reserve aims to fulfill its mission. The revised plan establishes goals and objectives for the Reserve's various programmatic activities, including scientific biological research; water quality monitoring; education, training, and outreach programs; and stewardship programs. It also outlines the plans for future facility development to support reserve operations. Since 1999, the reserve has realized some aspects of the 1999 plan, including the contributions toward the completion of the Barrier Island Research and Learning Center, a joint research dormitory and lab shared with the University of Georgia. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy N. Clark at
(301)563-1137 or Laurie McGilvray at
(301)563-1158 of NOAA's National Ocean Service, Estuarine Reserves Division, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, 10th floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910. For copies of the revised Management Plan for the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve visit *http://www.sapelonerr.org.* Dated: May 22, 2008. David M. Kennedy, Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-12541 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of proposed new Privacy Act system of records. SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) gives notice of a proposed new system of records entitled “COMMERCE/PAT-TM-22 Patent e-Commerce Database.” We invite the public to comment on the system announced in this publication. DATES: Written comments must be received no later than July 7, 2008. The amendments will become effective as proposed on July 7, 2008, unless the USPTO receives comments that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by any of the following methods: *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* *Fax:*
(571)273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Fawcett. *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. *Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments received will be available for public inspection at the Federal rulemaking portal located at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450,
(571)272-5429. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is giving notice of a new system of records that is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. The information in this system of records is used to maintain a list of customers who wish to receive patent e-Commerce updates or attend patent e-Commerce events. The proposed new system of records, “COMMERCE/PAT-TM-22 Patent e-Commerce Database,” is published in its entirety below. COMMERCE/PAT-TM-22 System name: Patent e-Commerce Database. Security classification: Unclassified. System location: Search and Information Resources Administration (SIRA), United States Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Individuals subscribing to receive patent e-Commerce updates or to attend a patent e-Commerce event. Categories of records in the system: Name of subscriber, name of organization, and subscriber's electronic mail address. Authority for maintenance of the system: 35 U.S.C. 2. Purpose(s): The information in this system of records is used to maintain a list of customers who wish to receive patent e-Commerce updates or attend patent e-Commerce events. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: See Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses Nos. 4-5, 9-10, and 13, as found at 46 FR 63501-63502 (December 31, 1981). The USPTO may use the information contained in this system of records to contact customers who have expressed an interest in patent e-Commerce events and updates. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: Not applicable. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Electronic records in a computer database stored on magnetic storage media. Retrievability: Name of subscriber (first and/or last), name of organization, and subscriber's electronic mail address. Safeguards: The database is password-protected and can only be accessed by authorized personnel. Retention and disposal: Records retention and disposal is in accordance with the series records schedules. System manager(s) and address: SIRA Customer Outreach Manager, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Notification procedure: Information about the records contained in this system may be obtained by sending a request in writing, signed, to the SIRA Customer Outreach Manager at the address above. When requesting notification of or access to records covered by this notice, requesters should provide their name and electronic mail address in accordance with the inquiry provisions appearing in 37 CFR 102 subpart B. Record access procedures: Requests from individuals should be addressed to the SIRA Customer Outreach Manager at the address above. Contesting record procedures: The general provisions for access, contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 37 CFR 102 subpart B. Requests from individuals should be addressed to the SIRA Customer Outreach Manager at the address above. Record source categories: Subject individuals and those authorized by the individual to furnish information. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. Dated: May 29, 2008. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E8-12564 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION RIN 3038-AC52 Exemptive Order for SPDR ® Gold Futures Contracts AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Final order. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission or CFTC) is exempting certain transactions in physically delivered futures contracts based on SPDR ® Gold Shares (SPDR ® gold futures contracts) from those provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA or Act), 1 and the Commission's regulations thereunder, that are inconsistent with the trading and clearing of SPDR ® gold futures contracts as security futures. The exemption is conditioned on the compliance of transactions in SPDR ® gold futures contracts with the requirements established for the trading and clearing of security futures. The authority for the issuance of this exemption is found in Section 4(c) of the Act. 2 1 7 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.* 2 7 U.S.C. 6(c). DATES: Effective June 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Fekrat, Special Counsel, Office of the Director (telephone 202.418.5578, e-mail *bfekrat@cftc.gov* ), Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In correspondence dated October 26, 2007, OneChicago, LLC (OneChicago or the Exchange), 3 a board of trade designated with the Commission pursuant to Sections 5 and 6(a) of the Act, proposed and requested Commission approval to list for trading SPDR ® gold futures contracts as security futures. 4 OneChicago is notice-registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC)as a national securities exchange under Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ('34 Act) for the purpose of listing and trading security futures products. The approval request was filed pursuant to Section 5c(c)(2) of the Act and Commission Regulations 40.5 and 41.23. 5 OneChicago submitted its request for approval under the 45-day fast-track review period established by Commission Regulation 40.5. The fast-track review period for the Exchange's submission was scheduled to expire on December 10, 2007. The review period was extended by the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, pursuant to Regulations 40.5(c) and 40.7(a)(1), to January 24, 2008 on the grounds that the SPDR ® gold futures contracts raised novel and complex issues that required additional time for review. 6 By letter dated January 23, 2008, the Exchange, upon the request of the Commission's staff, voluntarily extended the review period to March 17, 2008. By letter dated February 26, 2008, the Exchange voluntarily extended the review period to April 30, 2008. 7 By letter dated April 28, 2008, the Exchange further voluntarily extended the review period to May 30, 2008. 3 OneChicago is jointly owned by the CME Group, Inc., IB Exchange Corp., and the Chicago Board Options Exchange. 4 In accordance with Section 2(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Act, Commission staff forwarded the new contract filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on October 29, 2007. No comments were received in response to this correspondence. On January 4, 2008, the Exchange filed a rule amendment concerning minimum price fluctuations to supplement its initial submission. 5 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c)(2), 17 CFR 40.5, 41.23. 6 Commission Regulations 40.5(c) and 40.7(a)(1) allow the Commission, and certain staff acting pursuant to delegated authority, to extend the 45-day fast-track review period by an additional 45 days if a product raises novel or complex issues requiring additional time for review. 17 CFR 40.5(c), 40.7(a)(1). 7 Section 5c(c) of the Act requires the Commission to approve any designated contract market instrument submitted for approval within 90 days after the submission of the request unless
(1)it finds that the trading or clearing of the instrument would violate the Act (or the Commission's regulations), or
(2)the person submitting the request for approval agrees to extend the period of review beyond the 90 day time limitation. On March 14, 2008, the Commission published for pubic comment in the **Federal Register** a proposal to exempt, pursuant to Section 4(c) of the Act, SPDR ® gold futures contracts from those provisions of the CEA, and the Commission's regulations thereunder, that are inconsistent with the trading and clearing of SPDR ® gold futures contracts as security futures. 8 The Commission proposed to issue the exemption in order to facilitate the Exchange's request for contract approval. No formal comments were submitted in response to the Commission's publication. 9 8 Proposed Exemptive Order for ST [SPDR ® ] Gold Futures Contracts, 73 FR 13876 (March 14, 2008) (Proposed Order). Effective May 21, 2008, the streetTRACKS ® Gold Trust has been restyled as the SPDR ® Gold Trust. Consequently, on May 22, 2008 the Exchange filed a rule amendment to reflect that change. 9 A thorough summary of the Trust's operations is provided in the Proposed Order. II. CEA Section 4(c) Exemptive Order In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the CFTC and the SEC on March 11, 2008, and in particular the addendum thereto concerning *Principles Governing the Review of Novel Derivative Products* , the Commission believes that novel derivative products that implicate areas of overlapping regulatory concern should be permitted to trade in either or both a CFTC or SEC regulated environment, in a manner consistent with laws and regulations (including the appropriate use of all available exemptive and interpretive authority). The Commission has determined to use its authority under Section 4(c) of the Act, as proposed, to exempt transactions in SPDR ® gold futures contracts from those provisions of the Act and the Commission's regulations thereunder that, if the underlying were considered to be a commodity that is not a security, would be inconsistent with the trading and clearing of SPDR ® gold futures contracts as security futures. 10 Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA empowers the Commission to “promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition” by exempting any transaction or class of transactions 11 from any of the provisions of the Act upon determining that the exemption would be consistent with the public interest. 12 Section 4(c)(2) of the Act provides that the Commission may grant exemptions only when it determines that the requirements for which an exemption is being provided should not be applied to the agreements, contracts or transactions at issue; that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the purposes of the Act; that the agreements, contracts or transactions will be entered into solely between appropriate persons; and that the exemption will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any designated contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility to discharge its regulatory or self-regulatory responsibilities under the CEA. 13 With respect to the term “appropriate persons,” Section 4(c)(3) of the Act enumerates several categories of appropriate persons and provides in subparagraph
(K)that the term shall include “[s]uch other persons that the Commission determines to be appropriate in light of * * * the applicability of appropriate regulatory protections.” 10 The Commission recently issued a similar order with respect to exchange-traded credit default products. *See* Order Exempting the Trading and Clearing of Certain Credit Default Products Pursuant to the Exemptive Authority in Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 72 FR 32079 (June 11, 2007). 11 Covered transactions are subject to certain exceptions not relevant here. 12 Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 6(c)(1), provides in full that: In order to promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition, the Commission by rule, regulation, or order, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may (on its own initiative or on application of any person, including any board of trade designated or registered as a contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility for transactions for future delivery in any commodity under section 7 of this title) exempt any agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof) that is otherwise subject to subsection
(a)of this section (including any person or class of persons offering, entering into, rendering advice or rendering other services with respect to, the agreement, contract, or transaction), either unconditionally or on stated terms or conditions or for stated periods and either retroactively or prospectively, or both, from any of the requirements of subsection
(a)of this section, or from any other provision of this chapter (except subparagraphs (c)(ii) and
(D)of section 2(a)(1) of this title, except that the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission may by rule, regulation, or order jointly exclude any agreement, contract, or transaction from section 2(a)(1)(D) of this title), if the Commission determines that the exemption would be consistent with the public interest. 13 Section 4(c)(2) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(2), provides in full that: The Commission shall not grant any exemption under paragraph
(1)from any of the requirements of subsection
(a)of this section unless the Commission determines that—
(A)The requirement should not be applied to the agreement, contract, or transaction for which the exemption is sought and that the exemption would be consistent with the public interest and the purposes of this Act; and
(B)The agreement, contract, or transaction—
(i)Will be entered into solely between appropriate persons; and
(ii)Will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility to discharge its regulatory or self-regulatory duties under this Act. In enacting Section 4(c) of the Act, Congress noted that the goal of the provision “is to give the Commission a means of providing certainty and stability to existing and emerging markets so that financial innovation and market development can proceed in an effective and competitive manner.” 14 SPDR ® gold futures contracts are novel instruments and the Commission believes that this is an appropriate case for issuing an exemption, as proposed, without making a finding as to the nature of these particular instruments. Accordingly, given the potential usefulness of SPDR ® gold futures contracts to the significant market for the Trust's Shares, as well as all gold-linked markets, the Commission herein exempts transactions in SPDR ® gold futures contracts traded on OneChicago, and the clearing of such contracts as security futures, from the provisions of the Act, and the Commission's regulations thereunder, to the extent necessary to permit them to be so traded and cleared. In the Commission's opinion, the issuance of this exemptive order is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of the Act, because it will likely foster both financial innovation by bringing an innovative derivatives product to market, and competition by not potentially excluding other similarly innovative products from trading on regulated futures markets. In addition, SPDR ® gold futures contracts, when traded as security futures pursuant to this exemption and the Commission's subsequent or concurrent approval of the Exchange's submissions, will be subject to regulation by both the SEC and the Commission. 15 The implementation of an exemption, under these circumstances, will not erode appropriate regulatory protections, and thus SPDR ® gold futures contracts will be traded by appropriate persons. Nor will this exemption impair the ability of the Commission or OneChicago to discharge any regulatory or self-regulatory duty under the Act. 14 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 102-978, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3179, at 3213 (H.R. Conf. Rep.). 15 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(A). Security futures are subject to joint regulation by the CFTC and the SEC under Section 2(a)(1)(D) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(D). This Order is subject to termination or revision, on a prospective basis, if the Commission determines upon further information that this exemption is not consistent with the public interest. If the Commission believes such exemption becomes detrimental to the public interest, the Commission may revoke this Order on its own motion. III. Related Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)16 imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. This exemptive order does not require a new collection of information from any entity that would be subject to the order. 16 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). B. Cost-Benefit Analysis Section 15(a) of the CEA, as amended by Section 119 of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, 17 requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing an order under the CEA. Section 15(a) of the Act further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of the following five broad areas of market and public concern: protection of market participants and the public; efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations. By its terms, Section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of an order or to determine whether the benefits of the order outweigh its costs. Rather, Section 15(a) simply requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its action. The Commission may give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could in its discretion determine that, notwithstanding potential costs, a particular order is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the CEA. 17 7 U.S.C. 19(a). In the Proposed Order, the Commission analyzed the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of an exemption under Section 4(c) of the Act. The Commission invited public comment on its analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the issuance of an exemptive order under Section 4(c) of the Act. 18 No comments were submitted to the Commission. 18 Proposed Order at 13870. After considering the factors presented in this release, the Commission has determined to issue this Order. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2008 by the Commission. David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-12579 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Order Exempting the Trading and Clearing of Certain Products Related to SPDR ® Gold Trust Shares AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Final Order. SUMMARY: On April 23rd, 2008, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or the “Commission”) published for public comment in the **Federal Register** 1 a proposal to exempt the trading and clearing of products called options on streetTRACKS ® Gold Trust Shares (“ST Gold Options”), proposed to be traded on national securities exchanges, and cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”), from the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) 2 and Commission regulations thereunder to the extent necessary for them to be so traded and cleared. The Commission has determined to issue this Order essentially as proposed. Authority for this exemption is found in Section 4(c) of the CEA. 3 1 73 FR 21917 (April 23, 2008) 2 7 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.* 3 7 U.S.C. 6(c). DATES: *Effective Date:* May 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert B. Wasserman, Associate Director, 202-418-5092, *rwasserman@cftc.gov,* Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The OCC is both a Derivatives Clearing Organization (“DCO”) registered pursuant to Section 5b of the CEA, 4 and a securities clearing agency registered pursuant to Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“the '34 Act”). 5 4 7 U.S.C. 7a-1. 5 15 U.S.C. 78q-l. OCC filed with the CFTC, pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the CEA and Commission Regulations 39.4(a) and 40.5 thereunder, 6 requests for approval of rules and rule amendments that would enable OCC to clear and settle ST Gold Options 7 traded on national securities exchanges in its capacity as a registered securities clearing agency regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (and not in its capacity as a DCO). 8 Section 5c(c)(3) provides that the CFTC must approve any such rules and rule amendments submitted for approval unless it finds that the rules or rule amendments would violate the CEA. 6 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c), 17 CFR 39.4(a), 40.5. 7 streetTRACKS® Gold Trust Shares, which underlie ST Gold Options, are described in greater detail in the “Proposed Exemptive Order for ST Gold Futures Contracts,” 73 FR 13867, 13868 (March 14, 2008). On May 20, 2008, streetTRACKS® Gold Trust Shares were renamed SPDR ® Gold Trust Shares. *See* Prospectus for SPDR ® Gold Trust, *available at http://www.spdrgoldshares.com/pdf/SPDRGoldTrustProspectus.pdf* (reviewed May 22, 2008). 8 The request for approval concerning the ST Gold Options was filed effective February 4, 2008, and Amendment No. 1 thereto was filed effective March 7, 2008. *See* SR-OCC-2008-04 and Amendment No. 1. OCC has also filed these proposed rule changes with the SEC. *See* SEC Release No. 34-57695; File No. SR-OCC-2008-07 (April 21, 2008), 73 FR 22452 (April 25, 2008). On May 22, 2008, OCC filed Amendment No. 2 to the request for approval, reflecting the change in the name of streetTRACKS® Gold Trust Shares. II. Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA empowers the CFTC to “promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition” by exempting any transaction or class of transactions from any of the provisions of the CEA (subject to exceptions not relevant here) where the Commission determines that the exemption would be consistent with the public interest. The Commission may grant such an exemption by rule, regulation or order, after notice and opportunity for hearing, and may do so on application of any person or on its own initiative. In enacting Section 4(c), Congress noted that the goal of the provision “is to give the Commission a means of providing certainty and stability to existing and emerging markets so that financial innovation and market development can proceed in an effective and competitive manner.” 9 Permitting ST Gold Options to trade on national securities exchanges and be cleared on OCC as discussed above appears likely to foster both financial innovation and competition. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 11, 2008, and in particular the addendum thereto concerning *Principles Governing the Review of Novel Derivative Products,* the Commission believes that novel derivative products that implicate areas of overlapping regulatory concern should be permitted to trade in either or both a CFTC- or SEC-regulated environment, in a manner consistent with laws and regulations (including the appropriate use of all available exemptive and interpretive authority). 9 House Conf. Report No. 102-978, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3179, 3213 (“4(c) Conf. Report”). ST Gold Options are novel instruments and, given their potential usefulness to the market, the Commission believes that this is an appropriate case for issuing an exemption without making a finding as to the nature of these particular instruments. Section 4(c)(2) provides that the Commission may grant exemptions only when it determines that the requirements for which an exemption is being provided should not be applied to the agreements, contracts or transactions at issue, and the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the purposes of the CEA; that the agreements, contracts or transactions will be entered into solely between appropriate persons; and that the exemption will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility to discharge its regulatory or self-regulatory responsibilities under the CEA. In the April 23, 2008 **Federal Register** Release, the Commission requested public comment on the matters discussed above and all issues raised by its proposed exemptive order. No comments were received. III. Findings and Conclusions After considering the complete record in this matter, the Commission has determined that the requirements of Section 4(c) have been met. First, the exemption is consistent with the public interest and with the purposes of the CEA, including “promot[ing] responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of trade, other markets and market participants.” 10 It appears to be consistent with these and the other purposes of the CEA, with the public interest, with the CFTC-SEC Memorandum of Understanding of March 11, 2008, and with the addendum thereto, for the mode of trading of these transactions—whether it is to be through CFTC-regulated markets and clearing organizations or SEC-regulated markets and clearing agencies—to be determined by competitive market forces. 10 CEA Section 3(b), 7 U.S.C. 5(b). Second, the ST Gold Options will be entered into solely between appropriate persons. Section 4(c)(3) includes within the term “appropriate persons” a number of specified categories of persons, but also in subparagraph (K), “such other persons that the Commission determines to be appropriate in light of * * * the applicability of appropriate regulatory protections.” National securities exchanges, OCC and broker-dealers who will intermediate transactions in ST Gold Options are subject to extensive and detailed oversight by the SEC and, in the case of the intermediaries, the securities self-regulatory organizations. Given that the products will be traded on national securities exchanges, the regulatory protections available under the securities laws, and the goal of promoting fair competition, the ST Gold Options will be traded by appropriate persons. Third, the exemption would not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any designated contract market to carry out their regulatory responsibilities under the CEA. There is no reason to believe that granting an exemption here would interfere with the Commission's or a designated contract market's ability to oversee the trading of similar products or otherwise carry out their duties. Therefore, upon due consideration, pursuant to its authority under Section 4(c) of the CEA, the Commission hereby issues this Order and exempts the trading of ST Gold Options on national securities exchanges and clearing of ST Gold Options by OCC in its capacity as a registered securities clearing agency from the CEA and the Commission's Regulations thereunder to the extent necessary to permit them to be so traded and cleared. This Order is subject to termination or revision, on a prospective basis, if the Commission determines upon further information that this exemption is not consistent with the public interest. If the Commission believes such exemption becomes detrimental to the public interest, the Commission may revoke this Order on its own motion. IV. Related Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) 11 imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. The exemptive order will not require a new collection of information from any entities. 11 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). B. Cost-Benefit Analysis Section 15(a) of the CEA, as amended by Section 119 of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”), 12 requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing an order under the CEA. By its terms, Section 15(a) as amended does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of an order or to determine whether the benefits of the order outweigh its costs. Rather, Section 15(a) simply requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its action. 12 7 U.S.C. 19(a). Section 15(a) of the CEA further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: protection of market participants and the public; efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations. Accordingly, the Commission could in its discretion give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could in its discretion determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular order was necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the CEA. The Commission has considered the costs and benefits of the order in light of the specific provisions of Section 15(a) of the CEA, as follows: 1. *Protection of market participants and the public.* National securities exchanges, OCC and their members who will intermediate ST Gold Options are subject to extensive regulatory oversight. 2. *Efficiency, competition, and financial integrity.* The exemptive order appears likely to enhance market efficiency and competition since it could encourage potential trading of ST Gold Options on markets other than designated contract markets or derivative transaction execution facilities. Financial integrity will not be affected since the ST Gold Options will be cleared by OCC, a DCO and SEC-registered clearing agency, and intermediated by SEC-registered broker-dealers. 3. *Price discovery.* Price discovery may be enhanced through market competition. 4. *Sound risk management practices.* The ST Gold Options will be subject to OCC's current risk-management practices including its margining system. 5. *Other public interest considerations.* The exemptive order appears likely to encourage development of derivative products through market competition without unnecessary regulatory burden. The Commission requested comment on its application of these factors in the proposing release. No comments were received. After considering these factors, the Commission has determined to issue this Order. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2008 by the Commission. David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission. Dissenting in Part and Concurring in Part to Exemptive Order Under Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act
(CEA)To Exempt Certain Products Related to SPDR ® Gold Trust Shares Traded on a National Securities Exchange and Cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation
(OCC)From Provisions of the CEA, and Approval of OCC's Request for Approval of Rules I applaud the agencies' efforts today to enhance cooperation and coordination in approving innovative and novel products. I respectfully dissent, however, from the Commission's issuance of the above-referenced order. In the promulgation of such an exemptive order in furtherance of the approval process, I believe the Commission should have adequate basis for confidence that the Securities and Exchange Commission will similarly fully exercise its broad statutory exemptive authority under the securities laws to permit futures exchanges to trade products that are economically equivalent to those that are or may be approved for trading on national securities exchanges, and to allow derivatives clearing organizations to clear such products, to ensure that the futures markets are not competitively disadvantaged with regard to such products. I dissent from today's action, because I do not believe this exemptive order provides sufficient basis for or assurance of such reciprocity in the future. Given the issuance of today's orders, I concur in the approval of the Options Clearing Corporation's above-referenced request for approval of rules. Bart Chilton, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission. [FR Doc. E8-12624 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 08-55] 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 08-55 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: May 28, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN05JN08.000 EN05JN08.001 EN05JN08.002 EN05JN08.003 EN05JN08.004 EN05JN08.005 EN05JN08.006 EN05JN08.007 EN05JN08.008 [FR Doc. E8-12456 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 08-61] 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)(l) 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 08-61 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: May 28, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN05JN08.009 EN05JN08.010 EN05JN08.011 EN05JN08.012 [FR Doc. E8-12457 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2008-OS-0065] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: National Security Agency/Central Security Service, DoD. ACTION: Notice to Amend a System of Records. SUMMARY: The National Security Agency/Central Security Service proposes to amend a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: This proposed action would be effective without further notice on July 7, 2008 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the National Security Agency/ Central Security Service, Office of Policy, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6248. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Anne Hill at
(301)688-6527. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Security Agency's systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The specific changes to the record system being amended is set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection
(r)of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report. Dated: May 28, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. GNSA 02 System Name: NSA/CSS Applicants (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10531). Changes: Authority for maintenance of the system: Delete and replace with “National Security Agency Act of 1959, 50 U.S.C. 402 note (Pub. L. 86-36); 5 U.S.C. Chapters 3 and 33; EO 10450, as amended and EO 9397 (SSN).” Routine uses of records: Replace last item with “The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the NSA/CSS’ compilation of system of record notices apply to this system.” Storage: Delete entry and replace with “Paper in file folders and electronic storage media.” Safeguards: Delete entry and replace with “Buildings are secured by a series of guarded pedestrian gates and checkpoints. Access to facilities is limited to security-cleared personnel and escorted visitors only. Within the facilities themselves, access to paper and computer printouts are controlled by limited-access facilities and lockable containers. Access to electronic means is limited and controlled by computer password protection.” System Manager: Delete entry and replace with “The Associate Director, Human Resources, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000.” Notification Procedure: Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000.” Record Access Procedures: Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000.” Contesting Record Procedures: Delete entry and replace with “The NSA/CSS rules for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations are published at 32 CFR Part 322 or may be obtained by written request addressed to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000.” GNSA 02 System name: NSA/CSS Applicants. System location: National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Applicants for employment with NSA/CSS. Categories of records in the system: File contains forms, documents and correspondence providing personal and qualifications information submitted by individual applicants, educational institutions, past employers, references. Records include processing items, status reports, test results, interview reports, reports of reviewing organizations and other related information. Authority for maintenance of the system: National Security Agency Act of 1959, 50 U.S.C. 402 note (Pub. L. 86-36); 5 U.S.C. Chapters 3 and 33; EO 10450, as amended and EO 9397 (SSN). Purpose(s): To support the recruitment, selection, hire and placement of applicants. The file is used to document applicant processing, as a basis for selection decisions by individual agency elements and the personnel organization, and such other related uses as required. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: To contractor employees and other government entities to make determinations as noted in the purpose above. The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the NSA/CSS' compilation of system of record notices apply to this system. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Paper in file folders and electronic storage media. Retrievability: By name, Social Security Number, and other appropriate data elements. Safeguards: Buildings are secured by a series of guarded pedestrian gates and checkpoints. Access to facilities is limited to security-cleared personnel and escorted visitors only. Within the facilities themselves, access to paper and computer printouts are controlled by limited-access facilities and lockable containers. Access to electronic means is limited and controlled by computer password protection. Retention and disposal: For applicants who are subsequently hired, records are transferred to Personnel File or destroyed as appropriate. For applicants not hired, record are retained for a period not to exceed one year or until completion of legal proceedings involving issues pertaining to these records, whichever is later, unless employment requirements necessitate retention for a longer period. System manager(s) and address: The Associate Director, Human Resources, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000. Record access procedures: Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000. Contesting record procedures: The NSA/CSS rules for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations are published at 32 CFR Part 322 or may be obtained by written request addressed to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000. Record source categories: Applicant, educational institutions, references, former employers including other governmental entities, interviewing and reviewing individuals including possible gaining organization, security and medical authorities and other sources as relevant and appropriate. Exemptions claimed for the system: Portions of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(5), as applicable. An exemption rule for this record system has been promulgated according to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3),
(c)and
(e)and published in 32 CFR part 322. For additional information contact the system manager. [FR Doc. E8-12581 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2008-OS-0064] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Notice to amend a system of records notice. SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is amending a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on July 7, 2008 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom of Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard at
(703)588-2386. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The specific changes to the record systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection
(r)of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report. Dated: May 28, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DMDC 02 System Name: Defense Eligibility Records (February 11, 2008, FR 73 7716). Changes: Delete DMDC 02 and replace with “DMDC 02 DoD.” System Name: Delete entry and replace with “Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS).” DMDC 02 DoD System name: Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). System location: EDS—Service Management Center, 1075 West Entrance Drive, Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2723. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Active duty members and other Uniform Servicemembers, i.e. Department of Defense (DoD), Coast Guard, NOAA and USPHS; Reserve Members; National Guard members; State National Guard Employees; Presidential Appointees of all Federal Government agencies; DoD and Uniformed Service civil service employees, except Presidential appointees; Disabled American veterans; DoD and Uniformed Service contract employees; Former members (Reserve service, discharged RR or SR following notification of retirement eligibility); Medal of Honor recipients; Non-DoD civil service employees; U.S. Military Academy Students; Non-appropriated fund DoD and Uniformed Service employees (NAF); Non-Federal Agency Civilian associates, i.e. American Red Cross Emergency Services paid employees, Non-DoD contract employees; Reserve retirees not yet eligible for retired pay; Retired military members eligible for retired pay; Foreign Affiliates; DoD OCONUS Hires; DoD Beneficiaries; Civilian Retirees; Dependents; Members of the general public treated for a medical emergency in a DoD Medical Facility; Emergency Contact Person; Care Givers; Prior Military Eligible for VA benefits. Categories of records in the system: Computer files containing beneficiary's name, Service or Social Security Number, enrollment number, relationship of beneficiary to sponsor, residence address of beneficiary or sponsor, date of birth of beneficiary, sex of beneficiary, branch of Service of sponsor, dates of beginning and ending eligibility, number of family members of sponsor, primary unit duty location of sponsor, race and ethnic origin of beneficiary, occupation of sponsor, rank/pay grade of sponsor, disability documentation, Medicare eligibility and enrollment data, primary and secondary fingerprints and photographs of beneficiaries, blood test results, dental care eligibility codes and dental x-rays. Catastrophic Cap and Deductible
(CCD)transactions, including monetary amounts; CHAMPUS/TRICARE claim records containing enrollee, participant and health care facility, provider data such as cause of treatment, amount of payment, name and Social Security or tax identification number of providers or potential providers of care; citizenship data/country of birth; civil service employee employment information (agency and bureau, pay plan and grade, nature of action code and nature of action effective date, occupation series, dates of promotion and expected return from overseas, service computation date); claims data; compensation data; contractor fee payment data; date of separation of former enlisted and officer personnel; demographic data (kept on others beyond beneficiaries) date of birth, home of record state, sex, race, education level; Department of Veterans Affairs disability payment records; digital signatures where appropriate to assert validity of data; email (home/work); emergency contact information; immunization data; Information Assurance
(IA)Work Force information; language data; military personnel information (rank, assignment/deployment, length of service, military occupation, education, and benefit usage); pharmacy benefits; reason leaving military service or DoD civilian service; Reserve member's civilian occupation and employment information; education benefit eligibility and usage; special military pay information; SGLI/FGLI; stored documents for proofing identity and association; workforces information (e.g. Acquisition, First Responders); Privacy Act audit logs. Authority for maintenance of the system: 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. Chapters 53, 54, 55, 58, and 75; 10 U.S.C. 136; 31 U.S.C. 3512(c); 50 U.S.C. Chapter 23, Internal Security; DoD Directive 1341.1, Defense Enrollment/Eligibility Reporting System; DoD Instruction 1341.2, DEERS Procedures; 5 U.S.C. App. 3 (Pub. L. 95-452, as amended (Inspector General Act of 1978)); Public Law 106-265, Federal Long-Term Care Insurance; 10 U.S.C. 2358, Research and Development Projects; 42 U.S.C., Chapter 20, Subchapter I-G, Registration and Voting by Absent Uniformed Services Voters and Overseas Voters in Elections for Federal Office, Sec. 1973ff, Federal responsibilities; DoD Directive 1000.4, Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP); Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors; 38 CFR part 9.20, Traumatic injury protection, Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance; and E.O. 9397 (SSN). Purpose(s): The purpose of the system is to provide a database for determining eligibility to DoD entitlements and privileges; to support DoD health care management programs; to provide identification of deceased members; to record the issuance of DoD badges and identification cards, i.e. Common Access Cards
(CAC)or beneficiary cards; and to detect fraud and abuse of the benefit programs by claimants and providers to include appropriate collection actions arising out of any debts incurred as a consequence of such programs. To authenticate and identify DoD affiliated personnel (e.g., contractors); to assess manpower, support personnel and readiness functions; to perform statistical analyses; identify current DoD civilian and military personnel for purposes of detecting fraud and abuse of benefit programs; to register current DoD civilian and military personnel and their authorized dependents for purposes of obtaining medical examination, treatment or other benefits to which they are entitled; to ensure benefit eligibility is retained after separation from the military; information will be used by agency officials and employees, or authorized contractors, and other DoD Components for personnel and manpower studies; and to assist in recruiting prior-service personnel. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: 1. To the Social Security Administration
(SSA)to perform computer data matching against the SSA Wage and Earnings Record file for identifying employers of Department of Defense
(DoD)beneficiaries eligible for health care. This employer data will in turn be used to identify those employed beneficiaries who have employment-related group health insurance, to coordinate insurance benefits provided by DoD with those provided by the other insurance. This information will also be used to perform computer data matching against the SSA Master Beneficiary Record file for identifying DoD beneficiaries eligible for health care who are enrolled in the Medicare Program, to coordinate insurance benefits provided by DoD with those provided by Medicare. 2. To other Federal agencies and state, local and territorial governments to identify fraud and abuse of the Federal agency's programs and to identify debtors and collect debts and overpayment in the DoD health care programs. 3. To each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia for the purpose of conducting an on going computer matching program with state Medicaid agencies to determine the extent to which state Medicaid beneficiaries may be eligible for Uniformed Services health care benefits, including CHAMPUS, TRICARE, and to recover Medicaid monies from the CHAMPUS program. 4. To provide dental care providers assurance of treatment eligibility. 5. To Federal agencies and/or their contractors, in response to their requests, for purposes of authenticating the identity of individuals who, incident to the conduct of official business, present the Common Access Card or similar identification as proof of identity to gain physical or logical access to government and contractor facilities, locations, networks, or systems. 6. To State and local child support enforcement agencies for purposes of providing information, consistent with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. 1169(a), 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(19), and E.O. 12953 and in response to a National Medical Support Notice
(NMSN)(or equivalent notice if based upon the statutory authority for the NMSN), regarding the military status of identified individuals and whether, and for what period of time, the children of such individuals are or were eligible for DoD health care coverage. **Note:** Information requested by the States is not disclosed when it would contravene U.S. national policy or security interests (42 U.S.C. 653(e)). 7. To the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): a. For purposes of providing information, consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 653 and in response to an HHS request, regarding the military status of identified individuals and whether, and for what period of time, the children of such individuals are or were eligible for DoD healthcare coverage. **Note:** Information requested by HHS is not disclosed when it would contravene U.S. national policy or security interests (42 U.S.C. 653(e)). b. For purposes of providing information so that specified Medicare determinations, specifically late enrollment and waiver of penalty, can be made for eligible
(1)DoD military retirees and
(2)spouses (or former spouses) and/or dependents of either military retirees or active duty military personnel, pursuant to section 625 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2002 (as codified at 42 U.S.C. 1395p and 1395r). c. To the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Federal Parent Locator Service, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653 and 653a; to assist in locating individuals for the purpose of establishing parentage; establishing, setting the amount of, modifying, or enforcing child support obligations; or enforcing child custody or visitation orders; the relationship to a child receiving benefits provided by a third party and the name and SSN of those third party providers who have a legal responsibility. Identifying delinquent obligors will allow State Child Support Enforcement agencies to commence wage withholding or other enforcement actions against the obligors. 8. To the American Red Cross for purposes of providing emergency notification and assistance to members of the Armed Forces, retirees, family members or survivors. 9. To the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA): a. To provide military personnel and pay data for present and former military personnel for the purpose of evaluating use of veterans' benefits, validating benefit eligibility and maintaining the health and well being of veterans and their family members. b. To provide identifying military personnel data to the DVA and its insurance program contractor for the purpose of notifying separating eligible Reservists of their right to apply for Veteran's Group Life Insurance coverage under the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 1996 (38 U.S.C. 1968) and for DVA to administer the Traumatic Servicemember's Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) (Traumatic Injury Protection Rider to Servicemember's Group Life Insurance (TSGLI), 38 CFR part 9.20). c. To register eligible veterans and their dependents for DVA programs. d. Providing identification of former military personnel and survivor's financial benefit data to DVA for the purpose of identifying military retired pay and survivor benefit payments for use in the administration of the DVA's Compensation and Pension Program (38 U.S.C. 5106). The information is to be used to process all DVA award actions more efficiently, reduce subsequent overpayment collection actions, and minimize erroneous payments. e. To conduct computer matching programs regulated by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), for the purposes of:
(1)Providing full identification of active duty military personnel, including full time National Guard/Reserve support personnel, for use in the administration of DVA's Compensation and Pension benefit program. The information is used to determine continued eligibility for DVA disability compensation to recipients who have returned to active duty so that benefits can be adjusted or terminated as required and steps taken by DVA to collect any resulting over payment (38 U.S.C. 5304(c)).
(2)Providing military personnel and financial data to the Veterans Benefits Administration, DVA for the purpose of determining initial eligibility and any changes in eligibility status to insure proper payment of benefits for GI Bill education and training benefits by the DVA under the Montgomery GI Bill (Title 10 U.S.C., Chapter 1606—Selected Reserve and Title 38 U.S.C., Chapter 30—Active Duty), the REAP educational benefit (Title 10 U.S.C, Chapter 1607), and the National Call to Service enlistment educational benefit (Title 10, Chapter 510). The administrative responsibilities designated to both agencies by the law require that data be exchanged in administering the programs.
(3)Providing identification of reserve duty, including full time support National Guard/Reserve military personnel, to the DVA, for the purpose of deducting reserve time served from any DVA disability compensation paid or waiver of VA benefit. The law (10 U.S.C. 12316) prohibits receipt of reserve pay and DVA compensation for the same time period, however, it does permit waiver of DVA compensation to draw reserve pay.
(4)Providing identification of former active duty military personnel who received separation payments to the DVA for the purpose of deducting such repayment from any DVA disability compensation paid. The law requires recoupment of severance payments before DVA disability compensation can be paid (10 U.S.C. 1174). f. To provide identifying military personnel data to the DVA for the purpose of notifying such personnel of information relating to educational assistance as required by the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 (38 U.S.C. 3011 and 3034). 10. To DoD Civilian Contractors and grantees for the purpose of performing research on manpower problems for statistical analyses. 11. To consumer reporting agencies to obtain current addresses of separated military personnel to notify them of potential benefits eligibility. 12. To Defense contractors to monitor the employment of former DoD employees and military members subject to the provisions of 41 U.S.C. 423. 13. To Federal and Quasi Federal agencies, territorial, state, and local governments to support personnel functions requiring data on prior military service credit for their employees or for job applications. To determine continued eligibility and help eliminate fraud and abuse in benefit programs and to collect debts and over payments owed to these programs. Information released includes name, Social Security Number, and military or civilian address of individuals. To detect fraud, waste and abuse pursuant to the authority contained in the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95-452) for the purpose of determining eligibility for, and/or continued compliance with, any Federal benefit program requirements. 14. To Federal and Quasi Federal agencies, territorial, state and local governments, and contractors and grantees for the purpose of supporting research studies concerned with the health and well being of active duty, reserve, and retired personnel or veterans, to include family members. DMDC will disclose information from this system of records for research purposes when DMDC: a. Has determined that the use or disclosure does not violate legal or policy limitations under which the record was provided, collected, or obtained; b. Has determined that the research purpose
(1)cannot be reasonably accomplished unless the record is provided in individually identifiable form, and
(2)warrants the risk to the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; c. Has required the recipient to
(1)Establish reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use or disclosure of the record, and
(2)remove or destroy the information that identifies the individual at the earliest time at which removal or destruction can be accomplished consistent with the purpose of the research project, unless the recipient has presented adequate justification of a research or health nature for retaining such information, and
(3)make no further use or disclosure of the record except
(A)In emergency circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual,
(B)for use in another research project, under these same conditions, and with written authorization of the Department,
(C)for disclosure to a properly identified person for the purpose of an audit related to the research project, if information that would enable research subjects to be identified is removed or destroyed at the earliest opportunity consistent with the purpose of the audit, or
(D)when required by law; d. Has secured a written statement attesting to the recipients' understanding of, and willingness to abide by these provisions. 15. To Federal and State agencies for purposes of obtaining socioeconomic information on Armed Forces personnel so that analytical studies can be conducted with a view to assessing the present needs and future requirements of such personnel. 16. To Federal and state agencies to validate demographic data (e.g., Social Security Number, citizenship status, date and place of birth, etc.) for individuals in DoD personnel and pay files so that accurate information is available in support of DoD requirements. 17. To the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, for purposes of facilitating the verification of individuals who may be eligible for expedited naturalization (Pub. L. 108-136, Section 1701, and E.O. 13269, Expedited Naturalization). 18. To the Federal voting program to provide unit and e-mail addresses for the purpose of notifying the military members where to obtain absentee ballots. 19. To the Department of Homeland Security for the conduct of studies related to the health and well-being of Coast Guard members and to authenticate and identify Coast Guard personnel. 20. To Coast Guard recruiters in the performance of their assigned duties. 21. To the Office of Personnel Management: To conduct computer matching programs regulated by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), for the purpose of:
(1)Providing to OPM all reserve military members eligible for TRICARE Reserve Select
(TRS)to matched against the OPM Central Personnel Data File (OPM/GOVT-1) for providing those reserve military members that are also Federal civil service employees. This disclosure by OPM will provide the DoD with the FEHB eligibility and Federal employment information necessary to determine continuing eligibility for the TRS program. Only those reservists not eligible for FEHB are eligible for TRS (Section 1076d of title 10). The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” published at the beginning of OSD's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Records are maintained on magnetic tapes and disks, and are housed in a controlled computer media library. Retrievability: Records about individuals are retrieved by an algorithm which uses name, Social Security Number, date of birth, rank, and duty location as possible inputs. Retrievals are made on summary basis by geographic characteristics and location and demographic characteristics. Information about individuals will not be distinguishable in summary retrievals. Retrievals for the purposes of generating address lists for direct mail distribution may be made using selection criteria based on geographic and demographic keys. Safeguards: Computerized records are maintained in a controlled area accessible only to authorized personnel. Entry to these areas is restricted to those personnel with a valid requirement and authorization to enter. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and administrative procedures (e.g., fire protection regulations). Access to personal information is restricted to those who require the records in the performance of their official duties, and to the individuals who are the subjects of the record or their authorized representatives. Access to personal information is further restricted by the use of passwords, which are changed periodically. All individuals granted access to this system of records is to have received Information Assurance and Privacy Act training. Retention and disposal: Data is destroyed when superseded or when no longer needed for operational purposes, whichever is later. System manager(s) and address: Deputy Director, Defense Manpower Data Center, DoD Center Monterey Bay, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Deputy Director, Defense Manpower Data Center, DoD Center Monterey Bay, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771. Written requests should contain the full name, Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth, and current address and telephone number of the individual. Individuals should provide the name and number of this system of records notice so that your request can be tasked to the appropriate OSD/JS office. This section must also include a description of needed identifier so that the record may be retrieved. Record access procedures: Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the OSD/JS FOIA Requester Service Center, Office of the Freedom of Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. Written requests should contain the full name, Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth, and current address and telephone number of the individual. Individuals should provide the name and number of this system of records notice so that your request can be tasked to the appropriate OSD/JS office. This section must also include a description of needed identifier so that the record may be retrieved. Contesting record procedures: The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom of Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. Record source categories: Individuals, personnel, pay, and benefit systems of the military and civilian departments and agencies of the Defense Department, the Coast Guard, the Public Health Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and other Federal agencies. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. [FR Doc. E8-12582 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2008-0013] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice to Add a System of Records. SUMMARY: The Department of the Army is proposing to add a system of records to its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: The proposed action will be effective on July 7, 2008 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Department of the Army, Freedom of Information/ Privacy Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Dickerson at
(703)428-6513. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on May 27, 2008, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427). Dated: May 28, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. A0635a AHRC System name: Combat-Related Special Compensation Files. System location: Combat-Related Special Compensation Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22315. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Army Retirees who have applied for Combat-Related Special Compensation Program. Categories of records in the system: Full name, Social Security Number (SSN), military grade or rate, and claim number; DD Form 2860, Claim for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC), may also contain: Medical reports and disability compensation information from the Department of Veterans Affairs; medical reports from civilian medical facilities; medical board reports; statements of findings of physical evaluation boards; military health records; military personnel records; records and reports from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service; retirement records; pay information; correspondences between applicants and agency; intra-agency and interagency correspondence concerning the case; members of Congress, attorneys, representatives, and other cognizant persons or parties; decisional documents; any additional supporting documentation; and/or copies of any of the foregoing documents. Authority for maintenance of the system: National Defense Authorization Act Section 636; Public Law 107-314, Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003; 10 U.S.C. 1413a, as amended, Combat Related Special Compensation; 10 U.S.C. Chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability; AR 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation and E.O. 9397 (SSN). Purpose(s): To determine whether Army Retirees are entitled to combat-related special compensation; as a management tool to effectuate payment of combat-related special compensation; and to respond to official inquiries concerning the applications of particular applicants. The file may also be referred to by the Board for Correction of Army Records in conjunction with their subsequent review of applications from applicants. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3) as follows: To officials and employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs to request and verify information of service-connected disabilities in order to evaluate applications for combat-related special compensation and effectuate pay. Note: This system of records contains individually identifiable health information. The DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation (DoD 6025.18-R) issued pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, applies to most such health information. DoD 6025.18-R may place additional procedural requirements on the uses and disclosures of such information beyond those found in the Privacy Act of 1974 or mentioned in this system of records notice. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Paper records in file folders and electronic storage media. Retrievability: Individual's name, Social Security Number
(SSN)and/or claim number. Safeguards: Paper files are maintained in a secure room and are signed out as needed to appropriate representatives and are under the control of authorized personnel during working hours. Individual computerized system is password protected and access to the data base requires being afforded rights and being able to access AKO and authenticate using either a common access card
(CAC)or AKO user name and password. System Administrators assign local access to database. The office is located in a secured building leased by the Army that has a 24-hour security force. All personnel are required to wear a badge to gain entrance. All staff are required to have annual HIPAA certification. Retention and disposal: Paper copies are kept secured until digitization occurs. Once digitized and transferred to the Interactive Personnel Electronic Record Management System (iPERMS) the paper copy records are placed in burn bags and destroyed. iPERMS will destroy the electronic record 10 years after transfer. System manager(s) and address: Commander, Army Human Resources Command (AHRC), 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to Army Human Resources Command (AHRC), Combat-Related Special Compensation
(CRSC)Branch, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332. The request should contain the full name of the individual, military grade or rate, claim number, Social Security Number
(SSN)and signed. Record access procedures: Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in the system should address written inquiries to the Army Human Resources Command (AHRC), Combat-Related Special Compensation
(CRSC)Branch, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332. The request should contain the full name of the individual, military grade or rate, claim number, Social Security Number
(SSN)and signed. Contesting record procedures: The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in AR 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager. Record source categories: Army retirees who apply for combat-related special compensation; military medical boards and medical facilities; Department of Veterans Affairs and civilian medical providers and facilities; physical evaluation boards and other activities of the disability evaluation system; the Judge Advocate General; Army local command activities; the Defense Finance and Accounting Service; of the Department of Defense activities; and correspondence from members of Congress, attorneys, representatives, and other cognizant persons or parties. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. [FR Doc. E8-12580 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Comments may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]”. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: May 30, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* National Assessment of Educational Progress 2008-2010 Operational and Pilot Surveys System Clearance—2009 Wave 1. *Frequency:* One time. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 446,417. *Burden Hours:* 111,604. *Abstract:* This is a request for clearance of NAEP 2009 Wave 2 materials. These materials are questionnaires for 4th, 8th and 12th graders including pilot and core materials—science, reading, mathematics, civics, U.S. history and geography. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3700. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-12562 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Reading First Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice describes an open meeting of the Reading First Advisory Committee. Notice of the meeting is required by Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend. Date and Time: Monday, June 23, 2008 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. ADDRESSES: Westin Washington DC City Center at 1400 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Spitz, Reading First Team Leader, Reading First Advisory Committee; 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202; telephone:
(202)260-3793; fax:
(202)260-8969; e-mail: *Deborah.Spitz@ed.gov;* Committee Web site: *www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/advisory.html.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Reading First Advisory Committee is authorized by Sections 1203(c)(2)(a) and 1202(e)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA)of 1965, as amended. The Committee is established within the Department of Education to evaluate Reading First applications submitted by States, to review the progress reports that States submit after the third year of the grant period, to advise on the awarding of Targeted Assistance Grants, and to advise the Secretary on other issues that the Secretary deems appropriate. On May 1, 2008, the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences
(IES)released the *Reading First Impact Study:* *Interim Report.* During the open meeting of the Committee on June 23, 2008, the Committee members will discuss their questions and concerns about the Interim Report. A more detailed agenda will be posted on the Committee Web site prior to the meeting. The Final Report of the Impact Study, which will provide impact data from three years of program implementation and information on relationships between changes in instructional practice and student reading comprehension, is expected to be released in late 2008. Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistance listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify Deborah Spitz at
(202)260-3793, no later than ten
(10)days before the scheduled date of the meeting. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. *Request for Written Comments:* There will not be an opportunity for the public to speak during this meeting; however, the public is encouraged to submit written comments. Written comments should be submitted via e-mail by June 19, 2008 to Deborah Spitz at *Deborah.Spitz@ed.gov.* These comments will be shared with the members of the Committee. Records are kept of all Committee proceedings and are available for public inspection at 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time Monday through Friday. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may 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/index.html.* 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.* Amanda Farris, Deputy Assistant Secretary, *The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.* [FR Doc. E8-12587 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; List of Correspondence AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: List of Correspondence from January 2, 2008 through March 31, 2008. SUMMARY: The Secretary is publishing the following list pursuant to section 607(f) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Under section 607(f) of IDEA, the Secretary is required, on a quarterly basis, to publish in the **Federal Register** a list of correspondence from the U.S. Department of Education (Department) received by individuals during the previous quarter that describes the interpretations of the Department of IDEA or the regulations that implement IDEA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melisande Lee or JoLeta Reynolds. Telephone:
(202)245-7468. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of this notice in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following list identifies correspondence from the Department issued from January 2, 2008 through March 31, 2008. Included on the list are those letters that contain interpretations of the requirements of IDEA and its implementing regulations, as well as letters and other documents that the Department believes will assist the public in understanding the requirements of the law and its regulations. The date of and topic addressed by each letter are identified, and summary information is also provided, as appropriate. To protect the privacy interests of the individual or individuals involved, personally identifiable information has been redacted, as appropriate. Part A—General Provisions Section 602—Definitions *Topic Addressed:* Child With A Disability. ○ Letter dated January 15, 2008 to Coalition of Learning Disabled Chief Executive Officer Allen Brumbaugh, regarding criteria used under Part B of IDEA for determining whether a child is a “child with a disability” and requirements for individualized education programs (IEPs). Part B—Assistance for Education of All Children With Disabilities *Section 612—State Eligibility* *Topic Addressed:* Free Appropriate Public Education. ○ Letter dated March 11, 2007 to Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center Director John Copenhaver, clarifying that the policy regarding making a free appropriate public education
(FAPE)available to children with disabilities, contained in the Office of Special Education Programs' letter dated April 10, 1995 to Ms. Kathy Balkman, remains consistent with the requirements of the reauthorized IDEA. ○ Letter dated March 17, 2008 to individual (personally identifiable information redacted), regarding the policy on the use of mechanical restraints or other aversive behavioral techniques for children with disabilities. *Topic Addressed:* Least Restrictive Environment. ○ Letter dated February 1, 2008 to New Jersey Office of Special Education Programs Director Roberta Wohle, clarifying reporting on indicators in the State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Reports relating to the least restrictive environment provisions in Part B of IDEA. *Topic Addressed:* Confidentiality of Education Records. ○ Letter dated March 7, 2008 to Texas Education Agency General Counsel David Anderson, regarding complaints that allege violations of the confidentiality of information provisions in Part B of IDEA and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. *Topic Addressed:* Children in Private Schools. ○ Letter dated March 17, 2008 to individual (personally identifiable information redacted), regarding the interpretation of the requirements of Part B of IDEA that are applicable when a public agency places a preschool-age child with a disability in a private preschool that is not a school that is exclusively for children with disabilities as a means of providing FAPE to that child. ○ Letter dated January 25, 2008 to U.S. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, regarding the obligations of States and local educational agencies
(LEAs)to parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. *Topic Addressed:* State Educational Agency General Supervisory Authority. ○ Letter dated February 4, 2008 to individual (personally identifiable information redacted), regarding a State complaint involving a public agency's obligation to provide private placements for children with disabilities at public expense. *Topic Addressed:* Methods of Ensuring Services. ○ Letter dated January 24, 2008 to Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center Director John Copenhaver, clarifying that Impact Aid funds and Medicaid funds are considered Federal funds, and may not be treated as State and local funds for maintenance of effort calculations. *Topic Addressed:* State Advisory Panel. ○ Letter dated March 11, 2008 to Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center Director John Copenhaver, regarding requirements for membership on the State Advisory Panel. *Topic Addressed:* Access to Instructional Materials. ○ Letter dated January 30, 2008 to New Mexico State Director of Special Education Denise Koscielniak, clarifying issues surrounding State and LEA implementation of the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard. Section 614—Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and Educational Placements *Topic Addressed:* Individualized Education Programs. ○ Letter dated March 31, 2008 to individual (personally identifiable information redacted), clarifying that Part B of IDEA does not require that public agencies obtain parental consent within a specific time period when a child is referred for an evaluation. ○ Letter dated March 31, 2008 to individuals (personally identifiable information redacted), regarding how public agencies meet the requirements for notifying parents of the individuals who will be attending meetings of their child's IEP Team. ○ Letter dated March 17, 2008 to Howard County, Maryland Public School System Facilitator Ronald Caplan, regarding when it is appropriate to invite a representative of any participating agency likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services to an IEP Team meeting involving the consideration of the child's postsecondary goals and the transition services needed to assist the child in reaching those goals. ○ Letter dated March 17, 2008 to Utah At Risk and Special Education Services Director Nan Gray, regarding the requirement to obtain the consent of the parents or a child who has reached the age of majority prior to inviting a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services to an IEP Team meeting involving the consideration of the child's postsecondary goals and the transition services needed to assist the child in reaching those goals. Section 615—Procedural Safeguards *Topic Addressed:* Impartial Due Process Hearing. ○ Letter dated March 17, 2008 to Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center Director John Copenhaver, regarding electronic mail filings of State complaints and due process complaints. ○ Letter dated March 17, 2008 to New Jersey Office of the State Board of Appeals Acting Director John Worthington, clarifying when the due process hearing timeline would begin under specific circumstances after the 30-day resolution process has expired. Section 618—Program Information *Topic Addressed:* Disproportionality. ○ Letter dated February 1, 2008 to Nevada Office of Special Education and Diversity Programs Director Frankie McCabe, clarifying that OSEP continues to believe that the position set out in the April 24, 2007 memorandum, requiring States to reserve funds for comprehensive coordinated early intervening services when there is a finding of significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity in disciplinary actions, is correct. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister/index.html.* 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.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.027, Assistance to States for Education of Children with Disabilities) Dated: May 30, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-12639 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services: Overview Information; Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program (RCEP)—Regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education
(TACE)Centers; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.264A. *Dates:* *Applications Available:* June 5, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* July 31, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* September 3, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program is to support training centers that serve either a Federal region or another geographical area and provide for a broad integrated sequence of training activities that focus on meeting recurrent and common training needs of employed rehabilitation personnel throughout a multi-State geographical area. *Priority:* This priority is from the notice of final priority and definitions for this program, published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . *Absolute Priority:* For FY 2008, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority. *This priority is:* Regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education *(TACE) Centers.* *Program Authority:* 29 U.S.C. 772. *Applicable Regulations:*
(a)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.
(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR parts 385 and 389.
(c)The notice of final priority and definitions, published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . 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 agreement. *Estimated Available Funds:* $7,900,000. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding the maximum amount for a single budget period of 12 months, as follows: *Region I:* $727,185. *Region II:* $802,710. *Region III:* $796,122. *Region IV:* $969,100. *Region V:* $821,579. *Region VI:* $832,684. *Region VII:* $728,738. *Region VIII:* $711,421. *Region IX:* $792,405. *Region X:* $718,056. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . *Estimated Number of Awards:* 10. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* States and public or nonprofit agencies and organizations, including Indian tribes and institutions of higher education. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* The Secretary has determined that a grantee must provide a match of at least 10 percent of the total cost of the project (34 CFR 389.40). Note: Under 34 CFR 75.562(c), an indirect cost reimbursement on a training grant is limited to the recipient's actual indirect costs, as determined by its negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, or 8 percent of a modified total direct cost base, whichever amount is less. Indirect costs in excess of the 8 percent limit may not be charged directly, used to satisfy matching or cost-sharing requirements, or charged to another Federal award. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX:
(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov.* If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.264A. 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 person or team listed under *Alternative Format* in section VIII of this notice. 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. *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 the application narrative [Part III] to the equivalent of no more than 45 pages, using the following standards: • A page is 8.5” by 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 either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted. 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, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative [Part III]. We will reject your application if you 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:* June 5, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* July 31, 2008. Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, 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 3, 2008. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This competition 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 must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. Electronic Submission of Applications. Applications for grants under the Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program—Regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education
(TACE)Centers, CFDA Number 84.264A, must be submitted electronically using 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. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.* You may access the electronic grant application for Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program—Regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education
(TACE)Centers 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 84.264, not 84.264A). Please note the following: • 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 accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. 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 qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • 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). • 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 register fully 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. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Christine Marschall, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5053, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2800. FAX:
(202)245-6824. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. 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 84.264A) 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 84.264A) 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 qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You 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 84.264A) 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 *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and 34 CFR 389.30(a), and are listed in the application package. 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 your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* 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.* 4. *Performance Measures:* The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA)directs Federal departments and agencies to improve the effectiveness of their programs by engaging in strategic planning, setting outcome-related goals for programs, and measuring program results against those goals. Performance measures established for the RCEP are the percentage of participants who report an increase in their knowledge, skills, and abilities. RSA will use these data to assess the performance of the projects funded under this competition. RSA also will convene an independent review panel to evaluate the work of the grantees. The independent review panel will use the following performance measures:
(a)The percentage of technical assistance and continuing education services provided by the grantee that are deemed to be of high quality;
(b)the percentage of technical assistance and continuing education services provided by the grantee that are deemed to be of high relevance to State VR policies or practices; and
(c)the percentage of technical assistance and continuing education services provided by the grantee that are deemed to be useful in improving State VR agency policies or practices. VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Marschall, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5053, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone:
(202)245-7429 or by e-mail: *Christine.Marschall@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) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:
(202)245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. *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: *www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: June 2, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-12633 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Rehabilitation Training—Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of final priority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program
(RCEP)to fund regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education
(TACE)centers. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year
(FY)2008 and later years. We take this action to improve the quantity and quality of employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities through enhanced technical assistance
(TA)and continuing education
(CE)for State vocational rehabilitation
(VR)agencies and agency partners that cooperate with State VR agencies in providing VR and other rehabilitation services ( *e.g.* , Centers for Independent Living (CILs), Client Assistance Programs (CAPs), and Community Rehabilitation Programs (CRPs)). DATES: *Effective Date:* This priority is effective July 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Marschall, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., Room 5053, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone:
(202)245-7429 or via Internet: *Christine.Marschall@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) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through this priority, the Department revises the current structure of the RCEP, which includes 21 regional RCEP centers—11 centers that serve primarily State VR agencies and 10 centers that serve primarily CRPs. Instead of funding these two separate sets of centers, this priority supports 10 regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education
(TACE)centers to serve State VR agencies and agency partners that cooperate with State VR agencies in providing VR and other rehabilitation services. CRPs are among the agency partners that the TACE centers are expected to serve. While the current RCEP centers provide CE and limited TA to entities, TACE centers will provide both TA and CE as necessary to respond to the needs of the State VR agencies and agency partners served by the TACE centers. We published a notice of proposed priority
(NPP)for this program in the **Federal Register** on January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5179). The NPP included a discussion of the issues associated with modifying the RCEP structure. The background section of the NPP explained that the results of the Department's Rehabilitation Services Administration's
(RSA)program monitoring required by section 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the needs assessments conducted by current RCEP grantees indicated the need to integrate and coordinate services provided to State VR agencies and agency partners that cooperate with State VR agencies in providing VR and other rehabilitation services, including CRPs. The NPP also explained that the modified RCEP structure would reduce administrative costs by combining the functions of the two sets of centers and that public comments on the Rehabilitation Training Program, solicited through a notice in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 9942), generally supported the role of the RCEP in providing TA and CE and the provision of these services through a regional model. The final priority announced in this notice contains differences from the priority proposed in the NPP. Analysis of Comments and Changes In response to our invitation in the NPP, 79 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows. Multiple commenters raised a number of similar issues; therefore, we group major issues by subject area. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes and suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. Agency Partners *Comment:* Fifty-four commenters requested that specific entities be added to the list of agency partners with whom State VR agencies cooperate to provide VR and other rehabilitative services. Various commenters recommended that the following entities be added: American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Service programs (30 commenters); State Rehabilitation Councils
(SRCs)(nine commenters); Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs (seven commenters); CILs (six commenters); Statewide Independent Living Councils (one commenter); and State agencies such as developmental disability, mental illness, and substance abuse agencies (one commenter). *Discussion:* The agency partners included in the priority are examples of agencies with which State VR agencies cooperate to provide VR and other rehabilitative services; the list of agencies provided is not intended to be exhaustive. The entities suggested by the commenters could be agency partners—that is, if a State VR agency cooperates with any one of these entities to provide VR and other rehabilitative services, that entity would be considered an agency partner for purposes of this priority. *Changes:* None. Consolidation of the Regional Centers *Comment:* Twenty-three commenters stated that CRPs will not be served adequately under the modified RCEP structure, and six commenters stated that the TA and CE needs of CRPs are significantly different from the needs of State VR agencies. *Discussion:* This priority focuses on the needs of State VR agencies and their agency partners. RSA values the contribution of the CRPs in the VR service system and recognizes that CRPs may have TA and CE needs that are different from those of the State VR agency and its other agency partners. RSA expects that the needs of CRPs, along with the needs of other agency partners, will be reflected in the annual needs assessment that will serve as the foundation for each TACE center's work plan. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Two commenters asked whether the 10 TACE centers will provide the employment certificate series training that the RCEP centers serving CRPs currently provide. *Discussion:* The TA and CE provided by each TACE center will be determined by each TACE center with input from RSA after the TACE center conducts an annual needs assessment of the State VR agency and agency partners in the TACE center's region. While the TACE centers are not required to provide the employment certificate series training referred to by the commenter, nothing in the priority prohibits a TACE center from doing so if it meets a need identified by the State VR agency or its agency partners. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Twenty-three commenters stated that the TACE centers should balance the time and resources devoted to address TA needs, on the one hand, and CE needs, on the other. Twelve commenters stated that the proposed priority appears to emphasize TA more than CE. *Discussion:* We do not agree that the priority places a greater emphasis on TA than CE. The priority clearly states that each TACE center must conduct an annual needs assessment to identify the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners. Based on the annual needs assessment, each TACE center will determine and describe in its work plan the distribution of resources that will be devoted to TA and CE activities. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that the 10 TACE centers will not be able to handle the high volume of TA and CE requests as well as the 21 currently funded RCEP centers. *Discussion:* We expect the 10 TACE centers to be able to handle the high volume of TA and CE requests as well as the 21 currently funded RCEP centers because we believe that these 10 centers will provide TA and CE more effectively and efficiently than the current 21 RCEP centers. Because each region will have one TACE center to serve all State VR agencies and agency partners in that region and because RSA will coordinate across the TACE centers on a national level, the modified structure will facilitate sharing materials and information, and coordinating TA and CE activities, as appropriate, within and across regions. The annual needs assessment and work plan requirements in the priority will also help focus resources more effectively. We believe that the modified structure of the program will decrease duplication of effort and enhance coordination between State VR agencies and their agency partners. In addition, fewer resources will be expended on administrative costs because there will be one center in each region rather than two. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Six commenters expressed concern that the relationships that have been developed over time among the current RCEP centers, State VR agencies, and agency partners will be lost in the modified RCEP structure supported by the TACE center priority. *Discussion:* The modified structure of the RCEP program is designed to ensure collaboration between the TACE center, the State VR agency and agency partners served, and RSA. We believe that this collaboration will result in increased coordination of TA and CE provided to State VR agencies and agency partners and enhance relationships among the TACE centers, State VR agencies, and agency partners. Further, we believe that each TACE center's advisory committee will provide an opportunity for the advisory committee members who represent State VR agencies, among others, to develop and sustain relationships. *Changes:* None. Funding *Comment:* Eighteen commenters stated that requiring the TACE centers to take on more TA responsibilities than the current RCEP centers will require more funds than those allocated to the current RCEP centers. Fourteen commenters stated that the same amount of funds currently provided to the 21 RCEP grantees should be provided to the 10 TACE centers in order for the new RCEP structure to be effective. *Discussion:* The estimated level of funding for the TACE centers will be included in the notice inviting applications for new awards. We do not anticipate maintaining the same level of funds for the TACE centers that has been available under the current structure of the RCEP program. One of the major reasons for the changes in the RCEP program is to facilitate close coordination within each TACE center and among the TACE centers in order to maximize the effective use of funds to meet the TA and CE needs of the State VR agencies and their agency partners. To help ensure collaboration among TACE centers, RSA will coordinate activities of the TACE centers at the national level. We believe that the increased coordination within each TACE center and across centers will result in significant administrative efficiencies that will offset some of the expected funding differential. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Three commenters asked how available funds for the RCEP program will be allocated and whether the geographic size of regions will be considered when funds are allocated to the TACE centers. *Discussion:* All TACE centers will receive the same base funding amount. Additional funding will be provided to individual TACE centers based on the number of State VR agency staff in the region each TACE center serves, as identified in the most recently published data from the RSA-2, the Annual VR Program/Cost Report. We will not base our funding allocations on the geographic size of regions because we do not believe that the size of a region alone should affect the level of services provided—since there are multiple ways to conduct TA and provide CE in addition to face-to-face meetings, such as video conferencing and Webcasts. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter stated that the majority of funds provided to the TACE centers should be used to address TA and CE needs of State VR agencies. Another commenter asked whether the TACE centers would share staff training costs with the State VR agencies they serve as they do under the current RCEP structure. *Discussion:* The use of funds for TA and CE will be determined by each TACE center based on the TACE center's annual needs assessment (developed with input from its advisory committee) and the TACE center's annual work plan (developed with input from RSA). Nothing in the priority prohibits the majority of funds provided to the TACE centers from being used to address TA and CE needs of State VR agencies. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to require all TACE centers to use the majority of their funding under this program to address these needs. With regard to sharing training costs, while nothing in this priority requires a TACE center to share staff training costs with the State VR agencies it serves, nothing in the priority prohibits the TACE center from doing so. *Changes:* None. RSA Involvement With the TACE Centers *Comment:* Twenty-eight commenters expressed concern that the priority gives RSA too much control over the decision-making of the TACE centers and that, as a result, each TACE center's needs assessment and annual work plan will be dictated by RSA and not adequately consider the needs of the State VR agency and its agency partners. *Discussion:* Under the priority, the TACE centers must work in consultation with RSA to establish their annual work plans, which describe the activities the TACE centers will carry out during each year of their project. We believe that this level of RSA involvement in and approval of the work plan is critical to ensure that the TACE centers are familiar with relevant information from RSA's State monitoring activities and to facilitate alignment of the TA and CE provided by the TACE centers with the VR service system in each State and across States. Given the need to ensure coordination of the work of the TACE centers at the national level, we believe it is important for RSA to approve all TACE center annual work plans. While the TACE model provides RSA with the authority to approve each center's work plan, RSA recognizes that, in order for the TACE centers to be effective, the TACE centers must work with the State VR agencies and agency partners to ensure more integrated decision-making with regard to the needs of State VR agencies and agency partners within and across the regions. *Changes:* Priority paragraph
(1)has been amended to clarify that each TACE center must establish an annual work plan, in coordination with and subject to the approval of RSA. *Comment:* Nine commenters stated that TA should be RSA's responsibility, not the TACE centers' responsibility. One commenter stated that there is a need to explain the difference between the TA provided by the TACE centers and that provided by RSA. *Discussion:* RSA will utilize the TACE centers to supplement the TA it provides. In light of RSA's program monitoring and the needs assessments conducted by current RCEP grantees that indicate a significant need for TA, we believe that supplementing RSA's provision of TA is beneficial to State VR agencies and agency partners, and ultimately individuals with disabilities receiving services from State VR agencies and agency partners. RSA—not the TACE centers—will provide TA on the interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and its regulations. TACE centers will provide TA to State VR agencies and agency partners to assist them in improving their performance in areas such as program management and delivery of VR services to increase and improve employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. *Changes:* None. Needs Assessment and Work Plan *Comment:* The comments of 26 individuals indicated that there was confusion about the relationship between the annual needs assessment and the annual work plan, as well as the role of a TACE center's advisory committee. *Discussion:* The proposed priority specified that each TACE center would conduct an annual needs assessment, with input from its advisory committee, and develop an annual work plan, with input from RSA. However, we agree that the proposed priority was not clear about how the results of the needs assessment would be used to develop the annual work plan. We intend that the annual work plan, developed in cooperation with RSA and approved by RSA, will take into consideration the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners that are identified in the TACE center's annual needs assessment. We do not expect each annual work plan to address all of the needs identified in the needs assessment. We understand that, due to limited resources, each TACE center will prioritize needs to be addressed in the annual work plan. *Changes:* We have modified paragraph
(1)of the priority to make clear that annual work plans must consider, but not necessarily address, the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners identified in the TACE center's annual needs assessment. *Comment:* Four commenters stated that the needs assessment should consider what the State VR agencies and agency partners say they need and not be based solely on RSA-generated data. Eighteen commenters stated that the State VR agencies in a TACE center's region should be consulted in the development of the TACE center's needs assessment and that a representative from State VR agencies in the region should be a member of a center's advisory committee. Discussion: As specified in paragraph
(2)of the priority, each TACE center's annual needs assessment must be based on the needs of State VR agencies and agency partners in its region. The priority lists several sources of information that will be important for each TACE center to consider in its annual needs assessment, including information from VR State plans, on-site monitoring reports, and annual review reports issued by RSA. A TACE center's needs assessment, therefore, could not be based solely on RSA-generated data. In addition, paragraph
(3)of the priority requires each TACE center to solicit input from its advisory committee members in developing the needs assessment and to use this information in developing its annual work plan. Members of the advisory committee include, at a minimum, the entities listed in 34 CFR 385.40 as well as those additional entities listed in paragraph
(3)of the priority. We believe that adding a representative from each State VR agency in a TACE center's region will increase opportunities for State VR agencies to inform the TACE center about their needs and to provide input into a TACE center's annual work plan. For this reason, we are modifying the priority to require each TACE center to invite a representative from the State VR agencies in the TACE center's region to participate on its advisory committee. *Changes:* Paragraph
(3)of the priority has been modified to require a TACE center to invite a representative from each State VR agency in its region to participate on its advisory committee. *Comment:* Fifteen commenters stated that basing the needs assessment on VR State plans will result in a reactive and deficiency-based needs assessment ( *i.e.* , one that intends only to remediate skills identified as ineffective through RSA monitoring), rather than a proactive needs assessment ( *i.e.* , one that considers the development of new professional skills of staff as a valuable activity). One commenter stated that TA should be focused on VR State plans. *Discussion:* VR State plans document the agency's goals and priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, including the strategies that the agency will undertake to achieve them. Using the VR State plans as one source of information in the needs assessment process enhances the needs assessments' relevance to State VR agencies' goals and priorities. It was not the intent of the priority that the needs assessment be based solely on VR State plans. These plans are listed as one of the data sources to be reviewed when conducting the needs assessment. Paragraph
(2)of the priority lists several other sources of data that must be considered in the annual needs assessment, including on-site monitoring reports and annual review reports issued by RSA, other performance and compliance information from RSA and State VR agencies, and other data, as appropriate. We also do not intend for the needs assessment in this priority to be a deficiency-based model. Instead, we expect that the needs assessment process will be guided by each TACE center's advisory committee to ensure that TA and CE are provided both to remediate deficits and to support new professional development. Each TACE center will make collaborative decisions with RSA about the TA and CE to be provided through the annual work plan based on the needs identified using these multiple data sources. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Eleven commenters disagreed with the requirement that TACE center representatives attend State VR agency monitoring exit conferences conducted by RSA. The commenters stated that the presence of TACE center staff would give the impression that the TACE centers have monitoring responsibilities. Three commenters stated that the exit conference is the wrong time to have the TACE centers involved in the monitoring process because the process is incomplete at that time; instead, the commenters recommended that the TACE centers be involved after the issuance of a State's final monitoring report. *Discussion:* The priority does not assign monitoring responsibilities to the TACE centers. Rather, the priority requires that the TACE centers serve as observers in RSA's monitoring of State VR agencies in their region by participating, at a minimum, in each State VR agency's monitoring exit conference in order to gain a thorough understanding of each State VR agency's TA and CE needs. It is important to retain the requirement that TACE center representatives participate in State VR agency monitoring exit conferences because these exit conferences provide significant information about the TA and CE needs of the State VR agency and agency partners. Requiring that TACE center staff participate in the exit conferences is worthwhile because of the early, additional insight the TACE centers will gain. Once the final report is issued, the TACE centers will consider the report's recommendations in their needs assessment and in the development of their work plan. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Five commenters stated that, given limited funding, a single center couldn't be expected to have expertise in the 12 areas identified in the third paragraph of the priority. Two commenters stated that the 12 areas in which a TACE center must demonstrate expertise focus on the needs of the State VR agency and do not include areas that apply to agency partners. One commenter stated that the State VR agency should have input on the subject matter experts selected by its regional TACE center to provide TA and CE. *Discussion:* One of the purposes of the TACE centers is to ensure that State VR agencies and agency partners receive the TA and CE they need to improve program performance. The expertise areas identified are included to address the needs of agency partners in the activities the agency partners undertake in cooperation with the State VR agency in the provision of VR and other rehabilitation services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 12 expertise areas included in the third paragraph of the priority were identified based on the following: An assessment of the TA needs of State VR agencies and SRCs; RSA's monitoring reviews required by section 107 of the Act; and RSA's review of annual VR State plans. Based on this information, we have determined that it is important to require applicants to demonstrate that they have expertise or access to subject-matter experts in at least these areas in order to provide effective TA and CE under this priority. The priority requires an applicant to describe how it will access expertise in at least these 12 areas, but it does not require the applicant to have experts on staff in all 12 areas. Thus, we disagree that this requirement will be too costly for TACE center grantees. We recognize that other areas of need may arise through the needs assessment and do not wish to limit the areas of expertise to those identified in the priority. Therefore, we have changed the priority to clarify that each TACE center must have expertise or access to subject matter experts in, at a minimum, the 12 areas of expertise identified in the third paragraph of the priority. Finally, nothing in the priority prevents a TACE center from consulting with the State VR agency to select its experts. *Changes:* We have revised the third paragraph of the priority to clarify that each TACE center must have expertise or access to subject-matter experts in at least the 12 areas identified. *Comment:* One commenter stated that the TACE centers should focus on other areas of expertise, such as negotiation skills, the psychological adjustment of individuals to acquired disabilities, leadership development, and placement training. Another commenter stated that the TACE centers should increase their knowledge of unserved and underserved populations. *Discussion:* The priority requires the applicant to describe how it will address the 12 specified areas of expertise. Nothing in the priority prohibits applicants from proposing to develop or provide expertise in additional areas, such as negotiation skills, psychological adjustment to disabilities, leadership development, placement training, and the needs of unserved or underserved populations. We agree that expertise in these and other areas may arise from the needs assessments and have revised the priority to make clear that applicants may propose to develop or provide expertise in other areas. *Changes:* We have revised the third paragraph of the priority to clarify that each TACE center must have expertise or access to subject-matter experts in at least the 12 areas identified. *Comment:* Three commenters stated that each TACE center's annual work plan should remain flexible and responsive to individual State's needs. *Discussion:* We agree that each TACE center's annual work plan should remain flexible and responsive to individual State's needs. We anticipate that the annual needs assessment, with input from the TACE center's advisory committee, will ensure that each TACE center's annual work plan will be responsive to individual State's needs given that the annual work plan must consider the TA and CE needs identified in the annual needs assessment. Moreover, because the needs assessments are conducted and the work plans are established annually, they can easily be altered from year to year. Finally, the annual work plan can be revised in consultation with RSA if emerging needs are identified by the TACE center during that year of the project period. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter asked whether the TACE centers could coordinate multi-State teams and regional meetings as is done by the current RCEP grantees. *Discussion:* There is nothing in the priority that would prohibit a TACE center from coordinating multi-State teams or regional meetings, if it determines that this activity is appropriate based on the results of the TACE center's annual needs assessment and work plan. *Changes:* None. Advisory Committee Members *Comment:* Eight commenters objected to the Department's intent to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to change the current requirement for an advisory committee to include members of minority groups. The commenters objected to the change that would require that an advisory committee include individuals who are knowledgeable about the special needs of individuals with disabilities from diverse groups, including minority groups, because the new requirement would not ensure the participation of members of minority groups. One commenter suggested that members of the advisory committees include individuals with disabilities who are members of minority groups. *Discussion:* Members of minority groups are listed in 34 CFR 385.40 as one of the categories of mandatory participants on rehabilitation training advisory committees. As the note to paragraph
(3)of the priority indicates, the Department intends to publish an NPRM to amend 34 CFR 385.40, which would remove the requirement that an applicant include members of minority groups on all project advisory committees and add a requirement that an applicant include individuals who are knowledgeable about the special needs of individuals with disabilities from diverse groups, including minority groups. This proposed change is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in *Adarand Constructors, Inc.* v. * Pen a * (515 U.S. 200 (1995)) in which the Court held that all racial classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests. The proposed change is a race-neutral alternative that achieves the intent of the Department that project advisory committees include individuals who are familiar with the needs of individuals with disabilities from diverse groups, while ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in *Adarand.* *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Eleven commenters requested that various entities be required members of each TACE center's advisory committee. The entities that commenters recommended be added include: Representatives from State VR agencies (six commenters); representatives from agency partners (four commenters); and current or former recipients of VR services (one commenter). One commenter stated that State VR agency representatives should comprise 50 percent of the membership of each TACE center's advisory committee. Another commenter stated that individuals with disabilities should comprise the majority of the members of each TACE center's advisory committee. *Discussion:* The required composition of an advisory committee for projects funded under the Rehabilitation Training Program, which includes the RCEP program, is defined in 34 CFR 385.40. The priority also requires that each TACE center advisory committee include members from Independent Living Training and Technical Assistance centers. We believe that adding a requirement to invite a representative from each State VR agency in a TACE center's region would increase the opportunities for State VR agencies to express their needs and provide input into the TACE center's annual work plans. Otherwise, we believe the composition of the advisory committee as specified in 34 CFR 385.40 and this priority is sufficiently broad to enable all appropriate constituents to be represented, including representatives from agency partners and former recipients of VR services. Nothing in the priority or applicable regulations prohibits an applicant from proposing additional members for its advisory committee. *Changes:* We have modified paragraph
(3)of the priority to require each TACE center to invite a representative from each State VR agency in its region to participate on its advisory committee. *Comment:* One commenter asked if the role of the advisory committee is to provide advice to the TACE center or to set policy for the TACE center. *Discussion:* The priority does not specify a policy-making role for the advisory committee. It simply requires that the advisory committee be established to provide input on the TACE center's annual needs assessment. We anticipate that the annual needs assessment will be an important source of input to each TACE center's annual work plan. Nothing in the priority requires center policies to be determined by the advisory committee, although this function could be proposed in the application. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter stated that the TACE centers' advisory committees, which, by definition, are regional in nature, would not take into account differences in States' needs and recommended that the TACE centers be required to have State advisory committees. *Discussion:* The goal of TACE center advisory committees is to provide an opportunity for State VR agencies and agency partners to provide information about their TA and CE needs. For reasons of efficiency, the priority requires only one advisory committee for each TACE center. However, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, we have modified the priority to require each TACE center to invite a representative from each State VR agency served by the TACE center to participate on its advisory committee. We believe that this addresses the commenter's concern by allowing regional advisory committees to be informed about and take into account State differences. *Changes:* None. Performance Measures *Comment:* Four commenters stated that the goal of improving the quality and quantity of VR outcomes is not adequately defined in the priority, and one commenter stated that the TACE centers should not be expected to contribute to increasing VR outcomes. Another four commenters stated that the performance measures identified for the program in paragraph
(7)of the priority should be better defined and more objective. *Discussion:* The goal of improving the quality and quantity of VR outcomes is an expected outcome of the provision of TA and CE to the State VR agency and agency partners. However, the Department does not intend to judge the performance of the TACE centers on the basis of changes in VR outcomes. The Department will establish an independent review panel to evaluate the performance of the TACE centers. The areas to be evaluated by the independent review panel—quality, relevance, and usefulness—are those areas typically examined by the Department in assessing the performance of TA activities supported by the Department. The Department will determine the methodology for this review, including the objective criteria to be used by the panel in rating the TA and CE services in these three areas. *Changes:* None. Other Comments *Comment:* One commenter suggested that the priority allow consortia models—that is, models in which a TACE center would be operated by two or more entities, such as the National Rehabilitation Leadership Institute. *Discussion:* Although the priority does not specifically address the establishment of consortia models for a TACE center, nothing in the priority would prohibit an applicant from proposing such a model. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter stated that the TACE centers should have explicit responsibility for disseminating evidence-based knowledge and best practices. *Discussion:* The Department agrees that it would be advantageous to have the TACE centers disseminate evidence-based knowledge, including information on best practices to the extent that it is available. We have modified paragraph
(5)of the priority to reflect this change. *Changes:* We have modified paragraph
(5)of the priority to indicate that the TA provided by the TACE centers should be evidence-based to the extent possible. *Comment:* Four commenters expressed concern about the timing of this priority and the fact that the TACE centers would be replacing current RCEP grantees that have not completed their five-year funding cycle. Two commenters stated that it creates a poor precedent not to continue grants that are in the middle of a five-year funding cycle, and one commenter stated that RSA is moving forward with this change too quickly. *Discussion:* The Department has carefully considered the timing of this priority and believes it is the appropriate time to make this change. Seven of the current 11 RCEP centers that primarily serve State VR agencies will have completed their five-year project period, and three of the RCEP centers will have completed the fourth year of their grant prior to the establishment of the new TACE centers on October 1, 2008. In addition, the TA needs of the VR system have increased significantly, based on an assessment of the TA needs of State VR agencies and SRCs, RSA's monitoring reviews as required by section 107 of the Act, and RSA's review of annual State plans submitted by State VR agencies as a condition of Federal funding. The purpose of this priority is to ensure that State VR agencies and their agency partners receive the TA and CE they need to improve their performance. The Department believes that it is in the best interest of individuals with disabilities and their families that this change be made at this time. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* Based on internal departmental review, we determined that it was not appropriate to include the phrase “as applicable” in the first sentence of paragraph
(2)of the priority. We expect the annual needs assessment to identify the TA and CE needs of all State VR agencies and agency partners in the region served by the TACE center. *Changes:* We have deleted the phrase “as applicable” from the end of the first sentence in paragraph
(2)of the priority. *Comment:* None. *Discussion:* Based on internal departmental review, we determined that “agency partners” was not adequately defined in the priority. Agency partners include all agencies with which the State VR agency cooperates in providing VR and other rehabilitation services. *Change:* We have added language to the first paragraph of the priority to clarify that the term “agency partners” refers to all agencies with which the State VR agencies served by the TACE center cooperate in providing VR and other rehabilitation services. Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a notice in the **Federal Register** . When inviting applications we designate the priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority follows: *Absolute priority:* Under an absolute priority we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)). *Competitive preference priority:* Under a competitive preference priority we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1)awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or
(2)selecting an application that meets the competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). *Invitational priority:* Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)). *Priority:* *Regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education Centers* The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services establishes a priority to create 10 regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education
(TACE)centers to provide
(1)technical assistance
(TA)to State vocational rehabilitation
(VR)agencies and agencies with which State VR agencies cooperate in providing VR and other rehabilitation services (agency partners) to improve services required under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and
(2)continuing education
(CE)to employees of State VR agencies and agency partners. For purposes of this priority, the term “agency partners” refers to all agencies with which the State VR agencies served by the TACE center cooperate in providing VR and other rehabilitation services. Under this priority, the TACE centers must contribute to the following outcomes: improved quality of VR services, increased effectiveness and efficiency of State VR agencies in delivering VR services, and improved quantity and quality of VR employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. The TACE centers must contribute to these outcomes by providing TA and CE, either directly or through contract, to employees of State VR agencies and agency partners on topics that are identified jointly by the Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA)and each TACE center's advisory committee and included in the TACE center's annual work plan. Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate their ability to respond rapidly to a broad range of TA and CE needs. Applicants must provide evidence in their applications that they have expertise, or access to subject-matter experts with experience, in conducting TA and CE in at least the following areas: Improvement of State VR agencies' service delivery; practices and interventions related to specific VR populations; quality assurance; case management at the administrative and counselor level; the use of assistive technology to achieve employment goals; personnel management ( *e.g.* , staff retention strategies); fiscal management; data management; communication skills development; development of individualized plans for employment; development of VR State plans; and strategic planning. *Under this priority, each TACE center must* — 1. Establish an annual work plan, in coordination with and subject to the approval of RSA, describing activities that it will conduct to assist State VR agencies to accomplish the goals identified in their VR State plans and to achieve other performance and compliance goals identified by RSA's monitoring reports. The annual work plan must identify the nature and scope, including delivery means and methods, of the TA and CE to be provided by the TACE center and consider, but not necessarily address, the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners identified in the TACE center's annual needs assessment; 2. Conduct an annual needs assessment to identify the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners in its region. Each TACE center must base its annual needs assessment on a thorough review of VR State plans, on-site monitoring reports and annual review reports issued by RSA, other performance and compliance information available from RSA and State VR agencies, and other data, as appropriate; 3. Establish a center advisory committee to provide input on the annual needs assessments conducted by the TACE center in accordance with paragraph
(2)of this priority. In addition to the requirements in 34 CFR 385.40 for mandatory members of the center advisory committee, the committee must invite representatives from each of the State VR agencies in the region served by the TACE center and from RSA's Independent Living Training and Technical Assistance grantees to serve on this committee. RSA representatives will serve as ex-officio members. Note: Members of minority groups are listed in 34 CFR 385.40 as one of the categories of mandatory participants on rehabilitation training advisory committees. However, the Department intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 34 CFR 385.40, which would remove the requirement that an applicant include members of minority groups on all project advisory committees. The NPRM would add a requirement that an applicant include individuals who are knowledgeable about the special needs of individuals with disabilities from diverse groups, including minority groups. The purpose of this change would be to more clearly reflect the Department's intent that project advisory committees include individuals who are familiar with the needs of individuals with disabilities from diverse groups, rather than individuals who are just members of such groups; 4. Serve as an observer in RSA's monitoring of State VR agencies in its region by participating, at a minimum, in each State VR agency's monitoring exit conference in order to gain a thorough understanding of each State VR agency's TA and CE needs; 5. Collaborate and coordinate with other TACE centers to provide TA and CE as efficiently as possible to employees of State VR agencies and agency partners that have similar needs. TA should be evidence-based, to the extent possible, and include information on best practices to the extent evidence or research is available. 6. Coordinate services with other entities that provide TA and CE to State VR agencies and agency partners, including, but not limited to, Independent Living Training and Technical Assistance grantees and Assistive Technology projects funded by RSA; and 7. Evaluate how well each TA and CE activity provided by the TACE center meets a targeted area of need ( *e.g.* , the improvement of State VR agencies' service delivery; practices and interventions related to specific VR populations; quality assurance), based on goals and objectives established for the activity in the TACE center's annual work plan. Each TACE center must provide data on each TA and CE activity it conducts, including information on the topic of the activity, the number and types of personnel and agencies participating in the activity, participant evaluations of the effectiveness of the activity, and any other data required by the Department. Each TACE center must include the results of its evaluation in its annual performance report. RSA will convene an independent review panel to evaluate the work of the TACE centers. The independent review panel will use the following performance measures:
(a)The percentage of TA and CE services provided by the TACE center that are deemed to be of high quality;
(b)the percentage of TA and CE services provided by the TACE center that are deemed to be of high relevance to State VR policies or practices; and
(c)the percentage of TA and CE services provided by the TACE center that are deemed to be useful in improving State VR agency policies or practices. Executive Order 12866 This notice of final priority
(NFP)has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the NFP are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this NFP, we have determined that the benefits of the final priority justify the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. We summarized the costs and benefits in the NPP. Intergovernmental Review This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program. *Applicable Program Regulations:* 34 CFR parts 385 and 389. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *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.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.264A Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program) Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772. Dated: June 2, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-12636 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Overview Information; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—Technical Assistance Coordination Center; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.326Z. *DATES:* *Applications Available:* June 5, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* July 7, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* September 3, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing technical assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research. *Priority:* In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute or otherwise authorized in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 *et seq.* ). *Absolute Priority:* For FY 2008, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority. This priority is: *Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—Technical Assistance Coordination Center.* *Background:* Under Part D of IDEA, the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP)developed a comprehensive Technical Assistance & Dissemination (TA&D) Network, which is comprised of approximately 40 TA&D OSEP-funded centers that work at the national and regional levels to improve the education of and services to eligible children with disabilities. These centers provide TA covering a variety of areas to State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), Part C lead agencies, families of children with disabilities, and others to improve services and outcomes for children served under Part B and Part C of IDEA. (For more information regarding Parts B and C of IDEA see sections 611 and 631 of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400 *et seq.* )) Ongoing communication, collaboration, and coordination among the centers in the OSEP TA&D Network are essential to
(a)increase the impact of the TA&D centers' efforts,
(b)maximize efficiency, and
(c)ensure that products and services are non-duplicative. Furthermore, communication, collaboration, and coordination between OSEP's TA&D Network and other relevant federally-funded TA&D centers are necessary to improve early intervention and education outcomes for children with disabilities. For example, the Department's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
(OESE)funds a Comprehensive Center on Assessments, which provides TA to States on assessment issues related to all children, including children with disabilities; and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services supports the Center for Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning. Communication, collaboration, and coordination, however, are difficult to initiate and sustain without logistical (e.g., arranging meetings, coordinating schedules) and structural supports (e.g., documenting decisions, developing agendas). OSEP funded a Federal Resource Center for Special Education
(FRC)in 2003 as a way to facilitate communication, collaboration, and coordination among OSEP-funded Regional Resource Centers (RRCs). The FRC worked closely with the six RRCs to help them coordinate their TA to States. In addition to the coordination among RRCs, the FRC coordinated, to a limited extent, the exchange of information between the RRCs and other OSEP and Department-funded TA&D centers. (For further information on the work of the FRC, go to *http://www.rrfcnetwork.org* ). In addition to more efficient use of RRC staff time, expertise, and funds, the FRC found that RRC products and service delivery improved when the work of the RRCs was coordinated. OSEP believes that similar positive results can be achieved if support for communication, collaboration, and coordination is extended beyond the six RRCs to include all of the OSEP and other relevant Department and federally-funded technical assistance projects, national professional organizations, and stakeholders such as associations that are members of the IDEA Partnership, which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008. *Priority:* The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to support the establishment and operation of a Technical Assistance Coordination Center
(TACC)that will assist OSEP in supporting ongoing communication, collaboration, and coordination among the centers in the OSEP-funded TA&D Network, and between these centers and other relevant federally-funded TA&D centers, national professional organizations, and a broad spectrum of stakeholders. To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this priority. A project funded under the absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority. *Application Requirements.* An applicant must include in its application—
(a)A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project; Note: The following Web site provides more information on logic models and lists multiple online resources: *http://www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm.*
(b)A plan to implement the activities described in the *Project Activities* section of this priority;
(c)A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;
(d)A budget for attendance at the following:
(1)A one and one half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC within four weeks after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC with the OSEP Project Officer during each subsequent year of the project period.
(2)A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.
(3)Five two-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings requested by OSEP; and
(e)A line item in the proposed budget for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are identified in consultation with OSEP. Note: With approval from the OSEP Project Officer, the TACC must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period. *Project Activities.* To meet the requirements of this priority, the TACC, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities. *Logistical Support and Coordination Activities.*
(a)Facilitate ongoing communication, collaboration, and coordination among the centers in the OSEP TA&D Network, and between those centers and other Department-funded TA&D centers, including the Comprehensive Centers, Equity Assistance Centers, and Regional Educational Laboratories; relevant TA centers funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; national professional organizations, and other stakeholders, as appropriate. The TACC, at a minimum, must—
(1)Provide logistical support to establish and maintain topical workgroups comprised of OSEP TA&D Network center staff, including information specialists and other TA&D staff, as appropriate, to share information and develop coordinated TA strategies and products on issues, priorities, and strategic initiatives identified by OSEP.
(2)Establish and maintain listservs and other electronic mechanisms for communication, collaboration, and coordination.
(3)Maintain OSEP's Proposed Product Advisory Board (PPAB), which reviews information on products proposed by the OSEP TA&D Network centers to ensure non-duplication of products across TA&D centers. Information about PPAB is available at: *http://www.nichcy.org/ppab/index.htm.* The TACC, at a minimum, must ensure that this independent review panel conducts a systematic review, at least twice annually and more frequently if needed, of products proposed by the TA&D Network centers and offer recommendations to OSEP regarding whether the proposed products are duplicative.
(4)Maintain and expand, as appropriate, the communities of practice Web site ( *http://www.tacommunities.org* ) to support discussions among centers in the OSEP TA&D Network and between these centers and other federally-funded TA&D centers on specific topical areas such as those currently found at *http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/content/view/21/49/.* The TACC must, at a minimum, maintain the facilitator section of the Web site, organize and host facilitator community meetings, provide training and support to current and new facilitators, and develop communications and outreach materials about the communities of practice that are listed at *http://www.tacommunities.org/.*
(5)Develop, maintain, update, and integrate, when appropriate, searchable databases of OSEP's
(i)discretionary grants,
(ii)TA&D Network centers' proposed and current products and services, and
(iii)events. This work must include, at a minimum, the following:
(i)Expanding, modifying, maintaining, and integrating, as appropriate, the existing databases of OSEP-funded discretionary grants and their products to assist in coordinating TA&D activities within and across all Part D programs. These databases include the OSEP Discretionary Projects Databases, which must be in compliance with the 2002 E-Government Act and the 2002 Federal Information Security Management Act requirements. Information about these databases is available at: *http://www.nichcy.org/directories/sepm/default.asp* and *http://www.nichcy.org/search.htm#tad.*
(ii)Expanding the TA&D Matrix, which is a searchable database that provides current information on Department-funded TA services to a range of stakeholders, to include current information on federally-funded early intervention and early childhood education TA services. This matrix must be integrated with the databases mentioned in paragraph (i). Information about the TA&D Matrix is available at: *http://matrix.rrfcnetwork.org.*
(6)Maintain and update, at least twice annually, the TA&D Placemat, which is a tool that includes the contact information for all Department-funded TA&D centers. The current TA&D Placemat is available at: *http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/content/view/137/192/.*
(7)Maintain a Web portal that includes—(i) a work area for the OSEP TA&D Network centers to develop and share resources and products and that links to the Web sites operated by centers in the OSEP TA&D Network; and
(ii)an events calendar that includes information on national and regional events hosted by the OSEP TA&D Network centers and OSEP.
(8)Provide an orientation for new OSEP TA&D Network centers and ongoing support for existing OSEP TA&D Network centers on topics such as:
(i)PPAB product submission guidelines;
(ii)TA&D Matrix data input and maintenance;
(iii)Events calendar input and maintenance;
(iv)Communities of practice participation;
(v)Web site protocols;
(vi)Annual performance report
(APR)schedules and updates; and
(vii)Government Performance and Results Act performance measures.
(b)Facilitate ongoing communication, collaboration, and coordination among the OSEP TA&D Network regional centers, such as the RRCs and the Postsecondary Education Programs Network Regional Centers. The TACC, at a minimum, must
(i)develop and maintain an area of the Web portal for use by these regional TA&D centers,
(ii)coordinate monthly phone calls among the regional TA&D centers, and
(iii)establish and maintain topical workgroups comprised of staff across the regional TA&D centers to identify and develop TA tools and resources.
(c)Support OSEP in sharing information with the OSEP TA&D Network, States, national professional organizations, and other relevant stakeholders on national priorities, issues, and initiatives. The TACC, at a minimum, must—
(i)Provide logistical support for annual conferences hosted by OSEP (e.g., Leadership Conference, TA&D Conference, Joint Leveraging Resources Conference, and Summer Monitoring Institutes) as well as any national meetings, public meetings, and hearings associated with the reauthorization of IDEA.
(ii)Maintain and update, as appropriate, OSEP's existing IDEA Web site (located at *http://idea.ed.gov* ), which contains searchable versions of the IDEA statute and regulations and resources to support the implementation of the statute and regulations. The Web portal referenced in paragraph (a)(7) of the *Logistical Support and Coordination Activities* section must link to the IDEA Web site.
(iii)Maintain and update, as appropriate, the State Performance Plans
(SPPs)and APRs Planning Calendar, which contains information to assist States with the preparation and timely completion of their SPPs and APRs. The Web portal referenced in paragraph (a)(7) of the *Logistical Support and Coordination Activities* section must include the SPP and APR Planning Calendar. Information about the SPP and APR Planning Calendar is available at: *http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/content/view/458/414/.*
(iv)Develop a summary report for all SPP and APR performance and compliance indicators using data compiled by centers within the OSEP TA&D Network that includes information about States' progress in meeting targets for IDEA Part B and Part C indicators, as well as any revisions made to States' monitoring and data systems, measurement systems, or improvement strategies. OSEP staff and the OSEP TA&D Network centers will use this information to plan and coordinate their TA efforts. The TACC must participate in OSEP-requested teleconferences to discuss the findings of the summary report.
(d)Prepare and disseminate reports, documents, and other materials on OSEP-sponsored conference proceedings, Federal initiatives and policies, evidence-based TA practices, and related topics, as requested by OSEP, for specific audiences, including the OSEP TA&D Network centers, other federally-funded TA&D centers, SEAs, LEAs, and Part C lead agencies. In consultation with the OSEP Project Officer, make selected reports, documents, and other materials available in both English and Spanish, when appropriate.
(e)Ensure that any Web site established or maintained by the TACC under this priority meets a government or an industry-recognized standard for accessibility. *Leadership and Collaboration Activities.*
(a)Establish and maintain an advisory committee to review the activities and outcomes of the TACC and provide programmatic support and advice throughout the project period. At a minimum, the advisory committee must meet on an annual basis in Washington, DC, and consist of OSEP and OESE TA providers, SEA personnel, and families of children with disabilities. The TACC must submit the names of proposed members of the advisory committee to OSEP for approval within eight weeks after receipt of the award.
(b)Communicate and collaborate, on an ongoing basis, with OSEP-funded projects outside of the TA&D Network, including Parent Training and Information Centers, personnel preparation projects, State Personnel Development Grant projects, and State TA Deaf-Blind projects to support the ongoing exchange of information and resources.
(c)Prior to developing any new product, whether paper or electronic, submit to the OSEP Project Officer, for approval, a proposal describing the content and purpose of the product.
(d)Collaborate with the National Dissemination Center for Individuals with Disabilities, which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008, to develop an efficient and high-quality dissemination strategy that reaches the broad audiences to be targeted by the project. The TACC must report to the OSEP Project Officer the outcomes of these coordination efforts.
(e)Conduct a summative evaluation of the TACC in collaboration with the OSEP-funded Center to Improve Project Performance
(CIPP)as described in the following paragraphs. This summative evaluation must examine the outcomes or impact of the TACC's activities in order to assess the effectiveness of those activities. Note: The major tasks of CIPP would be to guide, coordinate, and oversee the summative evaluations conducted by selected Technical Assistance, Personnel Development, Parent Training and Information Center, and Technology projects that individually receive $500,000 or more funding from OSEP annually. The efforts of CIPP are expected to enhance individual project evaluations by providing expert and unbiased assistance in designing evaluations, conducting analyses, and interpreting data. To fulfill the requirements of the summative evaluation to be conducted under the guidance of CIPP and with the approval of the OSEP Project Officer, the TACC must—
(1)Hire or designate, with the approval of the OSEP Project Officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the TACC to work with CIPP on the following tasks:
(i)Planning for the TACC's summative evaluation (e.g., selecting evaluation questions, developing a timeline for the evaluation, locating sources of relevant data, and refining the logic model used for the evaluation),
(ii)developing the summative evaluation design and instrumentation (e.g., determining quantitative or qualitative data collection strategies, selecting respondent samples, and pilot testing instruments),
(iii)coordinating the evaluation timeline with the implementation of TACC activities,
(iv)collecting summative data, and
(v)writing reports of summative evaluation findings;
(2)Cooperate with CIPP staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph
(1)of this section; and
(3)Dedicate $60,000 of the annual budget request for this project to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs
(1)and
(2)of this section, implementing the TACC's formative evaluation, and traveling to Washington, DC in the second year of the project period for the TACC's review for continued funding.
(f)Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer through monthly phone conversations and e-mail communication. *Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:* In deciding whether to continue funding the TACC for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and in addition—
(a)The recommendation of a review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting in Washington, DC that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;
(b)The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the TACC; and
(c)The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the TACC's activities and products and the degree to which the TACC's activities and products have contributed to changed practice and improved communication, collaboration, and coordination among OSEP TA&D Network centers. *Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:* Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice. *Program Authority:* 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481. *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
(IHEs)only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreement. *Estimated Available Funds:* $1,800,000. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $1,800,000. *Maximum Awards:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $1,800,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . *Number of Awards:* 1. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* SEAs; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This competition does not require cost sharing or matching. 3. *Other: General Requirements* —(a) The projects funded under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b)Applicants and grant recipients funded under this competition must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA). IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address To Request Application Package:* Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX:
(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also, * http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ edpubs.html * or at its e-mail address, *edpubs@inet.ed.gov.* If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.326Z. 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 person or team listed under *Alternative Format* in section VIII of this notice. 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. 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 the application narrative to the equivalent of no more than 70 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 either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). 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, the bibliography, the references, or the letters of support. The page limit, however, does apply to the application narrative in Part III. We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit or if you use other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* June 5, 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 3, 2008. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This competition 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 program 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. The Technical Assistance Coordination Center competition, CFDA Number 84.326Z, 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 Technical Assistance Coordination Center competition at *http://www.Grants.gov* . You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.326, not 84.326Z). 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 84.326Z), 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 84.326Z), 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 84.326Z), 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 selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Peer Review:* In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The Standing Panel requirements under IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that, for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within the specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications. However, if the Department decides to select an equal number of applications in each group for funding, this may result in different cut-off points for fundable applications in each group. 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 your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* 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.* 4. *Performance Measures:* Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program. These measures focus on the extent to which projects provide high quality products and services, the relevance of project products and services to educational and early intervention policy and practice, and the use of products and services to improve educational and early intervention policy and practice. Grantees will be required to provide information related to these measures in annual reports to the Department. Grantees also will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590). VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* Rex Shipp or Debra Price-Ellingstad, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4178 and 4097, respectively, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:
(202)245-7523 and 245-7481, respectively. If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (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) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:
(202)245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. *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 30, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-12634 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY: United States Election Assistance Commission. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. Date & Time: Thursday, June 19, 2008, 10 a.m.-3 p.m. Place: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave, NW., Suite 150, Washington, DC 20005 (Metro Stop: Metro Center). Agenda: The Commissioners will consider the following items: Commissioners will consider and vote on whether to modify Advisory Opinion 07-003-A regarding Maintenance of Effort
(MOE)funding, pursuant to HAVA Section 254 (a)(7). Commissioners will consider and vote on a Proposed Replacement Advisory Opinion 07-003-B Regarding Maintenance of Effort. Commissioners will consider the Adoption of EAC Draft Chapters of the Election Management Guidelines Project; Commissioners will consider the Adoption of EAC Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual; Commissioners will consider a Draft Policy for Joint Partnership Task Force of EAC and State Election Officials Regarding Spending of HAVA Funds; Commissioners will consider a Draft Policy for Notice and Public Comment; Commissioners will consider a Draft Policy regarding Allocable Cost Principles for HAVA Funding. Commissioners will consider whether to update the Maryland state instructions, the Michigan state instructions and the Louisiana state instructions on the national voter registration form. Commissioners will consider Administrative Regulations. Commissioners will receive a briefing regarding a HAVA State Spending Report to Congress; Commissioners will receive a Presentation on a Draft of EAC Guidance to States Regarding Updates to the State Plans; Commissioners will receive a Presentation on EAC Draft Chapters of the Election Management Guidelines Project; Commissioners will receive a Presentation on the EAC Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual. The Commission will consider other administrative matters. This meeting will be open to the public. Person to Contact for Information: Bryan Whitener, Telephone:
(202)566-3100. Donetta L. Davidson, Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission. [FR Doc. E8-12507 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0013; FRL-8575-8] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; EPA Strategic Plan Information on Source Water Protection (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1816.04; OMB Control No. 2040-0197 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 an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0013 to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by e-mail to *OW-Docket@epa.gov* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Dean, Drinking Water Protection Division—Prevention Branch, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-8241; fax number: 202-564-3756; e-mail address: *dean.jill@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On February 29, 2008 (73 FR 11108), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0013, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov,* or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *www.regulations.gov,* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* EPA Strategic Plan Information on Source Water Protection (Renewal). *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1816.04, OMB Control No. 2040-0197. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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, and 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:* Section 1453(a)(3) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA)required States to submit a Source Water Assessment Program within 18 months after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)published its State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance: Final Guidance. Upon EPA approval of their programs, States conducted source water assessments of their public water systems. State assessments were required to be completed three and a half years after approval of a state's program; the assessment program is therefore complete relative to the SDWA requirements. The burden and cost associated with all of the assessment was accounted for in three previous information collection requests (EPA ICR Nos. 1816.01, 1816.02, and 1816.03). The 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan incorporates a source water contamination prevention measure to describe the voluntary source water protection
(SWP)actions taken at the local or regional level based on the results of completed source water assessments. EPA's strategic target for SWP sets a goal of minimized risk to public health in 50 percent of community water systems
(CWSs)and the 62 percent of the U.S. population served by those CWSs by 2011. Achieving minimized risk to public health focuses on developing and substantially implementing SWP strategies to address potential contamination risks within each CWS source water area. EPA is collecting, on a voluntary basis, data from the States on their progress toward substantial implementation of prevention strategies for all CWS SWAs. While Section 1453(a)(3) of the SDWA does not authorize source water protection, States are encouraged to use the data collected in the source water assessments to develop protection plans for source water areas. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund monies authorized in Section 1452(g)(2)(B) may be used for activities to support efforts in source water protection. The information is being collected under EPA's Office of Water National Program Guidance and the State Grant Performance Measures Template. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 33 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. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* State environmental and health agencies. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 52. *Frequency of Response:* Annual. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 1,716. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $820,287, includes $748,257 annualized capital or O&M costs, and $72,030 labor costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is a decrease of 149,215 hours per year in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease in burden is due to a decrease in the number of items being reported. The burden estimates were considerably greater in the current ICR because it included an additional 146,719 hours annually and $0.24 million annually to allow nine states to complete the source water assessments. Dated: May 28, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-12586 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval, Comments Requested June 2, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before July 7, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* or via fax at
(202)395-5167 and to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or via Internet at *Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov* or *PRA@fcc.gov.* To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB:
(1)Go to the Web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,*
(2)look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,”
(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,
(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,
(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box,
(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB control number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0419. *Title:* Sections 76.94, Notification; 76.95, Exceptions; 76.105, Notification; 76.106, Exceptions; 76.107, Exclusivity Contracts; and 76.1609, Non-Duplication and Syndicated Exclusivity. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities. *Number of Respondents and Responses:* 5,555 respondents; 199,304 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.5—2.0 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Third party disclosure requirement; One time reporting requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. *Total Annual Burden:* 183,856 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* None. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* 47 CFR Sections 76.94(a) and 76.105(a) require television stations and program distributors to notify cable television system operators of non-duplication protection and exclusivity rights being sought. The notification shall include
(1)the name and address of the party requesting non-duplication protection/exclusivity rights and the television broadcast station holding the non-duplication right;
(2)the name of the program or series for which protection is sought; and
(3)the dates on which protection is to begin and end. 47 CFR Section 76.94(b) requires broadcasters entering into contracts providing for network non-duplication protection to notify cable systems within 60 days of the signing of such a contract. If they are unable to provide notices as provided for in Section 74.94(a), they must provide modified notices that contain the name of the network which has extended non-duplication protection, the time periods by time of day and by network for each day of the week that the broadcaster will be broadcasting programs from that network, and the duration and extent of the protection. 47 CFR Section 76.94(d) requires broadcasters to provide the following information to cable television systems under the following circumstances:
(1)In the event the protection specified in the notices described in 47 CFR Section 76.94(a) or
(b)has been limited or ended prior to the time specified in the notice, or in the event a time period, as identified to the cable system in a notice pursuant to Section 76.94(b) for which a broadcaster has obtained protection is shifted to another time of day or another day (but not expanded), the broadcaster shall, as soon as possible, inform each cable television system operator that has previously received the notice of all changes from the original notice. Notice to be furnished “as soon as possible” under this subsection shall be furnished by telephone, telegraph, facsimile, overnight mail or other similar expedient means.
(2)In the event the protection specified in the modified notices described in Section 76.94(b) has been expanded, the broadcaster shall, at least 60 calendar days prior to broadcast of a protected program entitled to such expanded protection, notify each cable system operator that has previously received notice of all changes from the original notice. 47 CFR Sections 76.94(e)(2) and 76.105(c)(2) state that if a cable television system asks a television station for information about its program schedule, the television station shall answer the request. 47 CFR Sections 76.94(f) and 76.107 require a distributor or broadcaster exercising exclusivity to provide to the cable system, upon request, an exact copy of those portions of the contracts, such portions to be signed by both the network and the broadcaster, setting forth in full the provisions pertinent to the duration, nature, and extent of the non-duplication terms concerning broadcast signal exhibition to which the parties have agreed. Providing copies of relevant portions of the contracts is assumed to be accomplished in the notification process set forth in Sections 76.94 and 76.105. 47 CFR Section 76.95 states that the provisions of Sections 76.92 through 76.94 (including the notification provisions of Section 76.94) shall not apply to a cable system serving fewer than 1,000 subscribers. Within 60 days following the provision of service to 1,000 subscribers, the operator of each such system shall file a notice to that effect with the Commission, and serve a copy of that notice on every television station that would be entitled to exercise network non-duplication protection against it. 47 CFR Section 76.105(d) requires that in the event the exclusivity specified in Section 76.94(a) has been limited or has ended prior to the time specified in the notice, the distributor or broadcaster who has supplied the original notice shall, as soon as possible, inform each cable television system operator that has previously received the notice of all changes from the original notice. In the event the original notice specified contingent dates on which exclusivity is to begin and/or end, the distributor or broadcaster shall, as soon as possible, notify the cable television system operator of the occurrence of the relevant contingency. Notice to be furnished “as soon as possible” under this subsection shall be furnished by telephone, telegraph, facsimile, overnight mail or other similar expedient means. 47 CFR Section 76.106(b) states that the provisions of Sections 76.101 through 76.105 (including the notification provisions of Section 76.105) shall not apply to a cable system serving fewer than 1,000 subscribers. Within 60 days following the provision of service to 1,000 subscribers, the operator of each such system shall file a notice to effect with the Commission, and serve a copy of that notice on every television station that would be entitled to exercise syndicated exclusivity protection against it. 47 CFR Section 76.1609 states that network non-duplication provisions of Sections 76.92 through 76.94 shall not apply to cable systems serving fewer than 1,000 subscribers. Within 60 days following the provision of service to 1,000 subscribers, the operator of each system shall file a notice to that effect with the Commission, and serve a copy of that notice on every television station that would be entitled to exercise network non-duplication or syndicated exclusivity protection against it. *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0548. *Title:* Section 76.1708, Principal Headend; Sections 76.1709 and 76.1620, Availability of Signals; Section 76.56, Signal Carriage Obligations; Section 76.1614, Identification of Must-Carry Signals. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities. *Number of Respondents and Responses:* 11,000 respondents; 132,000 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.5-1.0 hour. *Frequency of Response:* Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Section 4(i), 614 and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. *Total Annual Burden:* 66,000 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* None. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* 47 CFR Section 76.56 requires cable television systems to carry signals of all qualified local Noncommercial Educational
(NCE)sting carriage. As a result of this requirement, the following information collection requirements are needed for this collection: 47 CFR Section 76.1708 requires that the operator of every cable television system shall maintain for public inspection the designation and location of its principal headend. If an operator changes the designation of its principal headend, that new designation must be included in its public file. 47 CFR Section 76.1709(a) states effective June 17, 1993, the operator of every cable television system shall maintain for public inspection a file containing a list of all broadcast television stations carried by its system in fulfillment of the must-carry requirements pursuant to 47 CFR Section 76.56. Such list shall include the call sign; community of license, broadcast channel number, cable channel number, and in the case of a noncommercial educational broadcast station, whether that station was carried by the cable system on March 29, 1990. 47 CFR Sections 76.1614 and 1709(c) states that a cable operator shall respond in writing within 30 days to any written request by any person for the identification of the signals carried on its system in fulfillment of the requirements of 47 CFR Section 76.56. 47 CFR Section 76.1620 states that if a cable operator authorizes subscribers to install additional receiver connections, but does not provide the subscriber with such connections, or with the equipment and materials for such connections, the operator shall notify such subscribers of all broadcast stations carried on the cable system which cannot be viewed via cable without a converter box and shall offer to sell or lease such a converter box to such subscribers. Such notification must be provided by June 2, 1993, and annually thereafter and to each new subscriber upon initial installation. The notice, which may be included in routine billing statements, shall identify the signals that are unavailable without an additional connection, the manner for obtaining such additional connection and instructions for installation. *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0750. *Title:* 47 CFR Section 73.671 Educational and Informational Programming for Children; 47 CFR Section 73.673, Public Information Initiatives Regarding Educational and informational Programming for Children. *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities. *Number of Respondents and Responses:* 2,323 respondents; 4,266 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1 to 5 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* Third party disclosure requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. *Total Annual Burden:* 31,319 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* None. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* 47 CFR 73.671(c)(5) states that a core educational television program must be identified as specifically designed to educate and inform children by the display on the television screen throughout the program of the Educational/Informational “E/I.” 47 CFR 73.673 states each commercial television broadcast station licensee must provide information identifying programming specifically designed to educate and inform children to publishers of program guides. Such information must include an indication of the age group for which the program is intended. These requirements are intended to provide greater clarity about broadcasters' obligations under the Children's Television Act
(CTA)of 1990 to air programming “specifically designed” to serve the educational and informational needs of children and to improve public access to information about the availability of these programs. These requirements provide better information to the public about the shows broadcasters air to satisfy their obligation to provide educational and informational programming under the Children's Television Act. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-12626 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Meeting *Agency Holding the Meeting:* Federal Maritime Commission. *Time and Date:* June 4, 2008—10 a.m. *Place:* 800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC. *Status:* A portion of the meeting will be in Open Session and the remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session. Matters To Be Considered Open Session
(1)Agency FAIR Act Report/Recommendation.
(2)Docket No. 07-05 KEI Enterprises dba KEI Logix v. Greenwest Activewear, Inc. Closed Session
(1)Direction to Staff Regarding Budget Hearing Committee Requests.
(2)Show Cause Order re OTI Licensing Matter.
(3)Agreement No. 201178—Los Angeles/Long Beach Port/Terminal Operator Administration and Implantation Agreement and Agreement No. 201170—Los Angeles and Long Beach Port Infrastructure and Environmental Programs.
(4)Export Cargo Issues.
(5)Internal Administrative Practices and Personnel Matters. *Contact Person for More Information:* Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary,
(202)523-5725. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-12269 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments on its proposal to conduct consumer research on parental use of the Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) movie rating information as it appears on DVD packaging for home video releases of rated motion pictures. The FTC is also seeking comment on a related proposal to conduct consumer research on parental attitudes toward the marketing of unrated DVD versions of rated motion pictures. To examine both issues, the Commission intends to conduct surveys of parents who have one or more children ages 7 to 16, and who have bought or rented a movie on DVD within the past year. The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). DATES: Comments must be filed by August 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “DVD Rating Symbol Study: FTC Matter No. P994511,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Moreover, because paper mail in the Washington area and at the Agency is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form, as prescribed below. If, however, the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.” 1 1 FTC Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by following the instructions on the web-based form at *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-DVDRatingStudy* . To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form at the *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-DVDRatingStudy* weblink. If this notice appears at *www.regulations.gov* , you may also file an electronic comment through that website. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at *www.ftc.gov* . As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy at ( *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be addressed to Michelle K. Rusk
(202)326-3148, or Keith R. Fentonmiller
(202)326-2775, Attorneys, Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 2000, the Commission issued a report requested by the President and the Congress entitled, “Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries” (hereafter “2000 Report”). 2 That report found that the entertainment industry had engaged in widespread marketing of violent movies, video games, and music to children in a manner that was inconsistent with the industry’s own rating systems and that undermined parents’ attempts to make informed decisions about their children’s exposure to violent content. Beginning with its 2000 Report, the Commission has made a series of specific recommendations to the industry regarding the disclosure of rating information, placement of advertising in media popular with children, and other aspects of marketing violent entertainment to children. The Commission has now issued five follow-up reports on the industry’s progress toward implementing those recommendations. 3 2 Available at ( *http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/reports.htm* ). 3 The follow-up reports were issued in April 2001, December 2001, June 2002, July 2004, and April 2007. They are available at ( *http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/reports.htm* ). As one aspect of its ongoing monitoring, the Commission has examined the disclosure of MPAA ratings and rating reasons on DVD packaging for home video releases of MPAA-rated motion pictures. The MPAA Advertising Handbook requires that “all packaging of rated home video releases must carry the rating of the motion picture and the rating reasons,” and that “the rating symbol and specific rating reasons must be clearly and legibly displayed.” 4 The MPAA Advertising Handbook does not specify the location, size, or other aspects of how the rating information must be displayed. To assess compliance with MPAA requirements, the Commission looked at a sample of packaging for 12 movies on DVD as part of its June 2002 Report. The Commission found that all of the DVDs displayed the ratings and rating reasons, but that the small size, inconsistent positioning on the back of the package, and poor contrast made the rating information less noticeable. 5 The Commission recommended that the industry improve the disclosure of rating information to ensure that it was effectively and clearly communicated on product packaging. 6 Subsequently, in its July 2004 Report, the Commission again noted that the movie industry typically places the movie’s rating and rating reasons on the back of the DVD packaging and recommended that all of the rating information be placed prominently on the front of the packaging to make it more visible for parents and children and to assist retail store clerks in enforcing policies against selling R-rated DVDs to children. 7 The Commission renewed this recommendation in its April 2007 Report. 8 4 2006 MPAA Advertising Handbook at 38 (on file with Federal Trade Commission staff). 5 June 2002 Report at 10-11, available at ( *http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/reports.htm* ). 6 *Id.* 7 July 2004 Report at 29, available at ( *http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/reports.htm* ). 8 April 2007 Report at 32, available at ( *http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/reports.htm* ). In the April 2007 Report, the Commission also reviewed, for the first time, the movie industry’s practice of releasing unrated DVD versions of movies that were rated R when they were first released in theaters. 9 The Commission expressed concern that these unrated, or so-called “Director’s Cut,” home video releases sometimes contain additional footage that would result in a more restrictive rating if resubmitted for review by the MPAA. The agency cited examples of DVD movie packaging where studios exploited the lack of an MPAA rating to promote the movie. The Commission questioned whether the marketing of these unrated DVDs undermines the self-regulatory system. The agency suggested that the MPAA and DVD retailers establish policies on the advertising and sale of these DVDs to children. 10 9 *Id.* at 8-11. 10 *Id.* at 33. The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to examine, through consumer research, two issues relating to MPAA ratings and DVD home video releases:
(1)how the placement and size of MPAA rating information on DVD packaging for rated movies affects parental use of the rating; and
(2)parental awareness and attitudes about the marketing of unrated DVDs. The Commission will seek OMB clearance under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, before engaging in the proposed consumer research. Under the PRA, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB grant the clearance for this consumer survey. The FTC invites comments on:
(1)whether the required collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)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;
(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 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. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before August 4, 2008. 1. Description of the Collection of Information and Proposed Use The FTC proposes to conduct a mall intercept study, using an experimental design with two treatment conditions, to assess how the placement and size of MPAA rating information on DVD packaging affects parental use of the rating. The FTC proposes to conduct a telephone survey to assess parental awareness and attitudes about the marketing of unrated DVDs. The methodologies for both consumer research proposals are detailed below. a. The Mall Intercept Study on DVD Rating Prominence A mall intercept study is the most appropriate methodology for assessing differences in the effect of placement and size of the MPAA rating because it allows respondents to physically examine samples of DVD packaging. The study will have an experimental design with respondents randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions. The study will analyze differences in response between the two groups. The FTC proposes to conduct the study in multiple locations across the country using a random sample of 400 adult respondents who are parents of one or more children ages 7 to 16, and who have bought or rented a DVD movie for their children within the past year. The study will be divided into two groups of 200. Each group will be given the opportunity to examine a DVD package for a movie that has been rated either PG-13 or R due in part to violent content. 11 One group will be exposed to DVD packaging that displays the rating information as it actually appears on the back cover. The other group will be exposed to the same DVD packaging, with the exception that the rating information will be graphically altered to appear on the front panel and in a larger size. After exposure to the package, respondents will be asked a series of questions related to what respondents noticed about the package, whether they noticed the rating information, and whether or not they would allow their child to watch the movie. 11 Parents of children ages 7 to 11 will be shown DVD packaging for a PG-13-rated movie and parents of children ages 12 to 16 will be shown packaging for an R-rated movie. Parents with children in both age groups will be randomly assigned to either the PG-13 or R group. The information from the questionnaires will be collected on a voluntary basis, and the identities of the respondents will remain confidential. Subject to OMB approval for the collection of information, the FTC plans to contract with a consumer research firm that will identify respondents, conduct a pretest, refine the questionnaire, and conduct the study. The results will assist the FTC in determining how easy or difficult it is for parents to find and use MPAA rating information on DVD packaging and whether changes in presentation of the rating information will significantly improve the ease of use. b. The Telephone Survey To assess parental awareness and attitudes about the marketing of unrated DVDs, the FTC plans to conduct a national telephone survey of 1,000 adult respondents who are parents of one or more children ages 7 to 16, and who have bought or rented a DVD movie for their children within the past year. This approach will allow the agency to have a sufficiently large and representative sample of the population to accurately assess parents’ awareness and attitudes. Respondents will be asked a combination of open-ended and closed-ended questions. The questions will measure the level of parents’ awareness of the marketing of unrated DVDs and assess whether parents understand that unrated DVD movies may contain content that could result in a more restrictive rating than the rating assigned to the theater version of the same movie. Additional questions will be designed to assess parents’ attitudes about the marketing of unrated DVDs, including how the absence of a rating affects their decision whether to allow their children to watch the movie. Finally, respondents will be asked questions about what policy they expect DVD retailers to apply to the sale of unrated DVDs directly to children. As with the mall intercept study, the information from the telephone survey questionnaires will be collected on a voluntary basis, and the identities of the respondents will remain confidential. Subject to OMB approval for the collection of information, the FTC plans to contract with a consumer research firm that will identify respondents, conduct a pretest of the survey, refine the questionnaire, and conduct the survey. The results of the telephone survey will assist the FTC in assessing how the marketing of unrated DVDs impacts parents’ decisions about what movies they will allow their children to watch. It will also help the FTC in forming recommendations about retail policies for the sale of unrated DVDs directly to children. 2. Estimated Hours Burden For the mall intercept study and a pretest of the study, the contractor will screen respondents to identify parents with children ages 7 to 16 who have bought or rented a DVD movie for their child within the past year. Allowing for non-response, the FTC staff estimates that the screening questions will be asked of approximately 2,000 respondents in order to obtain a large enough sample for the study and the pretest. The FTC staff estimates that screening will require no more than two minutes per person for a maximum hour burden of 67 hours (2,000 respondents 2 minutes for each). The FTC intends to pretest the questionnaire on 15 parents to ensure that all questions are easily understood. The FTC expects that the pretest will require no more than 10 minutes per person. The hours burden imposed by the pretest will be approximately 2.5 hours (15 respondents 10 minutes for each). The FTC staff estimates that the study of 400 respondents also will require no more than 10 minutes per person or, cumulatively, 67 hours (400 respondents 10 minutes for each). Thus, the estimated total hours burden attributable to the mall intercept study is 136.5 hours (67 + 2.5 + 67). For the telephone survey and a pretest of the survey, the contractor will apply the same screening threshold, identifying respondents who are parents with children ages 7 to 16 who have bought or rented a DVD movie for their child within the past year. Allowing for non-response, the FTC staff estimates that the screening questions will be asked of approximately 9,000 respondents in order to obtain a large enough sample for the survey and the pretest. The FTC staff estimates that screening will require no more than one minute per person for a maximum hour burden of 150 hours (9,000 respondents 1 minute for each). The FTC intends to pretest the questionnaire on 100 parents to ensure that all questions are easily understood. The FTC expects that the pretest will require no more than 5 minutes per person. The hours burden imposed by the pretest will be approximately 8.5 hours (100 respondents 5 minutes for each). The FTC staff estimates that the survey of 1,000 respondents also will require no more than 5 minutes per person or 83.5 hours (1,000 respondents 5 minutes for each). Thus, the estimated total hours burden attributable to the telephone survey research is 242 hours (150 + 8.5 + 83.5). The combined total hours burden attributable to both research projects is 378.5 hours (242 + 136.5). 3. Estimated Cost Burden The cost per respondent should be negligible. Participation is voluntary and will not require any labor expenditures by respondents nor capital, start-up, operation, maintenance, or other similar costs. William Blumenthal General Counsel [FR Doc. E8-12590 Filed 6-4-08: 8:45 am] [Billing code: 6750-01-S] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the National Biodefense Science Board AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the National Biodefense Science Board
(NBSB)will be holding a meeting. The meeting is open to the public. DATES: The meeting will be held on June 18, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The Sheraton National Hotel, 900 S. Orme Street, Arlington, VA 22204. Phone: 703-521-1900. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: CAPT Leigh A. Sawyer, D.V.M., M.P.H., Executive Director, National Biodefense Science Board, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave SW., Room 638G, Washington, DC 20201; 202-205-3815; fax: 202-205-0613; e-mail address: *leigh.sawyer@hhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 319M of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-7f) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a), the Department of Health and Human Services established the National Biodefense Science Board. The Board shall provide expert advice and guidance to the Secretary on scientific, technical, and other matters of special interest to the Department of Health and Human Services regarding current and future chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate. The Board may also provide advice and guidance to the Secretary on other matters related to public health emergency preparedness and response. Topics to be discussed include updates from the Pandemic Influenza Working Group, the Disaster Medicine Working Group, the Markets and Sustainability Working Group, and the U.S. Medical Countermeasure Research and Development Processes for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Agents Working Group. Additionally, the NBSB will discuss preparedness and planning issues related to at-risk populations and pandemic influenza , consider issues related to medical response and preparedness for radiological and nuclear events, and receive an update on the activities of the Homeland Security Presidential Directive #21, Federal Biosurveillance Working Group. The NBSB will also receive a briefing on issues related to the Department of Health and Human Services development of MedKits. This agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate. A tentative schedule will be made available on June 6, 2008 at the NBSB Web site, *http://www.hhs.gov/aspr/omsph/nbsb.* Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments at the meeting may notify the Contact person listed on this notice by June 11, 2008. Interested individuals and representatives of an organization may submit a letter of intent and a brief description of the organization represented. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee. All written comments must be received prior to June 11, 2008 and should be sent by e-mail with “NBSB Public Comment” as the subject line or by regular mail to the Contact person listed above. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person. Dated: May 30, 2008. RADM William C. Vanderwagen, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [FR Doc. 08-1321 Filed 6-2-08; 2:27pm]
Connectionstraces to 87
Traces to 87 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
72 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 108-447
  • 7 CFR 301
  • 7 CFR 301.64
  • 7 CFR 3015
  • 7 USC 7701-7772
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • Pub. L. 106-113
  • Pub. L. 106-224
  • 114 Stat. 400
  • 9 CFR 93
  • 9 CFR 130
  • 12 CFR 652
  • 12 CFR 615
  • 12 CFR 615.5210-615
  • Pub. L. 102-552
  • 106 Stat. 4102
  • Pub. L. 104-105
  • 110 Stat. 168
  • 39 CFR 111
  • 44 CFR 67
  • 44 CFR 67.4(a)
  • 44 CFR 60.3
  • 44 CFR 67.4
  • 10 CFR 71
  • 49 CFR 173
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 58
  • 40 CFR 51
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 103-465
  • 108 Stat. 4809
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 19 CFR 351
  • 37 CFR 102
  • Pub. L. 104-164
  • Pub. L. 86-36
  • 32 CFR 322
  • Pub. L. 95-452
  • Pub. L. 106-265
  • 41 USC 423
+ 32 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Interim rule and request for comments
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 1421
U.S.C.§ 1622
U.S.C.§ 136
U.S.C.§ 9701
F. App'x899 F.2d 1185
SCOTUS515 U.S. 200
Pub. L.Pub. L. 108-447
Cites 159 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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