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 · 2008-06-12 · PROPOSED RULES · Actuaries Actuaries, Joint Board for Enrollment See Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries Advisory Advisory Council on Historic Preservation See Historic Preservation, Advisory Council Agriculture A · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

141,453 words·~643 min read·/register/2008/06/12/08-1353

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-2008-06-12.xml --- 73 114 Thursday, June 12, 2008 Contents Actuaries Actuaries, Joint Board for Enrollment See Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries Advisory Advisory Council on Historic Preservation See Historic Preservation, Advisory Council Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Forest Service Air Force Air Force Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 33413-33414 E8-13227 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Movement of Hass Avocados from Areas Where Mexican Fruit Fly or Sapote Fruit Fly Exist, 33333 E8-13226 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33432-33434 E8-13181 E8-13194 Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, E8-13174 E8-13175 E8-13177 33434-33436 E8-13178 E8-13179 E8-13183 E8-13184 E8-13185 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33436 E8-13089 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zone: Parexel Fireworks Display, 33302-33304 E8-13137 PROPOSED RULES Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL, 33337-33341 E8-13145 Safety Zone:
Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, NY, 33341-33344 E8-13143 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Patent and Trademark Office Commission of Fine Commission of Fine Arts NOTICES Meetings: Commission of Fine Arts, 33411 E8-13062 Defense Defense Department See Air Force Department See Engineers Corps See Navy Department RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2008-004, Prohibition on Restricted Business Operations in Sudan and Imports from Burma, 33636-33640 E8-13154 Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-26; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 33636, 33640 E8-13151 E8-13152 PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Employment Eligibility Verification, 33374-33381 E8-13358 NOTICES Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Overtime, 33411 E8-13153 Meetings: Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, 33411-33412 E8-13230 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 33412-33413 E8-13228 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33414-33416 E8-13195 E8-13196 Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program: Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects; Classification and Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Interventions, 33416-33428 E8-13258 E8-13259 E8-13260 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Engineers Engineers Corps PROPOSED RULES United States Navy Restricted Area, SUPSHIP Bath Detachment Mobile, Mobile, AL, 33344-33345 E8-13283 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone:
Alternatives for the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector, 33304-33311 E8-13086 PROPOSED RULES Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators, 33642-33659 E8-12621 NOTICES Adequacy Status: Connecticut 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets and Out-year Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets, 33428-33429 E8-13224 Indiana and Ohio Portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana, Submitted 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration, 33429-33430 E8-13225 Meetings:
Gulf of Mexico Program Management Committee, 33430 E8-13231 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 33430 E8-13233 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Establishment of Class E Airspace: Cranberry Township, PA, 33296-33297 E8-12781 Lady Lake, FL, 33294-33295 E8-12769 Lewisburg, PA, 33295 E8-12774 Marienville, PA, 33295-33296 E8-12787 Vinalhaven, ME, 33296 E8-12778 Modification of Class D Airspace: Brunswick, ME, 33297 E8-12783 Modification of Class E Airspace:
Wilkes-Barre, PA, 33297-33298 E8-12782 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee, 33324-33326 E8-13219 NOTICES Verizon and Qwest to Extend Forbearance Relief From Cost Assignment Rules, 33430-33431 E8-13292 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations, 33313-33317 E8-13209 E8-13210 Final Flood Elevation Determinations, 33317-33324 E8-13191 E8-13199 Suspension of Community Eligibility, 33311-33313 E8-13192 PROPOSED RULES Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations, 33372-33374 E8-13208 NOTICES Emergency Declaration:
Ohio, 33444 E8-13202 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Nebraska, 33444-33445 E8-13201 Major Disaster Declaration: Arkansas, 33445 E8-13207 Iowa, 33445 E8-13206 Nebraska, 33445-33446 E8-13204 Oklahoma, 33446 E8-13205 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings: ANR Pipeline Co., 33428 E8-13302 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Exemption Application: Hours of Service of Drivers; United States Department of Energy, 33485-33486 E8-13160 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 33432 08-1353 FTC Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 33592-33634 E8-13111 Fine Arts Fine Arts Commission See Commission of Fine Arts Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment; Availability Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge, McIntosh County, GA, 33451-33452 E8-13166 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Draft Guidance for Industry: Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format;
Postmarketing Individual Case Safety Reports, 33436-33438 E8-13269 Labeling for Susceptibility Test Information, 33438-33440 08-1350 Withdrawal of Approval of One New Drug Application and Two Abbreviated New Drug Applications: Hospira, Inc., et al., 33440-33441 E8-13273 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: Goose Creek Watershed Livestock Grazing Analysis on the Tongue Ranger District, Bighorn National Forest, Sheridan and Johnson Counties, WY, 33393-33394 E8-13060 New Fee Sites:
Soda Springs Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 33394 E8-13188 GSA General Services Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2008-004, Prohibition on Restricted Business Operations in Sudan and Imports from Burma, 33636-33640 E8-13154 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-26; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 33636, 33640 E8-13151 E8-13152 PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Employment Eligibility Verification, 33374-33381 E8-13358 NOTICES Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Information Collection; Overtime, 33411 E8-13153 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Pediatric Medical Device Stakeholders Workshop, 33432 E8-13278 Historic Historic Preservation, Advisory Council NOTICES Draft Standard Treatments to Address Rehabilitation of Historic Exterior Masonry, 33387-33389 E8-13007 Proposed Policy Statement on Archaeology and Heritage Tourism, 33389-33393 E8-13004 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Emergency Management Agency See U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Funding Availability (SuperNOFA) for HUD Discretionary Grant Programs; Correction, 33446-33451 E8-13285 Proposed Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program: Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program (FY2008), 33530-33590 E8-13005 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service See National Park Service IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Partner's Distributive Share;
Correction, 33301-33302 E8-13247 E8-13251 NOTICES Meetings: Ad Hoc IRS Forms and Publications/Language Services Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33491 E8-13133 Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33491 E8-13128 Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33491-33492 E8-13140 Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33492 E8-13141 Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33492 E8-13139 Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33492 E8-13138 Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33493 E8-13135 Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33493 E8-13136 Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33493 E8-13129 Small Business/Self Employed - Taxpayer Burden Reduction Issue Committee Advocacy Panel, 33493-33494 E8-13131 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee, 33494 E8-13132 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Issue Committee, 33494 E8-13130 Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33494 E8-13134 Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 33495 E8-13127 Proposed Collection;
Comment Request for Regulation Project, 33495 E8-13253 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review: American Sugar Export Company LLC, 33394-33396 E8-13200 Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 33396-33399 E8-13267 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 33454-33455 E8-13306 Joint Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee, 33387 E8-13257 Justice Justice Department NOTICES Lodging of Proposed Settlement Agreement: Encycle/Texas, Inc. and Asarco Inc., 33455 E8-13156 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Alaska Native Claims Selection, 33452-33453 E8-13172 Minerals Minerals Management Service PROPOSED RULES Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf: Requirements for Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment, 33333-33337 E8-13223 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation;
FAR Case 2008-004, Prohibition on Restricted Business Operations in Sudan and Imports from Burma, 33636-33640 E8-13154 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-26; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 33636, 33640 E8-13151 E8-13152 PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Employment Eligibility Verification, 33374-33381 E8-13358 NOTICES Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Overtime, 33411 E8-13153 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules;
Availability and Request for Comments, 33455-33457 E8-13248 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33457-33458 E8-13182 Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 33458 E8-13193 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 33458-33459 E8-12919 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 33486-33487 E8-13176 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings:
Center for Scientific Review, 33441-33442 E8-13017 E8-13020 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 33442-33443 E8-13149 E8-13150 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 33442 E8-13021 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive Zone Off Alaska: Deep-Water Species Fishery by Catcher Processor Rockfish Cooperatives in the Gulf of Alaska, 33331-33332 E8-13236 Deep-Water Species Fishery by Catcher Vessels in the Gulf of Alaska, 33330-33331 E8-13235 Shallow-Water Species Fishery by Catcher Processors in the Gulf of Alaska, 33330 E8-13237 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska:
Northern Rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch, and Pelagic Shelf Rockfish for Catcher Vessels Participating in the Limited Access Rockfish Fishery in the Central R, 33332 E8-13234 PROPOSED RULES Marine Recreational Fisheries of the United States: National Saltwater Angler Registry Program, 33381-33386 E8-13250 NOTICES Availability of Seats for the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, 33399 E8-12915 Marine Mammals (File No. 13428), 33399 E8-13246 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities:
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of a Liquefied Natural Gas Facility off Massachusetts, 33400-33411 E8-13264 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Wind Cave National Park, SD, 33453-33454 E8-12992 Intent to Prepare a General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement: Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, Missouri, 33454 E8-13187 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33459-33460 E8-13186 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 33500-33528 E8-12873 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Pinecastle Training Range, FL, 33414 E8-13284 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: HI-STORM 100 Revision Five, 33291-33294 E8-13190 NOTICES Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License:
Florida Power & Light Co., 33460-33462 E8-13197 Docketing, Notice of Proposed Action, and Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 33462-33465 E8-13198 Final Regulatory Guide; Issuance, Availability, 33465 E8-13217 Patent Patent and Trademark Office PROPOSED RULES Changes in Requirements for Signature of Documents, Recognition of Representatives, and Establishing and Changing the Correspondence Address in Trademark Ca, 33345-33356 E8-12896 Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Rules of Practice, 33356-33372 E8-12909 Postal Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES Global Plus Postal Contracts, 33465-33466 E8-13161 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual, 33298-33299 E8-12961 NOTICES Order of Suspension of Trading Struthers, Inc., et. al., 33466-33467 08-1347 Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Proposed Rule Changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 33467-33476 E8-13159 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 33476-33477 E8-13220 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 33477-33479 E8-13158 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 33479-33485 E8-13157 E8-13221 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33443-33444 E8-13189 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Office of the Secretary Technical Corrections, 33326-33330 E8-12108 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Draft Report Addendum of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession, 33487-33490 E8-13274 Survey of Foreign Ownership of U.S.
Securities, 33490-33491 E8-13155 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Articles Assembled Abroad: Operations Incidental To The Assembly Process, 33299-33301 E8-13203 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33495-33498 E8-13241 E8-13242 E8-13243 E8-13245 Meetings: Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board, 33498 E8-13144 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II National Transportation Safety Board, 33500-33528 E8-12873 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 33530-33590 E8-13005 Part IV Federal Trade Commission, 33592-33634 E8-13111 Part V Defense Department;
General Services Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, E8-13151 E8-13152 33636-33640 E8-13154 Part VI Environmental Protection Agency, 33642-33659 E8-12621 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. 73 114 Thursday, June 12, 2008 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AI24 [NRC-2008-0013] List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks:
HI-STORM 100 Revision 5 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is amending its regulations by revising the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 cask system listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance
(CoC)Number 1014. Amendment No. 5 includes deletion of the requirement to perform thermal validation tests on thermal systems; an increase in the design basis maximum decay heat loads, namely, to 34 kilowatts
(kW)for uniform loading and 36.9 kW for regionalized loading, and introduction of a new decay heat regionalized scheme; an increase in the maximum fuel assembly weight for boiling water reactor fuel in the Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC)-68 from 700 to 730 pounds; an increase in the maximum fuel assembly weight of up to 1,720 pounds for assemblies not requiring spacers, otherwise 1,680 pounds; changes to the assembly characteristics of 16 × 16 pressurized water reactor fuel assemblies to be qualified for storage in the HI-STORM 100 cask system; a change in the fuel storage locations in the MPC-32 for fuel with axial power shaping rod assemblies and in the fuel storage locations in the MPC-24, MPC-24E, and the MPC-32 for fuel with control rod assemblies, rod cluster control assemblies, and control element assemblies; elimination of the restriction that fuel debris can only be loaded into the MPC-24EF, MPC-32F, MPC-68F, and MPC-68FF canisters; introduction of a requirement that all MPC confinement boundary components and any MPC components exposed to spent fuel pool water or the ambient environment be made of stainless steel or, for MPC internals, neutron absorber or aluminum; the addition of a threshold heat load below which operation of the Supplemental Cooling System would not be required and modification of the design criteria to simplify the system; minor editorial changes to include clarification of the description of anchored casks, correction of typographical/editorial errors, clarification of the definitions of loading operations, storage operations, transport operations, unloading operations, cask loading facility, and transfer cask in various locations throughout the CoC and Final Safety Analysis Report; and modification of the definition of non-fuel hardware to include the individual parts of the items defined as non-fuel hardware. This final rule allows the holders of power reactor operating licenses to store spent fuel in this approved cask as specified in the revised conditions under the NRC's general license provisions. DATES: The final rule is effective on July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* [Docket ID NRC-2008-0013] and on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are any 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.resource@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy (DOE)] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.” To implement this mandate, the NRC approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in 10 CFR Part 72 entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new Subpart L within 10 CFR Part 72, entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” containing procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25241), that approved the HI-STORM 100 cask system design, and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance Number (CoC No.) 1014. Discussion On December 30, 2004, the certificate holder, Holtec International (Holtec) submitted an application to the NRC that requested an amendment to CoC No. 1014. The amendment principally included changes to increase the design basis maximum decay heat loads of the HI-STORM 100 cask system and add a new underground storage configuration, designated the HI-STORM 100U, to the CoC. On November 29, 2006, Holtec withdrew the portion of the application that added the HI-STORM 100U to the CoC. The application, as modified by the December 22, 2006, Revision 2, submittal, and as supplemented on March 20, 2007, March 30, 2007, May 4, 2007, May 22, 2007, June 15, 2007, July 17, 2007, and September 6, 2007, requested changes to the CoC, the Technical Specifications (TS), and the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), to modify the HI-STORM 100 cask system. Specifically, the proposed changes included deletion of the requirement to perform thermal validation tests on thermal systems; an increase in the design basis maximum decay heat loads, namely, to 34 kW for uniform loading and 36.9 kW for regionalized loading, and introduction of a new decay heat regionalized scheme; increase in the maximum fuel assembly weight for boiling water reactor fuel in the MPC-68 from 700 to 730 pounds; an increase in the maximum fuel assembly weight of up to 1,720 pounds for assemblies not requiring spacers, otherwise 1,680 pounds; changes to the assembly characteristics of 16x16 pressurized water reactor
(PWR)fuel assemblies to be qualified for storage in the HI-STORM 100 cask system; a change in the fuel storage locations in the MPC-32 for fuel with axial power shaping rod assemblies (APSRAs) and in the fuel storage locations in the MPC-24, MPC-24E, and the MPC-32 for fuel with control rod assemblies (CRAs), rod cluster control assemblies (RCCAs), and control element assemblies (CEAs); elimination of the restriction that fuel debris can only be loaded into the MPC-24EF, MPC-32F, MPC-68F, and MPC-68FF canisters; introduction of a requirement that all MPC confinement boundary components and any MPC components exposed to spent fuel pool water or the ambient environment be made of stainless steel or, for MPC internals, neutron absorber or aluminum; the addition of a threshold heat load below which operation of the Supplemental Cooling System
(SCS)would not be required and modification of the design criteria to simplify the system; minor editorial changes to include clarification of the description of anchored casks, correction of typographical/editorial errors, clarification of the definitions of loading operations, storage operations, transport operations, unloading operations, cask loading facility, and transfer cask in various locations throughout the CoC and the FSAR; and modification of the definition of non-fuel hardware to include the individual parts of the items defined as non-fuel hardware. No other changes to the HI-STORM 100 cask system were requested in this application. The NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request and found that an acceptable safety margin is maintained. In addition, the NRC staff has determined that there continues to be reasonable assurance that public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected. The NRC published a direct final rule (72 FR 74162; December 31, 2007) and the companion proposed rule (72 FR 74209; December 31, 2007) to amend the HI-STORM 100 cask system listing in 10 CFR 72.214 to include the changes requested by Holtec as Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1014. The comment period ended on January 30, 2008. One comment letter was received on the proposed rule. The comment contained within the letter was considered to be significant and adverse and warranted withdrawal of the direct final rule. A notice of withdrawal was published in the **Federal Register** on March 12, 2008 (73 FR 13071). Additionally, the NRC staff is amending the CoC to remove the word “approximate” from the weight designation of a loaded transfer cask, as discussed in the Summary of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule Section of this document. No changes were made in the TS or the safety evaluation report
(SER)as a result of the comment. The NRC finds that the Holtec HI-STORM cask system, as designed and when fabricated and used under the conditions specified in its CoC, meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72. Thus, use of the Holtec HI-STORM cask system, as approved by the NRC, will provide adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment. With this final rule, the NRC is approving the use of the Holtec HI-STORM 100 cask system under the general license in 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K, by holders of power reactor operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 50. Simultaneously, the NRC is issuing a final SER and CoC that will be effective on July 14, 2008. Single copies of the CoC and SER are available for public inspection and/or copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Discussion of Amendments by Section Section 72.214 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks Certificate No. 1014 is revised by adding the effective date of Amendment Number 5. Summary of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule The NRC received one comment letter on the proposed rule. Copies of the public comment letter are available for review in the NRC's Public Document Room, O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, and on *http://www.regulations.gov* . A review of the comment and the NRC staff's response follows: *Comment:* The commenter questioned the use of the word “approximate” in relation to the maximum weight of a loaded transfer cask, stating that the actual weight of the transfer cask can be somewhat higher than 100 or 125 tons and still comply with the CoC. The commenter further noted that exceeding these maximum weight values would place the cask into an unanalyzed condition, thus raising a safety issue. The commenter stated that the NRC “needs to specify a numerical range which would be considered ‘approximate' in order for the cask user to make a determination of compliance with the CoC and when NRC approval would be required for the heavier transfer cask.” The commenter recommended deletion of the word “approximate.” *Response:* The NRC staff agrees with the comment and has removed the word “approximate” from Section 1.b of the CoC. No changes are made to the SER or TS as a result of the comment. In addition, two minor typographical errors identified by Holtec in Appendix A of the CoC, i.e., Table 3-1 and TS 3.1.2, have been corrected. Summary of Final Revisions Section 1.b. of the CoC has been revised to remove the word “approximate” from the description of the weight designation of a loaded transfer cask during any loading, unloading, or transfer operation. In addition, two typographical errors have been corrected in Appendix A, Table 3-1 and TS 3.1.2. No changes to the SER are required as a result of these changes. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is revising the HI-ndash;STORM 100 cask system design listed in 10 CFR 72.214 (List of NRC-approved spent fuel storage cask designs). This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements. Agreement State Compatibility Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the **Federal Register** on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, or the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws but does not confer regulatory authority on the State. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This final rule amends the CoC for the HI-STORM 100 cask system within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power-reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Amendment No. 5 modifies the present cask system design by the deletion of the requirement to perform thermal validation tests on thermal systems; an increase in the design basis maximum decay heat loads, namely, to 34 kW for uniform loading and 36.9 kW for regionalized loading, and introduction of a new decay heat regionalized scheme; an increase in the maximum fuel assembly weight for boiling water reactor fuel in the MPC-68 from 700 to 730 pounds; an increase in the maximum fuel assembly weight of up to 1,720 pounds for assemblies not requiring spacers, otherwise 1,680 pounds; changes in the assembly characteristics of 16x16 pressurized water reactor fuel assemblies to be qualified for storage in the HI-STORM 100 cask system; a change in the fuel storage locations in the MPC-32 for fuel with APSRAs and the fuel storage locations in the MPC-24, MPC-24E, and the MPC-32 for fuel with CRAs, RCCAs, and CEAs; elimination of the restriction that fuel debris can only be loaded into the MPC-24EF, MPC-32F, MPC-68F, and MPC-68FF canisters; introduction of a requirement that all MPC confinement boundary components and any MPC components exposed to spent fuel pool water or the ambient environment be made of stainless steel or, for MPC internals, neutron absorber or aluminum; the addition of a threshold heat load below which operation of the SCS would not be required and modification of the design criteria to simplify the system; minor editorial changes to include clarification of the description of anchored casks, correction of typographical/editorial errors, clarification of the definitions of loading operations, storage operations, transport operations, unloading operations, cask loading facility, and transfer cask in various locations throughout the CoC and FSAR; and modification of the definition of non-fuel hardware to include the individual parts of the items defined as non-fuel hardware. In addition, in CoC Section 1.b., the word “approximate” is removed from the description of the weight designation of a loaded spent fuel storage cask during any loading, unloading, or transfer operation. The Environmental Assessment
(EA)and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the EA and finding of no significant impact are available from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6219, e-mail *Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov* . Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, Approval Number 3150-0132. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. Regulatory Analysis On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR Part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25241), the NRC issued an amendment to Part 72 that approved the HI-STORM 100 cask design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214. On December 30, 2004, the certificate holder, Holtec, submitted an application to the NRC that requested an amendment to CoC No. 1014. The amendment principally included changes to increase the design basis maximum decay heat loads of the HI-STORM 100 cask system and add a new underground storage configuration, designated the HI-STORM 100U, to the CoC. On November 29, 2006, Holtec withdrew the portion of the application that would have added the HI-STORM 100U to the CoC. The application, as modified on December 22, 2006 (Revision 2), and as supplemented on March 20, 2007, March 30, 2007, May 4, 2007, May 22, 2007, June 15, 2007, July 17, 2007, and September 6, 2007, requested changes to the CoC, the TS, and the FSAR to modify the HI-STORM 100 cask system. Specifically, the proposed changes included deletion of the requirement to perform thermal validation tests on thermal systems; an increase in the design basis maximum decay heat loads, namely, to 34 kW for uniform loading and 36.9 kW for regionalized loading, and introduction of a new decay heat regionalized scheme; increase in the maximum fuel assembly weight for boiling-water reactor fuel in the MPC-68 from 700 to 730 pounds; an increase in the maximum fuel assembly weight of up to 1,720 pounds for assemblies not requiring spacers, otherwise 1,680 pounds; changes to the assembly characteristics of 16x16 pressurized water reactor fuel assemblies to be qualified for storage in the HI-STORM 100 cask system; a change in the fuel storage locations in the MPC-32 for fuel with APSRAs and in the fuel storage locations in the MPC-24, MPC-24E, and the MPC-32 for fuel with CRAs, RCCAs, and CEAs; elimination of the restriction that fuel debris can only be loaded into the MPC-24EF, MPC-32F, MPC-68F, and MPC-68FF canisters; introduction of a requirement that all MPC confinement boundary components and any MPC components exposed to spent fuel pool water or the ambient environment be made of stainless steel or, for MPC internals, neutron absorber or aluminum; the addition of a threshold heat load below which operation of the SCS would not be required and modification of the design criteria to simplify the system; minor editorial changes to include clarification of the description of anchored casks, correction of typographical/editorial errors, clarification of the definitions of loading operations, storage operations, transport operations, unloading operations, cask loading facility, and transfer cask in various locations throughout the CoC and the FSAR; and modification of the definition of non-fuel hardware to include the individual parts of the items defined as non-fuel hardware. The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this amended cask system design. Withholding approval, in the absence of any safety reason for doing so, would not comply with the requirements of sections 218(a) and 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Approval of the final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, the final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety. This final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this discussion of the benefits and impacts of the alternatives, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and thus, this action is recommended. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants, independent spent fuel storage facilities, and Holtec. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109 or 10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this final rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. Congressional Review Act Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72. PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1014 is revised to read as follows: § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. Certificate Number: 1014. Initial Certificate Effective Date: June 1, 2000. Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: July 15, 2002. Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: June 7, 2005. Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: May 29, 2007. Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: January 8, 2008. Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: July 14, 2008. SAR Submitted by: Holtec International. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System. Docket Number: 72-1014. Certificate Expiration Date: June 1, 2020. Model Number: HI-STORM 100. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of May, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. R.W. Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E8-13190 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0072; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-03] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lady Lake, FL AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments; withdrawal. SUMMARY: This action withdraws the direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** March 21, 2008 establishing Class E Airspace at Lady Lake, FL (73 FR 15060), Docket No. FAA-2008-0072. This Direct final rule is being withdrawn in recognition of existing Class E Airspace at Lady Lake, FL that adequately supports the new Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedure
(IAP)that has been developed for medical flight operations into the Village of Homewood Lady Lake Hospital. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 12, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5610; fax
(404)305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On March 21, 2008, the **Federal Register** published a direct final rule with a request for comments (FR 73 15060) establishing Class E airspace at the Village of Homewood Lady Lake Hospital, Lady Lake, FL, **Federal Register** Docket No. FAA-2008-0072. After publication it was discovered that airspace already existed at Lady Lake, FL. Rendering this docket for airspace action unnecessary. This action withdraws **Federal Register** Docket No. FAA-2008-0072. Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Docket No. FAA-2008-0072; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-03, as published in the **Federal Register** on March 21, 2008 (73 FR 15060), is hereby withdrawn. 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 30, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-12769 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0276; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-16] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lewisburg, PA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date, correction. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule that establishes a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedures
(IAPs)that serve the Evangelical Community Hospital, Lewisburg, PA. Additionally, this action corrects a minor technical error in the publication of the coordinates for the Evangelical Community Hospital East Heliport. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone
(404)305-5581; fax
(404)305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5739) to establish Class E airspace at Lewisburg, PA. After publication, it was discovered that the airport reference point of the Evangelical Community Hospital East Heliport was incorrectly published as “lat. 40°58′47″ N., long. 76°53′08″ W.” The coordinates should have read “lat. 40°58′45″ N., long. 76°53′09″ W.” This action corrects that error. Confirmation of Effective Date The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on April 10, 2008. It further advised that a confirmation docket would be published in the **Federal Register** confirming the date. This docket completes that requirement. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date. Correction Pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the publication in the **Federal Register** dated January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5739), **Federal Register** Docket No. FAA-2007-0276, on page 5741, column 1, line 48, is corrected to read: (Lat. 40°58′45″ N., long. 76°53′09″ W.) Issued in College Park, GA on April 25, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-12774 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0162; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-13] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Marienville, PA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date, correction. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date and makes a correction to the direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** January 30, 2008, that establishes controlled airspace at Marienville, PA (73 FR 5431), Docket No. FAA-2007-0162. In the airspace description, the wrong name was used for the Airport. This action corrects that error. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone
(404)305-5581; fax
(404)305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History A direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** January 30, 2008, established controlled airspace at Marienville, PA (73 FR 5431). In that rule, airspace was established to serve a landing site at the local high school to accommodate medical helicopter operations. After publication, an error was found in the name of the landing area. The landing area's name was printed as “East Marien High School Heliport”, and should have been listed as “East Forest Junior/Senior High School Airport”. This action corrects that error. Confirmation of Effective Date The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on April 10, 2008. The FAA also advised that a “Confirmation of Effective Date” docket would be published in the **Federal Register** after the comment period ended as verification that no adverse comments were received and confirming the effective date of the Rule. No adverse comments were received and this document verifies that effective date. Correction Pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the publication in the **Federal Register** dated January 30, 2008 (73 FR 5431), **Federal Register** Docket No. FAA-2007-0162, on page 5432, column 2, line 23 and line 31, is corrected to read: East Forest Junior/Senior High School Airport Issued in College Park, GA on April 25, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-12787 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0061; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-92] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Vinalhaven, ME AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 9186) that establishes Class E Airspace at Vinalhaven, ME to support a new Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedure
(IAP)that has been developed for medical flight operations into the Mary Talbot Memorial Airfield. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Confirmation of Effective Date The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9186), Docket No. FAA-2008-0061; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-92. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 5, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 16, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-12778 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0278; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-18] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Cranberry Township, PA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule that establishes Class E Airspace at Cranberry Township, PA, to support a new Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedure
(IAP)that has been developed for medical flight operations into the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
(UPMC)Passavant-Cranberry Heliport. Additionally, this action corrects a minor typing error in the publication of the coordinates for the UPMC Passavant-Cranberry Heliport. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Confirmation of Effective Date The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on February 14, 2008 (73 FR 8597), to establish Class E airspace at Cranberry Township, PA. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 5, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date. Correction to Final Rule After publication, it was discovered that the airport reference point of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
(UPMC)Passavant-Cranberry Heliport was incorrectly published as lat. 40°41′01″ N., long. 80°05′50″ W. The coordinates are corrected as follows, “lat. 40°41′02″ N., long. 80°05′47″ W.” Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the coordinates for UPMC Passavant-Cranberry Heliport, Cranberry Township, PA, as published in the **Federal Register** on February 14, 2008 (73 FR 8597), Federal Docket No. FAA-2007-0278 is corrected as follows: § 71.1 [Corrected] On page 8597, replace “(Lat. 40°41′01″ N., long. 80°05′50″ W.) with “(Lat. 40°41′02″ N., long. 80°05′47″ W.) Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 30, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, Operations Support Group Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-12781 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0203; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-99] Modification of Class D Airspace; Brunswick, ME AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments; withdrawal. SUMMARY: This action withdraws the direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** April 14, 2008 modifying Class D Airspace at Brunswick, ME. After publication it came to our attention that there had been a miscommunication about the operating hours of the Brunswick NAS Air Traffic Control Tower. The tower itself is still a 24-hour operation; therefore, there is no need to modify the Class D Airspace to reflect part-time status. DATES: Effective Date: June 12, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; Telephone
(404)305-5610, Fax 404-305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On April 14, 2008, the **Federal Register** published a direct final rule with a request for comments (73 FR 19995) modifying Class D Airspace in Brunswick, ME, **Federal Register** Docket No. FAA-2008-0203. After publication it was discovered that the control tower hours of operation had not been changed to a part-time status, thereby rendering this docket for airspace action unnecessary. This action withdraws **Federal Register** Docket No. FAA-2008-0203. Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Docket No. FAA 2008-0203; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-99, as published in the **Federal Register** on April 14, 2008 (73 FR 19995), is hereby withdrawn. 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1 963 Comp., p. 389. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 8, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-12783 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0130; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-11] Modification of Class E Airspace; Wilkes-Barre, PA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date, correction. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** on February 21, 2008 (FR 73 9445) Docket No. FAA-2008-0130 that modifies Class E Airspace at Wilkes-Barre, PA. Additionally, this action corrects a minor technical error in the publication of the coordinates for the Wyoming Valley Medical Center, Wilkes-Barre, PA and the Community Medical Center, Scranton, PA. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone
(404)305-5581; fax
(404)305-5572. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on February 21, 2008 (73 FR 9445) to modify Class E airspace and restore previously published airspace descriptions at Wilkes-Barre, PA. After publication, it was discovered that the airport reference point coordinates of the Wyoming Valley Medical Center and the Community Medical Center Airports had minor errors. This action corrects those errors. Confirmation of Effective Date The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on April 10, 2008. It further advised that a confirmation docket would be published in the **Federal Register** confirming the effective date. This docket completes that requirement. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date. Correction Pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the publication in the **Federal Register** dated February 21, 2008 (73 FR 9445), **Federal Register** Docket No. FAA-2008-0130, on page 9446, column 3, line 46 is corrected to read: (Lat. 41°15′45″ N., long. 75°48′40″ W.) and on page 9446, column 3, line 50 is corrected to read: (Lat. 41°24′00″ N., long. 75°38′49″ W.) Issued in College Park, GA on April 25, 2008. Mark D. Ward, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-12782 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 232 [Release Nos. 33-8926; 34-57914; 39-2456; IC-28296] Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) is adopting revisions to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (EDGAR) Filer Manual to reflect updates to the EDGAR system. The revisions are being made to address the removal of rescinded EDGAR submission types: S-4EF/A, F-4EF/A, N-14AE, and N-14AE/A, the addition of XBRL Standard Taxonomies, and the inclusion of new links for USGAAP XBRL Taxonomies. The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 8 (June 2008). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 12, 2008. The incorporation by reference of the EDGAR Filer Manual is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 12, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In the Office of Information Technology, Rick Heroux, at
(202)551-8800; in the Division of Corporation Finance for questions regarding EDGAR submission types S-4EF/A and F-4EF/A contact Cecile Peters, Office of Information Technology, Office Chief, at
(202)551-8135; in the Division of Investment Management for questions regarding EDGAR submission types N-14AE and N-14AE/A contact Ruth Armfield Sanders, Senior Special Counsel, Office of Legal and Disclosure, at
(202)551-6989; in the Office of Interactive Disclosure for questions concerning XBRL filings contact Jeffrey W. Naumann, Assistant Director of the Office of Interactive Disclosure, at
(202)551-5352. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today we are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II. The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system. 1 It also describes the requirements for filing using EDGARLink 2 and the Online Forms/XML Web site. 1 We originally adopted the Filer Manual on April 1, 1993, with an effective date of April 26, 1993. Release No. 33-6986 (April 1, 1993) [58 FR 18638]. We implemented the most recent update to the Filer Manual on August 20, 2007. *See* Release No. 33-8834 (August 15, 2007) [72 FR 46559]. 2 This is the filer assistance software we provide filers filing on the EDGAR system. The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format. 3 Filers should consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with our rules governing mandated electronic filing when preparing documents for electronic submission. 4 3 *See* Rule 301 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.301). 4 *See* Release Nos. 33-6977 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 14628], IC-19284 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 14848], 35-25746 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 14999], and 33-6980 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 15009] in which we comprehensively discuss the rules we adopted to govern mandated electronic filing. *See also* Release No. 33-7122 (December 19, 1994) [59 FR 67752], in which we made the EDGAR rules final and applicable to all domestic registrants; Release No. 33-7427 (July 1, 1997) [62 FR 36450], in which we adopted minor amendments to the EDGAR rules; Release No. 33-7472 (October 24, 1997) [62 FR 58647], in which we announced that, as of January 1, 1998, we would not accept in paper filings that we require filers to submit electronically; Release No. 34-40934 (January 12, 1999) [64 FR 2843], in which we made mandatory the electronic filing of Form 13F; Release No. 33-7684 (May 17, 1999) [64 FR 27888], in which we adopted amendments to implement the first stage of EDGAR modernization; Release No. 33-7855 (April 24, 2000) [65 FR 24788], in which we implemented EDGAR Release 7.0; Release No. 33-7999 (August 7, 2001) [66 FR 42941], in which we implemented EDGAR Release 7.5; Release No. 33-8007 (September 24, 2001) [66 FR 49829], in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.0; Release No. 33-8224 (April 30, 2003) [68 FR 24345], in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.5; Release Nos. 33-8255 (July 22, 2003) [68 FR 44876] and 33-8255A (September 4, 2003) [68 FR 53289] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.6; Release No. 33-8409 (April 19, 2004) [69 FR 21954] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.7; Release No. 33-8454 (August 6, 2004) [69 FR 49803] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.8; Release No. 33-8528 (February 3, 2005) [70 FR 6573] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.10; Release No. 33-8573 (May 19, 2005) [70 FR 30899] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 9.0; Release No. 33-8612 (September 21, 2005) [70 FR 57130] in which the Commission granted the authorization to publish the release adopting the reorganized EDGAR Filer Manual; Release No. 33-8633 (November 1, 2005) [70 FR 67350] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 9.2; Release No 33-8656 (January 27, 2006) [71 FR 5596] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 9.3; Release No. 33-8834 (August 15, 2007)[72 FR 46559] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 9.7; and Release No. 33-3899 (May 30, 2008) in which we implemented EDGAR Release 9.8 and Release 9.9. For EDGAR Release 9.10, submission template 1 will be updated to remove the aforementioned submission type changes. It is highly recommended that filers download, install, and use the new EDGARLink submission templates to ensure that submissions will be processed successfully. Previous versions of the templates may not work properly. Notice of the update has previously been provided on the EDGAR Filing Web site and on the Commission's public Web site. The discrete updates are reflected on the EDGAR Filing Web site and in the updated Filer Manual, Volume II. Along with adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. You may obtain paper copies of the updated Filer Manual at the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580, Washington DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. We will post electronic format copies on the Commission's Web site; the address for the Filer Manual is *http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml.* You may also obtain copies from Thomson Financial, the paper document contractor for the Commission, at
(800)638-8241. Since the Filer Manual relates solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)5 . It follows that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 6 do not apply. 5 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 6 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is June 12, 2008. In accordance with the APA 7 , we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to Release 9.10 is scheduled to become available on May 5, 2008. The Commission believes that it is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the system upgrade. 7 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Statutory Basis We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 8 Sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A of the Exchange Act, 9 Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 10 and Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. 11 8 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, and 77s(a). 9 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78 *l* , 78m, 78n, 78o, 78w, and 78 *ll* . 10 15 U.S.C. 77sss. 11 15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37. List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232 Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities. Text of the Amendment In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 232—REGULATION S-T—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC FILINGS 1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78 *l* , 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78 *ll* , 80a-6(c), 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and 7201 *et seq.* ; and 18 U.S.C. 1350. 2. Section 232.301 is revised to read as follows: § 232.301 EDGAR Filer Manual. Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets out the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 4 (August 2007). The requirements for filing on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 8 (June, 2008). Additional provisions applicable to Form N-SAR filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: “N-SAR Supplement,” Version 1 (September 2005). All of these provisions have been incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, which action was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. You must comply with these requirements in order for documents to be timely received and accepted. You can obtain paper copies of the EDGAR Filer Manual from the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., or by calling Thomson Financial at
(800)638-8241. Electronic copies are available on the Commission's Web site. The address for the Filer Manual is *http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml* . You can also inspect the document at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . By the Commission. Dated: June 4, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-12961 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Part 10 [CBP Dec. 08-21] RIN 1505-AB90 Articles Assembled Abroad: Operations Incidental to the Assembly Process AGENCIES: Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document amends the Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations in title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) in order to remove a provision that draws a distinction between preservative and decorative painting for purposes of the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The change is made to conform the CBP Regulations with the holding of a court decision in which the regulatory distinction between preservative and decorative painting was found to be invalid. DATES: Final rule effective July 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerry O'Brien, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade,
(202)572-8792. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Subheading 9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), 19 U.S.C. 1202, provides a partial duty exemption for articles assembled abroad in whole or in part of fabricated components, the products of the United States, which:
(a)Were exported in condition ready for assembly without further fabrication;
(b)have not lost their physical identity in such articles by change in form, shape, or otherwise; and,
(c)have not been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad except by being assembled and except by operations incidental to the assembly process, such as cleaning, lubricating, and painting. The regulations implementing subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, are found within §§ 10.11 through 10.26 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 10.11-10.26). Section 10.13 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 10.13) provides that articles that satisfy the requirements of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, are subject to a duty upon the full value of the imported article, less the cost or, if no charge is made, the value of such products in the United States. The rate of duty that is assessed on an imported article eligible for the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, is that which is applicable to the imported article as a whole under the appropriate HTSUS provision for such article. Section 10.16 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 10.16) concerns the assembly operations for purposes of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS. Section 10.16(b) sets forth general information regarding operations considered incidental to the assembly process. Under § 10.16(b), operations incidental to the assembly process whether performed before, during, or after assembly, do not constitute further fabrication, and will not preclude the application of the exemption. Examples of operations considered incidental to the assembly process are provided under §§ 10.16(b)(1)-(7). The application of preservative paint or coating, including preservative metallic coating, lubricants, or protective encapsulation is currently considered an operation incidental to the assembly process under § 10.16(b)(3). Section 10.16(c) sets forth general information regarding operations that are not considered incidental to the assembly process. Under § 10.16(c), any significant process, operation, or treatment other than assembly whose primary purpose is the fabrication, completion, physical or chemical improvement of a component, or which is not related to the assembly process, whether or not it effects a substantial transformation of the article, will not be regarded as incidental to the assembly process and will preclude the application of the duty exemption to the article. Examples of operations that are not considered incidental to the assembly process are set forth under §§ 10.16(c)(1)-(5). Pursuant to § 10.16(c)(3), painting primarily intended to enhance the appearance of an article or to impart distinctive features or characteristics is not currently considered an operation incidental to the assembly process. As indicated, § 10.16 currently draws a distinction between preservative and decorative painting for purposes of the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS: Painting operations performed abroad that are deemed to be “preservative” in nature are considered incidental to the assembly process under § 10.16(b)(3) and will not preclude application of the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS; and, painting operations performed abroad that are deemed to be “decorative” in nature are not considered incidental to the assembly process under § 10.16(c)(3) and will preclude application of the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS. Explanation of Amendments In *DaimlerChrysler Corporation* v. *United States,* 361 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered the issue of whether § 10.16 was valid to the extent that the regulation draws this distinction between preservative and decorative painting for purposes of the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS. In that case, DaimlerChrysler Corporation assembled trucks in Mexico with sheet metal components from the United States. The sheet metal components were initially treated with primer coats designed to prevent corrosion. After heat treatment, color coats and clear coats, referred to as “top coats”, were applied to the sheet metal components. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) considered the primer coats to be preservative in nature and, consequently, determined that the application of the primer coats was an operation incidental to the assembly process under § 10.16(b)(3). However, CBP considered the top coats to be decorative in nature because they were intended primarily to enhance the appearance of the trucks. Because CBP did not consider application of the top coats to be an operation incidental to the assembly process pursuant to § 10.16(c)(3), these operations were not eligible for a partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS. Upon considering this particular issue on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, unambiguously provides that painting is an operation incidental to the assembly process. Therefore, the court determined that the distinction between preservative and decorative painting set forth in § 10.16 is invalid. In order to implement the court's interpretation of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS, CBP is amending § 10.16 so as to eliminate the distinction in the regulation between preservative and decorative painting. Section 10.16(b)(3) is amended to provide that applying paint or preservative coating, including preservative metallic coating, lubricants, or protective encapsulation, constitutes an operation incidental to the assembly process for purposes of subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS. In addition, this document removes from the regulations § 10.16(c)(3), which currently provides that painting primarily intended to enhance the appearance of an article, or to impart distinctive features or characteristics, is not considered an operation incidental to the assembly process. Sections 10.16(c)(4) and (c)(5) are redesignated as §§ 10.16(c)(3) and (c)(4), respectively. The amendments conform the regulations to reflect the decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in *DaimlerChrysler Corporation* v. *United States* by removing from § 10.16 the distinction between preservative and decorative painting. Under the amendments, for example, the application of primer coats and top coats will both be considered incidental to the assembly process for purposes of the partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.20, HTSUS. Finally, this document amends §§ 10.16(b) and
(c)by removing the word “shall” each place it appears and adding, in its place, the word “will”. Inapplicability of Prior Public Notice This document deletes from the regulations a provision determined to be invalid by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and benefits the public by expanding the scope of painting operations that will be considered incidental to the assembly process and thus eligible for a partial duty exemption under subheading 9802.00.80, HTSUS. For these reasons, CBP has determined, pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that prior public notice and comment procedures on this regulation are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Regulatory Flexibility Act Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, this document is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Signing Authority This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions. List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 10 Assembly, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Preference programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements. Amendments to the CBP Regulations For the reasons set forth above, part 10 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 10) is amended as follows: PART 10—ARTICLES CONDITIONALLY FREE, SUBJECT TO A REDUCED RATE, ETC. 1. The general authority citation for part 10 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508, 1623, 1624, 3314; 2. In § 10.16: a. In paragraph (b), the introductory paragraph and paragraph (b)(3) are revised; b. In paragraph (c), the introductory text is amended by removing the word “shall” each place it appears in the first sentence and adding, in its place, the word “will”; c. Paragraph (c)(3) is removed; and d. Paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) are redesignated as paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4), respectively. The revisions read as follows: § 10.16 Assembly abroad.
(b)*Operations incidental to the assembly process.* Operations incidental to the assembly process whether performed before, during, or after assembly, do not constitute further fabrication, and will not preclude the application of the exemption. The following are examples of operations which are incidental to the assembly process:
(3)Application of paint or preservative coating, including preservative metallic coating, lubricants, or protective encapsulation; Approved: June 6, 2008. Jayson P. Ahern, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. [FR Doc. E8-13203 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9398] RIN 1545-BD70 Partner's Distributive Share; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations; correction. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9398) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, May 19, 2008 (73 FR 28699) providing rules for testing whether the economic effect of an allocation is substantial within the meaning of section 704(b) where partners are look-through entities or members of a consolidated group. The final regulations clarify the application of section 704(b) to partnerships the interests of which are owned by look-through entities and members of consolidated groups and, through an example, reiterate the effect of other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code on partnership allocations. DATES: This correction is effective *June 12, 2008,* and is applicable on May 19, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan E. Cornwell and Kevin I. Babitz at
(202)622-3050 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations that are the subject of this document are under section 704 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9398) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 9398), which were the subject of FR Doc. E8-11176, is corrected as follows: On page 28701, column 2, in the preamble, under the paragraph heading “ *B. The Baseline for Comparison in § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iii)* ”, line 2 from the bottom of the second paragraph, the language “and
(2)and the conclusions reached by” is corrected to read “and ( *2* ) and the conclusions reached by”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-13251 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9398] RIN 1545-BD70 Partner's Distributive Share; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9398) that were published in the **Federal Register** on Monday, May 19, 2008 (73 FR 28699) providing rules for testing whether the economic effect of an allocation is substantial within the meaning of section 704(b) where partners are look-through entities or members of a consolidated group. The final regulations clarify the application of section 704(b) to partnerships the interests of which are owned by look-through entities and members of consolidated groups and, through an example, reiterate the effect of other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code on partnership allocations. DATES: This correction is effective June 12, 2008, and is applicable on May 19, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan E. Cornwell and Kevin I. Babitz at
(202)622-3050 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The final regulations that are the subject of this document are under section 704 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, final regulations (TD 9398) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Correction of Publication Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read, in part, as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.704-1 is amended as follows: 1. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)( *d* )( *3* ), the last sentence, the language “In the case of a controlled foreign corporation that is a look-through entity, the tax attributes to be taken into account are those of any person that is a United States shareholder (as defined in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(d)(5) of this section) of the controlled foreign corporation, or, if the United States shareholder is a look-through entity, a United States person that owns an interest in such shareholder directly or indirectly through one or more look-through entities.” is removed and the language “In the case of a controlled foreign corporation that is a look-through entity, the tax attributes to be taken into account are those of any person that is a United States shareholder (as defined in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)( *d* )( *5* ) of this section) of the controlled foreign corporation, or, if the United States shareholder is a look-through entity, a United States person that owns an interest in such shareholder directly or indirectly through one or more look-through entities.” is added in its place. 2. In paragraph (b)(5) *Example 29* ., the fourth sentence, the language “C is a partnership with two partners, E, an individual, and F, a corporation that is member of a consolidated group within the meaning of § 1.1502-1(h).” is removed and the language “C is a partnership with two partners, E, an individual, and F, a corporation that is a member of a consolidated group within the meaning of § 1.1502-1(h).” is added in its place. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-13247 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0363] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Parexel Fireworks Display AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is creating a temporary safety zone for the Parexel Fireworks display to be held on June 23, 2008 in Boston, Massachusetts. The zone temporarily closes all waters of Boston Harbor within a three hundred
(300)yard radius of the fireworks launch site located in Boston Harbor at approximate position 42°21′26″ N., 071°2′38″ W. The safety zone is necessary to protect the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks display. Entry into this zone is prohibited during the closure period unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Boston. DATES: This rule is effective from 9:00 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0363 and are available online at *www.regulations.gov.* They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Boston, 427 Commercial St, Boston, MA 02109 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Chief Petty Officer Eldridge McFadden at 617-223-5160. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. As the fireworks display is scheduled to occur on June 23, 2008, any delay encountered in the regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the safety zone is needed to prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Boston Harbor during the fireworks display thus ensuring that the maritime public is protected from any potential harm associated with such an event. Additionally, although this rule will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Boston Harbor during the fireworks display, the effect of this rule will not be significant for several reasons: Vessels will be excluded from the safety zone for two hours; small vessels, although excluded from the zone, will have sufficient navigable water to safely maneuver in the waters surrounding the zone; and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Background and Purpose Parexel is holding a fireworks display for a corporate celebration. This temporary rule established a temporary safety zone on the waters of Boston Harbor within a three hundred
(300)yard radius of the fireworks launch site located in Boston harbor at approximate position 42°21′26″ N., 071°2′38″ W. This safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the potential dangers posed by this event. The zone will protect the public by prohibiting entry into or movement within the proscribed portion of Boston Harbor during the fireworks display. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the zone during the effective period. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to and during the effective period via safety marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in Boston Harbor, Boston, Massachusetts. The safety zone would be in effect from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 23, 2008. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone in Boston Harbor during the event. This safety zone will control vessel traffic during the fireworks display to protect the safety of the maritime public. Due to the limited time frame of the fireworks display, the Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via local notice to mariners. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this rule will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of Boston Harbor during the fireworks display, the effect of this rule will not be significant for several reasons: vessels will be excluded from the safety zone for two hours, small vessels, although excluded from the zone, will have sufficient navigable water to safely maneuver in the waters surrounding the zone; and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Boston Harbor from 9 p.m. EDT through 11 p.m. on June 23, 2008. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reason described under the Regulatory Evaluation section. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to temporarily amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T01-0363 to read as follows: § 165.T-01-0363 Safety Zone: Parexel Fireworks Display, Boston, MA.
(a)*Location* . The following area is a safety zone: All waters of Boston Harbor, from surface to bottom, within a three hundred
(300)yard radius of the fireworks launch site located in Boston Harbor at approximate position 42°21′26″ N, 071°2′38″ W.
(b)*Effective Date* . This rule is effective from 9:00 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on June 23, 2008.
(c)*Definitions* .
(1)Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP).
(d)*Regulations* .
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP)Boston or the COTP's designated representative.
(2)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to obtain permission by calling the Sector Boston Command Center at 617-223-5761. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Dated: June 2, 2008. Gail P. Kulisch, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston. [FR Doc. E8-13137 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488; FRL-8578-1] RIN 2060-AM54 Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone: Alternatives for the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP)Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act provides for the review of alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and the approval of substitutes that do not present a risk more significant than other alternatives that are available. Under that authority, the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP)program, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)is expanding the list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODS). The substitute addressed in this final rule (i.e., R-152a) is for the motor vehicle air conditioning
(MVAC)end-use within the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector. This substitute does not pose significantly more risk than other substitutes that are available in this end use. Additionally, this substitute is a non ozone-depleting gas and consequently does not contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion. DATES: This final rule is effective on August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy from the EPA Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Thundiyil, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Air and Radiation, MC 6205J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)343-9464; fax number:
(202)343-2363; e-mail address: *thundiyil.karen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final action provides motor vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers an additional refrigerant option for motor vehicle air conditioning systems. The refrigerant substitute discussed in this action (i.e., R-152a) is non ozone-depleting. Members of the MVAC manufacturing and MVAC service industries have all been actively engaged in the development of this rulemaking and are developing prototype systems with the use conditions defined in this rulemaking. This final action helps harmonize U.S. MVAC alternatives with European Union
(EU)MVAC alternatives. The EU has banned the use of R-134a, the predominant MVAC refrigerant in the U.S and the EU, in new cars beginning in 2011. By 2020, cars sold in the EU may have to include the new alternative in this action. In response, U.S. original equipment manufacturers are developing MVAC systems using R-152a and other alternative refrigerants for the European market and for possible U.S. sale as well. EPA is deferring final rulemaking on R-744 (carbon dioxide). EPA is currently continuing to consider further several issues with respect to this regulatory action. Table of Contents I. Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP)Program Authority A. Rulemaking B. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes C. Petition Process D. 90-day Notification E. Outreach F. Clearinghouse II. SNAP Listing Decisions III. Summary of Acceptability Determinations IV. Summary of the Proposal V. R-152a Exposure VI. Final Rule Discussion VII. Response to Comments A. Servicing B. Army/EPA Assessment C. Risk Mitigation Strategies D. Industry Standards E. Use Conditions VIII. Final Rule Summary IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Congressional Review Act I. Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP)Program Authority Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) authorizes EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP)program. The major provisions of section 612 are: A. Rulemaking Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (e.g., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that
(1)reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and
(2)is currently or potentially available. B. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes Section 612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. C. Petition Process Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months. D. 90-day Notification Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes. E. Outreach Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications. F. Clearinghouse Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances. On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major industrial use sectors. These sectors include: Refrigeration and air-conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors compose the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ozone-depleting substances. For the purposes of SNAP, the Agency defines a “substitute” as “any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, intended for use as a replacement for a class I or class II compound” 40 CFR 82.172. Anyone who produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This requirement applies to substitute manufacturers, but may include importers, formulators, or end-users, when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate **Federal Register** citations are available at EPA's Stratospheric Ozone World Wide Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.* This information is also available from the Air Docket (see Addresses section above for contact information). II. SNAP Listing Decisions The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for substitutes: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable. Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions” and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no use restrictions (no use conditions or narrowed use limits) can be used for all applications within the relevant sector end-use. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. It is illegal to replace an ozone depleting substance
(ODS)with a substitute listed as unacceptable. After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. We describe such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions.” If you use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions, you use these substitutes in an unacceptable manner and you could be subject to enforcement for violation of section 612 of the Clean Air Act. For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use within a sector. For example, we may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector or may require a user to demonstrate that no other acceptable end uses are available for their specific application. We describe these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” If you use a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, but use it in applications and end-uses which are not consistent with the narrowed use limit, you are using these substitutes in an unacceptable manner and you could be subject to enforcement for violation of section 612 of the Clean Air Act. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the **Federal Register** . For those substitutes that are deemed acceptable subject to use restrictions (use conditions and/or narrowed use limits), or for substitutes deemed unacceptable, we first publish these decisions as proposals to allow the public opportunity to comment, and we publish final decisions as final rulemakings. In contrast, we publish substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions in “notices of acceptability,” rather than as proposed and final rules. As described in the rule implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), we do not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list alternatives that are acceptable without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a substitute. Many SNAP listings include “Comments” or “Further Information.” These statements provide additional information on substitutes that we determine are unacceptable, acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or acceptable subject to use conditions. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements listed in this column are binding under other programs. The further information does not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. However, we encourage users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “Comments” column in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not require the affected industry to make significant changes in existing operating practices. III. Summary of Acceptability Determinations EPA has determined that R-152a (hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-152a) is an acceptable refrigerant substitute (will now be referred to as “refrigerant”) with use conditions for MVAC systems, as a replacement for CFC-12 in new MVAC systems. This determination applies to MVAC systems in newly manufactured vehicles only. EPA proposed to find R-152a as an acceptable substitute for CFC-12 in new MVAC systems on September 21, 2006 at 71 FR 55140 in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (referred to hereinafter as “the proposal” or NPRM). IV. Summary of the Proposal In the September 2006 NPRM, the Agency proposed that new R-152a motor vehicle air conditioning systems be listed as acceptable with the use condition that systems must be designed to avoid occupant exposure to concentrations above 3.7% for more than 15 seconds in the passenger cabin free space, even in the event of a leak. The proposal noted that the addition of a squib valve/directed release system is one effective strategy for mitigating risk of R-152a systems and that other mitigation strategies may also prove effective. In the NPRM, EPA proposed requiring prominent labeling of R-152a MVAC systems with a warning such as “CAUTION SYSTEM CONTAINS FLAMMABLE R-152a REFRIGERANT—TO BE SERVICED ONLY BY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL.” Consistent with SAE J639 Standard, this label should be mounted in the engine compartment on a component that is not normally replaced and where it can be easily seen. This label should include refrigerant identification information and indicate the refrigerant is flammable. Additionally, the NPRM noted that the original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)should conduct and maintain records of failure mode and effects analysis
(FMEA)tests they perform to ensure that MVAC systems are safe and are designed with sufficient risk mitigation devices to ensure that occupants are not exposed to levels of R-152a above 3.7% for more than 15 seconds. V. R-152a Exposure The American Industrial Hygienists Association
(AIHA)Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit
(WEEL)(8 hour time weighted average) for R-152a is 1,000 ppm (0.1% v/v), the highest occupational exposure limit allowed under standard industrial hygiene practices for any industrial chemical. The toxicity profile of R-152a is comparable to R-12 and its most prevalent substitute, R-134a. The lowest observed adverse effect level for R-152a toxicity (15%) is above the level of flammability concern, discussed below, so protecting against flammable concentrations protects against potentially toxic conditions as well. A wide range of concentrations has been reported for R-152a flammability where the gas poses a risk of ignition and fire (3.7%-20% by volume in air). Different test conditions, impurities and the measurement approach can all contribute to the range of flammable concentrations of R-152a. The lower flammability limit
(LFL)for R-152a has been tested by many laboratories using different testing protocols with results ranging from 3.7% to 4.2%. EPA selected the lowest reported LFL to assess the potential for passenger exposure and predict localized pockets of refrigerant concentrations within the passenger compartment. This selection increases confidence that the substitute is regulated in a manner that is protective of the general population. VI. Final Rule Discussion This section summarizes the final rule and describes any differences between the NPRM and the final rule. As proposed in the NPRM, in this final rule, EPA finds R-152a acceptable in new motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the use condition that systems must be designed to avoid occupant exposure to concentrations of R-152a above 3.7% in the passenger cabin free space for more than 15 seconds, even in the event of a leak. EPA requires prominent labeling of R-152a MVAC systems with a warning such as “CAUTION SYSTEM CONTAINS FLAMMABLE R-152a REFRIGERANT—TO BE SERVICED ONLY BY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL.” Consistent with SAE J639 Standard, this label must be mounted in the engine compartment on a component that is not normally replaced and where it can be easily seen. This label will include refrigerant identification information and indicate the refrigerant is flammable. In the final rule, EPA has added a reference to the new SAE J2773 Refrigerant Guidelines for Safety and Risk Analysis for Use in Mobile Air Conditioning Systems standard. As proposed, we recommend that additional training for MVAC service technicians be provided and that OEMs conduct and keep on file FMEA on R-152a systems to ensure that MVAC systems are safe and are designed with sufficient risk mitigation devices to ensure that occupants are not exposed to R-152a concentrations above 3.7% for more than 15 seconds in the passenger cabin free space. During the public comment period, the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) submitted a revised risk analysis of R-152a MVAC systems (Docket Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025, now referred to as the Army/EPA assessment. For details, see Response to Comments section below). Based on their revised assessment, we have modified the effective squib valve activation time from the proposed level of 10 seconds to 3 seconds. This revision alters the EPA list of potential risk mitigation strategies, but does not impact this final rule's regulatory text. VII. Response to Comments EPA requested and received comments on the use conditions and the risk mitigation strategies described in the proposal, as well as on other related issues. This section summarizes public comment to the proposal and describes how comments have been addressed in this final rule. The public comments have been grouped by topic. A. Servicing One commenter indicated Clean Air Act Section 609-certified, independent MVAC service technicians should be consulted before the rule is issued. In response, EPA contacted the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE), who represents independent MVAC service technicians. ASE indicated they did not see any servicing issues in the proposal that would impact MVAC service technicians, but awaits EPA's follow-on rulemaking under section 609 of the Clean Air Act that will address refrigerant recovery and recycling requirements for R-152a MVAC systems. One commenter said risks associated with MVAC service should be considered. EPA has considered risks associated with MVAC service and finds that MVAC service technicians already deal with issues of high pressure, flammability and toxic materials. We do not believe the addition of R-152a with use conditions to the list of acceptable substitutes for new MVAC systems will result in any greater risks to service technicians and that technician training will alleviate risks to service personnel. Another commenter indicated additional training for MVAC service technicians should not be required since service technicians already deal with the issues associated with R-152a. Section 609 technician certification is outside the scope of today's section 612 rulemaking; however, EPA agrees that additional training for MVAC service technicians is not necessary since technicians already deal with flammability issues. EPA has not added additional training requirements, but recommends additional training on servicing for R-152a MVACs as needed in accordance with industry recommendations. One commenter requested more information on why EPA is not finding R-152a acceptable as a substitute in retrofitted systems. The SNAP submission did not seek acceptability for retrofit purposes. EPA's proposed action only addressed the uses specified in the SNAP submission, which did not request EPA to find R-152a acceptable in retrofitted MVAC systems. This rulemaking applies to OEMs and not MVAC service shops. A separate rulemaking under section 609 of the Clean Air Act will be issued to specify new equipment and practices (if any) required in the servicing of MVAC systems using the new alternative. B. Army/EPA Assessment The Army and EPA collaborated to conduct the assessment relied upon in the NPRM to assess the risks associated with R-152a in MVAC systems. EPA received comment on the NPRM, and specifically, the assessment, from the Army RDECOM. The Army noted that the amount of R-152a originally modeled to enter the passenger compartment as a result of a sudden system discharge was significantly less than the amount that will be used in MVAC systems because of an incorrect design assumption. The Army corrected this inadvertent error and submitted a revised analysis (Docket Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488-0025). An unmitigated discharge of R-152a, in full recirculation mode, results in a R-152a concentration above the lower flammability limit for more than 60 minutes. The Army comment also indicated a 3 second, not a 10 second squib valve as originally thought, would be needed to ensure that R-152a can be used safely in new MVAC systems. Informed with this new data, EPA still finds that R-152a has risks comparable to R-134a if this rule's use conditions are observed, but consistent with the Army's analysis, if a squib valve is used, a 3 second, not 10 second squib valve will meet the rule's conditions. The revised Army/EPA assessment is the analysis document the EPA refers to throughout today's action. In reviewing the methodology used by the Army/EPA assessment, one commenter pointed out that cars are not hermetically sealed. The EPA agrees; the Army/EPA assessment does not assume a hermetically sealed passenger compartment. EPA requested comment on the potential effects of these alternatives on children but received no comment; however, as a matter of EPA policy, we have evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of the refrigerants on children. The results of this evaluation are contained in the Army/EPA assessment. EPA believes that children do not suffer a disproportionate effect from R-152a in new MVAC systems. The exposure limits and acceptability listings in this rule apply to car occupants, and in particular car service technicians. We expect adults are more likely to be present than children in MVAC service shops and children and adults would be equally impacted by flammability concerns in the passenger compartment, thus, the refrigerant does not put children at risk disproportionately. C. Risk Mitigation Strategies The use conditions in this final rule specify concentration limits for R-152a in vehicle passenger compartments. EPA leaves the choice of technical solutions that will meet these concentration limits to the OEMs. EPA agrees with one commenter who noted that effective risk mitigation strategies can be active or passive. One commenter indicated a secondary loop should be required for R-152a system to minimize flammability risk. The EPA does not intend to limit technological innovation by requiring a specific risk mitigation strategy, but it does recognize that a secondary loop R-152a system can meet the regulatory conditions. Two commenters indicated a 10 second squib valve is not sufficient to ensure that R-152a concentrations will not exceed 3.7% for 15 seconds. Again, the final rule does not prescribe a specific technological requirement; however, it should be noted EPA has modified the final rule consistent with the U.S. Army/EPA assessment revision that a 3 second squib valve would be required to ensure that an accidental discharge of R-152a system would prevent passenger compartment concentration of 3.7% for 15 seconds. One commenter asked EPA to consider modifying the R-152a use condition from a concentration performance standard to one that specifies that the evaporator reaches residual evaporator pressure within 15 seconds of leak detection. EPA has considered this option. The commenter's suggested standard would not eliminate the potential for a flammable concentration of R-152a in the passenger compartment for an extended amount of time, i.e., more than 15 seconds. EPA finds its original proposal to be a technically feasible use condition that is more protective of possible flammable situations than the commenter's suggestion. D. Industry Standards Commenters indicated that SAE is developing standards for safety and servicing of alternative refrigerant MVAC systems. EPA notes that both the text of the SNAP regulatory conditions issued here, and additional information in the “Comments” column of the regulation reference the relevant SAE technical standards to promote consistency with established industry practices. Specifically, the rule use conditions reference the SAE J639 standard, Safety Standards for Motor Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor Compressions Systems Industry and SAE J2773, Refrigerant Guidelines for Safety and Risk Analysis for Use in Mobile Air Conditioning Systems. The “Comments” column references SAE J1739, Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Design (Design FMEA) and Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Manufacturing and Assembly Processes (Process FMEA) and Effects Analysis for Machinery (Machinery FMEA). SAE is also developing a standard for the measurement of R-152a in the passenger compartment that can be used to verify if a MVAC system design meets the requirements of this rulemaking. E. Use Conditions Two commenters indicated the need for clarity on whether the use conditions apply when the ignition is off as well as when the ignition is on. In response, the Agency clarified in the regulatory text that the use conditions apply only when the ignition is on. One commenter stated that a vehicle crash could be so severe that the MVAC system evaporator could be damaged and possibly, reduce a risk mitigation system's effectiveness. The commenter proposed the inclusion of an evaporator crush resistance standard in this action. The final regulation requires that engineering strategies and/or devices shall be incorporated into the system such that “foreseeable leaks” into the passenger compartment do not result in elevated concentrations. While EPA understands that it is possible that a severe accident could damage an evaporator, we believe that in such case, the damage to the car would be so severe as to result in inflow of ambient air, thus negating any risk associated with potentially elevated R-152a concentration. Other use conditions already established in Appendix D to subpart G of 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart G, Appendix D are applicable to all substitute refrigerants in MVAC systems ( *e.g.* unique fittings and labels). VIII. Final Rule Summary EPA finds R-152a acceptable with use conditions for new motor vehicle air conditioning
(MVAC)systems. New R-152a systems must be designed to avoid occupant exposure to concentrations of R-152a above 3.7% in the passenger cabin free space for more than 15 seconds, even in the event of a leak. EPA requires prominent labeling of R-152a MVAC systems with a warning such as “CAUTION SYSTEM CONTAINS FLAMMABLE R-152a REFRIGERANT—TO BE SERVICED ONLY BY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL.” Consistent with SAE J639 Standard, this label will be mounted in the engine compartment on a component that is not normally replaced and where it can be easily seen. This label will include refrigerant identification information and indicate that the refrigerant is flammable. Additionally, the final rule recommends additional training for MVAC service technicians and that OEMs conduct and keep on file R-152a systems FMEA to ensure that MVAC systems are safe and are designed with sufficient risk mitigation devices to ensure that occupants are not exposed to R-152a concentrations above 3.7% for more than 15 seconds in the passenger cabin free space. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) this action is a “significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Today's action is an Agency determination. It contains no new requirements for reporting. The only new recordkeeping requirement involves customary business practice. Today's rule requires minimal record-keeping of studies done to ensure that MVAC systems using R-152a meet the requirements set forth in this rule. Because it is customary business practice that OEMs conduct and keep on file Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
(FMEA)on any potentially hazardous part or system, we believe this requirement will not impose an additional paperwork burden. However, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0226. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's
(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; for NAICS code 336111 (Automobile manufacturing), it is <1000 employees; for NAICS code 336391 (Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing), it is <750 employees;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any new requirements on small entities and is expected to relieve burden for some small entities. OEMs are not mandated to move to R-152a MVAC systems. EPA is simply listing R-152a as an acceptable alternative with use conditions in new MVAC systems. This rule allows the use of this alternative to ozone depleting substances in the MVAC sector and outlines the conditions necessary for safe use. By approving this refrigerant under SNAP, EPA provides additional choice to the automotive industry which, if adopted, would reduce the impact of MVACs on the global environment. This rulemaking does not mandate the use of R-152a as a refrigerant in new MVACs. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Today's rule does not affect State, local, or tribal governments. The enforceable requirements of today's rule related to integrating risk mitigation devices and documenting the safety of alternative MVAC systems affect only a small number of OEMs. This action provides additional technical options allowing greater flexibility for industry in designing consumer products. The impact of this rule on the private sector will be less than $100 million per year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This regulation applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities. This rule does not mandate a switch to R-152a and the limited direct economic impact on entities from this rulemaking is less than $100 million annually. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, because this regulation applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The exposure limits and acceptability listings in this rule apply to car occupants, and in particular car drivers and service technicians. We expect adults are more likely to be present than children in MVAC service shops and children and adults would be equally impacted by flammability concerns in the passenger compartment, thus, the refrigerant does not put children at risk disproportionately. As a matter of EPA policy, however, we have evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of the refrigerants on children. The results of this evaluation are contained in “Risk Analysis for Alternative Refrigerant in Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning.” During the public comment period, the public was invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which the agency may not be aware, that assess the potential effects of these alternatives on children and the Agency received no comments addressing this issue. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action would impact manufacturing and repair alternative MVAC systems. Preliminary information indicates that these new systems are more energy efficient than currently available systems in some climates. Therefore, we conclude that this rule is not likely to have any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to use the SAE most recent versions of J639, J1739 and J2773. These standards can be obtained from *http://www.sae.org/technical/standards/* . These standards address safety and reliability issues concerning alternative refrigerant MVAC systems. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective August 11, 2008. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Environmental protection, Motor vehicle air-conditioning, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer. Dated: June 5, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows: PART 82—PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q. Subpart G—Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 2. Appendix B to Subpart G is amended as follows: a. In the first table by adding one new entry to the end of the table. b. In the table titled “Refrigerants—Unacceptable Substitutes” by revising the entry for “CFC-12 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (Retrofit and New Equipment/NIKs)”. Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82—Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes Refrigerants—Acceptable Subject to use Conditions Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments * * * * * * * CFC-12 Automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning (New equipment only) R-152a as a substitute for CFC-12 Acceptable subject to use conditions Engineering strategies and/or devices shall be incorporated into the system such that foreseeable leaks into the passenger compartment do not result in R-152a concentrations of 3.7% v/v or above in any part of the free space 1 inside the passenger compartment for more than 15 seconds when the car ignition is on Manufacturers must adhere to all the safety requirements listed in the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE)Standard J639, including unique fittings and a flammable refrigerant warning label as well as SAE Standard J2773 Additional training for service technicians recommended. Manufacturers should conduct and keep on file failure mode and Effect Analysis
(FMEA)on the MVAC as stated in SAE J1739. 1 Free space is defined as the space inside the passenger compartment excluding the space enclosed by the ducting in the HVAC module. Refrigerants—Unacceptable Substitutes End-use Substitute Decision Comments * * * * * * * CFC-12 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (Retrofit and New Equipment/NIKs) R-405A Unacceptable R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other Substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend B Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Flammable Substitutes, other than R-152a Unacceptable The risks associated with using flammable substitutes (except R-152a) in this end-use have not been addressed by a risk assessment. R-152a may be used with the use conditions in Appendix B to this subpart. [FR Doc. E8-13086 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket No. FEMA-8027] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the **Federal Register** on a subsequent date. DATES: *Effective Dates:* The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2953. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place. *Regulatory Classification* . This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. *Paperwork Reduction Act* . This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 Flood insurance, Floodplains. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. § 64.6 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs Region II New York: Jewett, Town of, Greene County 361114 May 13, 1980, Emerg; April 4, 1983, Reg; May 16, 2008, Susp May 16, 2008 May 16, 2008. Region IV Florida: MacClenny, City of, Baker County 120590 June 20, 1980, Emerg; February 1, 1987, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp June 17, 2008 June 17, 2008. Region V Ohio: Bexley, City of, Franklin County 390168 November 21, 1973, Emerg; November 15, 1978, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do* Do. Columbus, City of, Franklin County 390170 May 21, 1971, Emerg; July 5, 1983, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Dublin, City of, Franklin County 390673 June 21, 1974, Emerg; June 4, 1980, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Gahanna, City of, Franklin County 390171 May 17, 1973, Emerg; August 1, 1983, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Grandview Heights, City of, Franklin County 390172 June 6, 1975, Emerg; August 15, 1980, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Grove City, City of, Franklin County 390173 October 15, 1974, Emerg; May 1, 1984, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Hilliard, City of, Franklin County 390175 April 10, 1974, Emerg; August 1, 1979, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Lockbourne, Village of, Franklin County 390691 September 12, 1978, Emerg; May 1, 1980, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Marble Cliff, Village of, Franklin County 390896 —, Emerg; August 2, 1995, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Minerva Park, Village of, Franklin County 390791 March 21, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1979, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Riverlea, Village of, Franklin County 390692 —, Emerg; June 9, 1999, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Upper Arlington, City of, Franklin County 390178 August 8, 1973, Emerg; April 15, 1980, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Valleyview, Village of, Franklin County 390669 April 17, 1974, Emerg; June 15, 1979, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Westerville, City of, Franklin County 390179 March 30, 1973, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Whitehall, City of, Franklin County 390180 October 7, 1974, Emerg; July 18, 1985, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Worthington, City of, Franklin County 390181 February 2, 1973, Emerg; August 1, 1980, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Wisconsin: Adams County, Unincorporated Areas 550001 May 31, 1974, Emerg; November 16, 1990, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Friendship, Village of, Adams County 550003 April 17, 1975, Emerg; November 16, 1990, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Region VI New Mexico: Espanola, City of, Santa Fe County 350052 April 4, 1975, Emerg; February 19, 1986, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Santa Fe, City of, Santa Fe County 350070 February 13, 1975, Emerg; July 2, 1980, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Santa Fe County, Unincorporated Areas 350069 March 25, 1976, Emerg; November 4, 1988, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Region VII Nebraska: Taylor, Village of, Loup County 310325 October 8, 1976, Emerg; July 1, 1987, Reg; May 16, 2008, Susp May 12, 2008 May 16, 2008. Region X Oregon: Barlow, City of, Clackamas County 410013 February 10, 1976, Emerg; May 5, 1981, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp June 17, 2008 June 17, 2008. Canby, City of, Clackamas County 410014 May 27, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1984, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Clackamas County, Unincorporated Areas 415588 April 2, 1971, Emerg; March 1, 1978, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Damascus, City of, Clackamas County 410006 —, Emerg; May 10, 2007, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Gladstone, City of, Clackamas County 410017 June 2, 1972, Emerg; March 15, 1977, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Happy Valley, City of, Clackamas County 410026 May 28, 1975, Emerg; December 4, 1979, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Lake Oswego, City of, Clackamas County 410018 March 19, 1974, Emerg; August 4, 1987, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Milwaukie, City of, Clackamas County 410019 May 19, 1972, Emerg; June 18, 1980, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Oregon City, City of, Clackamas County 410021 June 13, 1974, Emerg; February 15, 1980, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Rivergrove, City of, Clackamas County 410022 March 3, 1975, Emerg; August 4, 1987, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Sandy City, City of, Clackamas County 410023 June 25, 1974, Emerg; December 11, 1979, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. West Linn, City of, Clackamas County 410024 October 20, 1972, Emerg; March 15, 1977, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. Wilsonville, City of, Clackamas County 410025 April 30, 1975, Emerg; January 6, 1982, Reg; June 17, 2008, Susp ......do Do. *do=Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. Dated: June 6, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-13192 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA—B-7785] Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents. DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities. From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety
(90)days in which to request through the community that the Mitigation Assistant Administrator of FEMA reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided. Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data. The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These 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 the other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This interim rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification* . This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This interim rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This interim rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Arizona: Coconino Unincorporated areas of Coconino County (07-09-1875P) April 23, 2008; April 30, 2008; *Arizona Daily Sun* The Honorable Deb Hill, Chairman, Coconino County, Board of Supervisors, 219 East Cherry Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 April 15, 2008 040019 Maricopa City of Peoria (07-09-1919P) May 1, 2008; May 7, 2008; *Daily News-Sun* The Honorable Bob Barrett, Mayor, City of Peoria, 8401 West Monroe Street, Peoria, AZ 85345 September 4, 2008 040050 Yavapai Town of Prescott Valley (07-09-1655P) April 21, 2008; April 28, 2008; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Harvey C. Skoog, Mayor, Town of Prescott Valley, 7501 East Civic Circle, Prescott Valley, AZ 86314 April 14, 2008 040121 Yavapai Unincorporated areas of Yavapai County (07-09-1655P) April 21, 2008; April 28, 2008; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Chip Davis, Chairman, Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, 1015 Fair Street, Prescott, AZ 86305 April 14, 2008 040093 California: San Diego City of Vista (08-09-0596P) May 1, 2008; May 8, 2008; *City of Vista* The Honorable Morris C. Vance, Mayor, City of Vista, 600 Eucalyptus Avenue, Building One, Vista, CA 92084 September 5, 2008 060297 Colorado: El Paso City of Colorado Springs (08-08-0212P) April 30, 2008; May 7, 2008; *El Paso County News* The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, CO 80901 September 4, 2008 080060 Connecticut: New Haven City of New Haven (07-01-1096P) April 24, 2008; May 1, 2008; *New Haven Register* The Honorable John DeStefano, Jr., Mayor, City of New Haven, 165 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510 April 17, 2008 090084 Georgia: Camden Unincorporated areas of Camden County (08-04-1081P) April 18, 2008; April 25, 2008; *Tribune & Georgian* The Honorable Preston Rhodes, Chairman, Camden County, Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 248, White Oak, GA 31568 August 25, 2008 130262 Camden City of Kingsland (08-04-1081P) April 18, 2008; April 25, 2008; *Tribune & Georgian* The Honorable Kenneth Smith, Mayor, City of Kingsland, P.O. Box 250, Kingsland, GA 31548 August 25, 2008 130238 Kentucky: Hardin Unincorporated areas of Hardin County (08-04-1717P) May 2, 2008; May 9, 2008; *The News-Enterprise* The Honorable Harry L. Berry, Hardin County Judge, P.O. Box 568, Elizabethtown, KY 42702 September 8, 2008 210094 Minnesota: Anoka City of Blaine (07-05-4703P) May 2, 2008; May 9, 2008; *Spring Lake Park Life* The Honorable Thomas Ryan, Mayor, City of Blaine, 10801 Town Square Drive, Northeast, Blaine, MN 55449 September 8, 2008 270007 Olmsted Unincorporated areas of Olmsted County (07-05-4071P) April 10, 2008; April 17, 2008; *Post Bulletin* The Honorable Ken Brown, Commissioner, Olmsted County Board of Commissioners, 151 Fourth Street Southeast, Rochester, MN 55904 August 18, 2008 270626 Olmsted City of Rochester (07-05-4071P) April 10, 2008; April 17, 2008; *Post Bulletin* The Honorable Ardell F. Brede, Mayor, City of Rochester, 201 Fourth Street, Southeast, Room 281, Rochester, MN 55904 August 18, 2008 275246 Mississippi: DeSoto City of Olive Branch (08-04-0546P) May 8, 2008; May 15, 2008; *DeSoto Times Today* The Honorable Samuel P. Rikard, Mayor, City of Olive Branch, 9200 Pigeon Roost Road, Olive Branch, MS 38654 April 30, 2008 280286 North Carolina: Forsyth City of Winston-Salem (07-04-4554P) February 27, 2008; March 5, 2008; *Winston-Salem Journal* The Honorable Allen Joines, Mayor, City of Winston-Salem, 101 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 July 3, 2008 375360 Wake Town of Cary (07-04-2347P) April 23, 2008; April 30, 2008; *The Cary News* The Honorable Ernest F. McAlister, Mayor, Town of Cary, P.O. Box 8005, Cary, North Carolina 27512-8005 April 11, 2008 370238 Watauga Town of Blowing Rock (07-04-6273P) April 24, 2008; May 1, 2008; *The Blowing Rocket* The Honorable James B. Lawrence, Mayor, Town of Blowing Rock, P.O. Box 47, Blowing Rock, North Carolina 27605 April 15, 2008 370252 Ohio: Warren Village of Monroe (07-05-2593P) April 10, 2008; April 17, 2008; *Pulse Journal* The Honorable Robert Routson, Mayor, City of Monroe, P.O. Box 330, Monroe, OH 45050-0330 August 18, 2008 390042 Texas: Brazos City of College Station (07-06-2365P) April 7, 2008; April 10, 2008; *Bryan College Station Eagle* The Honorable Ben White, Mayor, City of College Station, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, TX 77840 April 25, 2008 480083 Denton City of Roanoke (07-06-2276P) May 1, 2008; May 8, 2008; *Denton County Chronicle* The Honorable Carl E. Gierisch, Jr., Mayor, City of Roanoke, 108 South Oak Street, Roanoke, TX 76262 April 28, 2008 480785 Travis City of Austin (08-06-0658P) May 1, 2008; May 8, 2008; *Austin American Statesman* The Honorable Will Wynn, Mayor, City of Austin, P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 September 5, 2008 480624 Wisconsin: Dane Unincorporated areas of Dane County (08-05-1758P) May 1, 2008; May 8, 2008; *Oregon Observer* The Honorable Kathleen Falk, Dane County Executive, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Room 421, Madison, WI 53703 September 5, 2008 550077 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: May 28, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-13209 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents. DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect for the listed communities prior to this date. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFEs determinations are available for inspection. The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These 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 modified BFEs 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. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Alabama: Talladega (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Talladega County (07-04-6542P) December 14, 2007; December 21, 2007; *The Daily Home* The Honorable James G. Hilber, Administrator, Talladega County, P.O. Box 6170, Talladega, AL 35161 March 21, 2008 010297 California: Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Corona (07-09-1194P) November 1, 2007; November 8, 2007; *The Press-Enterprise* The Honorable Eugene Montanez, Mayor, City of Corona, 400 South Vincentia Avenue, Corona, CA 92882 February 7, 2008 060250 Santa Barbara (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County (06-09-BF87P) December 20, 2007; December 27, 2007; *Santa Barbara News-Press* The Honorable Brooks Firestone, Chair, Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, 105 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 December 6, 2007 060331 Colorado: El Paso (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of El Paso County (07-08-0324P) December 5, 2007; December 12, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Dennis Hisey, Chairman, El Paso County Board of Commissioners, 27 East Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 80903-2208 March 12, 2008 080059 El Paso (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of El Paso County (07-08-0475P) December 12, 2007; December 19, 2007; *El Paso County Advertiser and News* The Honorable Dennis Hisey, Chairman, El Paso County Board of Commissioners, 27 East Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 November 30, 2007 080059 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Arvada (07-08-0940P) December 13, 2007; December 20, 2007; *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Ken Fellman, Mayor, City of Arvada, 8101 Ralston Road, Arvada, CO 80002 March 20, 2008 085072 Florida: Polk (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Polk County (07-04-5883P) December 12, 2007; December 19, 2007; *The Polk County Democrat* Mr. Bob English, Chairman, Polk County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 9005, Drawer BC01, Bartow, FL 33831 March 19, 2008 120261 Georgia: Columbia (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Columbia County (07-04-4973P) December 12, 2007; December 19, 2007; *Columbia County News-Times* The Honorable Ron C. Cross, Chairman, Columbia County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 498, Evans, GA 30809 March 19, 2008 130059 Illinois: Cook (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Hickory Hills (07-05-6033P) December 13, 2007; December 20, 2007; *The Reporter* The Honorable Michael Howley, Mayor, City of Hickory Hills, 8652 West 95th Street, Hickory Hills, IL 60457 November 30, 2007 170103 Morgan (FEMA Docket No.: B-7772) City of Jacksonville (07-05-0512P) January 10, 2008; January 17, 2008; *Jacksonville Journal-Courier* The Honorable Ron Tendick, Mayor, City of Jacksonville, 200 West Douglas Avenue, Jacksonville, IL 62650 December 12, 2007 170516 Kentucky: Jefferson (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Metropolitan Government of Louisville-Jefferson County (07-04-4634P) December 13, 2007; December 20, 2007; *The Courier Journal* The Honorable Jerry E. Abramson, Mayor, Metropolitan Government of Louisville-Jefferson County, 527 West Jefferson Street, Louisville, KY 40202 March 20, 2008 210120 Missouri: Jackson (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Lee's Summit (07-07-1867P) November 23, 2007; November 30, 2007; *Lee's Summit Journal* The Honorable Karen Messerli, Mayor, City of Lee's Summit, 220 Southeast Green Street, Lee's Summit, MO 64063 December 10, 2007 290174 St. Charles (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of St. Charles County (07-07-1738P) December 12, 2007; December 19, 2007; *St. Charles Journal* The Honorable Steve Ehlmann, County Executive, St. Charles County, 201 North Second Street, St. Charles, MO 63301 December 21, 2007 290315 Nevada: Washoe (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Washoe County (07-09-1314P) November 14, 2007; November 21, 2007; *Reno Gazette-Journal* The Honorable Robert Larkin, Chair, Washoe County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 11130, Reno, NV 89520 November 30, 2007 320019 South Carolina: Greenville (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Greenville County (07-04-4899P) December 13, 2007; December 20, 2007; *The Greenville News* The Honorable Butch Kirven, Chairman, Greenville County Council, 213 League Road, Simpsonville, SC 29681 March 20, 2008 450089 Greenville (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Greenville County (07-04-5198P) December 13, 2007; December 20, 2007; *The Greenville News* Mr. Joseph Kernell, County Administrator, Greenville County, 301 University Ridge, Suite 2400, Greenville, SC 29601 March 20, 2008 450089 Greenville (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Greenville County (07-04-5413P) December 13, 2007; December 20, 2007; *The Greenville News* The Honorable Butch Kirven, Chairman, Greenville County Council, 213 League Road, Simpsonville, SC 29681 March 20, 2008 450089 South Dakota: Pennington (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Hill City (07-08-0906P) December 12, 2007, December 19, 2007; *Hill City Prevailer-News* The Honorable Don Voorhees, Mayor, City of Hill City, City Hall, 324 Main Street, Hill City, SD 57745 November 30, 2007 460116 Texas: Collin (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of McKinney (08-06-0334P) December 6, 2007; December 13, 2007; *McKinney Courier-Gazette* The Honorable Bill Whitfield, Mayor, City of McKinney, 222 North Tennessee Street, McKinney, TX 75069 November 21, 2007 480135 Collin and Dallas (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Sachse (07-06-2553P) December 14, 2007; December 21, 2007; *The Rowlett Lakeshore Times* The Honorable Mike Felix, Mayor, City of Sachse, 5109 Peachtree Lane, Sachse, TX 75048 March 21, 2008 480186 Dallas (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Town of Highland Park (07-06-1969P) December 13, 2007; December 20, 2007; *The Park Cities News* The Honorable William D. White, Jr., Mayor, Town of Highland Park, 4700 Drexel Drive, Highland Park, TX 75205 March 20, 2008 480178 El Paso (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of El Paso (07-06-2364P) December 13, 2007; December 20, 2007; *El Paso Times* The Honorable John Cook, Mayor, City of El Paso, Two Civic Center Plaza, Tenth Floor, El Paso, TX 79901 November 30, 2007 480214 Johnson (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Burleson (07-06-2685P) December 12, 2007; December 19, 2007; *Burleson Star* The Honorable Kenneth Shetter, Mayor, City of Burleson, 141 West Renfro Street, Burleson, TX 76028 March 19, 2008 485459 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of North Richland Hills (07-06-2421P) December 13, 2007; December 20, 2007; *Fort Worth Star-Telegram* The Honorable T. Oscar Trevino, Jr., P.E., Mayor, City of North Richland Hills, 7301 Northeast Loop 820, North Richland Hills, TX 76180 March 20, 2008 480607 Virginia: Fauquier (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Fauquier County (07-03-1209P) December 5, 2007; December 12, 2007; *Fauquier Times Democrat* The Honorable Harry Atherton, Chairman, Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, 10 Hotel Street, Suite 208, Warrenton, VA 20186 March 12, 2008 510055 Fauquier (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Fauquier County (07-03-1250P) October 31, 2007; November 7, 2007; *Fauquier Times Democrat* The Honorable Harry Atherton, Chairman, Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, 10 Hotel Street, Suite 208 Warrenton, VA 20186 February 7, 2008 510055 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: May 28, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-13210 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-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. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator of the Mitigation Directorate has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60. Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification* . This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.11 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground modified Communities affected Cherokee County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-D-7824 Bates Creek At the confluence with Hanging Dog Creek +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Hanging Dog Creek +1,633 Bearpaw Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 80 feet downstream of Lower Bear Paw Road (State Road 1312) +1,534 Beaverdam Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 70 feet downstream of the confluence of Cook Creek +1,734 Beech Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,548 Brasstown Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,587 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Brasstown Road +1,605 Brown Creek At the confluence with Valley River +1,692 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Valley River +1,709 Cane Creek At the confluence with Nottely River +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of U.S. Highway 64 +1,536 Chambers Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,534 Davis Creek At the confluence with Hanging Dog Creek +1,767 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 20 feet downstream of the confluence with Dockey Creek and Bald Creek +2,054 Grape Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Joe Brown Highway (State Road 1326) +1,530 Hanging Dog Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Running Deer Lane +1,914 Hiwassee River Approximately 1.5 miles downstream of Apalachia Lake Dam +1,162 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Town of Murphy. Approximately 875 feet downstream of Mission Dam +1,620 Junaluska Creek At the confluence with Valley River +1,783 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Town of Andrews. At the confluence of Bear Branch +2,169 Little Brasstown Creek At the confluence with Brasstown Creek +1,605 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Folk School Road (State Road 1565) +1,627 Martin Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,534 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1,740 feet upstream of Brasstown Road (State Road 1564) +1,655 McClellan Creek At the confluence with Tatham Creek +1,852 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Pisgah Road (State Road 1507) +1,903 Morgan Creek At the confluence with Valley River +1,594 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Valley River +1,601 Nottely River At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 2.2 miles downstream of U.S. Highway 64 +1,534 Owl Creek At the confluence with Hanging Dog Creek +1,677 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Owl Creek Road (State Road 1340) +1,904 Peachtree Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,564 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Upper Peachtree Road (State Road 1535) +1,798 Persimmon Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,529 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 440 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 64 +1,821 Phillips Creek At the confluence with Tatham Creek +1,852 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1,610 feet upstream of Sunflower Lane +2,360 Rapier Mill Creek Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Nottely River +1,571 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. At the confluence of South Fork Rapier Mill Creek +1,596 Ricket Branch At the confluence with Valley River +1,679 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 200 feet downstream of Airport Road (State Road 1428) +1,706 Rogers Creek At the confluence with Valley River +1,572 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Valley River +1,594 Slow Creek Approximately 75 feet downstream of the downstream most crossing of Canyon Road (State Road 1527) +1,678 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 660 feet upstream of the upstream most crossing of Canyon Road (State Road 1527) +1,727 South Fork Rapier Mill Creek At the confluence with Rapier Mill Creek +1,596 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of State Route 60 +1,674 South Shoal Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,282 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 2.7 miles upstream of Shoal Creek Road (State Road 1145) +1,972 Tatham Creek At the confluence with Valley River +1,772 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Town of Andrews. At the confluence of McClellan Creek and Phillips Creek +1,852 Valley River At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,530 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County, Town of Andrews, Town of Murphy. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Cherokee Avenue +3,678 Whitiaker Branch At the confluence with Valley River +1,696 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Valley River +1,715 Worm Creek At the confluence with Valley River +1,825 Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Robinson Road (State Road 1502) +2,240 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Maps are available for inspection at Ginger Lynn Welch Complex, 810 Aquoni Road, Cherokee, North Carolina. Town of Andrews Maps are available for inspection at Andrews Town Hall, 1101 Main Street, Andrews, North Carolina. Town of Murphy Maps are available for inspection at Murphy Town Hall, 5 Wofford Street, Murphy, North Carolina. Unincorporated Areas of Cherokee County Maps are available for inspection at Cherokee County Mapping Department/GIS, County Courthouse, 39 Peachtree Street, Suite 104, Murphy, North Carolina. Clay County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-D-7822 Blair Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,800 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of NC-69 +1,840 Brasstown Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,587 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 400 feet upstream of West Road (State Road 1111) +1,713 Chatuga Lake Entire shoreline within Clay County +1,929 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Coleman Creek At the confluence with Hyatt Mill Creek +1,934 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 800 feet upstream of the confluence with Hyatt Mill Creek +1,934 Crawford Creek At the confluence with Brasstown Creek +1,698 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,430 feet upstream of Pine Ridge Drive +1,837 Downing Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,796 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Lawrence Smith Road (State Road 1324) +1,959 Eagle Fork Creek At the confluence with Shooting Creek +2,045 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of Sally Gap Road +2,211 Fires Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,724 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Fires Creek Road (State Road 1300) +1,834 Giesky Creek At the confluence with Shooting Creek +1,981 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,530 feet upstream of Sally Gap Road +2,172 Gumlog Creek At the confluence with Brasstown Creek +1,669 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream of Pine Log Road (State Road 1104) +1,703 Hiwassee River Approximately 500 feet downstream of Old Highway 64W (State Road 1100) +1,590 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Hayesville. Approximately 1,380 feet upstream of the confluence of Hiwassee River Tributary 1 +1,885 Hiwassee River Tributary 1 At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,811 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Chatuge Dam Road (State Road 1146) +1,811 Hothouse Branch At the confluence with Shooting Creek +1,943 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Fred and Carl Lane +2,015 Hyatt Mill Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,802 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). At the confluence of Coleman Creek +1,934 Licklog Creek Approximately 200 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 64 +1,929 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 450 feet upstream of Peckerwood Road (State Road 1328) +2,005 Muskrat Branch At the confluence with Shooting Creek and Thompson Creek +2,183 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with Shooting Creek and Thompson Creek +2,429 Nantahala River At the Clay/Macon County boundary +3,013 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 450 feet downstream of Thunderstruck Lane +3,089 Pinelong Creek At the confluence with Brasstown Creek +1,641 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Royal Oaks Trail +1,914 Qually Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,788 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Ali Drive +1,837 Shooting Creek Approximately 800 feet upstream of Old Highway 64E +1,929 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 90 feet upstream of Old Highway 64E +2,183 Sweetwater Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,686 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of U.S. Highway 64 +1,844 Thompson Creek At the confluence with Shooting Creek +2,183 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Muskrat Creek Road (State Road 1173) +2,283 Town Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,793 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Hayesville. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Anderson Street +1,831 Tusquitee Creek At the confluence with Hiwassee River +1,783 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2.0 miles upstream of Chairmaker Drive +2,214 Winchester Creek At the confluence with Brasstown Creek +1,671 Clay County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,090 feet upstream of West Gum Log Road (State Road 1107) +1,716 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Clay County Maps are available for inspection at Clay County Building, 33 Main Street, Hayesville, North Carolina. Town of Hayesville Maps are available for inspection at Hayesville Town Hall, 235 Sanderson Street, Hayesville, North Carolina. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 2, 2008. Michael K. Buckley, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-13191 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-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. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator of the Mitigation Directorate has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60. Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.11 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Modified Communities affected Elmore County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-D-7826 Alabama River At U.S. Highway 82 +161 City of Prattville. Where Interstate 65 crosses Still Creek +163 Coosa River 810 feet upstream of confluence with Taylor Creek +180 City of Wetumpka. 800 feet upstream of confluence with Taylor Creek +180 Coosada Creek 4,270 feet downstream of Springdale Road +202 City of Millbrook. On Springdale Road +216 Coosada Creek 685 feet upstream of Airport Road +201 Town of Coosada. 695 feet upstream of Airport Road +201 Cottonford Creek 4,590 feet downstream of Deatsville Highway +261 City of Millbrook. 2,760 feet downstream of Deatsville Highway +269 Cottonford Creek 290 feet upstream of confluence with Mortar Creek +169 Town of Coosada. 300 feet upstream of confluence with Mortar Creek +169 Crescant Lake 2,600 feet upstream of Interstate 65 on Still Creek +164 City of Millbrook. 2,610 feet upstream of Interstate 65 on Still Creek +164 Grandview Branch 2,780 feet downstream of State Highway 14 +271 City of Millbrook. 260 feet downstream of State Highway 14 +304 Gravel Pit Creek Under U.S. 231 +170 Unincorporated Areas of Elmore County. 5,890 feet upstream of U.S. 231 +319 Jackson Branch 390 feet west of Sandtown Road and Phillips Drive +165 City of Millbrook. 410 feet downstream of Louisville and Nashville RR on Alabama River +165 Jackson Branch 1,270 feet downstream of confluence with Zion Branch +165 Town of Coosada. 1,280 feet downstream of confluence with Zion Branch +165 Lewis Creek 740 feet downstream of Friendship Road +234 City of Tallassee. 1,370 feet upstream of Friendship Road +316 Mill Creek 110 feet downstream of Old Mill Run +213 City of Millbrook. 120 feet downstream of Old Mill Run +213 Mill Creek Tributary 350 feet upstream of confluence with Mill Creek +206 City of Millbrook. 1,480 feet upstream of confluence with Mill Creek +208 Mortar Creek 710 feet downstream of confluence with Cottonford Creek +168 Town of Coosada. At confluence with Cottonford Creek +169 Still Creek 210 feet downstream of Edgewood Road +174 City of Millbrook. 470 feet upstream of Edgewood Road +185 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Millbrook Maps are available for inspection at 3390 Main Street, Millbrook, AL 36054. City of Prattville Maps are available for inspection at 101 West Main Street, Prattville, AL 36067. City of Tallassee Maps are available for inspection at 3 Freeman Avenue, Tallassee, AL 36078. City of Wetumpka Maps are available for inspection at 212 S. Main Street, Wetumpka, AL 36067. Town of Coosada Maps are available for inspection at 5800 Coosada Road, Coosada, AL 36020. Unincorporated Areas of Elmore County Maps are available for inspection at 100 Commerce Street, Room 207, Wetumpka, AL 36092. Waukesha County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7715 Ashippun River At Pennsylvania Avenue *854 Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas). Ashippun Lake *871 At Norwegian Road *915 Bark River Drumlin Trail *848 Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Delafield, Village of Dousman, Village of Hartland, Village of Merton. At North Road *973 Butler Ditch Hampton Road *750 City of Brookfield. Lilly Road *757 Deer Creek Pinehurst Drive *837 City of New Berlin, City of Brookfield. Harcove Drive *870 Dousman Ditch Gebhardt Road *825 City of Brookfield. Lake Road *831 Fox River River Road *827 Village of Menomonee Falls, City of Brookfield. Lannon Road *886 Lake Nagawicka Lake Nagawicka *893 City of Delafield. Mukwonago River South Rochester Street *786 Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Mukwonago. Eagle Springs Lake *822 Pewaukee Lake Pewaukee Lake *854 Village of Pewaukee. Quietwood Creek Woods Road *781 City of Muskego. Janesville Road *800 Rosenow Creek Lake Street *861 Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Oconomowoc. Brown Street *873 South Branch Bugline Trail *941 Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas). Sussex Creek Mary Hill Road *955 Village of Sussex. South Branch Underwood Creek At Interstate I-94 *723 City of Brookfield. Sussex Creek Duplainville Road *835 Village of Sussex. Main Street *924 City of Pewaukee, Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas). Sussex Creek Tributary 1 Weyer Road *845 Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas). Lisbon Road *859 Underwood Creek UPS Service Road *724 City of Brookfield, Village of Elm Grove. Pilgrim Road *819 Upper Namahbin Lake Upper Namahbin Lake *874 Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas). Upper/Lower Phantom Lake Upper/Lower Phantom Lake *794 Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas). * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Brookfield Maps are available for inspection at 2000 N. Calhoun Road, Brookfield, WI 53005. City of Delafield Maps are available for inspection at 500 Genesee Street, Delafield, WI 53018. City of Muskego Maps are available for inspection at W182 S8200 Racine Avenue, Muskego, WI 53150-0749. City of New Berlin Maps are available for inspection at 3805 South Casper Drive, New Berlin, WI 53151. City of Oconomowoc Maps are available for inspection at 174 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Oconomowoc, WI 53066. City of Pewaukee Maps are available for inspection at W240 N3065 Pewaukee Road, Pewaukee, WI 53072. Waukesha County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 515 W. Moorland Blvd., Waukesha, WI 53188. Village of Dousman Maps are available for inspection at 118 S. Main Street, Dousman, WI 53118. Village of Elm Grove Maps are available for inspection at 13600 Juneau Blvd., Elm Grove, WI 53122. Village of Hartland Maps are available for inspection at 210 Cottonwood Avenue, Hartland, WI 53029. Village of Menomonee Falls Maps are available for inspection at W156 N8480 Pilgrim Road, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051-3140. Village of Merton Maps are available for inspection at 28343 Sussex Road, Merton, WI 53056. Village of Mukwonago Maps are available for inspection at 440 River Crest Court, Mukwonago, WI 53149. Village of Pewaukee Maps are available for inspection at 235 Hickory Street, Pewaukee, WI 53072. Village of Sussex Maps are available for inspection at N64 W23760 Main Street, Sussex, WI 53089. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: May 28, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-13199 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 20 [WT Docket No. 07-250; FCC 08-68] Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63
(EMC)ANSI ASC C63 TM AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites additional submissions regarding the treatment under its hearing aid compatibility rules of multi-mode and multi-band handsets and regarding the application of the *de minimis* exception to those rules. DATES: The Commission requests comments on or before August 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit *ex parte* submissions, identified by WT Docket No. 07-250, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Mail:* Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. • *Accessible Formats:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) for filing comments either by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All submissions received will be posted without change to *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Trachtenberg, Spectrum & Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6119, Washington, DC 20554. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of open issues in the Commission's *First Report & Order* ( *R&O* ) in WT Docket No. 07-250 released February 28, 2008. The complete text of the Commission's R&O is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. [The R&O may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* When ordering documents from BCPI please provide the appropriate FCC document number, FCC 08-68. The R&O is also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site through its Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS): *http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/SilverStream/Pages/edocs.html.* ] This is a summary of the two new issues raised in the R&O that the public can comment on through the *ex parte* process in WT Docket No. 07-250: *Multi-mode and multi-band handsets.* In the R&O, the Commission clarifies that, to be counted as hearing aid-compatible, a handset model must meet compatibility standards for each air interface and frequency band it uses so long as standards exist for each of those bands and air interfaces. Except for an interim ruling with respect to handsets that incorporate Wi-Fi capabilities, the Commission does not resolve whether, or to what extent, multi-band and multi-mode handsets should be counted as hearing aid-compatible if they operate in part over frequency bands or air interfaces for which technical standards have not yet been established. The record contains arguments both in favor of and against treating such handsets as hearing aid-compatible. Moreover, according to industry representatives, no such handsets currently exist, with the exception of devices incorporating Wi-Fi capability. The Commission accepts the proposal endorsed by both industry and consumer representatives to leave the record open so that they may develop a consensus plan on this issue in the near term. The Commission looks forward to receiving from the parties to the consensus discussions general principles within three months of the release of the R&O and a detailed proposal within six months, and the Commission also invites the views of other parties. The Commission anticipates acting on a final order shortly after receiving the detailed consensus proposal. The Commission's decision to take additional time to resolve this issue turns in part on the current unavailability of such handsets. The Commission therefore expects handset manufacturers to keep it informed regarding the status of developments of such handsets, and asks the parties to the consensus discussions to include that information as part of their filings in three and six months. If such handsets are made available in the interim, the Commission will act expeditiously to address the hearing aid compatibility status of those handsets. When the Commission subsequently addresses the application of hearing aid compatibility requirements to Wi-Fi operations, it will consider an appropriate transition regime to bring any requirements into effect. In view of the fact that Wi-Fi-capable handsets are currently available, the Commission invites comments on whether a period of time should be given before any requirements to meet hearing aid compatibility standards for handsets that incorporate Wi-Fi capability become effective, and if so what that time period should be. It has been argued by some commenters that due to the lower power of the Wi-Fi operations, these operations are unlikely to cause interference to hearing aids. However, there has been no specific showing towards this. The Commission invites comments in this area in order to help it consider the application of hearing aid compatibility requirements to Wi-Fi operations and consider a transition regime to bring such requirements into effect. *De minimis rule.* Section 20.19 provides a *de minimis* exception to hearing aid compatibility obligations for those manufacturers and mobile service providers that only offer a small number of handset models. In the R&O, the Commission retains the existing *de minimis* rule and clarifies that it applies on a per-air interface basis rather than across a manufacturer's or service provider's entire product line. Two commenters proposed that the exception be modified so that it does not apply on a permanent basis to large businesses that produce only one or two handsets with mass appeal, such as Apple's iPhone. The Commission does not adopt this limitation at this time, but leaves the record open for further comments. The Commission recognizes the concern of Hearing Loss Association of America and Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (HLAA/TDI) and Gallaudet University Technology Access program and Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access (Gallaudet/RERC) that if a manufacturer produces only one or two models of a popular handset that is not hearing aid-compatible, consumers with hearing loss may be denied access to attractive features of that handset indefinitely. At the same time, as the Commission has stated previously, the exception was not adopted solely for the benefit of small businesses, but for businesses of any size that sell only a small number of digital wireless handsets in the United States. The primary concern of the Commission is that the rule not be limited in a manner that would compromise its effectiveness in promoting innovation and competition. The Commission also takes note of the fact that large manufacturers with highly successful initial devices may not continue indefinitely to produce only two or fewer handset models, but instead may expand their product offerings in response to consumer demand for new and different features, thereby bringing themselves under the hearing aid compatibility rules and benefiting consumers both with and without hearing loss. It is also unclear exactly how the changes proposed by Gallaudet/RERC and HLAA/TDI would operate in practice. The Commission invites comments on how “large business,” “handsome profits,” or “mass appeal” would be defined. To the extent the rule's application would depend on the volume and profitability of sales during the first year, the Commission asks whether manufacturers have sufficient ability to anticipate the obligations to which they would be subject and plan accordingly. The commenting parties to these questions are requested to address the details and effects of any limitation on the *de minimis* exception that they may propose, and the need for the limitation to protect consumers' access to phones with advanced or desirable technologies and features. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13219 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Parts 201, 204, 205, 211, 212, 213, 217, 241, 243, 291, 298, 325, 330, 331, and 382 49 CFR Parts 1, 7, 10, 24, 26, 31, 37, and 40 [Docket DOT-OST-2008-0173] RIN 2105-AD74 OST Technical Corrections AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: DOT is amending a number of its regulations to reflect reorganization of some elements of DOT and the move of DOT's Headquarters site in Washington, DC. This action is taken on DOT's initiative. DATES: Effective Date June 12, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert I. Ross, Office of the General Counsel, C-60, Room W96-314, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone 202.366.9156; telecopier 202.366.9170; e-mail: *bob.ross@dot.gov* , or Joanne Petrie, Office of the General Counsel, C-50, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone 202.366.9315; telecopier 202.366.9313; e-mail: *joanne.petrie@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since its organizational, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and Privacy Act regulations were last revised, DOT has undergone a number of changes that make some parts of those regulations incorrect: 1. Establishment of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)moved the United States Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration from DOT to DHS. 2. Pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and the Norman Mineta Research and Innovative Technology Act, certain elements of DOT were reorganized. 3. DOT moved its Headquarters in Washington, DC to a new site. 4. A minor reorganization in the Office of the DOT General Counsel transferred oversight responsibility for FOIA to a new division. 5. The Chief Information Officer has replaced the Assistant Secretary for Administration as the DOT Chief Privacy Officer. This publication makes corrections to the OST regulations to reflect these organizational and functional changes. In addition, it corrects the DOT headquarters address throughout OST's regulations. Since this amendment relates to departmental management, organization, procedure, and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Further, since the amendment merely makes technical corrections and updates, I find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the final rule to be effective on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures The final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034). It was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. There are no costs associated with this rule. B. Executive Order 13132 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. C. Executive Order 13175 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. We also do not believe this rule would impose any costs on small entities because it simply delegates authority from one official to another and makes other nonsubstantive corrections. Therefore, I certify this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Department of Transportation has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking. List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 201 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 204 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 205 Air carriers, Freight, Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 211 Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 212 Charter flights, Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. 14 CFR Part 213 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 217 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 241 Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts. 14 CFR Part 243 Air carriers, Aircraft, Charter flights, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 291 Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Freight, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 298 Air taxis, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 325 Administrative practice and procedure, Air transportation, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 330 Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Grant programs-transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 331 Air Carriers. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 14 CFR Part 382 Air carriers, Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 49 CFR Part 1 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies). 49 CFR Part 7 Freedom of information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 49 CFR Part 10 Penalties, Privacy. 49 CFR Part 24 Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs, Loan programs, Manufactured homes, Real property acquisition, Relocation assistance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 49 CFR Part 26 Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. 49 CFR Part 31 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties. 49 CFR Part 37 Buildings and facilities, Buses, Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities, Mass transportation, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. 49 CFR Part 40 Administrative practice and procedure, Drug testing, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation. Accordingly, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 322(a), the Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR chapter 2 and 49 CFR chapter 1 as follows: TITLE 14—AERONAUTICS AND SPACE § 201.1, 204.7, 205.4, 211.10, 212.10, 213.7, 217.10, 217.10 App., 241.1, 241.2, 241.19, 243.13, 291.42, 291.45, 291.45 App, 298.4, 298.50, 298.60, 298.61, 298.61 App., 325.11, 330.23, 331.25, 382.65 and 382.70 [Amended] 1. In Title 14, Chapter II, Parts 200-399, remove text specified in the “Remove” column and add in its place the text in the “Add” column in the sections indicated below: Section Remove Add 201.1(b) PL-401, 400 7th Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 204.7(b) 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 205.4(c) 400 7th Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 211.10(b) 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 212.10(a) 400 7th Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 213.7 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 217.10(b) Room 4125. 217.10(b) 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 217.10 App (a)(3) Room 4125. 217.10 App (a)(3) 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Part 241, Sec.1-8 Room 4125. Part 241, Sec.1-8 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Part 241, Sec. 2-1(c) Room 4125. Part 241, Sec. 2-1(c) 400 7th Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Part 241, Sec. 19-7(a) Room 4125. Part 241, Sec. 19-7(a) 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Part 241, Appendix A to Sec. 19-7 introductory text Room 4125. Part 241, Appendix A to Sec. 19-7 introductory text 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Part 241, Sec. 25 Schedule T-100(f) Paragraph
(b)Room 4125. Part 241, Sec. 25 Schedule T-100(f) Paragraph
(b)400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Part 241, Sec. 25, App.
(e)Room 4125. Part 241, Sec. 25, App.
(e)400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 243.13(c) PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 291.42(a)(2) Room 4125. 291.42(a)(2) 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 291.45(e)(2) Room 4125. 291.45(e)(2) 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 291.45, App.
(c)Room 4125. 291.45, App.
(c)400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 298.4 400 7th Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 298.50(b) 400 7th Street, SW., PL-401 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 298.60(c) Room 4125. 298.60(c) 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 298.61(e)(2) Room 4125. 298.61(e)(2) 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 298.61 App.
(e)Room 4125. 298.61 App.
(e)400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 325.11 introductory text 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 330.23(a) 400 7th Street, SW., Room 6401 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 331.25(a) Room 6401, 400 7th Street, SW. 382.65(c) 400 7th Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 382.70(h) 400 7th Street, SW., Room 4107 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION PART 1—ORGANIZATION AND DELEGATION OF POWERS AND DUTIES. 2. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; 28 U.S.C. 2672; 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2); Public Law 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736; Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748; Public Law 107-71, 115 Stat. 597; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat 2065; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; 41 U.S.C. 414; Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423; Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144; Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492. 3. The heading of § 1.57b is revised to read as follows: § 1.57b Delegations to the Assistant General Counsel for Operations. PART 7—PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION 4. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 49 U.S.C. 322; E.O. 12600; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235. 5. In § 7.2, the definitions of ‘Department’ and ‘Primary Electronic Access Facility’ are revised to read as follows: § 7.2 Definitions. *Department* means the Department of Transportation, including the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Inspector General, and the following DOT components, all of which may be referred to as DOT components. Means of contacting each of these DOT components appear in § 7.15. This definition specifically excludes the Surface Transportation Board, which has its own FOIA regulations (49 CFR Part 1001):
(1)Federal Aviation Administration,
(2)Federal Highway Administration,
(3)Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
(4)Federal Railroad Administration,
(5)National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
(6)Federal Transit Administration,
(7)Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation,
(8)Maritime Administration,
(9)Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and
(10)Research and Innovative Technology Administration. *Primary Electronic Access Facility* means the electronic docket facility in the DOT Headquarters Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 6. Section 7.10 is revised to read as follows: § 7.10 Public records. Publicly available records are located in DOT's Primary Electronic Access Facility at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
(a)The Primary Electronic Access Facility maintains materials for the Office of the Secretary, including former Civil Aeronautics Board material, and materials for the DOT components. This facility is located at Room W94-128, and the hours of operation are 10:00-17:00 eastern time.
(b)Certain DOT components also maintain public record units at regional offices. These facilities are open to the public Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, during regular working hours. The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation has facilities at 180 Andrews Street, Massena, New York 13662-0520.
(c)Operating Administrations may have separate facilities for manual records. Additional information on the location and hours of operations for inspection facilities can be obtained through DOT's Primary Electronic Access Facility, at
(202)366-9322. 7. In § 7.15, paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 7.15 Contacts for records requested under the FOIA.
(a)FOIA Offices at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590:
(1)Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Room W94-122.
(2)Office of Inspector General, Room W73-407.
(3)Federal Highway Administration, Room E64-302.
(4)Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Room W66-458.
(5)Federal Railroad Administration, Room W33-437.
(6)Federal Transit Administration, Room E42-315.
(7)National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W41-311.
(8)Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Room E26-109.
(9)Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Room E35-330.
(10)Maritime Administration, Room W24-233. 8. In § 7.41, paragraphs
(b)and
(c)are revised to read as follows: § 7.41 General.
(b)All terms defined by FOIA apply to this subpart, and the term “hourly rate” means the actual hourly base pay for a civilian employee.
(c)This subpart applies to all employees of DOT, including those of non-appropriated fund activities of the Maritime Administration. 9. In § 7.44, paragraphs
(g)and
(h)are revised to read as follows: § 7.44 Services performed without charge or at a reduced charge.
(g)Documents will be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge if the official having initial denial authority determines that the request concerns records related to the death of an immediate family member who was, at the time of death, a DOT employee.
(h)Documents will be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge if the official having initial denial authority determines that the request is by the victim of a crime who seeks the record of the trial at which the requestor testified. PART 10—MAINTENANCE OF AND ACCESS TO RECORDS PERTAINING TO INDIVIDUALS 10. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a; 49 U.S.C. 322. 11. In § 10.5, the definition of ‘Department' is revised to read as follows: § 10.5 Definitions. *Department* means the Department of Transportation, including the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Inspector General, and the following operating administrations: This definition specifically excludes the Surface Transportation Board, which has its own Privacy Act regulations (49 CFR Part 1007), except to the extent that any system of records notice provides otherwise.
(1)Federal Aviation Administration.
(2)Federal Highway Administration.
(3)Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
(4)Federal Railroad Administration.
(5)Federal Transit Administration.
(6)National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
(7)St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
(8)Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
(9)Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
(10)Maritime Administration. 12. The first sentence of § 10.11 is revised to read as follows: § 10.11 Administration of part. Authority to administer this part in connection with the records of the Office of the Secretary is delegated to the Chief Information Officer. 13. Section 10.13 is revised to read as follows: § 10.13 Privacy Officer.
(a)To assist with implementation, evaluation, and administration issues, the Chief Information Officer appoints a principal coordinating official with the title Privacy Officer, and one Privacy Act Coordinator from his/her staff.
(b)Inquiries concerning Privacy Act matters, or requests for assistance, may be addressed to the Privacy Act Officer (S-80), Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
(c)Administrators may designate Privacy Officers or Coordinators to act as central coordinators within their administrations to assist them in administering the Act. 14. In § 10.61, the introductory text of paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 10.61 General exemptions.
(a)The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with regard to the Investigations Division; and the Federal Aviation Administrator, with regard to the FAA's Investigative Record System (DOT/FAA 815) may exempt from any part of the Act and this part except subsections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and
(i)of the Act, and implementing §§ 10.35, 10.23(a) and (b), 10.21(d)(1) through (6), 10.81, 10.83, and 10.85 of this chapter, any systems of records, or portions thereof, which they maintain which consist wholly of; 15. In § 10.63, the introductory text is revised to read as follows: § 10.63 Specific exemptions. The Secretary or his or her delegee, in the case of the Office of the Secretary; or the Administrator or his or delegee, in the case of an operating administration; or the Inspector General or his or her delegee, in the case of the Office of Inspector General, may exempt any system of records that is maintained by the Office of the Secretary, an operating administration, or the Office of Inspector General, as the case may be, from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and
(f)of the Act and implementing §§ 10.23(c); 10.35(b); 10.41; 10.43; 10.45; 10.21(a) and 10.21(d)(6), (7), and
(8)of this chapter, under the following conditions: § 10.77 [Amended] 16. In § 10.77, paragraph
(c)is amended by removing ‘Chief Information Officer’ and adding in its place ‘Assistant Secretary for Administration' wherever it appears. 17. The Appendix to Part 10 is amended as follows: a. Part I is amended by removing paragraphs C, D, and F, and redesignating paragraph E as C; b. Paragraph A of Part II is amended by removing paragraphs 4 through 9, paragraph 11, and paragraphs 13 through 16, redesignating paragraph 3 as paragraph 4, redesignating paragraph 10 as paragraph 5, redesignating paragraph 15 as paragraph 6, and redesignating paragraphs 17 and 18 as paragraphs 7 and 8; c. Paragraph D of Part II is amended by removing paragraphs 2 through 9 and paragraph 11, redesignating paragraph 10 as paragraph 2, and redesignating paragraph 12 as paragraph 3; d. Paragraph E of Part II is amended by removing paragraphs 1 through 3, and redesignating paragraph 4 as paragraph 1; and e. Paragraph F of Part II is amended by removing paragraph 4. §§ 24.602, 26.89, 31.26, 37.21324, App. B, 40.7, 40.33, 40.121, 40.213, 40.281, and 40 App. D. [Amended] 18. In the table below, remove the text indicated in the “Remove” column and add in its place the text indicated in the “Add” column: Section Remove Add 24.602 400 Seventh Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 24, App. B Room 3221, 400 7th Street SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 26.89(a)(3) 400 7th Street, SW., Room 5414 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 31.26(a) Docket Clerk, Documentary Services Division (C-55), room 4107, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW Docket Operation Services, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 37.213(e) 400 7th Street, SW 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 40.7(a) 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10424 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 40.33(a) 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10403 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 40.121(b)(3) 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10403 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 40.213(b)(1) 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10403 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 40.281(b)(3) 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10403 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 40, App. D 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10403 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Issued in Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.57(j) on May 21, 2008. D.J. Gribbin, General Counsel, Department of Transportation. [FR Doc. E8-12108 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-62-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 071106671-8010-02] RIN 0648-XI38 Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive Zone Off Alaska; Shallow-Water Species Fishery by Catcher Processors in the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the shallow-water species fishery for catcher processors subject to sideboard limits established under the Central Gulf of Alaska
(GOA)Rockfish Program in the GOA. This action is necessary because the 2008 Pacific halibut prohibited species catch
(PSC)sideboard limit specified for the shallow-water species fishery for catcher processors subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA is insufficient to support directed fishing for the shallow-water species fisheries. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 1, 2008, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., July 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. processors in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2008 Pacific halibut PSC sideboard limit specified for the shallow-water species fishery for catcher processors subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA is 11 metric tons as established by § 679.82(d), the 2008 and 2009 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (73 FR 10562, February 27, 2008), for the period 1200 hrs, A.l.t., July 1, 2008, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., July 31, 2008. In accordance with § 679.82(d)(9)(i)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the 2008 Pacific halibut PSC sideboard limit specified for the shallow-water species fishery for catcher processors subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA is insufficient to support directed fishing for the shallow-water species fisheries. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.82(d)(9)(ii)(A), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the shallow-water species fishery for catcher processors subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA. The species and species groups that comprise the shallow-water species fishery for the sideboard limit are shallow-water flatfish and flathead sole. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and
(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the shallow-water species fishery for catcher processors subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 4, 2008. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.82 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: June 6, 2008. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-13237 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 071106671-8010-02] RIN 0648-XI36 Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive Zone Off Alaska; Deep-Water Species Fishery by Catcher Vessels in the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the deep-water species fishery for catcher vessels subject to sideboard limits established under the Central Gulf of Alaska
(GOA)Rockfish Program in the GOA. This action is necessary because the 2008 Pacific halibut prohibited species catch
(PSC)sideboard limit specified for the deep-water species fishery for catcher vessels subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA is insufficient to support directed fishing for the deep-water species fisheries. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 1, 2008, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., July 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2008 Pacific halibut PSC sideboard limit specified for the deep-water species fishery for catcher vessels subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA is 22 metric tons as established by the 2008 and 2009 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (73 FR 10562, February 27, 2008), for the period 1200 hrs, A.l.t., July 1, 2008, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., July 31, 2008. In accordance with § 679.82(d)(9)(i)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the 2008 Pacific halibut PSC sideboard limit specified for the deep-water species fishery for catcher vessels subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA is insufficient to support directed fishing for the deep-water species fisheries. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.82(d)(9)(ii)(B), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the deep-water species fishery for catcher vessels subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA. The species and species groups that comprise the deep-water species fishery for the sideboard limit include deep-water flatfish, rex sole, and arrowtooth flounder. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and
(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the deep-water species fishery for catcher vessels subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 4, 2008. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.82 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: June 6, 2008. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-13235 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 071106671-8010-02] RIN 0648-XI39 Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive Zone Off Alaska; Deep-Water Species Fishery by Catcher Processor Rockfish Cooperatives in the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the deep-water species fishery by catcher processor rockfish cooperatives subject to sideboard limits established under the Central Gulf of Alaska
(GOA)Rockfish Program in the GOA. This action is necessary because the 2008 Pacific halibut prohibited species catch
(PSC)sideboard limit specified for the deep-water species fishery by catcher processor rockfish cooperatives subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA is insufficient to support directed fishing for the deep-water species fisheries. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 1, 2008, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., July 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2008 Pacific halibut PSC sideboard limit specified for the deep-water species fishery by catcher processor rockfish cooperatives subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA is 8 metric tons as established by § 679.82(d), the 2008 and 2009 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (73 FR 10562, February 27, 2008), and as posted as the Catcher Processor Sideboards at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/goarat/default.htm.* In accordance with § 679.82(d)(9)(i)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the 2008 Pacific halibut PSC sideboard limit specified for the deep-water species fishery by catcher processor rockfish cooperatives subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA is insufficient to support directed fishing for the deep-water species fisheries. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.82(d)(9)(ii)(B), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the deep-water species fishery by catcher processor rockfish cooperatives subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA. The species and species groups that comprise the deep-water species fishery for the sideboard limit include deep-water flatfish, rex sole, and arrowtooth flounder. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and
(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the deep-water species fishery by catcher processor rockfish cooperatives subject to sideboard limits established under the Central GOA Rockfish Program in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 4, 2008. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.82 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: June 6, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-13236 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 071106671-8010-02] RIN 0648-XI37 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Northern Rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch, and Pelagic Shelf Rockfish for Catcher Vessels Participating in the Limited Access Rockfish Fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish for catcher vessels participating in the limited access rockfish fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2008 total allowable catch
(TAC)of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish allocated to catcher vessels participating in the limited access rockfish fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 1, 2008, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2008 rockfish TACs allocated as directed fishing allowances to catcher vessels participating in the limited access rockfish fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA are: 28 metric tons
(mt)for Pacific ocean perch, 10 mt for northern rockfish, and 5 mt for pelagic shelf rockfish. In accordance with § 679.82(b)(6), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the TACs of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish allocated as a directed fishing allowance to catcher vessels participating in the limited access rockfish fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will not support directed fishing for the limited access rockfish fishery. Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish for catcher vessels participating in the limited access rockfish fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and
(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish for catcher vessels participating in the limited access rockfish fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 4, 2008. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.82 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: June 6, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-13234 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 114 Thursday, June 12, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Parts 301 and 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0189] RIN 0579-AC67 Movement of Hass Avocados From Areas Where Mexican Fruit Fly or Sapote Fruit Fly Exist AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: We are reopening the comment period for our proposed rule that would amend our domestic quarantine regulations to provide for the interstate movement of Hass avocados from Mexican fruit fly and sapote fruit fly quarantined areas in the United States with a certificate if the fruit is safeguarded after harvest in accordance with specific measures. The proposed rule would also amend our foreign quarantine regulations to remove trapping and bait spray treatment requirements related to *Anastrepha* spp. fruit flies for imported Hass avocados from Michoacan, Mexico. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 26, 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-2006-0189* 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-2006-0189, 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-2006-0189. *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: Regarding the interstate movement of Hass avocados from Mexican fruit fly and sapote fruit fly quarantined areas, contact Mr. Wayne D. Burnett, Domestic Coordinator, Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-6553. Regarding import conditions for Hass avocados from Mexico, contact Mr. David B. Lamb, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 2, 2008, we published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 17930-17935, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0189) a proposal 1 to relieve certain restrictions regarding the movement of Hass variety avocados. Specifically, we proposed to amend our domestic quarantine regulations to provide for the interstate movement of Hass avocados from Mexican fruit fly and sapote fruit fly quarantined areas in the United States with a certificate if the fruit is safeguarded after harvest in accordance with specific measures. We also proposed to amend our foreign quarantine regulations to remove trapping and bait spray treatment requirements related to *Anastrepha* spp. fruit flies for imported Hass avocados from Michoacan, Mexico. 1 To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and any comments we have received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0189* . Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before June 2, 2008. We are reopening the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2006-0189 for an additional 2 weeks. We will also consider all comments received between June 3, 2008, and the date of this notice. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of June 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-13226 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service 30 CFR Part 250 [Docket ID: MMS-2007-OMM-0066] RIN 1010-AD45 Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Requirements for Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The MMS proposes to incorporate the Eleventh Edition of the American Petroleum Institute's Specification for Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment (API Spec 14A), into the regulations. The rule also proposes that lessees and operators provide supporting design verification information for subsurface safety valves intended for use in high pressure high temperature environments. The MMS proposes to incorporate the Eleventh Edition of API Spec 14A because it updated the design validation and functional testing requirements, incorporated new design changes, and corrected ambiguous areas open to misinterpretation. These proposed changes would ensure that lessees and operators use the best available and safest technologies while operating in the Outer Continental Shelf. DATES: Submit comments by August 11, 2008. The MMS may not fully consider comments received after this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this rulemaking by any of the following methods. Please use the Regulation Identifier Number
(RIN)1010-AD45 as an identifier in your message. See also Public Availability of Comments under Procedural Matters. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Under the tab “More Search Options,” click Advanced Docket Search, then select “Minerals Management Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “submit.” In the Docket ID column, select MMS-2007-OMM-0066 to submit public comments and to view supporting and related materials available for this rulemaking. Information on using *Regulations.gov* , including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. The MMS will post all comments. • Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Regulations and Standards Branch (RSB); 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please reference “Incorporate API Spec 14A for Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment, 1010-AD45” in your comments and include your name and return address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbon Rhome, Regulations and Standards Branch at
(703)787-1587. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MMS has conducted a thorough review of the Eleventh Edition of the American Petroleum Institute's Specification for Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment, 14A (API Spec 14A) and has determined that the new edition should be incorporated into the regulations to ensure the use of the best available and safest technologies for downhole safety valves. We also propose adding a new section (30 CFR 250.807) to the regulations that identify additional safety valve information requirements for high pressure high temperature
(HPHT)environments. The Eleventh Edition contains significant technological and design changes that will increase the safety of downhole operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The updated API Spec 14A is an improvement over the current API Spec 14A, Tenth Edition incorporated in the regulations for the following reasons: • Strengthens the guidelines for preparation of a functional specification by the user/purchaser to submit to the manufacturer/supplier when ordering equipment addressed by this standard. Functional characteristics in the specification must include, but are not limited to, well parameters, operational parameters, environmental compatibility, and compatibility with related well equipment. • Adds new design verification and validation guidelines. • Clarifies procedures in areas such as design methodology and verification. • Introduces state-of-the-art technological advances to improve downhole performance. When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused catastrophic damage to equipment in the Gulf of Mexico, most of the subsurface safety valves
(SSSV)performed exactly according to design; however, there were recorded minor incidents. Incorporating the revised API Spec 14A should lead to improved performance of downhole safety valves. While the API Spec 14A Eleventh Edition contains many improvements that we support, MMS does not fully agree with the revision that allows a reduced safety factor for the higher pressure valve body test. This reduced safety factor for the design of downhole safety valves installed in wells drilled in HPHT environments is a concern that MMS cannot overlook. Therefore, MMS proposes through this rulemaking that lessees and operators provide supporting design verification information for SSSVs planned for use in HPHT environments. This supporting information must show that the design of the SSSV to be installed in an HPHT environment provides the same level of safety and environmental protection that was previously provided by the design standards contained in API Spec 14A Tenth Edition. Background Information on Design Qualification Testing The design qualification testing requirements in the API Spec 14A, Tenth Edition requires that a SSSV be pressure tested to 150 percent of the rated working pressure of the valve ( *e.g.* , a 10,000 psig SSSV would be tested to 15,000 psig of the rated working pressure regardless of the magnitude of the rated working pressure). The API Spec 14A, Eleventh Edition pressure testing methodology results in a decreasing test pressure factor from 150 percent at 10,000 psig, to 133 percent at 15,000 psig, to 125 percent at 20,000 psig rated working pressure. Wells and related equipment with a rated working pressure of 15,000 psig or greater are subjected to a hydrostatic test pressure of 5,000 psig greater than the rated working pressure. As a well becomes more critical, the margin of safety decreases as a result of the decreasing test pressure factor. Therefore, this proposed rule would address this safety issue by requiring the lessee or operator to provide additional information when SSSVs and related equipment are planned to be installed in a HPHT environment. These additional informational requirements are found in new 30 CFR 250.807 titled “Additional requirements for subsurface safety valves installed in high pressure high temperature environments.” Wells and related equipment with a rated working pressure less than or equal to 15,000 psig would not be affected by the new requirements in 30 CFR 250.807. Proposed Requirements The new 30 CFR 250.807 provisions would require the lessee or operator to provide additional information when SSSVs and related equipment are intended to be installed in a HPHT environment. The lessee or operator would be required to include such information in an Application for Permit to Drill (APD), Application for Permit to Modify (APM), or Deepwater Operations Plans
(DWOP)and must demonstrate that the SSSV and related equipment are fit-for-purpose for performing in HPHT environments. For the purpose of this rulemaking, HPHT is considered a pressure rating greater than 15,000 psig, or a temperature rating equal to or greater than 350 degrees Fahrenheit under one of the following well conditions: 1. A maximum anticipated surface pressure greater than 15,000 psig on the seafloor for a well with a subsea wellhead or at the surface for a well with a surface wellhead. 2. A shut-in tubing pressure greater than 15,000 psig on the seafloor for a well with a subsea wellhead or at the surface for a well with a surface wellhead, or 3. A flowing temperature equal to or greater than 350 degrees Fahrenheit on the seafloor for a well with a subsea wellhead or the surface for a well with a surface wellhead. Related equipment refers to wellheads, tubing heads, tubulars, packers, SSSVs, threaded connections, seals, seal assemblies, production trees, equipment associated with coiled tubing, snubbing, operations, chokes, well control equipment and any other equipment that will be exposed to the reservoir pressure and/or temperature with rated working pressures greater than 15,000 psig, or temperatures greater than 350 degrees Fahrenheit. Procedural Matters Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order (E.O.) 12866) This proposed rule is not a significant rule as determined by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.
(1)The proposed rule (incorporation of the new API Spec 14A and the new 30 CFR 250.807) would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The primary purpose for this proposed rule is to establish minimum acceptable requirements for SSSVs. The requirements apply to SSSVs as well as all components that establish tolerance and/or clearances which may affect performance or interchangeability of SSSVs. This rule also would set minimum requirements for SSSVs and related equipment to conform to international standards and would require compliance by supplier/manufacturers. Finally, this rule would establish minimum fit-for-purpose criteria for HPHT equipment operating over 15,000 psig or 350 degrees Fahrenheit; and, would require lessees and operators to provide information that demonstrates to the MMS that their SSSVs are properly designed to operate in HPHT environments. The oil and gas industry took the lead in revising API Spec 14A, Eleventh Edition. The industry and API have encouraged the promulgation of the proposed rule incorporating API Spec 14A. The API Spec 14A standard is now accepted as an industry standard both domestically and internationally; and, consequently, the impact of this proposed rule on the oil and gas industry is expected to be negligible. The impact of the new requirements of 30 CFR 250.807 will also be negligible. A review of drilling activity indicates that, if the current trend continues, there may not be any HPHT wells that exceed 15,000 psig at the wellhead drilled and completed in the next 3 years. However, there is activity in the Mobile Bay region and in the western Gulf of Mexico where the working environment for SSSVs and related equipment may reach over 350 degrees Fahrenheit, flowing tubing temperature. The MMS estimates that approximately 10 to 20 APD's or APM's may be submitted by lessees or operators over the next 3 years which could be subject to the proposed rule. These submittals would be required to provide additional information on SSSVs and related equipment for wells to be drilled and completed that may be classified as HPHT completions. The proposed provisions of 30 CFR 250.807 would require lessees and operators to provide supporting design verification information. The information that the proposed rule would require is engineering data and analytical analysis for HPHT equipment. This is the kind of information that a prudent operator should have available for operating in HPHT environments. The MMS estimates the cost to comply with this proposed rule would be $4,000 per well. Companies will be required to gather and present well data that should be readily available if requested by MMS for review. We estimate that the hourly burden to produce this data would be approximately 40 hours for each well at an hourly rate of $100 per hour and would cost $4,000 per well. (40 hours at $100 per hour × 1 well = $4,000). The estimated cost to industry over the next 3 years, based on the high estimate of 20 APD's or APM's per year, would be approximately $80,000 ($4,000 per well × 20 wells = $80,000). As a result, additional costs associated with implementing these new requirements would be negligible given the overall costs of off-shore oil and gas production. Additional costs could be incurred if a lessee engages an independent consultant to prepare the fitness-for-purpose report for HPHT application with readily available information. However, these costs are very small when compared to the cost of drilling a well in an HPHT environment, which can cost over $150 million.
(2)The proposed rule (incorporation of the new API Spec 14A and the new 30 CFR 250.807) would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with action taken or planned by another agency.
(3)This proposed rule (incorporation of the new API Spec 14A and the new 30 CFR 250.807) does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs, or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4)This proposed rule (incorporation of the new API Spec 14A and the new 30 CFR 250.807) does not raise novel legal or policy issues. The proposed rule simply seeks to improve MMS safety regulations by maintaining them current with improved oil and gas industry standards and requires lessees and operators to meet additional criteria for safety reasons to demonstrate fitness-for-purpose for HPHT applications. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior
(DOI)certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The new API Spec 14A would affect lessees and operators of oil and gas leases on the OCS. This may include approximately 130 active Federal oil and gas lessees. Lessees that conduct business under this rule are coded under the Small Business Administration's
(SBA)North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) with the following: 1. No. 211111 (Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction); and, 2. No. 213111 (Drilling Oil and Gas Wells). For these NAICS code classifications, a small company is defined as one with fewer than 500 employees. Based on these criteria, an estimated 70 percent of these companies
(91)are considered small. Therefore, this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. However, with respect to the new 30 CFR 250.807, the MMS has determined that it is unlikely that a substantial number of small companies are currently involved with HPHT wells on the OCS due to the expense and the advanced technical expertise needed for drilling, completing, and producing HPHT wells. While it is possible that the operations of small companies may involve HPHT wells on the OCS, the MMS believes that any company, regardless of size, attempting to complete a HPHT well must do the engineering evaluations proposed in this rulemaking to insure the safe operation of such activities and to avoid a catastrophic failure that could result in loss of life or serious environmental damage. The costs of the additional requirements for HPHT wells would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small companies because very few, if any, would be involved in the activities that would require compliance with these additional requirements. As mentioned previously, the costs of complying with these proposed requirements are very small when compared to the cost of drilling a HPHT well, which can cost over $150 million. The proposed rule incorporating the new API Spec 14A would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small companies because the revised API Spec 14A will not impose significant costs or burdens on any lessees or operators. Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small business about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions of the MMS, call toll-free 1-888-734-3247. You may submit comments to the Small Business Administration without concern for retaliation. Disciplinary action for retaliation by an MMS employee may include suspension or termination from employment with the DOI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The proposed rule (incorporation of the new API Spec 14A and the new 30 CFR 250.807) is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act. This proposed rule: a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The proposed rule would not impose any significant costs to lessees or operators. The costs associated with the proposed rule would involve the cost of the new document (API Spec 14A), and any cost associated with gathering and presenting the well data to MMS. As mentioned previously, the costs of complying with these proposed requirements are very small when compared to the cost of drilling a HPHT well, which can cost over $150 million. b. Would not impose significant increases in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The proposed rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) is not required. Takings Implication Assessment (E.O. 12630) Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this proposed rule does not have takings implications. The proposed rule is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. A takings implication assessment is not required. Federalism (E.O. 13132) Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this proposed rule does not have federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. This proposed rule would not affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this proposed rule would not affect that role. A Federalism Assessment is not required. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a)Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b)Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175) Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we have evaluated this proposed rule and determined that it has no potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. There are no Indian or tribal lands on the OCS. Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)The proposed revisions to 30 CFR 250, subpart H regulations (30 CFR 250.807) will specify that lessees and operators must submit a brief description in their APD, APM, or DWOP when SSSVs and related equipment are intended to perform in HPHT environments. The information that would be required by the proposed rule should be readily available since a prudent operator would already possess this information for daily operations. Lessees and operators must then provide this existing information as part of their APM, APD, or DWOP submissions. The MMS has determined that the number of hours for paperwork burdens currently approved for preparation of APD's (3,135 annual burden hours) and APM's (9,900 annual burden hours) pursuant to the requirements set forth in 30 CFR 250, subpart D (1010-0141) and for DWOP's (51,000 annual burden hours) in 30 CFR 250, subpart B (1010-0151), are more than enough to accommodate this minor addition to existing submissions. Therefore, due to the fact that the burden hours are effectively included under currently approved OMB information collections, the proposed rule does not require a submission to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information and assigns a control number, you are not required to respond. The OMB approved the referenced information collection requirements for 30 CFR 250, subparts B, D, and H under OMB Control Numbers 1010-0151 (321,817 hours; expiration 7/31/08), 1010-0141 (163,954 hours; expiration 8/31/08) and 1010-0059 (17,598 hours; expiration 2/28/09). National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The MMS has analyzed this proposed rule under the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and 516 Departmental Manual 15. This proposed rule meets the criteria set forth in 516 Departmental Manual 2 (Appendix 1.10) for a Departmental “Categorical Exclusion” in that this proposed rule is “* * * of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature and whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis * * *.” This proposed rule also meets the criteria set forth in 516 Departmental Manual 15.4(C)(1) for a MMS “Categorical Exclusion” in that its impacts are limited to administration, economic or technological effects. Further, the MMS has analyzed this proposed rule to determine if it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances that would require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement as set forth in 516 Departmental Manual 2.3, and Appendix 2. The MMS concluded that this rule does not meet any of the criteria for extraordinary circumstances as set forth in 516 Departmental Manual 2 (Appendix 2). Data Quality Act In developing this proposed rule we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554). Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required. Clarity of This Regulation We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a)Be logically organized;
(b)Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c)Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d)Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e)Use lists and tables wherever possible. If you believe that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made available to the public. While you request in your comment that your personal identifying information be withheld from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250 Continental shelf, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 28, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the MMS proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as follows: PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as follows: Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334. 2. In § 250.198, the table in paragraph (e), revise the entry for API Spec 14A to read as follows: § 250.198 Documents incorporated by reference.
(e)* * * Title of documents Incorporated by reference at * * * * * * * API Spec 14A, Eleventh Edition October 2005, Specification for Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment, Effective Date: May 1, 2006; ISO 10432: 2004, API Stock No. GX14A11. § 250.806(a)(3) * * * * * * * 3. In § 250.806, remove the second sentence in paragraph (a)(3) and add two sentences in its place to read as follows: § 250.806 Safety and pollution prevention equipment quality assurance requirements.
(a)* * *
(3)* * * All SSSVs must meet the technical specifications of API Specification 14A (incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198). However, SSSVs and related equipment planned to be used in high pressure high temperature environments must meet the additional requirements set forth in § 250.807. 4. Redesignate § 250.807 as § 250.808 and add new § 250.807 to read as follows: § 250.807 Additional requirements for subsurface safety valves installed in high pressure high temperature environments (HPHT).
(a)If you plan to install SSSVs and related equipment in a HPHT environment, you must submit detailed information with your Application for Permit to Drill (APD), Application for Permit to Modify (APM), or Deepwater Operations Plan
(DWOP)that demonstrates the SSSVs and related equipment are capable of performing in the applicable HPHT environment. Your detailed information must include the following:
(1)A discussion of how you determined that the SSSVs and related equipment are fit-for-service;
(2)A discussion on the SSSVs design validation and functional testing process and procedures used, and explain why the process and procedures ensure that the SSSVs and related equipment are fit-for-service in the applicable HPHT environment.
(b)For this section, HPHT environment means when one or more of the following well conditions exist:
(1)The maximum anticipated surface pressure is greater than 15,000 psig on the seafloor for a well with a subsea wellhead or at the surface for a well with a surface wellhead;
(2)The shut-in tubing pressure is equal to or greater than 15,000 psig on the seafloor for a well with a subsea wellhead or at the surface for a well with a surface wellhead; or
(3)The flowing temperature is equal to or greater than 350 degrees Fahrenheit on the seafloor for a well with a subsea wellhead or the surface for a well with a surface wellhead.
(c)For this section, related equipment includes wellheads, tubing heads, tubulars, packers, threaded connections, seals, seal assemblies, production trees, chokes, well control equipment and any other equipment that will be exposed to the HPHT environment. [FR Doc. E8-13223 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0470] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary regulated navigation area and safety zone on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal near Romeoville, IL. This proposed regulated navigation area and safety zone places navigational and operational restrictions on all vessels transiting through the electrical dispersal barrier IIA. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0470 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1)*Online: http://www.regulation.gov.*
(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3)*Hand delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule call CDR Tim Cummins, Deputy Prevention Division, Ninth Coast Guard District, telephone 216-902-6045. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation
(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0470), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your document to ensure that you can be identified as the submitter. This also allows us to contact you in the event further information is needed or if there are questions. For example, if we cannot read your submission due to technical difficulties and you cannot be contacted; your submission may not be considered. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0470) in the Search box, and click “Go>>.” You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The electrodes on the demonstration electrical dispersal barrier I located between mile markers 296.1 and 296.7 of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal are beginning to fail. This barrier was constructed to prevent Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan through the Illinois River system by generating a low-voltage electric field across the canal. The Army Corps of Engineers intends to shut down barrier I and begin the process of replacing the barrier electrodes which run across the bottom of the canal. Divers will be in the water and a barge-mounted crane will be operating during maintenance operations to barrier I. Electrical dispersal barrier IIA located on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 270 feet south of mile marker 296.1 to mile marker 296.7 will be in operation while repairs are being made to demonstration electrical dispersal barrier I. Barrier IIA will operate continuously for a two week period before taking barrier I off line for electrode replacement. Electrical dispersal barrier IIA generates a more powerful electric field than barrier I over a larger area within the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted field tests to ensure the continued safe navigation of commercial and recreational traffic across the barrier; however, results indicated an arcing risk and hazardous electrical discharges as vessels transited the barrier posing a serious risk to navigation through the barrier. To mitigate these risks, navigational and operational restrictions will be placed on all vessels transiting through the vicinity. Until the potential electrical hazards can be rectified, the Coast Guard will require vessels transiting the regulated navigation area to adhere to specified operational and navigational requirements. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule will suspend 33 CFR 165.923 and place additional restrictions on all vessels transiting through electrical dispersal barrier IIA located on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal from June 30, 2008 until August 15, 2008. The regulated navigation area encompasses all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 270 feet south of the Romeo Road Bridge Mile Marker 296.1 to the south side of the Aerial Pipeline Mile Marker 296.7. The requirements placed on all vessels include: All up-bound and down-bound barge tows that contain one or more red flag barges transiting through the restricted navigation area must be assisted by a bow boat at least one mile above the restricted navigation area to at least one mile below the restricted navigation area. Red flag barges are barges containing hazardous materials as identified by commodity codes: 01 (Empty with previous hazardous material) 20 (Petroleum and Petroleum Products) 21 (Crude Petroleum) 22 (Gasoline, Jet Fuel and Kerosene) 23 (Distillate, Residual and other Fuel Oils; Lubricating Oils and Greases) 24 (Petroleum Pitches, Coke Asphalt, Naphtha and Solvents) 30 (Chemicals and Related Products) 31 (Fertilizer-Nitrogenous, Potassic, Phosphatic and Others) 32 (Organic Industrial Chemicals {Crude Products} from Coal, Tar, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Dyes, Organic Pigment Dying and Tanning Materials, Alcohols, Benzene; Inorganic Industrial Chemicals {Sodium Hydroxide}; Radioactive and Associated Materials; Drugs) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will contract bow boat assistance for barge tows containing one or more red flag barges. Information on how to contact the contractor for bow boat assistance will be provided to the public in a Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Towing assistance will be provided from at least one mile above the restricted navigation area to at least one mile below the restricted navigation area. This proposed rule prohibits all vessels from loitering in the regulated navigation area; vessels may enter the regulated navigation area for the sole purpose of transiting to the other side and must maintain headway throughout the transit. The rule also requires all personnel on open decks to wear a Coast Guard approved Type I personal flotation device while in the regulated navigation area. In addition, vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left descending banks in the regulated navigation area; towboats may not make or break tows in the regulated navigation area; vessels may not pass (meet or overtake) in the regulated navigation area. All vessels must make a SECURITE call when approaching the barrier to announce intentions and work out passing arrangements on either side. Finally, commercial tows transiting the regulated navigation area must be made up with wire rope to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow. These restrictions are necessary for safe navigation of the regulated navigation area and to ensure the safety of vessels and their personnel as well as the public's safety due to the electrical discharges noted during safety tests conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Deviation from this proposed rule is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District or his designated representative. The Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District will designate Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan as his designated representative for the purposes of this proposed rule. A temporary safety zone will be in place while repairs are being made to barrier I. This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of workers and vessels during maintenance operations to barrier I on the Chicago and Sanitary Ship Canal. The maintenance on barrier I will occur between 7 a.m., July 14, 2008 and 5 p.m., August 9, 2008. The safety zone will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on July 14, 2008 through August 9, 2008. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal from mile marker 296.1 to mile marker 296.7. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of enforcement of the safety zone established by this section to be made by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public. Such means of notification will include, but is not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone is terminated. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the fact that traffic will still be able to transit through the regulated navigation area and the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone. The safety zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal from June 30, 2008 to August 15, 2008. This regulated navigation area and safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel traffic will be able to transit through the regulated navigation area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will contract bow boat assistance for barge tows containing one or more Red Flag barges. Vessel traffic will only be limited for one five hour period and one four hour period each day the safety zone is in effect. In the event this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact CDR Tim Cummins, Deputy Prevention Division, Ninth Coast Guard District, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199; 216-902-6049. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights protections need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this proposed rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. § 165.923 [Suspended] 2. Section 165.923 is suspended from July 30, 2008, until August 15, 2008. 3. A new temporary § 165.T09-0470 is added as follows: § 165.T09-0470 Temporary Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL. a.
(1)*Regulated Navigation Area.* The following is a Regulated Navigation Area: All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL, 270 feet south of the Romeo Road Bridge Mile Marker 296.1 to the south side of the Aerial Pipeline Mile Marker 296.7.
(2)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from June 30, 2008, until August 15, 2008.
(3)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to paragraph a.(1): *Designated representative* means the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan. *Red Flag barges* means barges containing hazardous materials as identified by commodity codes:
(a)01 (Empty with previous hazardous material);
(b)20 (Petroleum and Petroleum Products);
(c)21 (Crude Petroleum);
(d)22 (Gasoline, Jet Fuel and Kerosene);
(e)23 (Distillate, Residual and other Fuel Oils; Lubricating Oils and Greases);
(f)24 (Petroleum Pitches, Coke Asphalt, Naphtha and Solvents);
(g)30 (Chemicals and Related Products);
(h)31 (Fertilizer-Nitrogenous, Potassic, Phosphatic and Others); and
(i)32 (Organic Industrial Chemicals {Crude Products} from Coal, Tar, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Dyes, Organic Pigment Dying and Tanning Materials, Alcohols, Benzene; Inorganic Industrial Chemicals {Sodium Hydroxide}; Radioactive and Associated Materials; Drugs)
(4)*Regulations.*
(a)The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.13 apply.
(b)All up-bound and down-bound barge tows that contain one or more red flag barges transiting through the restricted navigation area must be assisted by a bow boat until the entire tow is clear of the expanded restricted navigation area boundaries. 1. Information on how to contact the contractor for bow boat assistance will be provided to the public in a Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 2. Towing assistance will be provided from at least one mile above the restricted navigation area to at least one mile below the restricted navigation area.
(c)All vessels are prohibited from loitering in the regulated navigation area.
(d)Vessels may enter the regulated navigation area for the sole purpose of transiting to the other side and must maintain headway throughout the transit.
(e)All personnel on open decks must wear a Coast Guard approved Type I personal flotation device while in the regulated navigation area.
(f)Vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left descending banks of the regulated navigation area.
(g)Towboats may not make or break tows in the regulated navigation area.
(h)Vessels may not pass (meet or overtake) in the regulated navigation area and must make a SECURITE call when approaching the barrier to announce intentions and work out passing arrangements on either side.
(i)Commercial tows transiting the regulated navigation area must be made up with wire rope to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow.
(5)*Compliance.* All persons and vessels must comply with this section and any additional instructions of the Ninth Coast Guard District Commander, or his designated representative. b.(1) *Safety Zone.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal from mile marker 296.1 to 296.7.
(2)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 7 a.m., July 14, 2008, to 5 p.m., August 9, 2008. The safety zone will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on July 14, 2008, through August 9, 2008.
(3)*Regulations.*
(a)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative, for b.(1).
(b)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative, for b.(1).
(c)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf for b.(1). The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(d)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. Dated: May 30, 2008. Michael N. Parks, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-13145 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0264] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone for the Patchogue Grand Prix, a power boat race on Patchogue Bay off of Patchogue, New York on August 22, 23, and 24, 2008, and each year thereafter on dates and times specified in a **Federal Register** notice. The safety zone would provide for safety of navigation of the maritime public viewing and transiting near the power boat race in order to protect the maritime community from the hazards inherent with a power boat race, namely, a collision and loss of control of the vessels participating in this event. Entry into this zone would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Long Island Sound. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0264 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1)*Online: http://www.regulations.gov.*
(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3)*Hand delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call LT Kristen Schroeder, USCG Sector Long Island Sound, Prevention Department at
(203)486-4459. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation
(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0264), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0264) in the Search box, and click “Go >>.” You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the Prevention Department at Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, 120 Woodward Ave, New Haven, CT 06512 between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose OPA Racing LLC of Brick, NJ is sponsoring a power boat race in Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, NY on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th of August, 2008. A safety zone is necessary to protect the maritime community from the hazards associated with a power boat race. The safety zone would be enforced from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m on each day of the three-day event to accommodate the practice sessions and the race. The Coast Guard proposes to permanently establish this safety zone and enforce it in future years on particular days and times specified via announcement in the **Federal Register** . Patchogue Bay is located on the south shore of Long Island, New York. The boat race consists of approximately 40 power boats performing at high rates of speed in close proximity to other power boats over a specified area of Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, NY. The Coast Guard is proposing this safety zone in order to provide for the safety of the maritime community and spectators viewing the power boat race from the water should an accident, such as a collision of the competing power boats, occur during the race. Discussion of Proposed Rule The permanent safety zone would be enforced during the testing of the powerboats on days prior to the race as well as during the race itself. For 2008, the safety zone would be enforced on August 22 and 23, 2008 and the day of the race, August 24, 2008. In 2008, the safety zone would be enforced from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m. during the event and testing sessions. This will provide for sufficient time to clear the safety zone area prior to the testing session and the start of the race, as well as additional time should testing or the race run over the scheduled period. Dates and times for future occurrences of the race and the enforcement of the safety zone will be announced in the **Federal Register** . Prior to enforcement of the safety zone, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound will cause notice of the enforcement of the safety zone to be made by all appropriate means to ensure the widest publicity among the affected segments of the public and will include publication in the local notice to mariners, marine information broadcasts, and facsimile. The safety zone would be established on the navigable waters of Patchogue Bay as bounded by the following geographic coordinates: Beginning at a point on land in Patchogue, NY at approximate position 40°44′56″ N, 073°00′49″ W, then running south to a point in Patchogue Bay at approximate position 40°44′29″ N, 073°00′49″ W; then running south east to a point in Great South Bay at approximate position 40°43′47″ N, 072°59′54″ W; then running east to approximate position 40°43′53″ N, 072°58′46″ W; then to approximate position 40°43′57″ N, 072°57′06″ W, then north to a point on land at approximate position 40°44′29″ N, 072°57′09″ W. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983. The Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic because of this safety zone due to the limited area covered by this safety zone and the short enforcement period. Any violation of the proposed temporary safety zone described herein would be punishable by, among others, civil and criminal penalties, in rem liability against the offending vessel, and license sanctions. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: the zone would only be enforced for a maximum of eight hours on three specific days, and vessels may transit in all areas around the zone at all times. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in those portions of Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, New York and marinas located within Patchogue Bay covered by the safety zone that temporarily may not be able to receive customers. The economic impact on these small entities is not significant as vessels will be able to transit around the safety zone and in all other navigable portions of Patchogue Bay while the safety zone is being enforced and vessels desiring to transit to marinas located within the vicinity of the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port to enter and transit the zone. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Kristen Schroeder, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound at 203-468-4459. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226 and 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.158 to read as follows: § 165.158 Safety Zone: Patchogue Grand Prix, Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, NY.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of Patchogue Bay, NY bounded by an area beginning at a point on land in Patchogue, NY at approximate position 40°44′56″ N, 073°00′49″ W; then running south to a point in Patchogue Bay at approximate position 40°44′29″ N, 073°00′49″ W; then running south east to a point in Great South Bay at approximate position 40°43′47″ N, 072°59′54″ W; then running east to approximate position 40°43′53″ N, 072°58′46″ W; then to approximate position 40°43′57″ N, 072°57′06″ W; then north to a point on land at approximate position 40°44′29″ N, 072°57′09″ W. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
(b)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section: *Designated on-scene patrol personnel,* means any commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard operating Coast Guard vessels who have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)The general regulations contained in 33 CFR § 165.23 apply.
(2)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.
(3)All persons and vessels must comply with the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol personnel.
(4)Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.
(5)Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the zone on VHF-16 or via phone at
(203)468-4401.
(d)*Enforcement Period.* This rule will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 22, 23, and 24, 2008 and each year thereafter on dates and times specified in a **Federal Register** notice. Dated: May 12, 2008. Daniel A. Ronan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Long Island Sound. [FR Doc. E8-13143 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 334 United States Navy Restricted Area, SUPSHIP Bath Detachment Mobile, Mobile, AL AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments. SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is proposing to establish a restricted area around the AUSTAL, USA shipbuilding facility located in Mobile, Alabama, because of the sensitive nature of the on-going and potential future activities at that facility. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair (SUPERVISOR), located in Bath, Maine is responsible for United States Navy shipbuilding activities at AUSTAL, USA located in Mobile, Alabama. The proposed restricted area will be used for on-going construction when vessels are placed in the water. The proposed restricted area is essential to protect persons and property from the dangers associated with the operation and safeguard the area from accidents, sabotage and other subversive acts. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2008-0014, by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail: david.b.olson@usace.army.mil* . Include the docket number COE-2008-0014 in the subject line of the message. *Mail:* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO (David B. Olson), 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000. *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to docket number COE-2008-0014. All comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the commenter indicates that 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 regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail directly to the Corps without going through *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, we recommend 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 we cannot read your comment because of technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic comments should avoid the use of any special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *www.regulations.gov* . All documents in the docket are listed. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, such as 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. Consideration will be given to all comments received within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922 or Mr. Damon M. Young, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, at 251-690-2658. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair (SUPERVISOR), located in Bath, Maine is responsible for United States Navy shipbuilding activities at AUSTAL, USA located in Mobile, Alabama. In accordance with Department of Defense and Department of the Navy guidance, the SUPERVISOR is responsible for the antiterrorism efforts and force protection of Department of the Navy assets under his charge. The SUPERVISOR established SUPSHIP Bath Detachment Mobile, Alabama to assist to that end by managing a portion of the activities at the AUSTAL, USA shipbuilding facility in Mobile, Alabama. The first ship launch occurred in late April 2008. Until the final rule goes into effect, the Mobile District has imposed a temporary restricted area pursuant to the procedures at 33 CFR 334.3(c). The temporary restricted area will be identified by marker buoys. In response to a request by the United States Navy, and pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps is proposing to amend the regulations in 33 CFR Part 334 by establishing a new restricted area. Procedural Requirements a. *Review Under Executive Order 12866* . This proposed rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply. b. *Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act* . This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). Unless information is obtained to the contrary during the public notice comment period, the Corps expects that the economic impact of the proposed restricted area would have practically no impact on the public, any anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic. This proposed rule, if adopted, will have no significant economic impact on small entities. c. *Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act* . The Corps expects that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. An environmental assessment will be prepared after the public notice period is closed and all comments have been received and considered. After it is prepared, it may be reviewed at the District office listed at the end of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above. d. *Unfunded Mandates Act* . The proposed rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, are not a Federal private sector mandate and are not subject to the requirements of Section 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* ). We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334 Danger zones, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334 as follows: PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 334 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3). 2. Add § 334.782 to read as follows: § 334.782 AUSTAL, USA/SUPSHIP Bath Detachment Mobile, Alabama; naval restricted area.
(a)*The area* . The restricted area shall encompass all navigable waters of the United States, as defined at 33 CFR part 329, contiguous to the area identified as AUSTAL, USA and the mean high water level within a rectangular shaped area on the east side of the Mobile River beginning at latitude 30°41′36.46″, longitude −88°2′2.70″; thence westerly to latitude 30°41′35.85″, longitude −88°2′5.12″; thence southerly to latitude 30°41′26.67″, longitude −88°2′3.62″; thence easterly to latitude 30°41′26.98″, longitude −88°2′1.81″; thence northerly along the easterly shoreline to the point of origin.
(b)*The regulations* .
(1)All persons, swimmers, vessels and other craft, except those vessels under the supervision or contract to local military or Naval authority, vessels of the United States Coast Guard, and local or state law enforcement vessels, are prohibited from entering the restricted area without permission from the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, Bath, Maine or his/her authorized representative.
(2)The restricted area is in effect twenty-four hours per day and seven days a week (24/7).
(c)*Enforcement* . The regulation in this section shall be enforced by the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, Bath, Maine and/or such agencies or persons as he/she may designate. Dated: June 4, 2008. Michael G. Ensch, Chief, Operations, Directorate of Civil Works. [FR Doc. E8-13283 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-92-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 2 [Docket No. PTO-T-2008-0021] RIN 0651-AC26 Changes in Requirements for Signature of Documents, Recognition of Representatives, and Establishing and Changing the Correspondence Address in Trademark Cases AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTIONS: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Office”) proposes to revise the Trademark Rules of Practice to set forth the requirements for signature of documents filed in the Office, recognition of representatives, and establishing and changing the correspondence address in trademark cases. DATES: Comments must be received by August 11, 2008 to ensure consideration. ADDRESSES: The Office prefers that comments be submitted via electronic mail message to *TMSignature@uspto.gov* . Written comments may also be submitted by mail to Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, attention Mary Hannon; by hand delivery to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison Building—East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, attention Mary Hannon; or by electronic mail message via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site ( *http://www.regulations.gov* ) for additional instructions on providing comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The comments will be available for public inspection on the Office's Web site at *http://www.uspto.gov* , and will also be available at the Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office proposes to revise the Trademark Rules of Practice (37 CFR Part 2) to set forth the requirements for signature of documents filed in the Office, recognition of representatives, and establishing and changing the correspondence address in trademark cases. The purpose of the rule is to codify and clarify current practice. References below to “the Act,” “the Trademark Act,” or “the statute” refer to the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 *et seq.* , as amended. References to “TMEP” or “ *Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure* ” refer to the 5th edition, September 2007. References to a “party to a proceeding” refer to a party to a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, e.g., an opposer, cancellation petitioner, or a party to an interference or concurrent use proceeding. Overview of Current Practice Persons Authorized To Represent Others Under 37 CFR 10.14, only the following individuals may represent an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding before the Office in a trademark case: • An attorney as defined in § 10.1(c), *i.e.* , an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a state in the United States; • A Canadian patent agent who is registered and in good standing as a patent agent under § 11.6(c) for the limited purpose of representing parties located in Canada; • A Canadian attorney or agent who has been granted recognition by the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“OED Director”) to represent parties located in Canada; or • An individual who is not an attorney but was recognized to practice before the Office in trademark cases under this chapter prior to January 1, 1957. See Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) Sections 602 and 602.06 et seq. An individual who does not meet the requirements of § 10.14 cannot: Prepare documents to be filed in the Office; sign amendments, responses to Office actions, petitions to the Director under § 2.146, or letters of express abandonment; authorize examiner's amendments, priority actions, or changes of correspondence address; or otherwise represent an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding in the Office. 5 U.S.C. 500(d); 37 CFR 10.14(e); TMEP sections 602.03 and 605.02. Recognition of Representative To be recognized as a representative, a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 (“qualified practitioner”) may: • File a power of attorney signed by the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding in a trademark case, or by someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, registrant, or party ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership); • Sign a document on behalf of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding who is not already represented by a qualified practitioner from a different firm; or • Appear in person on behalf of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding who is not already represented by a qualified practitioner from a different firm. 37 CFR 2.17(c); TMEP sections 602.01 and 602.07. Once the Office has recognized a qualified practitioner as the representative of an applicant or registrant, the Office will communicate and conduct business only with that practitioner, or with another qualified practitioner from the same firm. The Office will not conduct business directly with the applicant or registrant, or with another qualified practitioner from a different firm, unless the applicant or registrant files a new power of attorney or revocation of the previous power. TMEP sections 601.02, 602.07, and 603.02(a). For purposes of recognition as a representative, the Office considers a power of attorney to end when the mark is registered, when ownership changes, or when the application is abandoned. TMEP section 602.01. After a change in ownership has been recorded, if a new qualified practitioner appears on behalf of the new owner, the Office will communicate and conduct business with that practitioner even if no new power of attorney or revocation of the previous power is filed. On the other hand, if the previously recognized practitioner appears on behalf of the new owner (which might occur when the new owner is a related company), the Office will continue to conduct business and correspond with that practitioner. Establishing the Correspondence Address for Application or Registration Upon receipt of an application, the Office enters the correspondence address in accordance with the following guidelines: • If the application is transmitted by a qualified practitioner, or includes a power of attorney designating a qualified practitioner, the Office will send correspondence to the practitioner. • If an application is not being prosecuted by a qualified practitioner and the applicant has not designated a correspondence address, but a domestic representative has been appointed, the Office will send correspondence to the domestic representative. • If an application is not being prosecuted by a qualified practitioner but the applicant designates in writing a correspondence address other than its own address, the Office will send correspondence to that address. • If the application is not being prosecuted by a qualified practitioner, no domestic representative has been appointed, and the applicant has not designated a different address for correspondence, the Office will send correspondence directly to the applicant at its address of record. 37 CFR 2.18; TMEP section 603.01 The Office reestablishes the correspondence address in accordance with these same guidelines upon the examination of an affidavit of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 of the Trademark Act, affidavit or declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Act, renewal application under section 9 of the Act, or request for amendment or correction of a registration under section 7 of the Act. TMEP section 603.02(c). Due to the length of time that elapses between registration and filings under sections 7, 8, 9, 15 and 71 of the Act (which can be 10 years or more), the Office will recognize a qualified practitioner who transmits such a filing even if there is no new power of attorney or revocation of a previous power. Changing the Correspondence Address Once the correspondence address is established as discussed above, the Office will send correspondence to that address unless there is a written request to change the address, signed by the practitioner who has been recognized by the Office, or by the applicant or registrant or someone with legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership) if the applicant or registrant is not represented by a qualified practitioner. 37 CFR 2.18(b); TMEP sections 601.02, 602.07, and 603.02(a). Once the Office has recognized a qualified practitioner as the representative of an applicant or registrant, only that practitioner, or another qualified practitioner from the same firm, can sign a request to change the address, unless the applicant or registrant files a new power of attorney or revocation of the previous power, or the recognized practitioner files a request to withdraw. TMEP sections 603.02(a) and 605.02. If a qualified practitioner transmits documents on behalf of an applicant or registrant who is not already represented by another qualified practitioner from a different firm, the Office will construe this as including a request to change the correspondence address to that of the practitioner. TMEP section 603.02(a). Documents Must Be Properly Signed Because an individual who is not authorized under § 10.14 cannot represent an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding before the Office, the Office will not act on documents that are not properly signed. TMEP sections 602.03 and 605.02. When it is unclear whether a response to an Office action is signed by a proper person, the Office will notify the applicant or registrant that the response is incomplete. *See* TMEP sections 605.05(a) and 712.03 regarding notices of incomplete response. When it is unclear whether a document other than a response to an Office action is signed by a proper person, the Office will notify the applicant or registrant that no action will be taken on the document, unless the applicant or registrant either establishes the signatory's authority or submits a properly signed document. See TMEP section 605.05. Unauthorized Practice When the Office learns that a person who is not qualified under § 10.14 is acting as the representative of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding, the Office will notify the affected applicant, registrant, or party that the individual is not entitled to practice before the Office in trademark matters, and therefore, may not represent the applicant, registrant, or party; that any power of attorney is void *ab initio* ; that the individual may not sign responses to Office actions; and that all correspondence will be sent to the domestic representative if one has been designated, or alternatively, to the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding at its address of record. If the Office receives a response signed by such an unqualified person, the response will be treated as incomplete. This same practice is followed when the Office learns that a practitioner has been suspended or excluded from practice before the Office. Discussion of Proposed Rules Changes Where appropriate, the Office proposes to reword or reorganize the rules for clarity, and to add headings to make it easier to navigate through the rules. The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.17(a) as § 2.17(b)(2). The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.17(b) as § 2.17(f). The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.17(c) as § 2.17(b), and to revise it to provide that the Office will recognize a qualified practitioner who signs a document or appears in person in a trademark case only if the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding is not already represented by a qualified practitioner from a different firm. This is consistent with TMEP sections 602.01 and 602.07. The Office proposes to set forth the requirements for powers of attorney in § 2.17(c). A power must:
(1)Designate by name at least one practitioner who meets the requirements of 37 CFR 10.14; and
(2)be signed by the individual applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding pending before the Office, or by someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, registrant, or party ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership). Once the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding has designated a qualified practitioner(s), that practitioner may sign an associate power of attorney appointing another qualified practitioner(s) as an additional person(s) authorized to represent the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding. This is consistent with TMEP sections 602.01 and 602.01(b). The Office proposes to amend § 2.17(d) to add a provision that the owner of an application or registration may appoint an attorney through TEAS for up to 20 applications or registrations that have the identical owner and attorney. This is consistent with TMEP section 602.01(a). The Office proposes to add § 2.17(e) to set forth the circumstances under which a Canadian attorney or agent may represent parties located in Canada. A Canadian patent agent who is registered with the Office and in good standing as a patent agent under § 11.6(c) may represent parties located in Canada before the Office in trademark matters. A Canadian attorney or agent who is registered or in good standing with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, but not registered as a patent agent under § 11.6(c), may represent parties located in Canada if he or she has been authorized to do so by the OED Director. Before undertaking to represent an applicant, registrant, or party before the Office, and before filing a paper with the Office, a Canadian attorney or agent who is not registered with the Office and in good standing as a patent agent under § 11.6(c) must both file a request for and be granted recognition to practice before the Office in trademark cases. The request for recognition must be filed with OED. The request must be granted by the OED Director before representation is undertaken and before any application or other document is filed in the Office. The request for recognition must include proof that he/she satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 32 and 37 CFR § 10.14(c). This is consistent with TMEP section 602.06(a). The Office has separately proposed to replace 37 CFR 10.14(c) with 37 CFR 11.14(c) and add 37 CFR 11.14(f). Under 37 CFR 11.14(c), a Canadian attorney or agent will be required to file a written application for reciprocal recognition under 37 CFR 11.14(f), provide evidence satisfying § 11.14(c), and pay an application fee that will be required by 37 CFR 1.21(a)(1)(i). Once recognized by OED, the Canadian attorney or agent can only represent parties who are located in Canada. He or she cannot represent Canadian nationals who are not located in Canada. Thus, a Canadian attorney or agent could not represent a Canadian national who resides in California and has access to a mailing address in Canada. The Office proposes to add § 2.17(g)(1), to provide that the Office considers a power of attorney to end with respect to a pending application when the mark is registered, when ownership changes, or when the application is abandoned. This is consistent with TMEP section 602.01. The Office proposes to add § 2.17(g)(2), to provide that the Office considers a power of attorney filed after registration to end when the mark is cancelled or expired, or when ownership changes. If the power was filed in connection with an affidavit of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 or 71 of the Trademark Act, affidavit or declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Act, renewal application under section 9 of the Act, or request for amendment or correction under section 7 of the Act, the power is deemed to end upon acceptance or final rejection of the filing. Current § 2.18 sets forth the procedures for establishing the correspondence address. The Office proposes to revise and reorganize § 2.18 to clarify the procedures for establishing and changing a correspondence address. Proposed § 2.18(a)(2) provides that if a qualified practitioner transmits a document(s) on behalf of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding in a trademark case, the Office will send correspondence to the practitioner transmitting the documents only if the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding is not already represented by another qualified practitioner. This is consistent with TMEP sections 602.07, 603.01, and 603.02(a). Proposed § 2.18(a)(6) provides that the Office will send correspondence to only one address. This is consistent with current § 2.18(b). Proposed § 2.18(a)(7) provides that once the Office has recognized a qualified practitioner as the representative of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding, the Office will communicate and conduct business only with that practitioner, or with another qualified practitioner from the same firm. The Office will not conduct business directly with the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding, or with another qualified practitioner from a different firm, unless the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding files a revocation of the power of attorney under § 2.19(a), and/or a new power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17(c). The proposed rule further provides that a written request to change the correspondence address does not revoke a power of attorney. This is consistent with TMEP sections 601.02, 602.07, and 603.02(a). Proposed § 2.18(b)(1) provides that when a physical or e-mail correspondence address changes, the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding must file a written request to change the correspondence address. The request should be promptly filed. This is consistent with TMEP section 603.03. Proposed § 2.18(b)(2) provides that a request to change the correspondence address must be made in writing, signed by the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, registrant, or party ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner, in accordance with § 2.193(e)(2). This is consistent with current § 2.18(b) and TMEP sections 603.02 and 603.02(a). Proposed § 2.18(b)(3) provides that if an applicant or registrant files a new power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17(c), the Office will change the correspondence address to that of the practitioner named in the power. Proposed § 2.18(b)(4) provides that if a qualified practitioner transmits a document(s) on behalf of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding who is not already represented by another qualified practitioner, the Office will construe this as including a request to change the correspondence address to that of the practitioner, and will send correspondence to the practitioner. This is consistent with TMEP section 603.02(a). The Office proposes to add § 2.18(c)(1), to provide that even if there is no new power of attorney or written request to change the correspondence address, the Office will change the correspondence address upon the examination of an affidavit of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 or 71 of the Trademark Act, affidavit or declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Act, renewal application under section 9 of the Act, or request for amendment or correction under section 7 of the Act. This is consistent with TMEP section 603.02(c). Due to the length of time that elapses between filings under sections 7, 8, 9, 15 and 71 of the Act (which can be 10 years or more), the Office automatically enters a new correspondence address upon examination of each filing. The Office proposes to add § 2.18(c)(2), to provide that once the Office establishes a correspondence address upon examination of an affidavit, renewal application or section 7 request, a written request to change the address is required to change the address during the pendency of that filing. Example 1: Attorney A transmits an affidavit of use under section 8, and the examiner issues an Office action in connection with the affidavit. If another attorney from a different firm (Attorney B) wants to file a response to the Office action, Attorney B must file a new power of attorney and/or revocation of the previous power, signed by the owner of the registration or someone with legal authority to bind the owner, before the Office will act on the response and send correspondence to Attorney B. Example 2: Attorney A transmits an affidavit of use under section 8, and the Office accepts the affidavit. If another attorney from a different firm (Attorney B) later files a request for amendment under section 7, the Office will recognize and correspond with Attorney B regardless of whether a new power of attorney or revocation of the previous power is filed. Example 3: Attorney A transmits an affidavit of use under section 8, and the examiner issues an Office action in connection with the affidavit. If another attorney from a different firm (Attorney B) wants to file a request for amendment under section 7 before the Office accepts or issues a final rejection of the section 8 affidavit, Attorney B must file a new power of attorney and/or revocation of the previous power, signed by the owner of the registration or someone with legal authority to bind the owner, before the Office will act on the section 7 request and send correspondence to Attorney B. The Office proposes to revise § 2.19(a) to clarify the requirements for revocation of a power of attorney. Proposed § 2.19(a)(1) provides that a request to revoke a power of attorney must be signed by the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding, or by someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, registrant, or party. This is consistent with TMEP section 602.04. The Office proposes to add § 2.19(a)(3), stating that a request to change the correspondence address does not revoke a power of attorney. The Office proposes to add § 2.19(a)(4), stating that a new power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17(c) will be treated as a revocation of the previous power. The Office proposes to remove the provision in the current § 2.19(a) that the Office will notify the affected person of the revocation of his or her authorization. The Office no longer issues such notices. Anyone who wants to know whether the revocation of a power of attorney has been entered can check the TARR database on the Office's Web site at *http://tarr.uspto.gov* . The Office proposes to revise § 2.19(b) to set forth the requirements for filing a request to withdraw as attorney. This is consistent with TMEP section 602.05. The request should be filed soon after the practitioner notifies the client of his/her intent to withdraw, and must include the application serial number, registration number, or proceeding number; a statement of the reason(s) for the request to withdraw; and either
(1)a statement that the practitioner has given due notice to the client that the practitioner is withdrawing from employment and will be filing the necessary documents with the Office; that the client was given notice of the withdrawal at least two months before the expiration of the response period, if applicable; that the practitioner has delivered to the client all documents and property in the practitioner's file concerning the application or registration to which the client is entitled; and that the practitioner has notified the client of any responses that may be due, and of the deadline for response; or
(2)if there is more than one attorney of record, a statement that representation by co-counsel is ongoing. The Office proposes to amend § 2.22(a)(11) to change a cross-reference. The Office proposes to amend § 2.23(a)(2), which requires that a TEAS Plus applicant continue to receive communications from the Office by electronic mail during the pendency of the application, to add a requirement that a TEAS Plus applicant maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address in order to maintain TEAS Plus status. If the e-mail address changes, the applicant must notify the Office of the change. The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.24 as § 2.24(a), and amend it to provide that if an applicant is not domiciled in the United States, the applicant may designate the name and address of some person resident in the United States on whom may be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark by:
(1)Setting forth the name of the domestic representative in the initial application, or
(2)filing a separate designation signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner. Where the designation of domestic representative is set forth in the initial application, the designation may be signed by a person authorized to sign the application on behalf of applicant, pursuant to proposed § 2.193(e)(1). The Office does not question the authority of the signatory, unless there is an inconsistency in the record as to the signatory's authority to sign. TMEP section 804.04. The Office proposes to add new § 2.24(b), to provide that a request to change or revoke a designation of domestic representative must be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, or a qualified practitioner. The Office proposes to amend § 2.33(a) to remove the definition of “person properly authorized to sign” a verification on behalf of applicant, and replace it with a cross-reference to proposed § 2.193(e)(1). The substance of this definition is unchanged. The Office proposes to remove § 2.33(d), which provided for signature of verifications in applications filed through TEAS, because it is unnecessary. The procedure for signing a TEAS document is set forth in proposed § 2.193(c). This procedure is unchanged. The Office proposes to amend § 2.62 and its heading to add a requirement that a response to an Office action be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, or a qualified practitioner, in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 2.193(e)(2). This includes responses to suspension inquiries or letters of suspension. This is consistent with TMEP section 712.01. The Office proposes to amend § 2.64(b) to add a requirement that a request for reconsideration of a final action be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, or a qualified practitioner, in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 2.193(e)(2). This is consistent with current practice. The Office proposes to amend § 2.68 to add a requirement that a request for express abandonment of an application be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, or a qualified practitioner, in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 2.193(e)(2). This is consistent with TMEP section 718.01. The Office proposes to revise § 2.74 to add a new paragraph (c), requiring that such an amendment be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, or a qualified practitioner, in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 2.193(e)(2). This is consistent with TMEP section 605.02. The Office proposes to amend § 2.76(b)(1) to change a cross-reference. The Office proposes to amend § 2.87(d) to add a provision that a request to divide be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner, in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 2.193(e)(2). This is consistent with TMEP section 1110. The Office proposes to amend § 2.88(b)(1) to change a cross-reference. The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.89 (a)(3) and (b)(3) to change cross-references. The Office proposes to amend § 2.146(c) to add a provision that a petition to the Director be signed by the petitioner, someone with legal authority to bind the petitioner, or a qualified practitioner, in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 2.193(e)(2). This is consistent with TMEP section 1705.07. The proposed rule further provides that when facts are to be proved on petition, the petitioner must submit proof in the form of affidavits or declarations in accordance with § 2.20, signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts to be proved. TMEP section 1705.03. The Office proposes to amend § 2.161(b) to remove the definition of “person properly authorized to sign” an affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 of the Trademark Act (“section 8 affidavit”) and replace it with a cross-reference to proposed § 2.193(e)(1). The substance of this definition is unchanged. The Office proposes to amend § 2.163(b) to add a provision that a response to an Office action issued in connection with a section 8 affidavit be signed by the owner, someone with legal authority to bind the owner, or a qualified practitioner, in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 2.193(e)(2). This is consistent with TMEP section 1604.16. The Office proposes to amend § 2.167 to add a provision that an affidavit or declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Trademark Act be filed in the name of the owner of the registration, and verified by the owner or a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the owner under proposed § 2.193(e)(1). This is consistent with TMEP section 1605.04. The Office proposes to amend § 2.171(a) to add a provision that a request for a new certificate of registration upon change of ownership be signed by the owner of the registration, someone with legal authority to bind the owner, or a qualified practitioner. The Office proposes to remove the requirement in § 2.171(a) that the original certificate of registration be included with a request for a new certificate of registration upon change of ownership. This is consistent with current practice, and with Office practice in connection with requests to amend or correct registrations under section 7 of the Trademark Act. *See* notice at 69 FR 51362 (Aug. 29, 2004), removing the requirement that the original certificate be included with a section 7 request. The Office proposes to amend § 2.171(b) to add a provision that a request to divide a registration upon change of ownership with respect to some but not all of the goods/services be signed by the owner of the registration, someone with legal authority to bind the owner (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner. This is consistent with current practice. The Office proposes to amend § 2.172 to add a provision that a request for surrender of a registration be filed in the name of the owner of the registration, and signed by the owner, a person with legal authority to bind the owner, or a qualified practitioner. This is consistent with current practice. The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.173(a) and 2.175(b)(2) to add a provision that a request to amend a registration or to correct the owner's error in a registration be filed by the owner and signed by the owner, someone with legal authority to bind the owner (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner. The requirement for filing in the name of the owner is consistent with current practice. However, the requirement for signature by someone with legal authority to bind the owner or a qualified practitioner changes current practice slightly. TMEP sections 1609.01(b) and 1609.10(b) now permit signature by a person with firsthand knowledge of the facts and actual or implied authority to act on behalf of the owner, which could include someone without legal authority to bind the owner. The Office believes that the better practice would be to require that requests to amend or correct a registration be signed by someone with legal authority to bind the owner or by a qualified practitioner. The Office proposes to amend § 2.184(b) to add a provision that a response to an Office action issued in connection with a renewal application be signed by the registrant, someone with legal authority to bind the registrant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner, in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 2.193(e)(2). This is consistent with TMEP section 1606.12. The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.193(a) as § 2.193(g). The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.193(b) as § 2.193(h). The Office proposes to move and reorganize the current § 2.193(c)(1) in proposed §§ 2.193 (a),
(b)and (c). Proposed § 2.193(a) provides that each piece of correspondence that requires a signature must bear:
(1)A handwritten signature personally signed in permanent ink by the person named as the signatory, or a true copy thereof; or
(2)an electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph (c). The proposed rule makes it clear that a handwritten signature must be personally signed by the person named as the signatory, and an electronic signature must be personally entered by the person named as the signatory. Proposed § 2.193(a)(2) provides that the Office will accept a signature that meets the requirements of paragraph
(c)on all correspondence, whether filed on paper, by facsimile transmission, or through TEAS or ESTTA. This is consistent with TMEP section 804.05. Proposed § 2.193(c) sets forth the requirements for signing a document electronically, previously set forth in § 2.193(c)(1)(iii). The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.193(c)(2) as § 2.193(f). The Office proposes to add new § 2.193(d), to require that the name of the person who signs a document in connection with a trademark application or registration must be set forth in printed or typed form immediately below or adjacent to the signature, or identified elsewhere in the filing (e.g., in a cover letter or other document that accompanies the filing). The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.193(d) as § 2.193(i). The Office proposes to add new § 2.193(e), setting forth the proper person to sign various types of documents that are commonly filed in connection with trademark applications and registrations. Proposed § 2.193(e)(1) sets forth the definition of a person who is properly authorized to sign a verification in support of an application for registration, amendment to an application for registration, allegation of use under § 2.76 or § 2.78, request for extension of time to file a statement of use under § 2.89, or an affidavit under section 8, 15 or 71 of the Trademark Act. This is consistent with current §§ 2.33(a) and 2.161(b). Proposed § 2.193(e)(2) provides that the applicant or registrant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner must sign responses to Office actions, amendments to applications, requests for reconsideration of final actions, requests for express abandonment, requests to divide, notices of change of address, and petitions under § 2.146. This is consistent with proposed §§ 2.62(b), 2.64(b), 2.68(a), 2.74(c), 2.87(d), 2.146(c), 2.163(b), and 2.184(b), discussed above. Proposed § 2.193(e)(2)(i) provides that if the applicant or registrant is represented by a qualified practitioner, the practitioner must sign, except where correspondence is required to be signed by the applicant or registrant. This is consistent with current § 10.18(a). This applies to both in-house and outside counsel. Proposed § 2.193(e)(2)(ii) provides that if the applicant or registrant is not represented by a qualified practitioner, the individual applicant or registrant, or someone with legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership) must sign. In the case of joint applicants or joint registrants who are not represented by a qualified practitioner, all must sign. This is consistent with TMEP sections 605.02, 712.01 and 712.01(a)(i). Proposed § 2.193(e)(3) provides that the individual applicant or registrant or someone with legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership) must sign powers of attorney and revocations of powers of attorney; that in the case of joint applicants or joint registrants, all must sign; that once the applicant or registrant has designated a qualified practitioner(s), the named practitioner may sign an associate power of attorney appointing another qualified practitioner(s) as an additional person(s) authorized to prosecute the application or registration; and that if the applicant or registrant revokes the original power of attorney, this revocation also discharges any associate power signed by the practitioner whose power has been revoked. This is consistent with proposed §§ 2.17(c) and 2.19(a), discussed above. Proposed § 2.193(e)(4) provides that someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts regarding unintentional delay must sign a petition to revive under § 2.66. This is consistent with current §§ 2.66(b)(2) and (c)(2). Proposed § 2.193(e)(5) provides that the registrant or the registrant's representative must sign a renewal application. This is consistent with current § 2.183(a). Proposed § 2.193(e)(6) provides that the owner of the registration, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner must sign a request for correction, amendment or surrender of a registration; and that in the case of joint owners who are not represented by a practitioner authorized to practice before the Office under 37 CFR 10.14, all must sign. This is consistent with proposed §§ 2.172, 2.173(a) and 2.175(b)(2). Proposed § 2.193(e)(7) provides that a designation or revocation of a domestic representative must be signed by applicant or registrant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner. Proposed § 2.193(e)(8) provides that a person transmitting documents to the Office may sign a cover letter or transmittal letter; and that the Office neither requires cover letters nor questions the authority of a person who signs a communication that merely transmits documents. This is consistent with TMEP section 605.03. Rule Making Requirements *Executive Order 12866:* This rule has been determined not to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. *Administrative Procedure Act:* This rule merely involves rules of agency practice and procedure within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Therefore, this rule may be adopted without prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c), or thirty-day advance publication under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). However, the Office has chosen to seek public comment before implementing the rule. *Regulatory Flexibility Act:* The Deputy General Counsel for General Law of the United States Patent and Trademark Office hereby certifies to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this notice of proposed rule making, Changes in Requirements for Signature of Documents, Recognition of Representatives, and Establishing and Changing the Correspondence Address in Trademark Cases (RIN 0651-AC26), will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b)). As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (or any other law), neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603. The proposed rules clarify certain requirements for signature of documents filed in the Office, recognition of representatives, and establishing and changing the correspondence address in trademark cases. In large part, the proposed rule changes are intended to codify existing practice. Although the proposed rules may affect trademark applicants or registrants, because they codify the existing practice of the Office, the changes proposed in this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. *Unfunded Mandates:* The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. *Executive Order 13132:* This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999). *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This proposed rule involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The collection of information in this proposed rule have been reviewed and previously approved by the OMB under OMB control numbers: 0651-0054, 0651-0027 and 0651-0040. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is not resubmitting an information collection package to OMB for its review and approval because the changes in this proposed rule would not affect the information collection requirements associated with the information collections under OMB control numbers 0651-0054, 0651-0027 and 0651-0040. The changes in this notice are limited to amending the rules of practice to codify current practice with respect to the proper party to sign various documents and current procedures for appointment, revocation or withdrawal of attorneys and domestic representatives. Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding these information collections, including suggestions for reduction of this burden to:
(1)The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, *Attention:* Desk Officer for the Patent and Trademark Office; and
(2)Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 ( *Attn:* Mary Hannon). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks. For the reasons given in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the Office proposes to amend part 2 of title 37 as follows: PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise § 2.17 to read as follows: § 2.17 Recognition for representation.
(a)*Authority to practice in trademark cases.* Only an individual who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter may represent an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding before the Office in a trademark case. (b)(1) *Recognition of practitioner as representative.* To be recognized as a representative in a trademark case, a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter may:
(i)File a power of attorney that meets the requirements of paragraph
(c)of this section;
(ii)Sign a document on behalf of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding who is not already represented by a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter from a different firm; or
(iii)Appear in person on behalf of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding who is not already represented by a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter from a different firm.
(2)*Signature as certificate of authorization to represent* . When a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter appears in person or signs a document pursuant to paragraph
(b)of this section, his or her personal appearance or signature shall constitute a representation to the Office that he or she is authorized to represent the person or entity on whose behalf he or she acts. The Office may require further proof of authority to act in a representative capacity.
(c)*Requirements for power of attorney* . A power of attorney must:
(1)Designate by name at least one practitioner meeting the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter; and
(2)Be signed by the individual applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding pending before the Office, or by someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, registrant, or party ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership). Once the applicant, registrant, or party has designated a practitioner(s) who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter, that practitioner may sign an associate power of attorney appointing another qualified practitioner(s) as an additional person(s) authorized to represent the applicant, registrant, or party. If the applicant, registrant, or party revokes the original power of attorney (§ 2.19(a)), this revocation also discharges any associate power signed by the practitioner whose power has been revoked.
(d)*Power of attorney relating to multiple applications or registrations* .
(1)The owner of an application or registration may appoint a practitioner(s) who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter for up to twenty applications or registrations that have the identical owner and attorney through TEAS. The owner may not file a power of attorney relating to future applications through TEAS.
(2)The owner of an application or registration may file a power of attorney that relates to more than one trademark application or registration, or to all existing and future applications and registrations of that owner, on paper. A person relying on such a power of attorney must:
(i)Include a copy of the previously filed power of attorney; or
(ii)Refer to the power of attorney, specifying the filing date of the previously filed power of attorney; the application serial number (if known), registration number, or *inter partes* proceeding number for which the original power of attorney was filed; and the name of the person who signed the power of attorney; or, if the application serial number is not known, submit a copy of the application or a copy of the mark, and specify the filing date.
(e)*Canadian attorneys and agents* .
(1)A Canadian patent agent who is registered and in good standing as a patent agent under § 11.6(c) may represent parties located in Canada before the Office in trademark matters.
(2)A Canadian attorney or agent who is registered or in good standing with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, but not registered as a patent agent under § 11.6(c), may represent parties located in Canada if he or she has been authorized to do so by the Director of Enrollment and Discipline. See 37 CFR 11.14(c) and (f).
(f)*Non-lawyers* . A non-lawyer may not act as a representative except in the limited circumstances set forth in § 10.14(b) of this chapter. Before any non-lawyer who meets the requirements of § 10.14(b) of this chapter may take action of any kind with respect to an application, registration or proceeding, a written authorization must be filed, signed by the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding, or by someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, registrant, or party ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership).
(g)*Duration of power of attorney* .
(1)For purposes of recognition as a representative, the Office considers a power of attorney filed while an application is pending to end when the mark registers, when ownership changes, or when the application is abandoned.
(2)The Office considers a power of attorney filed after registration to end when the mark is cancelled or expired, or when ownership changes. If the power was filed in connection with an affidavit of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 or 71 of the Trademark Act, affidavit or declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Act, renewal application under section 9 of the Act, or request for amendment or correction under section 7 of the Act, the power is deemed to end upon acceptance or final rejection of the filing. 3. Revise § 2.18 to read as follows: § 2.18 Correspondence, with whom held.
(a)*Establishing the correspondence address* .
(1)If a written power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17 is filed, the Office will send correspondence to the practitioner designated in the power.
(2)If a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter transmits a document(s) on behalf of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding who is not already represented by another qualified practitioner from a different firm, the Office will send correspondence to the practitioner transmitting the documents.
(3)If an application, registration or proceeding is not being prosecuted by a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter and the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding designates a correspondence address in writing, the Office will send the correspondence to the designated address.
(4)If an application, registration or proceeding is not being prosecuted by a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter and the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding has not designated a correspondence address in writing, but a domestic representative has been appointed, the Office will send correspondence to the domestic representative.
(5)If the application, registration or proceeding is not being prosecuted by a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter, the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding has not designated a correspondence address, and no domestic representative has been appointed, the Office will send correspondence directly to the applicant, registrant or party to the proceeding.
(6)The Office will send correspondence to only one address.
(7)Once the Office has recognized a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter as the representative of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding, the Office will communicate and conduct business only with that practitioner, or with another qualified practitioner from the same firm. The Office will not conduct business directly with the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding, or with another practitioner from a different firm, unless the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding files a revocation of the power of attorney under § 2.19(a), and/or a new power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17(c). A written request to change the correspondence address does not revoke a power of attorney.
(b)*Changing the correspondence address* .
(1)If a physical or e-mail correspondence address changes, the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding must file a written request to change the correspondence address. The request should be promptly filed.
(2)A request to change the correspondence address must be made in writing, signed by the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter , in accordance with proposed § 2.193(e)(2).
(3)If an applicant or registrant files a new power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17(c), the Office will change the correspondence address to that of the practitioner named in the power.
(4)If a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter transmits a document(s) on behalf of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding who is not already represented by another qualified practitioner, the Office will construe this as including a request to change the correspondence address to that of the practitioner, and will send correspondence to the practitioner.
(c)*Post registration filings under sections 7, 8, 9, 15, and 71.*
(1)Even if there is no new power of attorney or written request to change the correspondence address, the Office will change the correspondence address upon the examination of an affidavit of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 or 71 of the Trademark Act, affidavit or declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Act, renewal application under section 9 of the Act, or request for amendment or correction under section 7 of the Act. If a practitioner qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter transmits the affidavit, renewal application, or section 7 request, the Office will send correspondence to the practitioner. If the owner of the registration is not represented by a qualified practitioner, the Office will send correspondence directly to the owner, or to the domestic representative, in accordance with paragraph (a).
(2)Once the Office establishes a correspondence address upon examination of an affidavit, renewal application or section 7 request, a written request to change the address in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section is required to change the address during the pendency of that filing. 4. Revise § 2.19 to read as follows: § 2.19 Revocation or withdrawal of attorney.
(a)*Revocation* .
(1)Authority to represent an applicant, registrant or party to a proceeding before the Office may be revoked at any stage in the proceedings of a trademark case, upon written notification signed by the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding, or by someone with legal authority to bind the applicant, registrant, or party ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership).
(2)When a power of attorney is revoked, the Office will communicate directly with the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding, or with the new attorney or domestic representative if one has been appointed.
(3)A request to change the correspondence address does not revoke a power of attorney.
(4)A new power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17(c) will be treated as a revocation of the previous power.
(b)*Withdrawal of attorney* . If the requirements of § 10.40 of this chapter are met, a practitioner authorized to represent an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding in a trademark case may withdraw upon application to and approval by the Director. The practitioner should file the request to withdraw soon after the practitioner notifies the client of his/her intent to withdraw. The request must include the following:
(1)The application serial number, registration number, or proceeding number;
(2)A statement of the reason(s) for the request to withdraw; and
(3)Either
(i)a statement that the practitioner has given notice to the client that the practitioner is withdrawing from employment and will be filing the necessary documents with the Office; that the client was given notice of the withdrawal at least two months before the expiration of the response period, if applicable; that the practitioner has delivered to the client all documents and property in the practitioner's file concerning the application, registration or proceeding to which the client is entitled; and that the practitioner has notified the client of any responses that may be due, and of the deadline for response; or
(ii)if more than one attorney is of record, a statement that representation by co-counsel is ongoing. 5. Revise § 2.22(a)(11) to read as follows: § 2.22 Filing requirements for a TEAS Plus application.
(a)* * *
(11)A verified statement that meets the requirements of § 2.33, dated and signed by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant pursuant to § 2.193(e)(1); 6. Revise § 2.23(a)(2) to read as follows: § 2.23 Additional requirements for TEAS Plus application.
(a)* * *
(2)Maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address and continue to receive communications from the Office by e-mail. 7. Revise § 2.24 to read as follows: § 2.24 Designation and revocation of domestic representative by foreign applicant. (a)(1) If an applicant is not domiciled in the United States, the applicant may designate the name and address of some person resident in the United States on whom may be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark by:
(i)setting forth the name of the domestic representative in the initial application; or
(ii)filing a separate designation signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter.
(2)If the applicant does not file a document designating the name and address of a person resident in the United States on whom may be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark, or if the last person designated cannot be found at the address given in the designation, then notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark may be served on the Director.
(3)The mere designation of a domestic representative does not authorize the person designated to represent the applicant unless qualified under § 10.14 of this chapter.
(b)A request to change or revoke a designation of domestic representative must be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter. 8. Amend § 2.33 by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows, and removing paragraph (d): § 2.33 Verified statement.
(a)The application must include a statement that is signed in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193 and verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant under § 2.193(e)(1). 9. Revise § 2.62 to read as follows: § 2.62 Procedure for filing response.
(a)*Deadline* . The applicant's response to an Office action must be received within six months from the date of issuance.
(b)*Signature* . The applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the response, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2). 10. Revise § 2.64(b) to read as follows: § 2.64 Final action.
(b)During the period between a final action and expiration of the time for filing an appeal, the applicant may request the examiner to reconsider the final action. The applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the request, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2). The filing of a request for reconsideration will not extend the time for filing an appeal or petitioning the Director, but normally the examiner will reply to a request for reconsideration before the end of the six-month period if the request is filed within three months after the date of the final action. The Office will enter amendments accompanying requests for reconsideration after final action if the amendments comply with the rules of practice in trademark cases and the Act of 1946. 11. Revise § 2.68 to read as follows: § 2.68 Express abandonment (withdrawal) of application.
(a)*Written document required* . An applicant may expressly abandon an application by filing a written request for abandonment or withdrawal of the application, signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2).
(b)*Rights in the mark not affected* . Except as provided in § 2.135, the fact that an application has been expressly abandoned shall not, in any proceeding in the Office, affect any rights that the applicant may have in the mark in the abandoned application. 12. Amend § 2.74 by revising the heading and adding a new paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 2.74 Form and signature of amendment.
(c)The applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the request for amendment, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2). If the amendment requires verification, the verification must be sworn to or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant under § 2.193(e)(1). 13. Revise § 2.76(b)(1) introductory text to read as follows: § 2.76 Amendment to allege use.
(b)A complete amendment to allege use must include:
(1)A statement that is signed and verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant (see § 2.193(e)(1)) that: 14. Revise § 2.87(d) to read as follows: § 2.87 Dividing an application.
(d)The applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the request to divide, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2). The request should be made in a separate document from any other amendment or response in the application, and captioned as a “Request to divide application.” 15. Revise § 2.88(b)(1) introductory text to read as follows: § 2.88 Filing statement of use after notice of allowance.
(b)A complete statement of use must include:
(1)A statement that is signed and verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant (see § 2.193(e)(1)) that: 16. Revise §§ 2.89(a)(3) and (b)(3) to read as follows: § 2.89 Extensions of time for filing a statement of use.
(a)* * *
(3)A statement that the applicant still has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, specifying the relevant goods or services, signed and verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant (see § 2.193(e)(1)). If the verification is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant must submit a substitute verification within six months of the date of issuance of the notice of allowance.
(b)* * *
(3)A statement that the applicant still has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, specifying the relevant goods or services, signed and verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant (see § 2.193(e)(1)). If the verification is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant must submit a substitute verification before the expiration of the previously granted extension; and 17. Revise § 2.146(c) to read as follows: § 2.146 Petitions to the Director.
(c)Every petition to the Director shall include a statement of the facts relevant to the petition, the points to be reviewed, the action or relief requested, and the fee required by § 2.6. Any brief in support of the petition shall be embodied in or accompany the petition. The petitioner, someone with legal authority to bind the petitioner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the petition, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2). When facts are to be proved on petition, the petitioner must submit proof in the form of affidavits or declarations in accordance with § 2.20, signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts to be proved, and any exhibits. 18. Revise § 2.161(b) to read as follows: § 2.161 Requirements for a complete affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse.
(b)Include a statement that is signed and verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the owner under § 2.193(e)(1), attesting to the use or excusable nonuse of the mark within the period set forth in section 8 of the Act. The verified statement must be executed on or after the beginning of the filing period specified in § 2.160(a). 19. Revise § 2.163(b) to read as follows: § 2.163 Acknowledgment of receipt of affidavit or declaration, and response to Office action.
(b)The owner must file a response to a refusal within six months of the mailing date of the Office action, or before the end of the filing period set forth in section 8(a) or section 8(b) of the Act, whichever is later. The owner, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the response, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2). If no response is filed within this time period, the registration will be cancelled. 20. Amend § 2.167 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 2.167 Affidavit or declaration under Section 15. The owner of a mark registered on the Principal Register or a mark registered under the Act of 1881 or 1905 and published under section 12(c) of the Act (§ 2.153) may file an affidavit or declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Act. The affidavit or declaration must:
(a)Be verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration under § 2.20, signed by the owner of the registration or a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the owner under § 2.193(e)(1); 21. Revise § 2.171 to read as follows: § 2.171 New certificate on change of ownership.
(a)If the ownership of a registered mark changes, the new owner may request that a new certificate of registration be issued in the name of the new owner for the unexpired part of the original period. The assignment or other document changing title must be recorded in the Office, and the request for the new certificate must include the fee required by § 2.6(a)(8). The owner of the registration, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the request.
(b)When ownership of a registration has changed with respect to some, but not all, of the goods and/or services, the owner(s) may file a request that the registration be divided into two or more separate registrations. The fee required by § 2.6(a)(8) must be paid for each new registration created by the division, and the change of ownership must be recorded in the Office. The owner, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the request. 22. Revise § 2.172 to read as follows: § 2.172 Surrender for cancellation. Upon application by the owner, the Director may permit any registration to be surrendered for cancellation. The owner of the registration, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the application for surrender. When a registration has more than one class, one or more entire class(es) but fewer than the total number of classes may be surrendered. Deletion of fewer than all the goods or services in a single class constitutes amendment of registration as to that class (see § 2.173), not surrender. 23. Revise § 2.173(a) to read as follows: § 2.173 Amendment of registration.
(a)The owner of a registration may apply to amend a registration or to disclaim part of the mark in the registration. The owner must submit a written request specifying the amendment or disclaimer. If the registration is involved in an inter partes proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the request must be filed by appropriate motion to the Board. The request must include the required fee, and be signed by the owner of the registration, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter, and verified or supported by a declaration under § 2.20. If the amendment involves a change in the mark, the owner must submit a new specimen showing the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services, and a new drawing of the amended mark. The registration as amended must still contain registrable matter, and the mark as amended must be registrable as a whole. An amendment or disclaimer must not materially alter the character of the mark. 24. Revise § 2.175(b)(2) to read as follows: § 2.175 Correction of mistake by owner of registration.
(b)* * *
(2)Be signed by the owner of the registration, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter, and verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration in accordance with § 2.20; and 25. Revise § 2.184(b) to read as follows: § 2.184 Refusal of renewal.
(b)A response to the refusal of renewal must be filed within six months of the mailing date of the Office action, or before the expiration date of the registration, whichever is later, or the registration will expire. The registrant, someone with legal authority to bind the registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the response, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2). 26. Revise § 2.193 to read as follows: § 2.193 Trademark correspondence and signature requirements.
(a)*Signature required.* Each piece of correspondence that requires a signature must bear:
(1)A handwritten signature personally signed in permanent ink by the person named as the signatory, or a true copy thereof; or
(2)An electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph
(c)of this section, personally entered by the person named as the signatory. The Office will accept an electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph
(c)of this section on correspondence filed on paper, by facsimile transmission (§ 2.195(c)), or through TEAS or ESTTA.
(b)*Copy of original signature.* If a copy, such as a photocopy or facsimile copy of an original signature is filed, the filer should retain the original as evidence of authenticity. If a question of authenticity arises, the Office may require submission of the original.
(c)*Requirements for electronic signature.* A person signing a document electronically must:
(1)Personally enter any combination of letters, numbers, spaces and/or punctuation marks that he or she has adopted as a signature, placed between two forward slash (“/”) symbols in the signature block on the electronic submission; or
(2)Sign the verified statement using some other form of electronic signature specified by the Director.
(d)*Signatory must be identified.* The name of the person who signs a document in connection with a trademark application or registration must be set forth in printed or typed form immediately below or adjacent to the signature, or identified elsewhere in the filing ( *e.g.* , in a cover letter or other document that accompanies the filing).
(e)*Proper person to sign.* Documents filed in connection with a trademark application or registration must be signed by a proper person. Unless otherwise specified by law, the following requirements apply:
(1)*Verification of facts.* A verification in support of an application for registration, amendment to an application for registration, allegation of use under § 2.76 or § 2.78, request for extension of time to file a statement of use under § 2.89, or an affidavit under section 8, 15 or 71 of the Trademark Act must be sworn to or supported by a declaration under § 2.20, signed by the applicant or registrant, or a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant or registrant. A person who is properly authorized to verify facts on behalf of an applicant or registrant is:
(i)A person with legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership);
(ii)A person with firsthand knowledge of the facts and actual or implied authority to act on behalf of the applicant or registrant; or
(iii)An attorney as defined in § 10.1(c) of this chapter who has an actual written or verbal power of attorney or an implied power of attorney from the applicant or registrant.
(2)* Responses, amendments to applications, requests for express abandonment, requests for reconsideration of final actions, notices of change of address, requests to divide, and petitions under § 2.146. * The applicant or registrant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign responses to Office actions, amendments to applications, requests for express abandonment, requests for reconsideration of final actions, notices of change of address, requests to divide, and petitions under § 2.146, in accordance with the following guidelines:
(i)If the applicant or registrant is represented by a practitioner authorized to practice before the Office under § 10.14 of this chapter, the practitioner must sign, except where correspondence is required to be signed by the applicant or registrant; or
(ii)If the applicant or registrant is not represented by a practitioner authorized to practice before the Office under § 10.14 of this chapter, the individual applicant or registrant, or someone with legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership) must sign. In the case of joint applicants or joint registrants who are not represented by a practitioner authorized to practice before the Office under § 10.14 of this chapter, all must sign.
(3)*Powers of attorney and revocations of powers of attorney.* The individual applicant or registrant or someone with legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership) must sign powers of attorney and revocations of powers of attorney. In the case of joint applicants or joint registrants, all must sign. Once the applicant or registrant has designated a qualified practitioner(s), the named practitioner may sign an associate power of attorney appointing another qualified practitioner(s) as an additional person(s) authorized to prosecute the application or registration. If the applicant or registrant revokes the original power of attorney, this revocation also discharges any associate power signed by the practitioner whose power has been revoked.
(4)*Petition to revive under § 2.66.* Someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts regarding unintentional delay must sign a petition to revive under § 2.66.
(5)*Renewal applications.* The registrant or the registrant's representative must sign a renewal application.
(6)*Requests for correction, amendment or surrender of registrations.* The owner of the registration, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner authorized to practice before the Office under § 10.14 of this chapter must sign a request for correction, amendment or surrender of a registration. In the case of joint owners who are not represented by a practitioner authorized to practice before the Office under § 10.14 of this chapter, all must sign.
(7)*Designations and revocations of domestic representative.* A designation or revocation of a domestic representative must be signed by the applicant or registrant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter.
(8)*Cover letters.* The person transmitting documents to the Office may sign a cover letter or transmittal letter. The Office neither requires cover letters nor questions the authority of a person who signs a communication that merely transmits documents.
(f)*Signature as certification.* The presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any document by any person, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under § 10.18(b) of this chapter. Violations of § 10.18(b) of this chapter may jeopardize the validity of the application or registration, and may result in the imposition of sanctions under § 10.18(c) of this chapter. Any practitioner violating § 10.18(b) of this chapter may also be subject to disciplinary action. *See* §§ 10.18(d) and 10.23(c)(15) of this chapter.
(g)*Separate copies for separate files.*
(1)Since each file must be complete in itself, a separate copy of every document to be filed in connection with a trademark application, registration, or *inter partes* proceeding must be furnished for each file to which the document pertains, even though the contents of the documents filed in multiple files may be identical.
(2)Parties should not file duplicate copies of correspondence in a single application, registration, or proceeding file, unless the Office requires the filing of duplicate copies. The Office may dispose of duplicate copies of correspondence.
(h)*Separate documents for separate branches of the Office.* Since different branches or sections of the Office may consider different matters, each distinct subject, inquiry or order must be contained in a separate document to avoid confusion and delay in answering correspondence.
(i)*Certified documents required by statute.* When a statute requires that a document be certified, a copy or facsimile transmission of the certification is not acceptable. Dated: June 4, 2008. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E8-12896 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Parts 2, 3, 6 and 7 [Docket No. PTO-T-2005-0018] RIN 0651-AB89 Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Rules of Practice AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTIONS: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Office”) proposes to amend the Trademark Rules of Practice to clarify certain requirements for applications, intent to use documents, amendments to classification, requests to divide, and Post Registration practice; to modernize the language of the rules; and to make other miscellaneous changes. For the most part, the proposed rule changes are intended to codify existing practice, as set forth in the *Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure* (“TMEP”). DATES: Comments must be received by August 11, 2008 to ensure consideration. ADDRESSES: The Office prefers that comments be submitted via electronic mail message to *TMRules@uspto.gov* . Written comments may also be submitted by mail to Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, attention Mary Hannon; by hand delivery to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, attention Mary Hannon; or by electronic mail message via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site ( *http://www.regulations.gov* ) for additional instructions on providing comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The comments will be available for public inspection on the Office's Web site at *http://www.uspto.gov* , and will also be available at the Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Hannon, Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, by telephone at
(571)272-9569. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: References below to “the Act,” “the Trademark Act,” or “the statute” refer to the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 *et seq.* , as amended. References to “TMEP” or *“Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure”* refer to the 5th edition, September 2007. References to the *Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure* refer to the 2nd edition, Rev. 1, March 12, 2004. Where appropriate, the Office proposes to reword or reorganize the rules for clarity, and to add headings to make it easier to navigate through the rules. Applications for Registration The Office proposes to amend § 2.21(a) to require that an application must be in the English language to receive a filing date. The Office proposes to amend § 2.23(a)(2), which requires that a TEAS Plus applicant continue to receive communications from the Office by electronic mail during the pendency of the application, to add a requirement that a TEAS Plus applicant maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address in order to maintain TEAS Plus status. If the e-mail address changes, the applicant must notify the Office of the new e-mail address. If applicant chooses to receive correspondence on paper, applicant will have to pay the processing fee required by §§ 2.6(a)(1)(iv) and 2.23(b). The Office proposes to amend § 2.32(a)(3)(iii) to indicate that the requirement for inclusion of the names and citizenship of the general partners in an application by a partnership applies only to domestic partnerships. Because the Office does not track the varying legal effects of partnership status in foreign countries, and the relevance of this additional information has not been established, this requirement does not apply to foreign partnerships. This is consistent with TMEP section 803.03(b). The Office proposes to add new § 2.32(a)(3)(iv) to provide that if the applicant is a domestic joint venture, the application must include the names and citizenship of all active members of the joint venture. This is consistent with TMEP section 803.03(b). The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.32(a)(7) and (a)(8) to change periods to semi-colons. The Office proposes to add new § 2.32(a)(9), providing that if a mark includes non-English wording, the applicant must submit an English translation of that wording; and new § 2.32(a)(10), providing that if the mark includes non-Latin characters, the applicant must submit a transliteration of those characters and either a translation of the corresponding non-English word(s) or a statement that the transliterated term has no meaning in English. This is consistent with the long-standing practice of the Office. TMEP sections 809 *et seq.* The Office proposes to amend § 2.33(b)(1) to remove the requirement that an application include a verified statement that the applicant “has adopted” the mark. This language is not required by statute and is deemed unnecessary. The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(ii) to change “must allege” to “must also allege.” This makes it clear that the requirement for an allegation of current use or bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, applies to verifications filed after the application filing date. The Office proposes to add new § 2.34(a)(1)(v) to provide that if more than one item of goods or services is specified in a section 1(a) application, the dates of use need be for only one of the items specified in each class, provided that the particular item to which the dates apply is designated. This requirement for section 1(a) applications previously appeared in § 2.33(a)(2), but was inadvertently removed effective October 30, 1999, by the final rule published at 64 FR 48900 (Sept. 8, 1999). This requirement is consistent with the requirements for allegations of use under §§ 2.76(c) and 2.88(c). The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.44(b) and 2.45(b), which pertain to collective and certification marks, to add a reference to section 66(a) applications. This corrects an oversight. The Office proposes to amend § 2.47(a) to remove the requirement for a specific allegation that a mark has been in “lawful” use in commerce in an application for registration on the Supplemental Register. Because the definition of “commerce” in section 45 of the Trademark Act is “all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress,” the Office presumes that an applicant who alleges that “the mark is in use in commerce,” is claiming lawful use. The Office generally questions the lawfulness of the alleged use in commerce only where the record shows a clear violation of law, such as the sale or transportation of a controlled substance. TMEP section 907. The Office proposes to add new § 2.48 to provide that the Office does not issue duplicate registrations. If two applications on the same register would result in registrations that are exact duplicates, the Office will permit only one application to mature into registration, and will refuse registration in the other application. This codifies the long-standing practice of the Office. TMEP section 703. The Office will normally refuse registration in the later-filed application. The applicant may overcome the refusal by abandoning the earlier-filed application or surrendering the registration. The Office proposes to amend § 2.52(b) to provide that special form drawings of marks that do not include color “should” show the mark in black on a white background, rather than that the drawing “must” show the mark in black on a white background. This gives examining attorneys discretion to accept a drawing that shows the mark in white on a black background, if this will more accurately depict the mark. The Office proposes to amend § 2.52(b)(1) to change the heading “Color marks” to “Marks that include color.” This corrects an error. Color marks are marks that consist *solely* of one or more colors used on particular objects, and § 2.52(b)(1) applies to all marks that include color. The Office proposes to amend § 2.53(a) to remove the reference to submission of a digitized image of a standard character mark as a drawing in an application filed via the Trademark Electronic Application System (“TEAS”). This is no longer an option. An applicant who wants to apply for a standard character mark through TEAS must enter the mark in the appropriate field on the TEAS form, and check the box to claim that the mark consists of standard characters. TEAS generates the drawing. The Office also proposes to combine §§ 2.53(a)(1) and (2), because the requirements for standard character drawings in TEAS and TEAS Plus applications are now the same. The Office proposes to amend § 2.56(b)(1) to add a reference to “displays associated with the goods.” This makes the rule consistent with the definition of “use in commerce” in section 45 of the Act. The Office proposes to amend § 2.56(d)(2) to add a provision that where an applicant files a paper specimen that exceeds the size requirements of paragraph (d)(1), and the Office creates a digital facsimile copy of the specimen, the Office will destroy the original bulky specimen. This is consistent with current practice. TMEP section 904.02(b). The Office proposes to amend § 2.56(d)(4) to provide that specimens filed through TEAS may be in .pdf format. This provides TEAS filers with an additional option for filing specimens, and is consistent with current practice. The Office proposes to amend § 2.62 and its heading to add a requirement that a response to an Office action be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 (“qualified practitioner”). This is consistent with TMEP section 712.01. The Office proposes to amend § 2.64(c)(1) to state that the filing of an amendment to allege use does not extend the deadline for filing a response to an outstanding Office action, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or petition to the Director. This is consistent with current practice. TMEP section 1104. The Office proposes to amend § 2.65(a) to add a reference to a notice of appeal as a response that avoids abandonment of an application. This is consistent with section 12(b) of the Act. The Office proposes to revise § 2.73 to provide that only an application that includes section 1(a) of the Trademark Act as a filing basis, or for which an acceptable allegation of use under § 2.76 or § 2.88 has been filed, may be amended to seek concurrent use registration. The rule currently provides that applications under section 44 or section 66(a) of the Act may be amended to recite concurrent use. However, because section 2(d) of the Act requires concurrent lawful use in commerce by the parties to a concurrent use proceeding, the Office deems it inappropriate to allow amendment to seek concurrent use absent allegations and evidence of use in commerce. The Office also proposes to add a statement to § 2.99(g) that applications based solely on section 44 or section 66(a) are not subject to concurrent use registration proceedings. The Office proposes to revise § 2.74 to modernize the language, and to add a provision that an amendment to an application must be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner. This is consistent with TMEP section 605.02. Intent To Use The Office proposes to amend § 2.76(d) to provide that an amendment to allege use (“AAU”) should be captioned “Allegation of Use” rather than “amendment to allege use.” This is consistent with the language on the Office's TEAS form. The term “allegation of use” encompasses both AAUs under § 2.76 and statements of use (“SOUs”) under § 2.88. The principal difference between AAUs and SOUs is the time of filing, and the same TEAS form is used for both filings. The proposed rule merely sets forth the preferred title. The Office will still accept documents titled “amendment to allege use” or “statement of use.” The Office proposes to amend § 2.77 to add a provision that amendments deleting a basis in a multiple-basis application, notices of change of attorney, and notices of change of address can be entered in a section 1(b) application during the period between the issuance of the notice of allowance and the submission of a statement of use. This is consistent with current practice. TMEP section 1107. The Office proposes to amend § 2.88(b)(1)(ii) to make it clearer that the dates of use specified in a statement of use must pertain to the goods or services identified in the notice of allowance. The Office proposes to amend § 2.88(b)(3) to provide that the applicant must pay a filing fee sufficient to cover at least one class within the statutory time for filing the statement of use, or the application will be abandoned. If the applicant submits a fee insufficient to cover all the classes in a multiple-class application, the applicant must specify the classes to be abandoned. If the applicant submits a fee sufficient to pay for at least one class, but insufficient to cover all the classes, and the applicant has not specified the class(es) to which the fee applies, the Office will issue a notice granting the applicant additional time to submit the fee(s) for the remaining classes, or specify the class(es) to be abandoned. If the applicant does not submit the required fee(s) or specify the class(es) to be abandoned within the set time period, the Office will apply the fees paid to the lowest numbered class(es) in ascending order, and will delete the goods/services in the higher class(es) from the application. This is consistent with current practice. The Office proposes to amend § 2.88(d) to provide that an SOU should be captioned “Allegation of Use” rather than “statement of use.” This is consistent with the proposed amendment to § 2.76(d), discussed above. The Office proposes to amend § 2.88(i)(2) to remove the provision that if any goods or services specified in the notice of allowance are omitted from the identification of goods or services in the SOU, the examining attorney will inquire about the discrepancy and permit the applicant to reinsert the omitted goods/services, and substitute a provision that the Office will delete the omitted goods/services from the application and will not permit the applicant to reinsert them. Currently, if goods/services identified in the application are omitted from a paper SOU, but the applicant has not indicated an intention to delete those goods/services from the application or filed a request to divide the application, the examining attorney will contact the applicant to confirm that the applicant intends to delete the omitted goods/services, and will permit the applicant to amend the SOU to claim use on or in connection with the omitted goods/services. However, when an SOU is filed electronically, the TEAS form requires the applicant to expressly indicate an intention to delete a class, or to delete goods/services within a class. Therefore, if any of the goods/services identified in the application do not appear in the identification of goods/services in a TEAS SOU, the examining attorney does not inquire about the discrepancy and the applicant may not reinsert the omitted goods/services. TMEP section 1109.13. There have been cases in which these inquiries concerning paper SOUs caused unnecessary delay in applications after the applicant intentionally omitted goods/services. Therefore, the Office is changing its practice with paper SOUs, and will discontinue issuing inquiries about omitted goods/services. Under the proposed rule, the practice with paper SOUs would be consistent with the current practice for electronically filed SOUs. Applicants are responsible for setting forth (or incorporating by reference) the goods/services on or in connection with which the mark is in use. This is consistent with the Office's long-standing practice with respect to requests for extensions of time to file a statement of use, set forth in § 2.89(f). The Office proposes to revise §§ 2.89(a)(2) and (b)(2) to add a provision that if an applicant timely submits a fee sufficient to pay for at least one class, but insufficient to cover all the classes, and the applicant has not specified the class(es) to which the fee applies, the Office will issue a notice granting the applicant additional time to submit the fee(s) for the remaining classes, or specify the class(es) to be abandoned. If the applicant does not submit the required fee(s) or specify the class(es) to be abandoned within the set time period, the Office will apply the fees paid to the lowest numbered class(es) in ascending order, and will delete the goods/services in the higher class(es) from the application. This is consistent with current practice. TMEP section 1108.02(c). Amendments to Classification The Office proposes to amend § 2.85(a) to add a reference to amendments to adopt international classification. The Office proposes to combine §§ 2.85(b) and (c), pertaining to the United States classification, and to add a reference to amendments to adopt international classification. The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.85(f), pertaining to certification marks and collective membership marks, as § 2.85(c), and to add a statement that the classes set forth in §§ 6.3 and 6.4 do not apply to applications based on section 66(a) of the Trademark Act and registered extensions of protection. This is consistent with current practice. TMEP section 1904.02(b). Classes A, B, & 200 are classes from the old United States classification system that are still used in the United States to classify certification and collective membership marks, but are not included in the international classes under the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (“Nice Agreement”). Therefore, they do not apply to section 66(a) applications and registered extensions of protection, in which classification is determined by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“IB”). The Office proposes to make conforming amendments to §§ 6.3 and 6.4, indicating that these sections apply only to applications based on sections 1 and 44 of the Trademark Act and registrations resulting from such applications. The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.85(d), which now provides that renewals filed on registrations issued under a prior classification system will be processed on the basis of that system, as § 2.183(f), and amend it to add an exception for registrations that have been amended to adopt international classification pursuant to § 2.85(e)(3). Proposed § 2.85(d) provides that in an application under section 66(a) of the Act or registered extension of protection, the classification cannot be changed from the classification assigned by the IB; classes cannot be added; and goods or services cannot be transferred from one class to another in a multiple-class application. This is consistent with current practice. TMEP sections 1401.03(d) and 1904.02(b). Under Article 3(2) of the Madrid Protocol, the IB controls classification. A section 66(a) application and any resulting registration remains part of the international registration, and a change of classification in the United States would have no effect on the international registration. The Office proposes to remove § 2.85(e), which now pertains to appeal and renewal fee deficiencies in multiple-class applications and registrations, and move the provisions on appeal fees to § 2.141(b). Procedures for processing renewal fee deficiencies in multiple-class registrations are already covered in § 2.183(e). Proposed § 2.85(e) provides for changes in classification pursuant to the Nice Agreement. The international classification changes periodically, and these changes are listed in the *International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks* , which is published by the World Intellectual Property Organization. The Nice Agreement edition currently in effect is the 9th edition, 2006, which became effective January 1, 2007. Proposed § 2.85(e)(1) provides that when international classification changes, the new requirements apply only to applications filed on or after the effective date of the change. Proposed § 2.85(e)(2) provides that in section 1 and 44 applications filed before the effective date of a change in classification, and registrations resulting from such applications, the applicant or registrant may reclassify the goods or services in accordance with the current edition, upon payment of the required fees. Proposed § 2.85(e)(3) sets forth the requirements for amendment of a pending application, and proposed § 2.85(e)(4) sets forth the requirements for amendment of a registration to reclassify the goods or services in accordance with the current edition of the Nice Agreement. This is consistent with current practice, set forth in TMEP sections 1401.11 and 1609.04. The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.85(g), which provides that classification schedules shall not limit or extend the applicant's rights, as § 2.85(f), and amend it to note an exception that in section 66(a) applications, the scope of the identification of goods or services for purposes of permissible amendments is limited by the class, because the classification assigned by the IB cannot be changed. This is consistent with TMEP section 1402.07(a). Requests To Divide The Office proposes to break the current § 2.87(c) into subsections 2.87(c)(1) and (c)(2). The Office proposes to add new § 2.87(c)(3) to provide that an applicant may file a request to divide out one or more bases of a multiple-basis application during the period between the issuance of the notice of allowance under section 13(b)(2) of the Act and the filing of a statement of use under § 2.88. This is consistent with current practice. The Office proposes to add § 2.87(e) to provide that any outstanding time period for action by the applicant in the original application at the time of the division will be applicable to each new separate application created by the division. This provision appeared in § 2.87(a) when the rule was first enacted in 1989, but was inadvertently removed when the rules were amended to adjust application filing fees on January 19, 2005. See notices at 54 FR 37562 (Sept. 11, 1989) and 70 FR 2952 (Jan. 19, 2005). The Office proposes to add certain specified exceptions, consistent with current practice, as set forth in TMEP sections 1110.04 and 1110.05. The Office proposes to add new § 2.87(f) to add a requirement that a request to divide be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner. This is consistent with TMEP section 1110. The Office proposes to add new § 2.87(g), setting forth the procedures for division of a section 66(a) application after a change in ownership with respect to some, but not all, of the goods or services. This incorporates existing practice, set forth in TMEP section 1110.08. The Office proposes to add § 2.171(b)(2), providing for division of registered extensions of protection upon notification by the IB that ownership of an international registration has changed with respect to some, but not all, of the goods or services. This reflects current practice. TMEP section 1615.02. Post Registration The Office proposes to amend § 2.153 to remove the requirement for specification of the type of commerce in an affidavit claiming the benefits of section 12(c) of the Trademark Act of 1946 for a registration issued under the Trademark Acts of 1881 or 1905. Because the definition of “commerce” in section 45 of the Act is “all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress,” the Office presumes that a registrant who alleges that the mark is in use in commerce is alleging that the mark is in use in a type of commerce that Congress can regulate. The Office amended the Trademark Rules of Practice to remove the requirement for a specification of the type of commerce in applications for registration under section 1(a) of the Act, allegations of use in applications under section 1(b) of the Act, and affidavits under sections 8 and 15 of the Act, effective October 30, 1999 ( *see* notice at 64 FR 48900 (Sept. 8, 1999)), but inadvertently overlooked § 2.153. The Office proposes to amend the center heading immediately after § 2.158 to delete the wording “DURING SIXTH YEAR.” This corrects an oversight. The heading covers rules pertaining to affidavits or declarations under section 8 of the Act (“section 8 affidavits”). Effective October 30, 1999, such affidavits must be filed every tenth year after registration as well as during the sixth year. The Office proposes to amend § 2.161(g)(3) to provide that specimens filed through TEAS may be in .pdf format. This provides TEAS filers with an additional option for filing specimens, and is consistent with current practice. The Office proposes to amend § 2.163(b) to provide that a registration will be cancelled for failure to respond to an Office action issued in connection with a section 8 affidavit only if there is no time remaining in the grace period under section 8(c)(1) of the Act. This corrects an oversight in the current rule. It would be inappropriate to cancel a registration under section 8 before expiration of the grace period. If there is time remaining in the grace period, the owner may file a complete new affidavit. The Office proposes to amend § 2.167 to provide that an affidavit or declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Trademark Act must be filed in the name of the owner of the registration, and verified by the owner or a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the owner (§ 2.161(b)). This is consistent with TMEP section 1605.04. The Office proposes to amend § 2.171(a) to remove the requirement that a request for a new certificate of registration upon change of ownership include the original certificate of registration. This is consistent with current practice, and with Office practice in connection with requests to amend or correct registrations under section 7 of the Trademark Act. *See* notice at 69 FR 51362 (Aug. 29, 2004), removing the requirement that the original certificate be included with a section 7 request. The Office further proposes to add a statement to § 2.171(a) that in a registered extension of protection, the assignment must be recorded with the IB before it can be recorded in the Office. This is consistent with current § 7.22. The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.171(b) as (b)(1), and amend it to indicate that it applies only to registrations resulting from applications based on section 1 or 44 of the Act. The Office proposes to add § 2.171(b)(2), providing for division of registered extensions of protection upon notification by the IB that ownership of an international registration has changed with respect to some, but not all, of the goods or services. This reflects current practice. TMEP section 1615.02. The Office proposes to reorganize § 2.173, pertaining to amendment of registrations. The current paragraph
(a)is broken into proposed paragraphs
(a)through (d). Proposed § 2.173(a) provides that the owner of a registration may file a written request to amend a registration or to disclaim part of the mark in the registration; and that if the registration is involved in an inter partes proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”), the request must be filed by appropriate motion to the Board. This is consistent with the current § 2.173(a) and TMEP section 1609.01(b). The current paragraph
(b)is broken into proposed paragraphs
(e)and (g). Proposed § 2.173(b) sets forth the requirements for the request for amendment. Proposed § 2.173(b)(2) requires that the request be filed by the owner and signed by the owner, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner. The requirement for filing in the name of the owner is consistent with current practice. However, the requirement for signature by someone with legal authority to bind the owner or by a qualified practitioner changes current practice slightly. TMEP section 1609.01(b) now permits signature by a person with firsthand knowledge of the facts and actual or implied authority to act on behalf of the owner, which could include someone without legal authority to bind the owner. The Office believes that the better practice would be to require that a request to amend a registration be signed by someone with legal authority to bind the owner or by a qualified practitioner. Proposed § 2.173(b)(3) provides that an amendment to change the mark include: A specimen showing the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services; an affidavit or a declaration under § 2.20 stating that the specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the amendment; and a new drawing of the amended mark. This is consistent with current § 2.173(a) and TMEP section 1609.02(c). Proposed § 2.173(c) provides that the registration must still contain registrable matter, and proposed § 2.173(d) provides that the amendment may not materially alter the mark. This is consistent with current § 2.173(a). Proposed § 2.173(e) provides that no amendment to the identification of goods or services in a registration will be permitted, except to restrict the identification or change it in ways that would not require republication of the mark. This is consistent with current § 2.173(b). The Office proposes to add new § 2.173(f) to provide that if the registration includes a disclaimer, description of the mark, or miscellaneous statement, any amendment must include a request to make any necessary conforming amendments to the disclaimer, description, or other miscellaneous statements. For example, if the mark is XYZ INC., with a disclaimer of the entity designator “INC.,” and the owner of the registration proposes to amend the mark to remove “INC.,” the proposed amendment should also request that the disclaimer be deleted. If an amendment is filed that does not include all necessary conforming amendments, the examiner will issue an Office action requiring the amendments. Proposed § 2.173(g) provides that an amendment seeking the elimination of a disclaimer will not be permitted, unless deletion of the disclaimed portion of the mark is also sought. The proposed rule provides an exception to the general prohibition against amendments to delete disclaimers, currently set forth in § 2.173(b), in the limited situation where the mark is amended to delete the disclaimer. The Office proposes to amend § 2.175(b)(2) to require that a request to correct the owner's error in a registration be filed by the owner and signed by the owner, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner. This is consistent with proposed § 2.173(b)(2), discussed above. The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.184(b) as § 2.184(b)(1), and amend it to provide that a registration will expire for failure to respond to an Office action issued in connection with a renewal application only if there is no time remaining in the grace period under section 9(a) of the Act. This corrects an oversight in the current rule. It would be inappropriate to cancel a registration for failure to renew prior to expiration of the renewal grace period. If there is time remaining in the grace period, the registrant may file a complete new renewal application. The Office proposes to add new § 2.183(f) to provide that applications for renewal of registrations issued under a prior classification system will be processed on the basis of that system, except where the registration has been amended to adopt international classification. The provision that applications for renewal of registrations issued under a prior classification system are processed on the basis of that system is currently set forth in § 2.85(d). The reference to amendment of classification is consistent with proposed § 2.85(e)(3), discussed above. The Office proposes to add § 2.184(b)(2), requiring that a response to an Office action issued in connection with a renewal application be signed by the registrant, someone with legal authority to bind the registrant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner. This is consistent with TMEP section 1606.12. Madrid Protocol The Office proposes to amend § 7.11(a)(2) to provide that the applicant's entity in an application for international registration must be identical to the entity listed as owner of the basic application or registration. This is consistent with current practice. TMEP section 1902.02(c). Under section 61(a) of the Trademark Act, only the owner of the basic application or registration can file an international application. The Office proposes to amend the last sentence of § 7.14(e) to change “submitted to” to “received in,” for clarity. The Office proposes to amend § 7.25(a) to remove §§ 2.175 and 2.197 from the list of rules in part 2 that do not apply to an extension of protection of an international registration to the United States. Section 2.175 pertains to correction of mistakes by a registrant. Generally, all requests to record changes to an international registration must be filed at the IB, because an extension of protection of an international registration remains part of the international registration even after registration in the United States. However, in the limited circumstance where the holder of an international registration makes a mistake in a document filed during prosecution in the Office that affects only the extension of protection to the United States, the registrant may request correction of the error pursuant to § 2.175. For example, if there were a minor typographical error in an amendment to the identification of goods in a section 66(a) application, and the mark registered, the owner of the registration could request correction under § 2.175. If the Office grants the request, the Office will notify the IB of the change to the extension of protection to the United States. Section § 2.197 provides a “certificate of mailing or transmission” procedure to avoid lateness due to mail delay. This procedure may currently be used by section 66(a) applicants during prosecution of applications. The procedure may also be available to owners of registered extensions of protection who file affidavits of use or excusable nonuse under section 71 of the Trademark Act. Therefore, its inclusion in § 7.25(a) was an error. Under §§ 2.197(a)(2)(ii) and 7.4(e), the certificate of mailing or transmission procedure remains inapplicable to international applications under § 7.11, responses to notices of irregularity under § 7.14, subsequent designations under § 7.21, requests to record changes of ownership under § 7.23, requests to record restrictions of the holder's right of disposal (or the release of such restrictions) under § 7.24, and requests for transformation under § 7.31. **Note:** *On February 29, 2008, the Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would prohibit the use of certificates of mailing or transmission for certain specified documents for which an electronic form is available in the Trademark Electronic Application System (“TEAS”). See notice at 73 FR 11079. The Office is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this proposal* . Assignment Cover Sheet The Office proposes to amend § 3.31 to add a new paragraph (a)(8), requiring that a cover sheet submitted with a request to record a change of ownership of a trademark application or registration must include the citizenship of the party receiving the interest; and that if the party receiving the interest is a domestic partnership or domestic joint venture, the cover sheet must include the names, legal entities, and national citizenship (or state or country of organization) of all general partners or active members that compose the partnership or joint venture. Currently, § 3.31(f) provides that the cover sheet “should” include this information, but the Office proposes to make it mandatory. This will allow for more efficient processing of trademark applications and registrations. The applicant's entity and citizenship is required in an application for registration under § 2.32(a)(3)(iii) and must be submitted before the Office can issue a registration certificate in the name of the new owner. It is also required when the new owner of a registration wants to change ownership in the trademark database and/or obtain a new certificate of registration in the name of the new owner. Requiring the information whenever a change of ownership is recorded will eliminate the need for the examining attorney or the Post Registration examiner to issue an Office action requiring that it be submitted, which can cause substantial delay. Furthermore, in many cases, having complete information about the receiving party will ensure that the trademark database is automatically updated at the time of recordation or shortly thereafter. See TMEP sections 504 et seq. regarding automatic updating of the trademark database upon recordation of a change of ownership. This will often ensure that the original certificate of registration issues in the name of the new owner. References to “Paper” The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.6(b)(6), 2.21(b), 2.21(c), 2.27(d), 2.87(d), 2.146(e)(1), 2.146(e)(2), and 2.146(i) to delete references to “papers” and substitute “documents” where appropriate, in order to encompass documents filed or issued electronically. The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.6(a)(19), 2.6(b)(3), and 2.56(d)(2) to delete references to “file wrapper” and substitute “record” or “official record.” The Office now maintains electronic records of applications and registrations. The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.62, 2.65(a), 2.66(a)(1), 2.66(d), 2.66(f)(1), 2.81(b), 2.89(a), 2.89(a)(3), 2.89(g), 2.93, 2.99(d)(2), 2.146(d), 2.146(e)(1), 2.146(e)(2), 2.146(j)(1), 2.163(b), 2.165(b), 2.176, 2.184(b), 2.186(b), 7.39(b) and 7.40(b) to change references to “mailing” to “issuance,” to encompass Office actions and communications that are issued electronically. The Office proposes to amend § 2.81(b) to remove the sentence stating that “The mailing date that appears on the notice of allowance will be the issue date of the notice of allowance,” because it is unnecessary. The rule already states that the notice of allowance will include the issue date. The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.84(b), 2.173, 2.174, and 2.175 to delete references to “printed,” and substitute “issued” where appropriate, in order to encompass documents issued electronically. The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.87(d), 2.146(e)(i), and 2.146(i) to delete references to “paper” and to substitute “document,” to encompass documents filed through TEAS. The Office proposes to remove the references in § 2.173(c), 2.174, and 2.175(c) to printed copies of amendments and corrections under section 7 of the Act. Appeal Fees The Office proposes to reorganize § 2.141 to move the provisions pertaining to appeal fees, some of which were previously set forth in § 2.85(e), to § 2.141(b). The proposed rule is consistent with current practice, set forth in *Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure* section 1202.04. Other Changes The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.6(a)(12) and (13), 2.38(b), 2.41(a), 2.44(a) and (b), 2.46, 2.47, 2.61(a), 2.64(c)(1), 2.65(c), 2.75(a) and (b), 2.81(a) and (b), 2.85(b), 2.88(a), 2.99(g), 2.146(b), and 2.167, to replace section symbols with the word “section.” This is consistent with references to the statute in other rules, and with the format recommended in the *Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook* , National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the **Federal Register** (Oct. 1998). Section symbols are used in rules and **Federal Register** notices only to refer to other sections of the CFR. The Office proposes to amend § 2.6(a)(8) to delete “assignee” and substitute “registrant.” This makes it clear that any registrant can request a new certificate of registration, upon payment of the required fee. The Office proposes to revise § 2.25 to provide that documents filed in the Office by the applicant or registrant become part of the official record and will not be returned or removed. The rule currently provides only for applications, and the Office proposes to revise it to encompass all documents filed in connection with an application or registration. This is consistent with current practice. *See* TMEP section 404. The Office proposes to make an exception for documents ordered to be filed under seal pursuant to a protective order issued by a court or by the TTAB. The Office proposes to remove § 2.26, which provides that a drawing from an abandoned application may be transferred to and used in a new application, if the file has not been destroyed. This rule is no longer in use and is deemed unnecessary. The Office proposes to amend § 2.32(a)(6) to delete the word “and” after the semicolon, and to amend § 2.32(a)(7) to change a period to a semicolon. The Office proposes to amend § 2.86(a)(2) to delete the period and substitute a semicolon, followed by the word “and” (“; and”). The Office proposes to amend § 2.146(c) to add a provision that a petition to the Director be signed by the petitioner, someone with legal authority to bind the petitioner (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a qualified practitioner. The proposed rule further provides that when facts are to be proved on petition, the petitioner must submit proof in the form of affidavits or declarations in accordance with § 2.20, signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts to be proved. This is consistent with TMEP sections 1705.03 and 1705.07. The Office proposes to amend § 2.195(b) to delete the phrase, “In addition to being mailed,” because it is unnecessary. The Office proposes to amend § 2.195(e) to clarify the procedures for filing a petition to the Director to consider correspondence filed on the date of attempted filing by Express Mail during a postal service interruption or emergency within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 21(a). Proposed § 2.195(e)(1) provides that a person who attempted to file correspondence by Express Mail, but was unable to deposit the correspondence with the United States Postal Service due to the interruption or emergency, may petition the Director to consider the correspondence to have been filed on the date of attempted filing. Proposed § 2.195(e)(2) sets forth the requirements for the petition. Proposed § 2.195(e)(3) notes that this procedure does not apply to correspondence that is excluded from the Express Mail procedure pursuant to § 2.198(a)(1). This is consistent with current practice. Rule Making Requirements *Executive Order 12866:* This rule has been determined not to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. *Administrative Procedure Act:* This rule merely involves rules of agency practice and procedure within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Therefore, this rule may be adopted without prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c), or thirty-day advance publication under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). However, the Office has chosen to seek public comment before implementing the rule. *Regulatory Flexibility Act:* As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (or any other law), neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603. The proposed rules clarify certain requirements for trademark applications and other trademark-related documents, modernize the language of the rules, and make some other miscellaneous procedural changes. In large part, the proposed rule changes are intended to codify existing practice. Although the proposed rules may affect any trademark applicant or registrant, because they would merely codify the existing practice of the Office, or concern relatively minor procedural matters, the changes proposed in this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. *Unfunded Mandates:* The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. *Executive Order 13132:* This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999). *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This proposed rule involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The collections of information in this proposed rule have been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control numbers 0651-0009, 0651-0050, 0651-0051, 0651-0054, 0651-0055, and 0651-0056. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is not resubmitting any information collection package to OMB for its review and approval because the changes in this proposed rule would not affect the information collection requirements associated with the information collections under the OMB control numbers listed above. The changes in this notice are limited to amending the rules of practice to simplify and clarify the requirements for amendments to applications and registrations, reword and reorganize the rules for clarity purposes, and codify current practices and procedures. Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding these information collections, including suggestions for reduction of this burden to:
(1)The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Patent and Trademark Office; and
(2)Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 (Attn: Mary Hannon). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects 37 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks. 37 CFR Part 3 Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks. 37 CFR Part 6 Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks, Classification. 37 CFR Part 7 Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks, International Registration. For the reasons given in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the Office proposes to amend parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 of title 37 as follows: PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise §§ 2.6(a)(8), (12),
(13)and (19), and §§ 2.6(b)(3) and
(6)to read as follows: § 2.6 Trademark fees.
(a)* * *
(8)For issuing a new certificate of registration upon request of registrant—$100.00.
(12)For filing an affidavit under section 8 of the Act, per class—$100.00.
(13)For filing an affidavit under section 15 of the Act, per class—$200.00.
(19)Dividing an application, per new application created—$100.00.
(b)* * *
(3)Certified or uncertified copy of a trademark-related official record—$50.00.
(6)For recording each trademark assignment, agreement or other document relating to the property in a registration or application. 3. Revise paragraphs 2.21(a) introductory text, (b), and
(c)to read as follows: § 2.21 Requirements for receiving a filing date.
(a)The Office will grant a filing date to an application under section 1 or section 44 of the Act that is in the English language and contains all of the following:
(b)If the applicant does not submit all the elements required in paragraph
(a)of this section, the Office will deny a filing date and issue a notice explaining why the filing date was denied.
(c)If the application was filed on paper, the applicant may correct and resubmit the application and fee. If the resubmitted papers and fee meet all the requirements of paragraph
(a)of this section, the Office will grant a filing date as of the date the Office receives the corrected document. 4. Revise § 2.23(a)(2) to read as follows: § 2.23 Additional requirements for TEAS Plus application.
(a)* * *
(2)Maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address, and continue to receive communications from the Office by electronic mail. 5. Revise § 2.25 to read as follows: § 2.25 Documents not returnable. Except as provided in § 2.27(e), documents filed in the Office by the applicant or registrant become part of the official record and will not be returned or removed. 6. Remove § 2.26. 7. Revise § 2.27(d) to read as follows: § 2.27 Pending trademark application index; access to applications.
(d)Except as provided in paragraph
(e)of this section, the official records of applications and all proceedings relating thereto are available for public inspection and copies of the documents may be furnished upon payment of the fee required by § 2.6. 8. Revise §§ 2.32(a)(3)(iii), (a)(6), (a)(7), and (a)(8), and add new §§ 2.32(a)(3)(iv), 2.32(a)(9), and
(10)to read as follows: § 2.32 Requirements for a complete application.
(a)* * *
(3)* * *
(iii)If the applicant is a domestic partnership, the names and citizenship of the general partners;
(iv)If the applicant is a domestic joint venture, the names and citizenship of the active members of the joint venture;
(6)A list of the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses or intends to use the mark. In a United States application filed under section 44 of the Act, the scope of the goods and/or services covered by the section 44 basis may not exceed the scope of the goods and/or services in the foreign application or registration;
(7)The international class of goods or services, if known. See § 6.1 of this chapter for a list of the international classes of goods and services;
(8)If the mark is not in standard characters, a description of the mark;
(9)If the mark includes non-English wording, an English translation of that wording; and
(10)If the mark includes non-Latin characters, a transliteration of those characters, and either a translation of the transliterated term in English, or a statement that the transliterated term has no meaning in English. 9. Revise § 2.33(b)(1) to read as follows: § 2.33 Verified statement. (b)(1) In an application under section 1(a) of the Act, the verified statement must allege: That the applicant is using the mark shown in the accompanying drawing; that the applicant believes it is the owner of the mark; that the mark is in use in commerce; that to the best of the declarant's knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when applied to the goods or services of the other person, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; that the specimen shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services; and that the facts set forth in the application are true. 10. Revise §§ 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(ii), and add new § (a)(1)(v), to read as follows: § 2.34 Bases for filing.
(1)* * *
(i)The trademark owner's verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application. If the verification is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the mark was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the application filing date;
(v)If more than one item of goods or services is specified in the application, the dates of use required in paragraphs
(ii)and
(iii)of this section need be for only one of the items specified in each class, provided that the particular item to which the dates apply is designated.
(2)*Intent-to-use under section 1(b) of the Act.* In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, the applicant must verify that it has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application. If the verification is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the applicant had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.
(3)* * *
(i)The applicant's verified statement that it has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application. If the verification is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the applicant had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the filing date of the application.
(i)* * *
(ii)Include the applicant's verified statement that it has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application. If the verification is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement must also allege that the applicant had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the filing date of the application. 11. Revise § 2.38(b) to read as follows: § 2.38 Use by predecessor or by related companies.
(b)If the mark is not being used by the applicant but is being used by one or more related companies whose use inures to the benefit of the applicant under section 5 of the Act, this must be indicated in the application. 12. Amend § 2.41 by revising the heading and paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 2.41 Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f).
(a)When registration is sought of a mark which would be unregistrable by reason of section 2(e) of the Act but which is said by applicant to have become distinctive in commerce of the goods or services set forth in the application, applicant may, in support of registrability, submit with the application, or in response to a request for evidence or to a refusal to register, affidavits, or declarations in accordance with § 2.20, depositions, or other appropriate evidence showing duration, extent and nature of use in commerce and advertising expenditures in connection therewith (identifying types of media and attaching typical advertisements), and affidavits, or declarations in accordance with § 2.20, letters or statements from the trade or public, or both, or other appropriate evidence tending to show that the mark distinguishes such goods. 13. Revise § 2.44 to read as follows: § 2.44 Collective mark.
(a)In an application to register a collective mark under section 1(a) of the Act, the application shall specify and contain all applicable elements required by the preceding sections for trademarks, but shall also specify the class of persons entitled to use the mark, indicating their relationship to the applicant, and the nature of the applicant's control over the use of the mark.
(b)In an application to register a collective mark under section 1(b), section 44 or section 66(a) of the Act, the application shall specify and contain all applicable elements required by the preceding sections for trademarks, but shall also specify the class of persons intended to be entitled to use the mark, indicating what their relationship to the applicant will be, and the nature of the control applicant intends to exercise over the use of the mark. 14. Revise § 2.45(b) to read as follows: § 2.45 Certification mark.
(a)* * *
(b)In an application to register a certification mark under section 1(b), section 44 or section 66(a) of the Act, the application shall include all applicable elements required by the preceding sections for trademarks. In addition, the application must: specify the conditions under which the certification mark is intended to be used; allege that the applicant intends to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark; and allege that the applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods or services to which the mark is applied. When the applicant files an allegation of use under § 2.76 or § 2.88, the applicant must submit a copy of the standards that determine whether others may use the certification mark on their goods and/or in connection with their services. 15. Revise § 2.46 to read as follows: § 2.46 Principal Register. All applications will be treated as seeking registration on the Principal Register unless otherwise stated in the application. Service marks, collective marks, and certification marks are registered on the Principal Register, if they are registrable in accordance with the applicable provisions of section 2 of the Act. 16. Revise §§ 2.47(a), (b),
(d)and
(e)to read as follows: § 2.47 Supplemental Register.
(a)In an application to register on the Supplemental Register under section 23 of the Act, the application shall so indicate and shall specify that the mark has been in use in commerce, specifying the nature of such commerce, by the applicant.
(b)In an application to register on the Supplemental Register under section 44 of the Act, the application shall so indicate. The statement of use in commerce may be omitted.
(d)A mark in an application to register on the Principal Register under section 1(b) of the Act is eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register only after the applicant files an acceptable allegation of use under § 2.76 or § 2.88.
(e)An application for registration on the Supplemental Register must conform to the requirements for registration on the Principal Register under section 1(a) of the Act, so far as applicable. 17. Add new § 2.48, to read as follows: § 2.48 Office does not issue duplicate registrations. If two applications on the same register would result in registrations that are exact duplicates, the Office will permit only one application to mature into registration, and will refuse registration in the other application. 18. Revise §§ 2.52(b) and (b)(1) to read as follows: § 2.52 Types of drawings and format for drawings.
(b)*Special form drawing.* Applicants who seek to register a mark that includes a two or three-dimensional design; color; and/or words, letters, or numbers or the combination thereof in a particular font style or size must submit a special form drawing. The drawing should show the mark in black on a white background, unless the mark includes color.
(1)*Marks that include color.* If the mark includes color, the drawing must show the mark in color, and the applicant must name the color(s), describe where the color(s) appear on the mark, and submit a claim that the color(s) is a feature of the mark. 19. Revise § 2.53(a) to read as follows: § 2.53 Requirements for drawings filed through the TEAS.
(a)*Standard character drawings.* If an applicant seeks registration of a standard character mark, the applicant must enter the mark in the appropriate field on the TEAS form, and check the box to claim that the mark consists of standard characters. 20. Revise §§ 2.56(b)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(4) to read as follows: § 2.56 Specimens. (b)(1) A trademark specimen is a label, tag, or container for the goods, or a display associated with the goods. The Office may accept another document related to the goods or the sale of the goods when it is impracticable to place the mark on the goods, packaging for the goods, or displays associated with the goods. (d)(1) * * *
(2)If the applicant files a specimen exceeding these size requirements (a “bulky specimen”), the Office will create a digital facsimile of the specimen that meets the requirements of the rule (i.e., is flat and no larger than 8 1/2 inches (21.6 cm.) wide by 11.69 inches (29.7 cm.) long) and put it in the record. The Office will destroy the original bulky specimen.
(4)For a TEAS submission, the specimen must be a digitized image in .jpg or .pdf format. 21. Revise § 2.61(a) to read as follows: § 2.61 Action by examiner.
(a)Applications for registration, including amendments to allege use under section 1(c) of the Act and statements of use under section 1(d) of the Act, will be examined and, if the applicant is found not entitled to registration for any reason, applicant will be notified and advised of the reasons therefor and of any formal requirements or objections. 22. Revise § 2.62 to read as follows: § 2.62 Procedure for filing response.
(a)*Deadline.* The applicant's response to an Office action must be received within six months from the date of issuance.
(b)*Signature.* The applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the response. 23. Revise § 2.64(c)(1) to read as follows: § 2.64 Final action. (c)(1) If an applicant in an application under section 1(b) of the Act files an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 during the six-month response period after issuance of a final action, the examiner shall examine the amendment. The filing of an amendment to allege use does not extend the deadline for filing a response to an outstanding Office action, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or petition to the Director. 24. Revise §§ 2.65(a) and
(c)to read as follows: § 2.65 Abandonment.
(a)If an applicant fails to respond, or to respond completely, within six months after the date an action is issued, the application shall be deemed abandoned unless the refusal or requirement is expressly limited to only certain goods and/or services. If the refusal or requirement is expressly limited to only certain goods and/or services, the application will be abandoned only as to those particular goods and/or services. A timely petition to the Director pursuant to §§ 2.63(b) and 2.146 or notice of appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (§ 2.142), if appropriate, is a response that avoids abandonment of an application.
(c)If an applicant in an application under section 1(b) of the Act fails to timely file a statement of use under § 2.88, the application shall be deemed to be abandoned. 25. Revise §§ 2.66(a)(1),
(d)and (f)(1) to read as follows: § 2.66 Revival of abandoned applications.
(a)* * *
(1)Within two months of the date of issuance of the notice of abandonment; or
(d)In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, the Director will not grant the petition if this would permit the filing of a statement of use more than 36 months after the date of issuance of the notice of allowance under section 13(b)(2) of the Act.
(f)* * *
(1)Files the request within two months of the date of issuance of the decision denying the petition; and 26. Revise § 2.73 to read as follows: § 2.73 Amendment to recite concurrent use. An application that includes section 1(a) of the Trademark Act as a filing basis, or for which an acceptable allegation of use under § 2.76 or § 2.88 has been filed, may be amended to an application for concurrent use registration, provided that the application as amended meets the requirements of § 2.42. The trademark examining attorney will determine whether the application, as amended, is acceptable. 27. Revise § 2.74 and its heading to read as follows: § 2.74 Form and signature of amendment.
(a)*Form of Amendment* . Amendments should be set forth clearly and completely. Applicant should either set forth the entire wording, including the proposed changes, or, if it would be more efficient, indicate which words should be added and which words should be deleted. The examining attorney may require the applicant to rewrite the entire amendment if necessary for clarification of the record.
(b)*Signature* . The applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 must sign the request for amendment. If the amendment requires verification, the verification must be sworn to or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant (§ 2.33(a)). 28. Revise §§ 2.75(a) and
(b)to read as follows: § 2.75 Amendment to change application to different register.
(a)An application for registration on the Principal Register under section 1(a) or 44 of the Act may be changed to an application for registration on the Supplemental Register and vice versa by amending the application to comply with the rules relating to the appropriate register.
(b)An application under section 1(b) of the Act may be amended to change the application to the Supplemental Register only after the applicant submits an acceptable allegation of use under § 2.76 or § 2.88. When such an application is changed from the Principal Register to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application is the filing date of the allegation of use. 29. Revise § 2.76(d) to read as follows: § 2.76 Amendment to allege use.
(d)The title “Allegation of Use” should appear at the top of the document. 30. Revise § 2.77 to read as follows: § 2.77 Amendments between notice of allowance and statement of use.
(a)The only amendments that can be entered in an application between the issuance of the notice of allowance and the submission of a statement of use are:
(1)The deletion of specified goods or services from the identification of goods/services;
(2)the deletion of a basis in a multiple-basis application; and
(3)a change of attorney or change of address.
(b)Other amendments filed during this period will be placed in the application file and considered when the statement of use is examined. 31. Revise § 2.81 to read as follows: § 2.81 Post publication.
(a)Except in an application under section 1(b) of the Act for which no amendment to allege use under § 2.76 has been submitted and accepted, if no opposition is filed within the time permitted or all oppositions filed are dismissed, and if no interference is declared and no concurrent use proceeding is instituted, the application will be prepared for issuance of the certificate of registration as provided in § 2.151.
(b)In an application under section 1(b) of the Act for which no amendment to allege use under § 2.76 has been submitted and accepted, if no opposition is filed within the time permitted or all oppositions filed are dismissed, and if no interference is declared, a notice of allowance will issue. The notice of allowance will state the serial number of the application, the name of the applicant, the correspondence address, the mark, the identification of goods and/or services, and the issue date of the notice of allowance. Thereafter, the applicant must submit a statement of use as provided in § 2.88. 32. Revise § 2.84(b) to read as follows: § 2.84 Jurisdiction over published applications.
(b)After publication, but before the certificate of registration is issued in an application under section 1(a), 44 or 66(a) of the Act, or before the notice of allowance is issued in an application under section 1(b) of the Act, an application that is not the subject of an *inter partes* proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board may be amended if the amendment does not necessitate republication of the mark or issuance of an Office action. Otherwise, an amendment to such an application may be submitted only upon petition to the Director to restore jurisdiction over the application to the trademark examining attorney for consideration of the amendment and further examination. The amendment of an application that is the subject of an *inter partes* proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is governed by § 2.133. 33. Revise § 2.85 to read as follows: § 2.85 Classification schedules.
(a)*International classification system* . Section 6.1 of this chapter sets forth the international system of classification for goods and services, which applies for all statutory purposes to:
(1)applications filed in the Office on or after September 1, 1973, and resulting registrations; and
(2)registrations resulting from applications filed on or before August 31, 1973, that have been amended to adopt international classification pursuant to § 2.85(e)(3).
(b)*Prior United States classification system* . Section 6.2 of this chapter sets forth the prior United States system of classification for goods and services, which applies for all statutory purposes to registrations resulting from applications filed on or before August 31, 1973, unless:
(1)the registration has been amended to adopt international classification pursuant to § 2.85(e)(3); or
(2)the registration was issued under a classification system prior to that set forth in § 6.2.
(c)*Certification marks and collective membership marks* . Sections 6.3 and 6.4 specify the system of classification which applies to certification marks and collective membership marks in applications based on sections 1 and 44 of the Trademark Act, and to registrations resulting from applications based on sections 1 and 44. These sections do not apply to applications under section 66(a) or to registered extensions of protection.
(d)*Section 66(a) applications and registered extensions of protection* . In an application under section 66(a) of the Act or registered extension of protection, the classification cannot be changed from the classification assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, unless the International Bureau corrects the classification. Classes cannot be added, and goods or services cannot be transferred from one class to another in a multiple-class application.
(e)*Changes to Nice Agreement* . The international classification system changes periodically, pursuant to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks. These changes are listed in the *International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks* , which is published by the World Intellectual Property Organization.
(1)If international classification changes pursuant to the Nice Agreement, the new classification applies only to applications filed on or after the effective date of the change.
(2)In a section 1 or section 44 application filed before an effective date of a change to the Nice Agreement, the applicant may amend the application to comply with the requirements of the current edition. The applicant must comply with the current edition for all goods or services identified in the application. The applicant must pay the fees for any added class(es).
(3)In a registration resulting from a section 1 or section 44 application that was filed before an effective date of a change to the Nice Agreement, the owner may amend the registration to comply with the requirements of the current edition. The owner must reclassify all goods or services identified in the registration to the current edition. The owner must pay the fee required by § 2.6 for amendments under section 7 of the Trademark Act. The owner may reclassify registrations from multiple United States classes (§ 2.85(b)) into a single international classification, where appropriate.
(f)Classification schedules shall not limit or extend the applicant's rights, except that in a section 66(a) application, the scope of the identification of goods or services for purposes of permissible amendments ( *see* § 2.71(a)) is limited by the class, pursuant to § 2.85(d). 34. Revise § 2.86(a)(2) to read as follows: § 2.86 Application may include multiple classes.
(a)* * *
(2)Submit an application filing fee for each class, as set forth in § 2.6(a)(1); and 35. Revise § 2.87 to read as follows: § 2.87 Dividing an application.
(a)*Application may be divided* . An application may be physically divided into two or more separate applications upon the payment of a fee for each new application created and submission by the applicant of a request in accordance with paragraph
(d)of this section.
(b)*Fee* . In the case of a request to divide out one or more entire classes from an application, only the fee for dividing an application as set forth in § 2.6(a)(19) will be required. However, in the case of a request to divide out some, but not all, of the goods or services in a class, the applicant must submit the application filing fee as set forth in § 2.6(a)(1) for each new separate application to be created by the division, in addition to the fee for dividing an application.
(c)*Time for filing* .
(1)An applicant may file a request to divide an application at any time between the application filing date and the date on which the trademark examining attorney approves the mark for publication; or during an opposition, concurrent use, or interference proceeding, upon motion granted by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
(2)An applicant may file a request to divide an application under section 1(b) of the Act with a statement of use under § 2.88 or at any time between the filing of a statement of use and the date on which the trademark examining attorney approves the mark for registration.
(3)An applicant may file a request to divide out one or more bases of a multiple-basis application during the period between the issuance of the notice of allowance under section 13(b)(2) of the Act and the filing of a statement of use under § 2.88.
(d)*Form* . A request to divide an application should be made in a separate document from any other amendment or response in the application. The title “Request to Divide Application” should appear at the top of the first page of the document.
(e)*Outstanding time periods apply to newly created applications* . Any time period for action by the applicant which is outstanding in the original application at the time of the division will be applicable to each separate new application created by the division, except as follows:
(1)If an Office action pertaining to less than all the classes in a multiple-class application is outstanding, and the applicant files a request to divide out the goods, services, or class(es) to which the Office action does not pertain before the response deadline, a response to the Office action is not due in the new (child) application(s) created by the division of the application;
(2)If an Office action pertaining to only one basis in a multiple-basis application is outstanding, and the applicant files a request to divide out the basis to which the Office action does not pertain before the response deadline, a response to the Office action is not due in the new (child) application(s) created by the division of the application; or
(3)In a multiple-basis application in which a notice of allowance has issued, if the applicant files a request to divide out the basis or bases to which the notice of allowance does not pertain before the deadline for filing the statement of use, the new (child) applications created by the division are not affected by the notice of allowance.
(f)*Signature* . The applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 must sign the request to divide.
(g)*Section 66(a) applications—change of ownership with respect to some but not all of the goods or services* .
(1)When the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization notifies the Office that an international registration has been divided as the result of a change of ownership with respect to some but not all of the goods or services, the Office will construe the International Bureau's notice as a request to divide. The Office will record the partial change of ownership in the Assignment Services Branch, and divide out the assigned goods/services from the original (parent) application. The Office will create a new (child) application serial number, and enter the information about the new application in its automated records.
(2)To obtain a certificate of registration in the name of the new owner for the goods/services that have been divided out, the new owner must pay the fee(s) for the request to divide, as required by § 2.6 and paragraph
(b)of this section. The examining attorney will issue an Office action in the child application requiring the new owner to pay the required fee(s). If the owner of the child application fails to respond, the child application will be abandoned. It is not necessary for the new owner to file a separate request to divide.
(3)The Office will not divide a section 66(a) application based upon a change of ownership unless the International Bureau notifies the Office that the international registration has been divided. 36. Revise §§ 2.88(a), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(3), (d), and (i)(2) to read as follows: § 2.88 Filing statement of use after notice of allowance.
(a)In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, a statement of use under section 1(d) of the Act must be filed within six months after issuance of a notice of allowance under section 13(b)(2) of the Act, or within an extension of time granted under § 2.89. A statement of use that is filed prior to issuance of a notice of allowance is premature.
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)The mark is in use in commerce, specifying the date of the applicant's first use of the mark and first use of the mark in commerce on or in connection with goods or services identified in the notice of allowance as based on intent to use, and those goods or services specified in the notice of allowance based on intent to use on or in connection with which the applicant uses the mark in commerce;
(3)The fee per class required by § 2.6. The applicant must pay a filing fee sufficient to cover at least one class within the statutory time for filing the statement of use, or the application will be abandoned. If the applicant submits a fee insufficient to cover all the classes in a multiple-class application, the applicant must specify the classes to be abandoned. If the applicant submits a fee sufficient to pay for at least one class, but insufficient to cover all the classes, and the applicant has not specified the class(es) to be abandoned, the Office will issue a notice granting the applicant additional time to submit the fee(s) for the remaining classes, or specify the class(es) to be abandoned. If the applicant does not submit the required fee(s) or specify the class(es) to be abandoned within the set time period, the Office will apply the fees paid to the lowest numbered class(es) in ascending order, and will delete the goods/services in the higher class(es) from the application.
(d)The title “Allegation of Use” should appear at the top of the first page of the document.
(i)* * *
(2)If any goods or services specified in the notice of allowance are omitted from the identification of goods or services in the statement of use, the Office will delete the omitted goods/services from the application. The applicant may not thereafter reinsert these goods/services. 37. Revise § 2.89(a) introductory text, (a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(2) and
(g)to read as follows: § 2.89 Extensions of time for filing a statement of use.
(a)The applicant may request a six-month extension of time to file the statement of use required by § 2.88. The extension request must be filed within six months of the date of issuance of the notice of allowance under section 13(b)(2) of the Act and must include the following:
(1)* * *
(2)The fee per class required by § 2.6. The applicant must pay a filing fee sufficient to cover at least one class within the statutory time for filing the extension request, or the request will be denied. If the applicant timely submits a fee sufficient to pay for at least one class, but insufficient to cover all the classes, and the applicant has not specified the class(es) to which the fee applies, the Office will issue a notice granting the applicant additional time to submit the fee(s) for the remaining classes, or specify the class(es) to be abandoned. If the applicant does not submit the required fee(s) or specify the class(es) to be abandoned within the set time period, the Office will apply the fees paid to the lowest numbered class(es) in ascending order, and will delete the goods/services in the higher class(es) from the application; and
(3)A statement that is signed and verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant (§ 2.33(a)) that the applicant still has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, specifying the relevant goods or services. If the verification is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant must submit a substitute verification within six months of the date of issuance of the notice of allowance.
(b)* * *
(2)The fee per class required by § 2.6. The applicant must pay a filing fee sufficient to cover at least one class within the statutory time for filing the extension request, or the request will be denied. If the applicant submits a fee insufficient to cover all the classes in a multiple-class application, the applicant must specify the classes to be abandoned. If the applicant submits a fee sufficient to pay for at least one class, but insufficient to cover all the classes, and the applicant has not specified the class(es) to which the fee applies, the Office will issue a notice granting the applicant additional time to submit the fee(s) for the remaining classes, or specify the class(es) to be abandoned. If the applicant does not submit the required fee(s) or specify the class(es) to be abandoned within the set time period, the Office will apply the fees paid to the lowest numbered class(es) in ascending order, and will delete the goods/services in the higher class(es) from the application;
(g)The applicant will be notified of the grant or denial of a request for an extension of time, and of the reasons for a denial. Failure to notify the applicant of the grant or denial of the request prior to the expiration of the existing period or requested extension does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of timely filing a statement of use under § 2.88. If, after denial of an extension request, there is time remaining in the existing six-month period for filing a statement of use, applicant may submit a substitute request for extension of time. Otherwise, the only recourse available after denial of a request for an extension of time is a petition to the Director in accordance with § 2.66 or § 2.146. A petition from the denial of an extension request must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the denial of the request. If the petition is granted, the term of the requested six-month extension that was the subject of the petition will run from the date of the expiration of the previously existing six-month period for filing a statement of use. 38. Revise § 2.93 to read as follows: § 2.93 Institution of interference. An interference is instituted by the issuance of a notice of interference to the parties. The notice shall be sent to each applicant, in care of the applicant's attorney or other representative of record, if any, and if one of the parties is a registrant, the notice shall be sent to the registrant or the registrant's assignee of record. The notice shall give the name and address of every adverse party and of the adverse party's attorney or other authorized representative, if any, together with the serial number and date of filing and publication of each of the applications, or the registration number and date of issuance of each of the registrations, involved. 39. Revise §§ 2.99(d)(2) and
(g)to read as follows: § 2.99 Application to register as concurrent user. (d)(1) * * *
(2)An answer to the notice is not required in the case of an applicant or registrant whose application or registration is specified as a concurrent user in the application, but a statement, if desired, may be filed within forty days after the issuance of the notice; in the case of any other party specified as a concurrent user in the application, an answer must be filed within forty days after the issuance of the notice.
(g)Registrations and applications to register on the Supplemental Register and registrations under the Act of 1920 are not subject to concurrent use registration proceedings. Applications under section 1(b) of the Act of 1946 are subject to concurrent use registration proceedings only after the applicant files an acceptable allegation of use under § 2.76 or § 2.88. Applications based solely on section 44 or section 66(a) of the Act are not subject to concurrent use registration proceedings. 40. Revise § 2.141 to read as follows: § 2.141 Ex parte appeals from action of trademark examining attorney.
(a)An applicant may, upon final refusal by the trademark examining attorney, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upon payment of the prescribed fee for each class in the application for which an appeal is taken, within six months of the date of issuance of the final action. A second refusal on the same grounds may be considered as final by the applicant for purpose of appeal.
(b)The applicant must pay an appeal fee for each class from which the appeal is taken. If the applicant does not pay an appeal fee for at least one class of goods or services before expiration of the six-month statutory filing period, the application will be abandoned. In a multiple-class application, if an appeal fee is submitted for fewer than all classes, the applicant must specify the class(es) in which the appeal is taken. If the applicant timely submits a fee sufficient to pay for an appeal in at least one class, but insufficient to cover all the classes, and the applicant has not specified the class(es) to which the fee applies, the Board will issue a written notice setting a time limit in which the applicant may either pay the additional fees or specify the class(es) being appealed. If the applicant does not submit the required fee or specify the class(es) being appealed within the set time period, the Board will apply the fee(s) to the classes in ascending order, beginning with the lowest numbered class. 41. Revise § 2.146(b), (c), (d), (e),
(i)introductory text and (j)(1) to read as follows: § 2.146 Petitions to the Director.
(b)Questions of substance arising during the ex parte prosecution of applications, including but not limited to questions arising under sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 23 of the Act, are not considered to be appropriate subject matter for petitions to the Director.
(c)Every petition to the Director must include a statement of the facts relevant to the petition, the points to be reviewed, the action or relief requested, and the fee required by § 2.6. Any brief in support of the petition should be embodied in or accompany the petition. The petitioner, someone with legal authority to bind the petitioner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter must sign the petition. When facts are to be proved on petition, the petitioner must submit proof in the form of affidavits or declarations in accordance with § 2.20, signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts to be proved, and any exhibits.
(d)A petition must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the action from which relief is requested, unless a different deadline is specified elsewhere in this chapter. (e)(1) A petition from the grant or denial of a request for an extension of time to file a notice of opposition must be filed within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the grant or denial of the request. A petition from the grant of a request must be served on the attorney or other authorized representative of the potential opposer, if any, or on the potential opposer. A petition from the denial of a request must be served on the attorney or other authorized representative of the applicant, if any, or on the applicant. Proof of service of the petition must be made as provided by § 2.119. The potential opposer or the applicant, as the case may be, may file a response within fifteen days from the date of service of the petition and must serve a copy of the response on the petitioner, with proof of service as provided by § 2.119. No further document relating to the petition may be filed.
(2)A petition from an interlocutory order of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board must be filed within thirty days after the date of issuance of the order from which relief is requested. Any brief in response to the petition must be filed, with any supporting exhibits, within fifteen days from the date of service of the petition. Petitions and responses to petitions, and any documents accompanying a petition or response under this subsection must be served on every adverse party pursuant to § 2.119.
(i)Where a petitioner seeks to reactivate an application or registration that was abandoned, cancelled or expired because documents were lost or mishandled, the Director may deny the petition if the petitioner was not diligent in checking the status of the application or registration. To be considered diligent, a petitioner must:
(1)* * *
(j)* * *
(1)Files the request within two months of the date of issuance of the decision denying the petition; and 42. Revise § 2.153 to read as follows: § 2.153 Publication requirements. A registrant of a mark registered under the provisions of the Acts of 1881 or 1905 may at any time prior to the expiration of the period for which the registration was issued or renewed, upon the payment of the prescribed fee, file an affidavit or declaration in accordance with § 2.20 setting forth those goods stated in the registration on which said mark is in use in commerce, and stating that the registrant claims the benefits of the Trademark Act of 1946. §§ 2.260-2.166 [Amended] 43. Immediately preceding § 2.160, revise the center heading to read as follows: Cancellation for Failure To File Affidavit or Declaration 44. Revise § 2.161(g)(3) to read as follows: § 2.161 Requirements for a complete affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse.
(g)* * *
(3)Be a digitized image in .jpg or .pdf format, if transmitted through TEAS. 45. Revise § 2.163(b) to read as follows: § 2.163 Acknowledgment of receipt of affidavit or declaration.
(b)A response to the refusal must be filed within six months of the date of issuance of the Office action, or before the end of the filing period set forth in section 8(a) or section 8(b) of the Act, whichever is later. If no response is filed within this time period, the registration will be cancelled, unless there is time remaining in the grace period under section 8(c)(1) of the Act. If there is time remaining in the grace period, the owner may file a complete new affidavit. 46. Revise § 2.165(b) to read as follows: § 2.165 Petition to Director to review refusal.
(b)If the examiner maintains the refusal of the affidavit or declaration, a petition to the Director to review the action may be filed. The petition must be filed within six months of the date of issuance of the action maintaining the refusal, or the Office will cancel the registration and issue a notice of the cancellation. 47. Amend § 2.167 by revising the heading, introductory text and paragraphs
(a)and
(f)to read as follows: § 2.167 Affidavit or declaration under section 15. The owner of a mark registered on the Principal Register or a mark registered under the Act of 1881 or 1905 and published under § 12(c) of the Act (§ 2.153) may file an affidavit or declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Act. The affidavit or declaration must:
(a)Be verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration under § 2.20, signed by the owner of the registration or a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the owner (§ 2.161(b));
(f)Be filed within one year after the expiration of any five-year period of continuous use following registration or publication under section 12(c). The Office will notify the owner of the receipt of the affidavit or declaration. 48. Revise § 2.171 to read as follows: § 2.171 New certificate on change of ownership.
(a)*Full change of ownership* . If the ownership of a registered mark changes, the assignee may request that a new certificate of registration be issued in the name of the assignee for the unexpired part of the original period. The assignment must be recorded in the Office, and the request for the new certificate must be signed by the assignee and accompanied by the fee required by § 2.6(a)(8). In a registered extension of protection, the assignment must be recorded with the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization before it can be recorded in the Office ( *see* § 7.22).
(b)*Partial change of ownership* .
(1)In a registration resulting from an application based on section 1 or 44 of the Act, if ownership of a registration has changed with respect to some but not all of the goods and/or services, the owner(s) may file a request that the registration be divided into two or more separate registrations. The owner(s) must pay the fee required by § 2.6(a)(8) for each new registration created by the division, and the change of ownership must be recorded in the Office.
(i)When the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization notifies the Office that an international registration has been divided as the result of a change of ownership with respect to some but not all of the goods or services, the Office will construe the International Bureau's notice as a request to divide. The Office will record the partial change of ownership in the Assignment Services Branch, and divide out the assigned goods/services from the registered extension of protection (parent registration), issue an updated certificate for the parent registration, and publish notice of the parent registration in the *Official Gazette* .
(ii)The Office will create a new registration number for the child, and enter the information about the new registration in its automated records. The Office will notify the new owner that the new owner must pay the fee required by § 2.6 to obtain a new registration certificate for the child registration. It is not necessary for the new owner to file a separate request to divide.
(iii)The Office will not divide a registered extension of protection unless the International Bureau notifies the Office that the international registration has been divided. 49. Revise § 2.173 to read as follows: § 2.173 Amendment of registration.
(a)*Form of amendment* . The owner of a registration may apply to amend a registration or to disclaim part of the mark in the registration. The owner must submit a written request specifying the amendment or disclaimer. If the registration is involved in an inter partes proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the request must be filed by appropriate motion to the Board.
(b)*Requirements for request* . A request for amendment or disclaimer must:
(1)Include the fee required by § 2.6;
(2)Be signed by the owner of the registration, someone with legal authority to bind the owner ( *e.g.* , a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter, and verified or supported by a declaration under § 2.20; and
(3)If the amendment involves a change in the mark: a new specimen showing the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services; an affidavit or a declaration under § 2.20 stating that the specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the amendment; and a new drawing of the amended mark.
(c)*Registration must still contain registrable matter* . The registration as amended must still contain registrable matter, and the mark as amended must be registrable as a whole.
(d)*Amendment may not materially alter the mark* . An amendment or disclaimer must not materially alter the character of the mark.
(e)*Amendment of identification of goods* . No amendment in the identification of goods or services in a registration will be permitted except to restrict the identification or to change it in ways that would not require republication of the mark.
(f)*Conforming amendments may be required* . If the registration includes a disclaimer, description of the mark, or other miscellaneous statement, any request to amend the registration must include a request to make any necessary conforming amendments to the disclaimer, description, or other statement.
(g)*Elimination of disclaimer* . No amendment seeking the elimination of a disclaimer will be permitted, unless deletion of the disclaimed portion of the mark is also sought. 50. Revise § 2.174 to read as follows: § 2.174 Correction of Office mistake. Whenever Office records clearly disclose a material mistake in a registration, incurred through the fault of the Office, the Office will issue a certificate of correction stating the fact and nature of the mistake, signed by the Director or by an employee designated by the Director, without charge. Thereafter, the corrected certificate shall have the same effect as if it had been originally issued in the corrected form. In the discretion of the Director, the Office may issue a new certificate of registration without charge. 51. Revise § 2.175(b)(2) to read as follows, and remove paragraph (c): § 2.175 Correction of mistake by registrant.
(b)* * *
(2)Be signed by the owner of the registration, someone with legal authority to bind the owner (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 of this chapter, and verified or include a declaration in accordance with § 2.20; and 52. Revise § 2.176 to read as follows: § 2.176 Consideration of above matters. The matters in §§ 2.171 to 2.175 will be considered in the first instance by the Post Registration examiners, except for requests to amend registrations involved in inter partes proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, as specified in § 2.173(a), which shall be considered by the Board. If an action of the examiner is adverse, registrant may petition the Director to review the action under § 2.146. If the registrant does not respond to an adverse action of the examiner within six months of the date of issuance, the matter will be considered abandoned. 53. Amend § 2.183 by adding a new paragraph (f), to read as follows: § 2.183 Requirements for a complete renewal application.
(f)Renewals of registrations issued under a prior classification system will be processed on the basis of that system, unless the registration has been amended to adopt international classification pursuant to § 2.85(e)(3). 54. Revise § 2.184(b) to read as follows: § 2.184 Refusal of renewal. (b)(1) A response to the refusal of renewal must be filed within six months of the date of issuance of the Office action, or before the expiration date of the registration, whichever is later. If no response is filed within this time period, the registration will expire, unless there is time remaining in the grace period under section 9(a) of the Act. If there is time remaining in the grace period, the registrant may file a complete new renewal application.
(2)The registrant, someone with legal authority to bind the registrant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner who meets the requirements of § 10.14 must sign the response. 55. Revise § 2.186(b) to read as follows: § 2.186 Petition to Director to review refusal of renewal.
(b)If the examiner maintains the refusal of the renewal application, a petition to the Director to review the refusal may be filed. The petition must be filed within six months of the date of issuance of the Office action maintaining the refusal, or the renewal application will be abandoned and the registration will expire. 56. Revise §§ 2.195(b) and
(e)to read as follows: § 2.195 Receipt of trademark correspondence.
(b)*Correspondence delivered by hand* . Correspondence may be delivered by hand during hours the Office is open to receive correspondence.
(e)*Interruptions in U.S. Postal Service* .
(1)If the Director designates a postal service interruption or emergency within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 21(a), any person attempting to file correspondence by “Express Mail Post Office to Addressee” service who was unable to deposit the correspondence with the United States Postal Service due to the interruption or emergency may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office.
(2)The petition must:
(i)Be filed promptly after the ending of the designated interruption or emergency;
(ii)Include the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence; and
(iii)Include a statement that the correspondence would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service on the requested filing date but for the designated interruption or emergency in ”Express Mail” service; and that the correspondence attached to the petition is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited as Express Mail on the requested filing date.
(3)Paragraphs (e)(1) and
(2)of this section do not apply to correspondence that is excluded from the Express Mail procedure pursuant to § 2.198(a)(1). PART 3—ASSIGNMENT, RECORDING AND RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEE 57. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1112, 1123; 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted. 58. In § 3.31, add paragraph (a)(8) and revise paragraph
(f)to read as follows: § 3.31 Cover sheet content.
(a)* * *
(8)For trademark assignments, the entity and citizenship of the party receiving the interest. In addition, if the party receiving the interest is a domestic partnership or domestic joint venture, the cover sheet must set forth the names, legal entities, and national citizenship (or the state or country of organization) of all general partners or active members that compose the partnership or joint venture.
(f)Each trademark cover sheet should include the citizenship of the party conveying the interest. PART 6—CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES UNDER THE TRADEMARK ACT 59. The authority citation for part 6 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1112, 1123; 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted. 60. Revise § 6.3 to read as follows: § 6.3 Schedule for certification marks. In applications for registration of certification marks based on sections 1 and 44 of the Trademark Act and registrations resulting from such applications, goods and services are classified in two classes as follows: A. Goods B. Services 61. Revise § 6.4 to read as follows: § 6.4 Schedule for collective membership marks. All collective membership marks in applications based on sections 1 and 44 of the Trademark Act and registrations resulting from such applications are classified as follows: Class Title 200 Collective Membership. PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF MARKS 62. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 7 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted. 63. Revise § 7.11(a)(2) to read as follows: § 7.11 Requirements for international application originating from the United States.
(a)* * *
(2)The name and entity of the international applicant that is identical to the name and entity of the applicant or registrant in the basic application or basic registration and applicant's current address; 64. Revise § 7.14(e) to read as follows: § 7.14 Correcting irregularities in international application.
(e)*Procedure for response* . To be considered timely, a response must be received by the International Bureau before the end of the response period set forth in the International Bureau's notice. Receipt in the Office does not fulfill this requirement. Any response submitted through the Office for forwarding to the International Bureau should be submitted as soon as possible, but at least one month before the end of the response period in the International Bureau's notice. The Office will not process any response received in the Office after the International Bureau's response deadline. 65. Revise § 7.25(a) to read as follows: § 7.25 Sections of part 2 applicable to extension of protection.
(a)Except for §§ 2.22-2.23, 2.130-2.131, 2.160-2.166, 2.168, 2.173, and 2.181-2.186, all sections in part 2 and all sections in part 10 of this chapter shall apply to an extension of protection of an international registration to the United States, including sections related to proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, unless otherwise stated. 66. Revise § 7.39(b) to read as follows: § 7.39 Acknowledgment of receipt of affidavit or declaration of use in commerce or excusable nonuse.
(b)A response to a refusal under paragraph
(a)of this section must be filed within six months of the date of issuance of the Office action, or before the end of the filing period set forth in section 71(a) of the Act, whichever is later. The Office will cancel the extension of protection if no response is filed within this time period. 67. Revise § 7.40(b) to read as follows: § 7.40 Petition to Director to review refusal.
(b)If the examiner maintains the refusal of the affidavit or declaration, the holder may file a petition to the Director to review the examiner's action. The petition must be filed within six months of the date of issuance of the action maintaining the refusal, or the Office will cancel the registration. Dated: June 4, 2008. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E8-12909 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7784] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before September 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7784, to 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.* 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)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, 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 proposed 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 proposed 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. Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent. *Administrative Procedure Act Statement.* This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and do not fall under the APA. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: State City/town/county Source of flooding Location ** * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Existing Modified Unincorporated Areas of Morrow County, Ohio Ohio Unincorporated Areas of Morrow County Whetstone Creek 1290 feet downstream of Cardington Road None +1050 1570 feet downstream of U.S. Route 42 None +1068 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Morrow County Maps are available for inspection at 80 North Walnut Street, Suite C, Mt. Gilead, OH 43338. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ** * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Cortland County, New York, and Incorporated Areas Blue Creek Confluence with Dry Creek +1183 +1185 Town of Cortlandville. Approximately 215 feet upstream of Kinney Gulf Road None +1204 Dry Creek Approximately 720 feet downstream of North Main Street +1115 +1116 City of Cortland, Town of Cortlandville. Approximately 330 feet upstream of Kinney Gulf Road None +1211 Gridley Creek Confluence with Tiougnioga River None +1044 Town of Virgil. Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Page Green Road None +1462 Gridley Creek Tributary 9 Confluence with Gridley Creek None +1354 Town of Virgil. Approximately 1,915 feet upstream of State Route 392 None +1396 Gridley Creek Tributary 9-1 Confluence with Hope Lake None +1429 Town of Virgil. Approximately .4 mile upstream of Clute Road None +1564 Hope Lake Entire shoreline within community None +1429 Town of Virgil. Mosquito Creek Approximately 50 feet upstream of West Center Street +1153 +1150 Town of Cortlandville, Village of Mcgraw. Approximately .78 mile upstream of Heath Road +1517 +1509 Otselic River Approximately 991 feet downstream of Route 23 None +1034 Town of Cincinnatus. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Telephone Road None +1053 Otter Creek Approximately 130 feet upstream of North Main Street +1119 +1121 City of Cortland, Town of Cortlandville. Approximately 70 feet upstream of State Route 13 None +1186 Otter Creek Tributary 3 Confluence with Otter Creek None +1170 Town of Cortlandville. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Gutchess Lumber Service Road None +1170 Skaneateles Lake Entire shoreline within community None +867 Town of Scott. Song Lake Entire shoreline within community None +1195 Town of Preble. Tioughnioga River Reach 2 Approximately .58 mile downstream of Main Street None +1014 Town of Marathon, Village of Marathon. Approximately .85 mile upstream of Main Street None +1023 Trout Brook At Town of Solon Corporate Limits, approximately 1.280 miles upstream of Hollow Road None +1204 Town of Solon. Approximately 1.288 miles upstream of Hollow Road None +1204 Tully Lake Entire shoreline within community None +1195 Town of Preble. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Cortland Maps are available for inspection at Cortland City Hall, 25 Court Street, Cortland, NY. Town of Cincinnatus Maps are available for inspection at Cincinnatus Town Hall, 2770 Lower Cincinnatus Road, Cincinnatus, NY. Town of Cortlandville Maps are available for inspection at Cortlandvile Town Hall, Raymond G. Thorpe Municipal Building, 3577 Terrace Road, Cortland, NY. Town of Marathon Maps are available for inspection at Town of Marathon Highway Department, 16 Brink Street, Marathon, NY. Town of Preble Maps are available for inspection at Preble Town Hall, 1968 Preble Road, Preble, NY. Town of Scott Maps are available for inspection at Scott Town Hall, 6689 NYS Route 41, Homer, NY. Town of Solon Maps are available for inspection at Solon Town Hall, 4012 North Tower Road, East Freetown, NY. Town of Virgil Maps are available for inspection at Virgil Town Hall, 1176 Church Street, Cortland, NY. Village of Marathon Maps are available for inspection at Marathon Village Hall, 18 Tannery Street, Marathon, NY. Village of Mcgraw Maps are available for inspection at McGraw Village Hall, 1 Cemetery Street, McGraw, NY. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: May 28, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-13208 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 2, 12, 22, and 52 [FAR Case 2007-013; Docket 2008-0001; Sequence 1] RIN 9000-AK91 Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2007-013, Employment Eligibility Verification AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)to require certain contractors and subcontractors to use the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) E-Verify system as the means of verifying that certain of their employees are eligible to work in the United States. DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the FAR Secretariat on or before August 11, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by FAR case 2007-013 by any of the following methods: • *Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.* Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “FAR Case 2007-013” under the heading “Comment or Submission”. Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with FAR Case 2007-013. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form”. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2007-013” on your attached document. • *Fax:* 202-501-4067. • *Mail:* General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. *Instructions:* Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2007-013 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Murphy, Procurement Analyst, at
(202)208-6925 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat at
(202)501-4755. Please cite FAR case 2007-013. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background This rule proposes to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)to require that certain contracts contain a clause requiring that the contractor and certain subcontractors utilize the E-Verify System to verify employment eligibility of all newly hired employees of the contractor or subcontractor and all employees directly engaged in the performance of work in the United States under those contracts. The Government awards numerous contracts each fiscal year worth hundreds of billions of dollars. At the same time, one of the Government's primary responsibilities is the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States. It is appropriate to ensure that Government contractors and subcontractors abide by the immigration laws that the Government enforces. In 1986, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA)to prohibit the hiring or continued employment of aliens, knowing that the aliens are unauthorized to work in the United States. Public Law 99-603, Title I, § 101(a)(1), 100 Stat. 3360, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a). Congress also established an employment verification system in 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b), and directed the President to evaluate that system's security and efficacy and implement necessary changes, subject to congressional oversight. 8 U.S.C. 1324a(d). To assist in the development of such changes and additions to the system, Congress also authorized the President to establish demonstration projects designed to strengthen the employment verification system. 8 U.S.C. 1324a(d)(4). In 1992 the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS)launched the Telephone Verification System
(TVS)pilot program—an early form of what is now the E-Verify system—as a demonstration project. 69 Interpreter Releases 702 (June 8, 1992); 515 (Apr. 27, 1992). In 1996, Congress established the Basic Pilot program (now E-Verify) as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Public Law No. 104-208, §§ 401-405, 110 Stat. 3009-655—3009-665
(1996)(8 U.S.C. 1324a note). The Basic Pilot statute instructs all departments of the Executive Branch to participate in E-Verify as part of their hiring process. IIRIRA § 402(e)(1). This rule is authorized by an exercise of the President's authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPASA), to “prescribe policies and directives” governing procurement policy “that the President considers necessary to carry out” that Act and that are “consistent” with the Act's aim of “provid[ing] the Federal Government with an economical and efficient” procurement system. 40 U.S.C. 121, 101. The “economy and efficiency” benefits to Federal contracting that flow from ensuring that the Federal Government does not do business with contractors that hire or employ unauthorized aliens were first set forth in Executive Order 12989 (see 61 FR 6091, February 15, 1996). That order, which pre-dated Congress's creation of the Basic Pilot program (now E-Verify), noted that the presence of unauthorized aliens on a contractor's workforce rendered that contractor's workforce less stable and reliable than the workforces of contractors who do not employ unauthorized aliens. The executive order entitled “Economy and Efficiency in Government Procurement Through Compliance with Certain Immigration and Nationality Act Provisions and Use of an Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System” of June 6, 2008, amends Executive Order 12989 and, together with the Designation by the Secretary of Homeland Security, directs Federal agencies, in light of the recent advances in the reliability, convenience, and accuracy of the E-Verify system, to use this powerful tool to avoid both the general inefficiencies that flow from contracting with employers burdened with unstable workforces as well as the direct costs of disruptions to Federal contract performance that result when unauthorized aliens are found in, and must be subsequently removed from, the Federal contract workforce. This proposed rule inserts a clause into Federal contracts committing Government contractors to use the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) E-Verify System to verify that all of the contractors' new hires, and all employees (existing and new) directly engaged in the performance of work under Federal contracts, are authorized to work in the United States. The E-Verify System is expected to help contractors avoid employment of unauthorized aliens and will assist Federal agencies to avoid contracting with companies that knowingly hire unauthorized aliens. This enhances the Government's ability to protect national security and ensure compliance with the nation's immigration laws—core aspects of the Government's mission that otherwise could be compromised by the presence of unauthorized aliens in Government facilities or by the employment of unauthorized aliens in the Government's supply chain. It also protects U.S. workers by creating another disincentive for companies to hire unauthorized aliens who may command lower wages. In summary, the proposed rule— 1. Requires insertion of a clause into Government prime contracts that include work in the United States, other than those that do not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (generally $3,000), or that are for commercially available off-the-shelf
(COTS)items or items that would be COTS items but for minor modifications (the rule adopts the statutory definition of COTS). 2. Requires inclusion of the clause in subcontracts over $3,000 for services or for construction. 3. Requires a contractor or subcontractor to enroll in the E-Verify program within 30 days of contract award, begin verifying the employment eligibility of all new employees of the contractor or subcontractor that are hired after enrollment in E-Verify, and continue to use the E-Verify program for the life of the contract. 4. Requires contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of all existing employees who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the covered contract. 5. Applies to solicitations issued and contracts awarded after the effective date of the final rule in accordance with FAR 1.108(d). Under the final rule, Departments and agencies should, in accordance with FAR 1.108(d)(3), amend existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts to include the clause for future orders if the remaining period of performance extends at least six months after the effective date of the final rule and the amount of work or number of orders expected under the remaining performance period is substantial. 6. In exceptional circumstances, allows a head of the contracting activity to waive the requirement to include the clause. This authority is not delegable. The proposed rule applies only to employment in the United States as defined at section 101(a)(38) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 *et seq.* “United States” includes the fifty States and the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. It does not currently include the United States territories of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Under the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, Federal immigration law will begin to apply—through a phased process—to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands starting in mid-2009. At this time, however, these two territories have their own immigration laws and are not covered by the employment verification requirements of INA section 274A, 8 U.S.C. 1324a (see Form I-9). The proposed rule also does not apply to any employment outside the United States, including work on United States embassies or military bases in foreign countries. Finally, the proposed rule does not apply to any employee hired prior to November 6, 1986, as these employees are not subject to employment verification under INA section 274A, 8 U.S.C. 1324a. The Councils are attempting to balance competing needs in drafting this rule. It was written to apply the requirements in a manner to ensure effective compliance by the contractor community, but it exempts certain prime contracts and subcontracts when the cost of compliance would likely outweigh the benefits, e.g., COTS items. Comments are solicited with regard to how well this balance has been achieved. The E-Verify program is an internet-based system operated by USCIS, in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA), and requirements for obtaining access to E-Verify and procedures for the use of E-Verify are established by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS's parent agency. Before an employer can participate in the E-Verify program, the employer must enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)with DHS and SSA. This MOU requires employers to agree to abide by current legal hiring procedures and to ensure that no employee will be unfairly discriminated against as a result of the E-Verify program. Violation of the terms of this agreement by the employer is grounds for immediate termination of its participation in the program. Employers participating in E-Verify must still complete an Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9) for each newly hired employee, as required under current law. Following completion of the Form I-9, the employer must enter the worker's information into the E-Verify website, and that information is then checked against information contained in SSA and USCIS databases. SSA first verifies that the name, SSN, and date of birth are correct and, if the employee has stated that he or she is a U.S. citizen, confirms whether this is in fact the case through its databases. If the employee is a U.S. citizen, SSA establishes that the employee is employment-eligible. USCIS also verifies through database checks that any non-U.S. citizen employee is in an employment-authorized immigration status. If the information provided by the worker matches the information in the SSA and USCIS records, no further action will generally be required, and the worker may continue employment. E-Verify procedures require only that the employer record on the I-9 form the verification ID number and result obtained from the E-Verify query, or print a copy of the transaction record and retain it with the I-9 form. If SSA is unable to verify information presented by the worker, the employer will receive an “SSA Tentative Nonconfirmation” notice. Similarly, if USCIS is unable to verify information presented by the worker, the employer will receive a “DHS Tentative Nonconfirmation” notice. Employers can receive a tentative nonconfirmation notice for a variety of reasons, including inaccurate entry of information into the E-Verify Web site, name changes, or changes in immigration status that are not reflected in the database. If the individual's information does not match the SSA or USCIS records, the employer must provide the employee with a written notice of the fact, called a “Notice to Employee of Tentative Nonconfirmation.” The worker must then indicate on the notice whether he or she contests or does not contest the tentative nonconfirmation, and both the worker and the employer must sign the notice. If the worker chooses to contest the tentative nonconfirmation, the employer must print a second notice, called a “Referral Letter,” which contains information about resolving the tentative nonconfirmation, as well as the contact information for SSA or USCIS, depending on which agency was the source of the tentative nonconfirmation. The worker then has eight Federal Government work days to visit an SSA office or call USCIS to try to resolve the discrepancy. Under the E-Verify MOU, if the worker contests the tentative nonconfirmation, the employer is prohibited from terminating or otherwise taking adverse action against the worker while he or she awaits a final resolution from the Federal Government agency. If the worker fails to contest the tentative nonconfirmation, or if SSA or USCIS was unable to resolve the discrepancy the employer will receive a notice of final nonconfirmation and the employee may be terminated. Participation in E-Verify does not exempt the employer from the responsibility to complete, retain, and make available for inspection Forms I-9 that relate to its employees, or from other requirements of applicable regulations or laws; however, the following modified requirements apply by reason of the employer's participation in E-Verify:
(1)Identity documents used for verification purposes must have photos;
(2)if an employer obtains confirmation of the identity and employment eligibility of an individual in compliance with the terms and conditions of E-Verify, a rebuttable presumption is established that the employer has not violated section 274A(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA)with respect to the hiring of the individual;
(3)the employer must notify DHS if it continues to employ any employee after receiving a final nonconfirmation, and is subject to a civil money penalty between $500 and $1,000 for each failure to notify DHS of continued employment following a final nonconfirmation;
(4)if an employer continues to employ an employee after receiving a final nonconfirmation and that employee is subsequently found to be an unauthorized alien, the employer is subject to a rebuttable presumption that it has knowingly employed an unauthorized alien in violation of section 274A(a); and
(5)no person or entity participating in E-Verify is civilly or criminally liable under any law for any action taken in good faith based on information provided through the confirmation system. Further information on registration for and use of E-Verify can be obtained via the internet at *http://www.dhs.gov/E-Verify.* This proposed rule differs in one significant respect from the requirements generally applicable to employers participating in E-Verify; that is, current employees of Federal contractors that are assigned to work in the United States on a covered Federal contract, as well as the contractor's new hires in the United States, must be verified under this rule. In the initial contract start-up phase, employees assigned to the contract must be verified within 30 days; thereafter, the proposed rule requires newly hired and newly assigned employees to be verified within 3 days. Requiring employment eligibility confirmation of all workers assigned to a new Government contract is mandated by the June 6, 2008, Executive Order amending Executive Order 12989, is most consistent with the Federal Government's own obligation to use E-Verify when hiring Federal employees, and will most effectively ensure that the Federal Government does not indirectly exploit an illegal labor force. USCIS is in the process of revising its MOU, program manual, training materials, Web site, and other E-Verify System materials to reflect the duties that Federal contractors will take on when they sign a contract containing the clause promulgated by this proposed rule. Those E-Verify System accommodations will make this proposed FAR amendment and the E-Verify System consistent for Federal contractors, but will not apply to E-Verify users who are not required to comply with the contract clause promulgated by this rule. Federal contractors' compliance with that revised MOU will be a performance requirement under the terms of the Federal contract or subcontract, and the contractor must consent to the release of information relating to compliance with its verification responsibilities to contracting officers or other officials authorized to review the Employer's compliance with Federal contracting requirements. A revised MOU reflecting the program participation requirements for Federal contractors has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking and will be available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* B. Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. A Regulatory Impact Analysis that more thoroughly explains the assumptions used to estimate the cost of this proposed rule is available in the docket. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* A summary of the cost and benefits of the proposed rule follows: In the initial fiscal year, the rule is expected to be effective (2009), we estimate that there will be approximately 168,324 contractors and subcontractors that will be required to enroll in E-Verify due to this rule and there will be an additional 3.8 million employees vetted through E-Verify. In the initial year, the cost of the proposed rule at 7% net present value is approximately $107.0 million and, over the ten-year period of analysis (2009-2018), the cost of the proposed rule is approximately $550.3 million. In the initial year, the cost of the proposed rule at 3% net present value is approximately $111.2 million and, over the ten-year period of analysis (2009-2018), the cost of the proposed rule is $668.9 million. Compliance costs from participating in the E-Verify program fall into the following general categories and Table 1 below provides a summary of the costs: • Startup Costs—Employers must register to use the E-verify system and sign a Memorandum of Understanding with USCIS and SSA. A very small number of employers may need to purchase a computer and internet connection for their hiring site if that hiring site does not already have internet access. • Training—Employees that use the E-Verify system are required to take an on-line tutorial. While USCIS does not charge a fee for this training, employers will incur the opportunity cost of the time the employee spends for this training, as the employee's time could have been spent on other activities. • Employee Verification—Employers will incur the opportunity cost of the time spent entering data into E-Verify and, if the employee receives a tentative nonconfirmation, employers would inform the employee and spend time closing out the case after resolution of the tentative nonconfirmation. In addition, the employer would incur lost productivity when an employee would need to be away from work to visit SSA to correct his/her information. We believe the employee would bear the cost of driving to SSA. • Employee Replacement (Turnover) Cost—There may be a small percentage of workers who are authorized to work in the U.S. and receive a tentative nonconfirmation, but choose not to take the steps necessary to resolve the tentative nonconfirmation (despite the strong economic incentives to resolve the issue). To the extent that the accompanying E-Verify rulemaking results in the termination of a worker authorized to work in the U.S., those costs could be considered to be a cost of the rule. However, the termination and replacement costs of unauthorized workers are not counted as a direct cost of this rule since current immigration law prohibits employers from hiring or continuing to employ aliens whom they know are not authorized to work in the U.S. The termination and replacement of unauthorized employees will impose a burden on employers, but INA section 274A(a)(1), (2), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1), (2), expressly prohibits employers from hiring or continuing to employ an alien whom they know is not authorized to work in the United States. Accordingly, costs that result from employers' knowledge of their workers' illegal status are attributable to the Immigration and Nationality Act, not to the Federal Acquisition Regulation requiring Employment Eligibility Verification for certain federal contractors and subcontractors. • Federal Government Cost—The Government will incur operating costs from each query that an employer executes and will also incur costs from resolving tentative nonconfirmations. Table 1.—10 Year Cost of Proposed Rule [7% Present value] Year Employer Startup & training costs Authorized employee replacement cost Verification cost Employee Verification cost Government Verification cost Total 2009 $ 61,630,740 $18,980,895 $24,174,247 $677,403 $ 1,547,194 $107,010,479 2010 28,859,143 9,840,872 12,533,427 351,208 802,161 52,386,811 2011 28,319,789 9,656,932 12,299,159 344,643 787,167 51,407,690 2012 27,790,462 9,476,427 12,069,267 338,201 772,454 50,446,811 2013 28,040,474 9,299,296 11,843,671 331,880 758,015 50,273,336 2014 27,516,328 9,125,478 11,622,295 325,676 743,847 49,333,625 2015 27,002,030 8,954,912 11,405,060 319,589 729,944 48,411,535 2016 26,497,248 8,787,531 11,191,882 313,615 716,300 47,506,576 2017 26,589,062 8,623,278 10,982,689 307,753 702,911 47,205,693 2018 26,092,101 8,462,096 10,777,406 302,001 689,773 46,323,377 Total 308,337,378 101,207,717 128,899,103 3,611,970 8,249,766 550,305,932 Because illegal aliens are at risk of being apprehended in immigration enforcement actions, contractors who hire illegal aliens will necessarily have a more unstable workforce than contractors who do not hire unauthorized workers. Given the vulnerabilities in the I-9 system, many employers that do not knowingly employ illegal aliens nevertheless have unauthorized workers, undetected, on their workforce. This rule will promote economy and efficiency in Government procurement. Stability and dependability are important elements of economy and efficiency. A contractor whose workforce is less stable will be less likely to produce goods and services economically and efficiently than a contractor whose workforce is more stable. Because of the Executive Branch's obligation to enforce the immigration laws, including the detection and removal of illegal aliens identified through vigorous worksite enforcement, contractors that employ illegal aliens cannot rely on the continuing availability and service of those illegal workers, and such contractors inevitably will have a less stable and less dependable workforce than contractors that do not employ such persons. Where a contractor assigns illegal aliens to work on Federal contracts, the enforcement of Federal immigration laws imposes a direct risk of disruption, delay, and increased expense in Federal contracting. Such contractors are less dependable procurement sources, even if they do not knowingly hire or knowingly continue to employ unauthorized workers. Contractors that use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of their workforce are much less likely to face immigration enforcement actions, and are generally more efficient and dependable procurement sources than contractors that do not use that system to verify the work eligibility of their workforce. Rigorous employment verification through E-Verify will also help contractors to confirm the identity of the persons working on Federal contracts, enhancing national security at less expense to the Government than it would cost for contractors to obtain more rigorous security clearances. This is likely to be particularly beneficial where contractors operate at sensitive national infrastructure sites. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Councils expect this rule to impact nearly every small entity in the Federal contractor base. However, the direct cost this rule imposes does not appear to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared and the results of the analysis show that the direct cost of this rule on an average cost per contractor basis does not appear to rise to the level of being economically significant; however, the Councils request comments on this finding. The Councils expect this rule to carry certain benefits to employers in that it provides an economical, Web-based method for performing verification of employment eligibility of employees, improving the reliability of the employment verification procedures employers are already required to perform. Federal contractors' participation in E-Verify is also expected to reduce the likelihood that contractors will discover long after the fact that they have hired unauthorized aliens, thereby sparing contractors the cost of terminating and replacing employees not authorized to work under Federal immigration law after resources have been expended on the training of those employees. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared for public comment and is summarized as follows: The June 6, 2008 Executive Order, amending Executive Order 12989, 61 FR 6091 (February 15, 1996), prohibits Federal agencies from contracting with companies that knowingly hire employees not eligible to work in the United States and instructs Federal agencies to contract with companies that agree to use an electronic employment verification system to confirm the employment eligibility of their workforce. The E-Verify System is the best available means for contractors and subcontractors to verify employment eligibility. Consequently, this proposed rule is being promulgated to institute a contractual requirement for contractors and subcontractors to utilize E-Verify as the means of verifying that all new hires of the contractor or subcontractor and all employees directly engaged in performing work under covered contracts or subcontracts are eligible to work in the United States. The proposed rule adds a new FAR Subpart 22.18 and a new clause. The prohibition against Federal agencies contracting with companies that knowingly hire employees not eligible to work in the United States has existed since 1996. Virtually all employers in the United States, including Federal Government contractors and subcontractors, are prohibited from hiring an individual without verifying his or her identity and authorization to work and from continuing to employ an alien whom they know is not authorized to work in the United States (section 274A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1324a; 8 CFR part 274A). Many aliens, including lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, and temporary workers petitioned by a U.S. employer, are authorized to work in the United States (see 8 CFR 274a.12, listing classes of work-authorized aliens). The new contractual requirement to use the E-Verify System will enhance the Government's ability to protect national security and ensure compliance with the nation's immigration laws—core aspects of the Government's mission that otherwise could be compromised by the presence of unauthorized aliens in Government facilities or by the employment of unauthorized aliens in the Government's supply chain. This rule will impact nearly every small entity in the Federal contractor base. Major exceptions are contractors providing commercially available off-the-shelf
(COTS)items and COTS items with only minor modifications and subcontractors that provide supplies, not services or construction. In Fiscal Year 2006, there were over 100,000 small businesses that received direct Federal contracts. While there are no reliable numbers for subcontracts awarded to small businesses, the Dynamic Small Business database of the Central Contractor Registration—a database of basic business information for contractors that seek to do business with the Federal Government—gives a number of 324,250 small business profiles that are registered. Assuming that 50% of these small businesses contract with the Federal Government at either the prime or subcontract level, then that number is 162,125 small businesses. We have placed in the public docket a detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis of the compliance requirements of this rule. Generally, employers will incur opportunity cost of the time expenses for the time their employees will spend complying with the requirements of the regulation. Employees will need to be trained in order to be able to operate the E-Verify system, as well as spend time on processing employee verifications. Employers will incur start-up costs from enrolling in the E-Verify program. We believe a small number of employers may need to purchase a computer and Internet connection for their hiring site. Certain employee replacement (turnover) costs may also be incurred due to this regulation. In order to further inform our understanding of the economic impact of this rule on small entities, we considered hypothetical contractors with 10, 50, 100, and 500 employees and estimated the economic impact of the rule on those four sizes of entities in their initial year of enrollment. The initial year a contractor enrolls in E-Verify is expected to be the year with the highest compliance cost, as the contractor is incurring both the start-up costs of enrolling in E-Verify as well as the costs of vetting employees through the E-Verify system. We estimate the average direct cost of this rule to a contractor with 10 employees to be $419 in the initial year; for a contractor with 50 employees, we estimate the average direct cost of participating in E-Verify to be $1,168 in the initial year; for a contractor with 100 employees we estimate an initial year impact of $2,102; while a contractor with 500 employees is expected to have an initial year impact of $8,964. This level of direct cost burden is well under 1% of the expected annual revenue of these four sizes of entities and does not appear to represent an economically significant impact on an average direct cost per contractor basis. To the extent that some small entities incur direct costs that are higher than the average estimated costs, those employers may reasonably be expected to face a significant economic impact. As discussed previously, we do not consider the cost of complying with preexisting immigration statutes to be a direct cost of this rulemaking. Thus, while some employers may find the costs incurred by replacing employees that are not authorized to work in the United States to be economically significant, those costs of complying with the Immigration and Nationality Act are not direct costs attributable to this rule. In addition, the requirement for entities (both large and small) to enroll in E-Verify only applies to contractors and subcontractors who choose to perform certain work for the Federal Government. If an entity does believe that participating in E-Verify would impose a significant economic impact on their operation, the entity would make a business decision whether the revenue generated by doing business with the Federal Government would provide a financial return sufficient to justify the cost of such participation in E-Verify. Presumably, entities which do not receive the desired return on revenue to justify the expense of participating in E-Verify would choose not to be a Federal contractor or subcontractor. The Councils seek further comment on the actual costs or expenditures, if any, of registering for and using the E-Verify System and the extent to which these costs may differ or vary for small entities. The Councils are unaware of any duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules. There are current requirements for all employers, not just Federal contractors and subcontractors, to verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees. These requirements have existed since 1986. Arguably related rules include DHS's “No-Match” rule, which provides guidance to employers on how best to respond to the Social Security Administration's
(SSA)no-match letters, through which employers are alerted annually about their employees whose names and Social Security numbers submitted on tax forms do not match up to the information in the SSA's database. Although this “No-Match” rule concerns the SSA's letters generated from one of the data sources used by the E-Verify system, the “No-Match” rule is not associated with use of the E-Verify System. The two rules interact insofar as use of E-Verify—and the resulting strengthening of Federal contractors' employment verification processes—is expected to reduce the incidence of SSA “No-Matches” in the Federal contract workforce resulting from the employment of unauthorized alien workers. But the “No-Match” rule is designed to assist employers to ensure that their entire existing workforce remains work-authorized, while this proposed amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation is designed to ensure that unauthorized aliens are not brought into the Federal Government's contractor workforce. The Councils considered the following alternatives in order to minimize the impact on small business concerns: • Whether to require E-Verify participation as a preaward eligibility requirement or treat it as a postaward contract performance requirement. The proposed rule is distinct from the existing E-Verify program, in that it would require E-Verify queries to be performed on certain existing employees of a contractor, and the Councils believe that the obligations created by the rule should be codified as a post-award contract performance requirement. • Whether the use of E-Verify should be required for existing employees of the contractor that are assigned to work under the Government contract, or should be limited only to the new hires of the contractor. The Councils decided that requiring employment eligibility confirmation of all workers assigned to a new Government contract was most consistent with the Federal Government's own obligation to use E-Verify when hiring Federal employees, and would most effectively ensure that the Federal Government does not indirectly exploit an illegal labor force. • Whether to require contractors to use E-Verify only for new hires that would be assigned to work under a Government contract, and exclude all other new hires of the contractor from the E-Verify requirement. The Councils decided that requiring contractors to use the E-Verify program as part of their standard hiring practices would simplify employment verification, and better conforms with a principal goal of the rule to ensure that the Federal Government does business with companies that do not employ unauthorized aliens. • Whether the use of E-Verify should be required for all prime contracts or only for those contracts that do not call for COTS items or items that would be COTS items but for minor modifications, as defined at FAR Part 2, containing the definition of a commercial item. Because COTS suppliers by definition do not specialize in serving the Federal Government, and because the Government might lose access to COTS suppliers if they determine the cost of complying with the rule outweighs their gains from Government business, the Councils decided not to require the use of E-Verify for COTS items and items that would be COTS but for minor modifications. • Whether the requirements of the rule should flow down to all subcontracts or should be limited to subcontracts for services or construction. The Councils determined to apply the proposed rule only to subcontracts for commercial or noncommercial services, including construction. It does not apply to subcontracts for material or to subcontracts less than $3,000. The FAR Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the FAR Secretariat. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected Subpart FAR 22.18 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Comments must be submitted separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 601, *et seq.* (FAR case 2007-013), in correspondence. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) applies because the proposed rule contains information collection requirements over and above the burden hours already approved for the E-Verify System. The OMB control number for the currently approved Information Collection Request is 1615-0092. The Privacy Impact Assessments and the System of Records Notice for the E-Verify program may be found at *http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/publications/editorial_0511.shtm#4* and at 73 FR 10793. Although the E-Verify System has a currently approved Paperwork Reduction Act clearance, we are seeking an additional approval for this proposed amendment to the FAR because the proposed FAR rule will increase the number of E-Verify users. The OMB control number for the currently approved Information Collection Request is 1615-0092. This additional burden is created by the requirement in this rule to verify employment eligibility of certain current employees in each contractor's existing workforce. Also included in the additional burden estimate is the number of employers and employees that would not have utilized E-Verify but for the issuance of this rule. Accordingly, the Councils will forward a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning this burden to the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq* . Public comments concerning this request will be invited through a subsequent **Federal Register** notice. *Annual Reporting Burden:* The number of Respondents estimated below is the average number of covered contractors and subcontractors per year for the first three years the rule is in effect. The number of total annual responses is the sum of the MOUs that must be signed by each employer, the number of employer registrations, the number of employees that undergo training, and the average number of E-Verify queries per year for the first three years the rule is in effect. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .40 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows: *Respondents:* 177,196. *Responses per respondent:* 21.05. *Total annual responses:* 3,729,406. *Preparation hours per response:* .40 hrs. *Total response burden hours:* 1,500,357. D. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than August 11, 2008 to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR and will have practical utility; whether the above estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which the burden of the collection of information can be minimized on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Requester may obtain a copy of the justification from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone
(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-XXXX in all correspondence. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2, 12, 22 and 52 Government procurement. Dated: June 10, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 2, 12, 22, and 52 as set forth below: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 12, 22, and 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). PART 2—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 2. Amend section 2.101 in paragraph (b)(2), in the definition “United States,” by redesignating paragraphs
(5)through 8 as paragraphs
(6)through 9, respectively, and adding a new paragraph
(5)to read as follows: 2.101 Definitions.
(b)* * *
(2)* * * *United States* , * * *
(5)For use in Subpart 22.18, see the definition at 22.1801. PART 12—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS 3. Amend section 12.301 by adding paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows: 12.301 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.
(d)* * *
(3)Insert the clause at 52.222-XX, Employment Eligibility Verification, as prescribed in 22.1803. 4. Amend section 22.102-1 by removing from the end of paragraph
(g)the word “and”; removing the period from the end of paragraph
(h)and adding “; and” in its place; and adding paragraph
(i)to read as follows: PART 22—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS 22.102-1 Policy.
(i)Eligibility for employment under United States immigration laws. 5. Add subpart 22.18 to read as follows: Subpart 22.18—Employment Eligibility Verification Sec. 22.1800 Scope. 22.1801 Definitions. 22.1802 Policy. 22.1803 Contract clause. 22.1800 Scope. This subpart prescribes policies and procedures requiring contractors to utilize the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service's employment eligibility verification program (E-Verify) as the means for verifying employment eligibility of certain employees. 22.1801 Definitions. As used in this subpart— *Assigned employee* means an employee who was hired after November 6, 1986, who is directly performing work, in the United States, under a contract that is required to include the clause prescribed at 22.1803. *Commercially available off-the-shelf
(COTS)item* —
(1)Means any item of supply that is—
(i)A commercial item (as defined in paragraph
(1)of the definition at FAR 2.101);
(ii)Sold in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace; and
(iii)Offered to the Government, without modification, in the same form in which it is sold in the commercial marketplace; and
(2)Does not include bulk cargo, as defined in section 3 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. App. 1702), such as agricultural products and petroleum products. *United States* , as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(38), means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 22.1802 Policy.
(a)Statutes and executive orders require employers to abide by the immigration laws of the United States and to employ in the United States only individuals who are eligible to work in the United States. The E-Verify program provides an Internet-based means of verifying employment eligibility of workers employed in the United States, but is not a substitute for any other employment eligibility verification requirements.
(b)Contracting officers shall include in contracts, as prescribed at 22.1803, a requirement for contractors to— (1)(i) Enroll in the E-Verify program within 30 calendar days of contract award, and use E-Verify within 30 calendar days thereafter to verify employment eligibility of their employees assigned to the contract at the time of enrollment in E-Verify; or
(ii)If the contractor is already enrolled in E-Verify, use E-Verify within 30 calendar days of contract award to verify employment eligibility of their employees assigned to the contract; and
(2)Following this initial period, initiate verification of all new hires of the contractor and of all employees newly assigned to the contract within three business days of their date of hire or date of assignment to the contract.
(c)*Subcontractor flowdown* . The contracting officer shall require contractors to flow down the requirement to use E-Verify to subcontracts that—
(1)Are for commercial or noncommercial services or construction;
(2)Exceed $3,000; and
(3)Include work performed in the United States.
(d)In exceptional cases, the head of the contracting activity may waive the requirement to insert the clause at 52.222-XX, Employment Eligibility Verification, for a contract or subcontract or a class of contracts or subcontracts. This waiver authority may not be delegated. 22.1803 Contract clause. Insert the clause at 52.222-XX, Employment Eligibility Verification, in all solicitations and contracts, except those that—
(a)Are for commercially available off-the-shelf items or items that would be COTS items, but for minor modifications (as defined at paragraph (3)(ii) of the definition of “commercial item” at FAR 2.101);
(b)Are under the micro-purchase threshold; or
(c)Do not include any work that will be performed in the United States. PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 6. Add section 52.222-XX to read as follows: 52.222-XX Employment Eligibility Verification. As prescribed in 22.1803 and 12.301(d)(3), insert the following clause: EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION ([DATE])
(a)*Definitions* . As used in this clause—
(1)*Assigned employee* means an employee who was hired after November 6, 1986, who is directly performing work, in the United States, under a contract that is required to include the clause prescribed at 22.1803.
(2)*United States* , as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(38), means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
(b)The Contractor shall—
(1)Enroll in the E-Verify program within 30 calendar days of contract award;
(2)Use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of all assigned employees; and
(3)Comply, for the period of performance of this contract, with the requirements of the E-Verify program, including, but not limited to, verifying the employment eligibility of all new employees of the Contractor.
(c)Information on registration for and use of the E-Verify program can be obtained via the Internet at the Department of Homeland Security Web site: *http://www.dhs.gov/E-Verify* .
(d)*Initiation of verification* . The Contractor shall initiate a verification query—
(1)Within 30 calendar days of its enrollment in the E-Verify program, for each assigned employee who is assigned to the contract at the time of enrollment in the E-Verify program;
(2)Within three business days of the date of assignment to this contract, or within 30 days of the award of the contract to which the employee is assigned, whichever is later, for each assigned employee who is assigned to the contract after the date of enrollment in the E-Verify program; and
(3)Within three business days of the date of employment, for all employees of the Contractor hired after the date of enrollment in the E-Verify program.
(e)*Individuals previously verified* . The Contractor is not required by this clause to perform additional employment verification using E-Verify for any employee whose employment eligibility was previously verified by the Contractor through the E-Verify program.
(f)*Subcontractor flowdown* . The Contractor shall flow down the requirements of this clause, including this paragraph
(f)(appropriately modified for identification of the parties), to each subcontract that—
(1)Is for commercial or noncommercial services or construction;
(2)Exceeds $3,000; and
(3)Includes work performed in the United States. (End of clause) [FR Doc. E8-13358 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 600 [Docket No. 071001548-7827-02] RIN 0648-AW10 Marine Recreational Fisheries of the United States; National Saltwater Angler Registry Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement section 401(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The regulations would establish a national registry of recreational fishers fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), for anadromous species throughout their range or for Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the EEZ. It also would exempt persons from that requirement if licensed by a state that provides registration data determined to be sufficient for the agency's needs. The requirement is intended to improve existing angling effort surveys in order to improve their efficiency, to reduce possible sources of bias and to improve confidence in survey results by anglers and fishery managers. DATES: Comments must be received by August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AW10, by any of the following methods: • Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* • Fax: 301-713-1875, Attn: Gordon Colvin. • Mail: John Boreman, Director, Office of Science and Technology, NMFS, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Attn: Gordon Colvin. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Colvin, phone: 301-713-2367; fax: 301-713-1875; or e-mail: *gordon.colvin@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access This proposed rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/* . Background information and documents are available at the NMFS Office of Science and Technology Web site at *http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/mrii/index.html* . Background In 2004, NMFS contracted with the National Research Council
(NRC)of the National Academy of Sciences to review the current marine recreational fishery survey methods used by NMFS and its partners to monitor fishing effort and catch. NMFS asked the NRC to:
(1)assess current survey methods for their suitability in monitoring fishing effort and catch in the shoreline, private boat, and for-hire boat recreational fisheries;
(2)assess the adequacy of the methods for providing the quality of information needed to support accurate stock assessments and responsible fisheries management decisions; and
(3)make recommendations for possible methodological improvements that would ensure more accurate and precise estimates of recreational effort and catch. The NRC's Ocean Studies Board formed a 10-member committee to conduct the requested review, held a series of five public meetings in 2005 to gather information about the current survey programs in each region, and published a final report in April 2006 [ *http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11616.html* ]. The NRC report identified a number of potential problems with the sampling and estimation designs employed in the current surveys and questioned the adequacy of the existing surveys in providing the statistics needed to support accurate stock assessments and appropriate fishery management decisions. The report recommended that current surveys be redesigned to improve their effectiveness, the appropriateness of their sampling procedures, their applicability to various kinds of management decisions, and their usefulness for social and economic analyses. The NRC review deferred to NMFS to develop a process to determine the highest priority changes given the costs and benefits of any specific improvement. NMFS is proposing the National Saltwater Angler Registry Program (“Registry Program”) to implement the recommendations of the NRC review. Among its findings, the NRC review found that current recreational survey approaches, which rely on random telephone contacts with residents of coastal county households to collect marine recreational fishing effort data, result in significant survey over-coverage since relatively few households include active anglers, and under-coverage since some anglers do not live in coastal counties or they live in coastal counties but do not have landline telephones. The review advised that over-coverage results in severe sampling inefficiency, and that under-coverage may lead to serious bias in the resultant effort estimates since anglers from non-coastal counties are likely to have different effort characteristics than those from coastal counties. To resolve these problems, the NRC Panel recommended the development of and subsequent sampling from a comprehensive national saltwater angler registry. The panel further recommended that the registry be established either by implementing a federal registration requirement or by expanding current state saltwater licenses to include all saltwater anglers. Partially in response to the NRC Panel's findings and recommendations, Congress passed section 401(g) of the MSA, which requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program to improve the quality and accuracy of current estimates of marine recreational fishing catch and effort by January 1, 2009, in a manner that considers and, to the extent feasible, incorporates the NRC Panel's recommendations. As part of the program, section 401(g)(1) of the MSA requires the Secretary to register, and collect identification and contact information for, anglers and for-hire vessels if they fish in the EEZ, for Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the EEZ or for anadromous species throughout their range, including state waters. Further, the Secretary is to exempt from the federal registration requirement those anglers and vessels that are licensed or registered by a state if the state provides sufficient identification and contact information for use in recreational surveys. The resultant federal Registry must address both the qualifications and procedures for registering anglers and vessels and for exempting qualified states' anglers and vessels from the federal registration requirement. The program must also recognize and balance two important provisions of the NRC recommendations and the provisions of section 401(g) of the MSA. First, the NRC Panel's scientific advice is clear that a universal registry or license-based list of all saltwater anglers, without exceptions based on exemptions to state or federal registration requirements, is essential. Second, the federal registration requirements of section 401(g) of the MSA apply to saltwater anglers fishing in state waters (territorial sea or internal waters) when they are taking anadromous fish. Therefore, some salt water anglers fishing in state waters would not be required to register under this section, although they may be subject to permitting and other requirements under other sections of the MSA. Accordingly, it is necessary for states and NMFS to work in collaboration to build registries of saltwater anglers that include anglers currently exempted or not covered by state license or registration requirements and that also include anglers who are fishing for non-anadromous marine fish in state waters. The proposed rule was developed consistent with the foregoing program requirements. It is intended to facilitate the development of a national registry or data base of identification and contact information for marine recreational anglers and for-hire fishing vessels. The registry data will be compiled in a series of regional directories to be used to support surveys of anglers and vessel operators to determine their angling effort and related data, as recommended by the NRC Panel and as required by section 401(g)(1) of the MSA. The proposed rule would require persons who are angling or spear fishing or in possession of fish or operating a vessel that carries recreational fishing passengers for-hire in the EEZ, or who are angling or spear fishing or operating a vessel that carries recreational fishing passengers for-hire and who are in possession of anadromous species, to register annually with NMFS. The registration requirement would become effective January 1, 2009. Section 401(g) of the MSA provides that the Secretary may not charge a fee for anglers or vessels to register with NMFS until January 1, 2011. The proposed rule would implement a registration fee to be specified at the time of implementation, currently estimated to be in the range of $15 to $25 per year, beginning in calendar year 2011. Anglers and for-hire vessel operators would be exempt from the requirement to register annually if they held a license issued by, or were registered by, a state which had qualified as an exempted state as described below. Persons who hold a state or federal commercial fishing license or permit, and who are lawfully fishing or in possession of fish pursuant to such license or permit, would not be required to register; however, holders of commercial licenses or permits who are angling or spear fishing recreationally, outside the terms and conditions of the commercial license or permit, would be required to register. Anglers under the age of 16 would be exempt from the mandatory registration requirement, although they could register voluntarily, at no cost. This exception is proposed, in part, due to the practical difficulty of conducting telephone surveys of, and of enforcing a registration requirement for, minors. Furthermore, in most cases, adult anglers reside in households in which minor anglers reside; such adults would need to register and, if contacted by surveys, would be able to provide the angling effort information for minors residing in the same household. Anglers fishing on registered for-hire fishing vessels also would be exempt from the registration requirement. The fee for registering would be waived for non-commercial fishing by indigenous people, but the requirement to register would not. The proposed fee waiver recognizes that, for many indigenous people, fishing is motivated primarily by a desire to gather food for family or community use and/or for cultural reasons. Although it is necessary to require indigenous fishers to register in order to assure that the registration requirement is enforceable and to ensure complete data collection, it is appropriate to waive the registration fee in consideration of the cultural nature of non-commercial fishing by many indigenous people. The proposed rule also would establish the procedures and guidelines by which states may be designated as exempted states. A state would apply for designation by submitting a proposal that addresses the requirements as noted below. A Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) between NMFS and each state would be executed to establish the terms of designation. States would be eligible to be designated as exempted states in two ways:
(1)by submitting state angler and for-hire vessel license holder data to NMFS for inclusion in a national or regional registry data base; or
(2)by participating in regional surveys of recreational catch and effort and making the resultant data available to NMFS. The proposed regulations for exempted state designation are designed to assure that the license holder data submitted by states includes all anglers and for-hire vessels necessary to meet survey requirements. Classification This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* At this time, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public burden for complying with the registration requirement is estimated to average two minutes per individual annual registration and three minutes for each for-hire vessel annual registration. Based on the current estimate of the initial number of potential registrants (see RIR/RFAA discussion below), the analysis estimates the total burden hours for compliance with registration requirements as 67,410 for individuals and 120 for small entities. The associated total labor costs are $1,685,250 for individuals ($0.83 per person) and $3000 for small entities ($ 1.25 per for-hire vessel). The PRA submission also states that, apart from the labor cost associated with submitting the information required to register, there are no other annual reporting and recordkeeping costs associated with the registration requirement. An individual registrant would provide name, address, telephone number and regions of the country in which they fish. A for-hire vessel registrant would provide owner and operator (if different) name, address, telephone number, vessel name and state registration or U.S. Coast Guard documentation number, and home port or principal operating area. Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NMFS, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to Gordon Colvin, Office of Science and Technology (see ADDRESSES ), and by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or by fax to
(202)395-7285. NMFS has determined that implementation of the rule is categorically excluded from the requirement for a NEPA review. The proposed action constitutes a regulation of an administrative and procedural nature and will not result in direct or indirect changes to the human environment. The Office of Management and Budget has determined the proposed rule to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (“E.O. 12866”). The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires the examination of impacts of proposed and existing rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. In reviewing the potential impacts of proposed regulations, the agency must either:
(1)certify that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; or
(2)prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) defines a small business engaged in recreational fishing activities as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $6.5 million. The objectives and legal basis of this rule can be found in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY sections of the proposed rule. There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with the rule. There are no disproportionate impacts among the impacted universe of vessels or between small and large vessels as defined by the Small Business Administration. The small entities affected by the proposed rule are fishing vessels that carry passengers for a fee to conduct recreational fishing. These “for-hire” fishing vessels are classified as follows: Head boats include fishing boats on which fishing space and privileges are provided for a fee. Head boats are generally large, they may carry from 7 passengers up to 150 paying passengers, and anglers usually pay on a per-head basis for the opportunity to fish on them. The vessel is operated by a licensed captain (guide or skipper) and crew.In some areas of the country head boats are called party boats or open boats. These boats are usually not launched until a specified number of anglers have paid and boarded. Anglers on these full or half day trips usually do not know all of the other anglers on the boat. Head boats usually engage predominantly in bottom fishing. The length of head boat trips may vary from a half-day to multiple days. Charter boats include fishing boats operating under charter for a specific price, time, etc. Charter boats are smaller in size than head boats, they usually carry fewer than 7 paying passengers, and they are usually hired, or “chartered”, by a group of anglers. They are operated by a licensed captain and crew, and the participants are usually part of a pre-formed group. Thus, charters are usually closed parties (all anglers know each other), as opposed to the open status of party boats. A subset of charter boats are also called guide boats, which are small boats fishing inland waters with two to three clients. Charter boats can engage in a full range of fishing techniques, including trolling, bottom fishing, and drift fishing. The length of charter boat trips may vary from a half-day to multiple days. 11,953 for-hire vessels are currently operating nationwide. A detailed description of the number of vessels currently operating, by state of operation, is presented in section 2.2 of the RIR/RFAA. The small entities that will be required to comply with the rule will be required to register annually by submitting the following information via either a web-based or telephone-based portal: vessel name and home port/principal operating area; vessel's state registration or USCG documentation number; name, address and telephone contact information for owner and operator(s). The registrant will be provided with a registration number and documentation of registration which must be kept available to provide to law enforcement officers upon request. The proposed rule will not include any other reporting or record-keeping requirements. All for-hire vessels, both head boats and charter boats, will be required to register annually unless they are exempted from the registration requirement under either of two exemption provisions in the proposed rule:
(1)the vessel is licensed or registered by an Exempted State, or
(2)the vessel holds a NMFS license or permit to engage in for-hire fishing activities in compliance with another applicable regulation. Exempted States will agree to provide complete lists of for-hire vessels and the required identification and contact information to NMFS and will enter into Memoranda of Agreement to formalize the agreements. Since all states except New Jersey currently license for-hire fishing, it is expected that most states will be designated as Exempted States for for-hire fisheries under the proposed rule. In New Jersey, a state which does not issue state commercial permits to individual vessels, the preponderance of for-hire vessels are permitted with NMFS with the State adopting Federal for-hire regulations in their waters. Between the exemptions available to vessels from Exempted States and those remaining that will have another NMFS-issued license or permit, it is expected that very few for-hire vessels will need to comply with the registration requirement under the proposed rule. It is expected that for-hire vessel information currently collected by most states will be sufficient to fulfill the data collection requirements of the preferred alternative. It is anticipated that most states which currently license for-hire vessels will be granted Exempted State status. Therefore, no additional cost burden or changes in gross revenues is anticipated for for-hire vessels operating in states granted Exempted State status. To address the likelihood that some vessels will not be exempt from the federal registration requirement proposed by this rule, NMFS conservatively estimated that 20% of for-hire vessels nationwide would not be exempt. This is a very conservative estimate because it is anticipated that only New Jersey, which does not license for-hire vessels, but, based on voluntary registration information, is estimated to currently include approximately 8% of U.S. for-hire vessels, will not be granted Exempted State status. Therefore, of the 11,953 for-hire vessels operating in the U.S., NMFS estimated that 2,390 vessels will not be exempt from the proposed federal registration requirement. The cost per vessel to comply with this proposed rule is anticipated to range between $15 and $25. To determine the economic impact of the administrative fee on individual vessels, the for-hire vessels in NY, NJ, MD, DE, and VA were examined. It was estimated that each individual for-hire vessel earned $ 95,700 in revenues based on an angler fee of $41.09 and the assumption that 590 vessels or 1.20 x 491 (the known number of permitted vessels from those states) operated as for-hire vessels. Based on these assumptions the adverse economic impact of a $25 administrative fee would be a reduction in the revenue of the average individual vessel of 0.03 percent. Therefore, NMFS has concluded that implementation of this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600 Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Statistics. Dated: June 9, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to add subpart P to 50 CFR part 600 to read as follows: PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS Subpart P—Marine Recreational Fisheries of the United States Sec. 600.1400 Definitions. 600.1405 Angler registration. 600.1410 Registry process. 600.1415 Procedures for designating exempted states-general provisions. 600.1416 Requirements for exempted state designation based on submission of state license holder data. 600.1417 Requirements for exempted state designation based on submission of recreational survey data. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1881. Subpart P—Marine Recreational Fisheries of the United States § 600.1400 Definitions.
(a)*Anadromous species* means the following: American shad: *Alosa sapidissima* Blueback herring: *Alosa aestivalus* Alewife: *Alosa pseudoharengus* Hickory shad: *Alosa mediocris* Alabama shad: *Alosa alabamae* Striped bass: *Morone saxatilis* Rainbow smelt: *Osmerus mordax* Atlantic salmon: *Salmo salar* Chinook, or king, salmon: *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* Coho, or silver, salmon: *Oncorhynchus kisutch* Pink salmon: *Oncorhynchus gorbuscha* Sockeye salmon: *Oncorhynchus nerka* Chum salmon: *Oncorhynchus keta* Steelhead: *Oncorhynchus mykiss* Coastal cutthroat trout: *Oncorhynchus clarki clarki* Eulachon or candlefish: *Thaleichthys pacificus* Atlantic sturgeon: *Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus* Shortnose sturgeon: *Acipenser brevirostrum* Gulf sturgeon: *Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi* White sturgeon: *Acipenser transmontanus* Green sturgeon: *Acipenser medirostris*
(b)*Angler* means a person who is angling (see 50 CFR 600.10).
(c)*Authorized officer* has the same meaning as in 50 CFR 600.10.
(d)*Exempted state* means a state that has been designated as an exempted state by NMFS pursuant to § 600.1415.
(e)*For-hire fishing vessel* means a vessel on which passengers are carried for a fee to engage in angling.
(f)*Indigenous people* means persons who are documented members of a federally recognized tribe or Alaskan Native Corporation or, for the western Pacific region, persons who are resident in the region who are descended from the aboriginal people indigenous to the region who conducted commercial or subsistence fishing using traditional fishing methods, including angling.
(g)*Spearfishing* means fishing for, attempting to fish for, catching or attempting to catch fish by any person with a spear or a powerhead (see 50 CFR 600.10). § 600.1405 Angler registration.
(a)The requirements of this section apply to any person who does any of the following:
(1)Engages in angling or spearfishing for:
(i)Fish in the EEZ;
(ii)Anadromous species in any tidal waters;
(iii)Chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, sockeye salmon, chum salmon and Atlantic salmon in all waters except the Great Lakes and their tributaries and those waters which are landlocked, with no access to the ocean;
(iv)Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the EEZ.
(2)Operates a for-hire fishing vessel in the EEZ.
(3)Operates a for-hire fishing vessel that engages in angling or spearfishing for:
(i)Anadromous species in any tidal waters;
(ii)Chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, sockeye salmon, chum salmon and Atlantic salmon in all waters except the Great Lakes and their tributaries and those waters which are landlocked, with no access to the ocean;
(iii)Continental shelf fishery resources beyond the EEZ;
(4)Possesses equipment used for angling or spearfishing and also possesses:
(i)Fish in the EEZ;
(ii)Anadromous species in any tidal waters;
(iii)Chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, sockeye salmon, chum salmon and Atlantic salmon in all waters except the Great Lakes and their tributaries and those waters which are landlocked, with no access to the ocean;
(iv)Continental shelf fishery resources beyond the EEZ.
(b)No person may engage in the activities listed in paragraph
(a)of this section unless that person:
(1)Has registered annually with NMFS in accordance with § 600.1410;
(2)Holds a valid fishing license issued by, or is registered by, an exempted state;
(3)Is a resident of an exempted state, but is not required to hold a fishing license under the laws of that state;
(4)Holds a permit issued by NMFS for for-hire fishing under 50 CFR §§ 622.4(a)(1), 635.4(b), 648.4(a), or 660.70(a)(1).
(5)Is under the age of 16;
(6)Is angling aboard a for-hire fishing vessel that is in compliance with NMFS and state for-hire vessel permit, license or registration requirements; or
(7)Holds a commercial fishing license or permit issued by NMFS or a state and is lawfully fishing or in possession of fish taken under the terms and conditions of such license or permit.
(c)Any angler or spear fisher or operator of a for-hire vessel must, on request of an authorized officer, produce the NMFS registration number and certificate or evidence that such person or for-hire vessel operator is exempt from the registration requirement pursuant to § 600.1405(b)(2) through § 600.1405(b)(7). § 600.1410 Registry process.
(a)A person may register through the NMFS web site at *www.nmfs.noaa.gov* or by calling a toll-free telephone number available by contacting NMFS or at the NMFS website.
(b)Individuals must submit their name; address; telephone number; region(s) of the country in which they intend to fish in the upcoming year; and additional information necessary for the issuance or administration of the registration.
(c)To register a for-hire fishing vessel, the vessel owner or operator must submit vessel owner name, address, telephone number; vessel operator (if different) name, address and telephone number; vessel name; vessel's state registration or U.S. Coast Guard documentation number; home port or principal area of operation; and additional information necessary for the issuance or administration of the registration.
(d)NMFS will issue a registration number and certificate to registrants. A registration number and certificate will be valid for one year from the date on which it is issued.
(e)It shall be unlawful for any person to submit false, inaccurate or misleading information in connection with any registration request.
(f)Fees. Effective January 1, 2011, persons registering with NMFS must pay an annual fee. The annual schedule for such fees will be published in the **Federal Register** . Indigenous people engaging in angling or spear fishing must register, but are not required to pay a fee. § 600.1415 Procedures for designating exempted states-general provisions.
(a)States with an exempted state designation must:
(1)Submit state angler and for-hire vessel license holder data to NMFS for inclusion in a national or regional registry data base; or
(2)Participate in regional surveys of recreational catch and effort and make the data from those surveys available to NMFS.
(b)Process for getting an exempted state designation:
(1)To apply for exempted state designation, a state must submit:
(i)A complete description of the data it intends to submit to NMFS;
(ii)An assessment of how the data conforms to the requirements of §§ 600.1416 or 600. 1417;
(iii)A description of the data base in which the data exists and will be transmitted; and
(iv)The proposed process, schedule and frequency of submission of the data.
(2)If NMFS determines the submitted material meets the requirements of §§ 600.1416 or 600.1417, NMFS will initiate negotiations with the state on a Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement must include the terms and conditions of the data-sharing program. The Memorandum of Agreement and state designation may be limited to data-sharing related to only anglers or only for-hire fishing vessels.
(3)Following execution of a Memorandum of Agreement, NMFS will publish a notice of the exempted state designation in the **Federal Register** . § 600.1416 Requirements for exempted state designation based on submission of state license holder data.
(a)A state must annually submit to NMFS, in a format consistent with NMFS guidelines, the name, address and telephone number of all persons and for-hire vessels and for-hire vessel operators who are licensed to fish, or who are registered as fishing, in the EEZ, in the tidal waters of the state, or for anadromous species.
(b)A state is eligible to be designated as an exempted state even if its licensing program excludes anglers that meet any of the following conditions:
(1)Under 16 years of age;
(2)Over age 59 (see § 600.1415 (c)(4)(i));
(3)Who are customers on licensed for-hire vessels;
(4)Who are customers on licensed fishing piers;
(5)Who are on active military duty while on furlough; or
(6)Who meet state definitions of disabled or disabled Veteran.
(c)Unless the state can demonstrate that a given category of anglers is so small it has no significant probability of biasing estimates of fishing effort if these anglers are not included in a representative sample, a state may not be designated as an exempted state if its licensing program excludes anglers that meet any of the following conditions:
(1)Fishing on a state-licensed private vessel;
(2)Fishing from privately-owned land;
(3)Fishing on a public pier;
(4)Fishing from shore;
(5)Fishing in tidal waters of the state; or
(6)Fishing as an occupant of a beach buggy, the operator of which is licensed or permitted to operate the vehicle on public beaches.
(d)Required enhancements to exempted state license-holder data. An exempted state must submit the following angler identification data by Jan. 1, 2011, or within two years of the effective date of the Memorandum of Agreement, whichever is later, and thereafter in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement:
(1)Name, address and telephone number of excluded anglers over age 59;
(2)Name, address and telephone number, updated annually, of holders of state lifetime and multi-year licenses;
(3)Name, address and telephone number of state combination license holders who fished in salt water in the prior year, or who intend to fish in salt water. § 600.1417 Requirements for exempted state designation based on submission ofrecreational survey data. To be designated as an exempted state based on the state's participation in a regional survey of marine and anadromous recreational fishing catch and effort, a state may submit to NMFS an annual proposal that fully describes the state's participation in a qualifying regional survey, and the survey's sample design, data collection and availability. A qualifying regional survey must:
(a)Cover the Western Pacific, Alaska, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, or Atlantic coast region;
(b)Utilize angler registry data to identify individuals to be surveyed to obtain fishing effort data;
(c)Meet NMFS survey design and data collection standards. [FR Doc. E8-13250 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 114 Thursday, June 12, 2008 Notices JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries. ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting. SUMMARY: The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations (portions of which will be open to the public) in Washington, DC at the Office of Professional Responsibility on June 30 and July 1, 2008. DATES: Monday, June 30, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, July 1, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 202-622-8225. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC on Monday, June 30, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, July 1, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions which may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to review the May 2008 Basic (EA-1) and Pension (EA-2B) Joint Board Examinations in order to make recommendations relative thereto, including the minimum acceptable pass score. Topics for inclusion on the syllabus for the Joint Board's examination program for the November 2008 Pension (EA-2A) Examination will be discussed. A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the portions of the meeting dealing with the discussion of questions which may appear on the Joint Board's examinations and review of the May 2008 Joint Board examinations fall within the exceptions to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such portions be closed to public participation. The portion of the meeting dealing with the discussion of the other topics will commence at 1 p.m. on June 30 and will continue for as long as necessary to complete the discussion, but not beyond 3 p.m. Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by Committee members, interested persons may make statements germane to this subject. Persons wishing to make oral statements must notify the Executive Director in writing prior to the meeting in order to aid in scheduling the time available and must submit the written text, or at a minimum, an outline of comments they propose to make orally. Such comments will be limited to 10 minutes in length. All other persons planning to attend the public session must also notify the Executive Director in writing to obtain building entry. Notifications of intent to make an oral statement or to attend must be faxed, no later than June 19, 2008, to 202-622-8300, Attn: Executive Director. Any interested person also may file a written statement for consideration by the Joint Board and the Committee by sending it to the Executive Director: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, c/o Internal Revenue Service, Attn: Executive Director SE:OPR, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. Dated: June 2, 2008. Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries. [FR Doc. E8-13257 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Draft Standard Treatments To Address Rehabilitation of Historic Exterior Masonry AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. ACTION: Notice of Intent to Establish Standard Treatments for the Rehabilitation of Historic Exterior Masonry. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense has requested the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to establish several standard treatments for the rehabilitation of historic exterior masonry. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has merged them into one standard treatment document and seeks public input on it. DATES: Submit comments on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this proposed standard treatment to Hector Abreu Cintrón, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 803, Washington, DC 20004. Fax
(202)606-8647. You may submit electronic comments to: *habreu@achp.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hector Abreu Cintrón,
(202)606-8517, *habreu@achp.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. The ACHP has issued the regulations that set forth the process through which Federal agencies comply with these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800 (“Section 106 regulations”). Under Section 800.14(d) of those regulations, agencies can request the ACHP to establish “standard treatments” detailing standard methods for the treatment of a category of historic properties, a category of undertakings, or a category of effects on historic properties to assist Federal agencies in satisfying their responsibilities under Section 106. Standard treatments carry the ACHP's explicit endorsement and can be applied by Section 106 users to assist them in complying with Section 106. Using standard treatments in the planning and design of agency undertakings as a best practice may allow an agency to make a finding of no adverse effects for the relevant aspects of the undertaking. In other cases, an agency may find its undertaking will have adverse effects on historic properties, and it can elect to use an approved standard treatment as a proposed stipulation of a memorandum of agreement or a programmatic agreement, as a way to resolve such adverse effects. Federal agencies are not obligated to follow approved standard treatments but may elect to do so when they feel standard treatments will be of benefit in meeting their Section 106 compliance requirements. The Department of Defense (“DOD”) has requested the ACHP to establish eighteen standard treatments, along with two implementation guidance documents, for the rehabilitation of historic exterior masonry on historic properties. The ACHP has decided to merge all eighteen standard treatments for historic exterior masonry, and the two implementation guidance documents, into one standard treatment document. The ACHP seeks public comment on that standard treatment. A copy of the standard treatment document, minus its appendices, can be found at the end of this notice. The appendices to that document comprise the true substance of each of the proposed, eighteen standard treatments and their two implementation guidance documents. Due to their volume, they will not be copied into this notice. However, they can be accessed in their entirety on the Internet at: *http://www.achp.gov/masonryst.html* . Those without access to the Internet can contact Hector Abreu Cintrón at 202-606-8517, or by e-mail at *habreu@achp.gov* , to arrange an alternate method of access to the appendices. Once the public input resulting from this notice is considered, and edits are incorporated as deemed appropriate, the ACHP will decide whether to establish the standard treatment. The ACHP expects to make that decision at its upcoming quarterly meeting scheduled on August 15, 2008 in St. Louis, Missouri. Background on the Proposed Standard Treatments on Historic Exterior Masonry The ACHP and DOD have been collaborating to develop standard treatments to address rehabilitation of exterior building elements that are character-defining features of historic properties. The goal is to encourage use of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (“Secretary Standards”), 36 CFR part 67, by translating selected standards into detailed construction specifications for routine repair and maintenance undertakings that are expected to have no adverse effect on historic properties. These Standard Treatments are designed to codify the numerous “industry standard” practices associated with routine repair and maintenance of historic properties. For instance, there are Standard Treatments for mortar analysis and repointing, and stone crack repair. The appendices to the standard treatment currently under consideration include the two implementation guidance documents (numbered 01060.01 and 01091.01) and the following eighteen standard treatments: 04100 Historic Mortar
(1)04100.01 Removal of Mortar Joints and Repointing.
(2)04100.02 Preparation of Lime and Cement Amended Mortars. 04110 Historic Stucco
(3)04110.01 Preparation of Lime or Portland Based Stucco.
(4)04110.02 Repair and Replacement of Historic Stucco 04211 Historic Brick.
(5)04211.01 Historic Brick Properties and In Kind Replacement.
(6)04211.02 Repair through Patching, Consolidating or Injection Grout. 04214 Terra Cotta and Ceramics
(7)04214.01 Historic Terra Cotta and Ceramics Properties and In Kind Replacement.
(8)04214.02 Terracotta Patching and Glaze Repair.
(9)04214.03 Replacement anchoring. 04290 Historic Adobe Masonry Units
(10)04290.01 Adobe Properties and In Kind Replacement.
(11)04290.02 Repair through Patching, Surface Coatings and Structural Supports. 04400 Stone
(12)04400.01 Identifying Masonry Types and Failures 04500 Masonry Restoration.
(13)04500.01 Repair by Mechanical Pinning or Structural Reinforcement.
(14)04500.02 Repair through Patching, Consolidating, and Grouting.
(15)04500.03 Replacement In-Kind of Deteriorated Elements. 04510 Masonry Cleaning
(16)04510.01 Cleaning and Testing of Atmospheric Soiling, Graffiti, Stains and Biogrowth.
(17)04510.02 Appropriate Use of Wet and Dry Abrasive Cleaning Systems.
(18)04510.03 Poulticing and Salt Removal. DOD has consulted with the ACHP, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the DOD Historic Preservation Working group. The National Park Service has been a vital partner in reviewing the draft standard treatments to verify that they are consistent with the Secretary Standards. Development of the Standard Treatments In formulating the draft standard treatments, and with the goal of encouraging use of the Secretary Standards, developers chose a detail construction specification format with the intent that preservation related rehabilitation practices could be incorporated easily into a project's scope. The specification format was chosen since it is a template that project designers and engineers readily recognize. Also, developers chose to develop standard treatments that focused on undertakings instead of effects or classes of properties, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.14(d)(1). A focus on undertakings was selected since that approach had the broadest applicability regarding military installations that have many buildings with disparate functions, but also employ the consistent use of building materials and aesthetics typical of military master planning principles. The project started with a broad scope that addressed rehabilitation of the most common exterior elements of historically significant military properties. The initial study areas addressed rehabilitation of exterior masonry, roofing, wooden elements, and windows. A total of seventy-three
(73)draft specifications covering those disciplines were developed. However, the ACHP is only considering the issuance of the merged, initial group of eighteen (plus the two implementing guidance documents) addressed by this notice, as listed above. They are focused on exterior masonry rehabilitation. The ACHP may consider and adopt the remaining draft standard treatments at a later date in accordance with the process defined in 36 CFR 800.14(d). Expected Benefits Though this project was conceived to promote best preservation practices within the military, its broad undertaking-based approach may benefit any federal agency that possesses historic properties needing rehabilitation. As explained above, standard treatments were established as a way to assist federal agencies in their completion of Section 106 consultations. Standard treatments are to be used when an agency gets to the point of assessing adverse effects under 36 CFR 800.5, or when negotiating a Section 106 agreement under 36 CFR 800.6 or 800.14(b). This quicker path to “no adverse effect” or a Section 106 agreement can greatly reduce the consultation workload of federal agencies that intend to rehabilitate their historic properties in accordance with the Secretary Standards. DOD has been working with ACHP to define a program alternative whereby a federal agency may use a standard treatment in order to exempt the consideration of the effects of that specific treatment from Section 106 review. However, the use of such a program alternative is not the subject of this notice and public comment. Text of the Proposed Standard Treatment on Historic Masonry As stated above, the appendices to the proposed standard treatment document comprise the actual substance of each of the eighteen standard treatments and the two implementation guidance documents. Due to their volume, they will not be copied into this notice. However, they can be accessed on the Internet at *http://www.achp.gov/masonryst.html* . Those without access to the Internet can contact Hector Abreu Cintrón at 202-606-8517, or by e-mail at *habreu@achp.gov* to arrange an alternate method of access to the documents. The following is the text of the standard treatment document, minus the appendices: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Standard Treatment for Historic Exterior Masonry I. *Establishment and Authority:* This Standard Treatment for Historic Masonry was established by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on (date of establishment) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(d). A standard treatment is a program alternative that assists Federal agencies in meeting their obligations to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470f, and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR part 800 (Section 106) II. *Applicability to All Federal Agencies:* This Standard Treatment may be used by any Federal agency. III. *Date of Effect:* The Standard Treatment will go into effect on (date of establishment) IV. *Standard Treatment:*
(A)*As Basis for No Adverse Effect Determination:* Work that follows the relevant standard treatments appended to this document, in conformance with the implementation guidance documents numbered 01060.01 and 01091.01 in those appendices, does not constitute an adverse effect under 36 CFR 800.5(a). Accordingly, a Federal agency that will follow the standard treatments in such a manner may find “no adverse effects” for those aspects of its undertaking that deal with the specific works covered by the standard treatments. Except under circumstances where quantifiable scientific or qualitative historic data indicates that an alternate treatment procedure is merited, the ACHP will not object to that aspect of such a finding of “no adverse effects.” However, the agency must still examine whether other aspects of its undertaking may adversely affect historic properties and, if so, continue the Section 106 process accordingly.
(B)*As Basis for Section 106 Agreement:* A Federal agency may also utilize the standard treatments and implementing guidance appended to this document as a starting point for negotiating that part of a Section 106 agreement (e.g., Memoranda of Agreement or Programmatic Agreements) that deals with the works covered by those standard treatments. Except under unusual circumstances, the ACHP will not object to provisions on a Section 106 agreement that are consistent with the appended standard treatments. V. *Amendment:* The ACHP may amend this Standard Treatment after following the same consultative process required for its initial establishment under 36 CFR 800.14(d). Such an amendment will go into effect once published in the **Federal Register** . VI. *Termination:* The ACHP may terminate this Standard Treatment by publication of a notice in the **Federal Register** 30 days before the termination takes effect. VII. *Historic Properties in Tribal Lands and Historic Properties of Significance to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations:* This Standard Treatment does not apply in connection with effects to historic properties that are located on tribal lands and/or that are of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. VIII. *Definitions:* The definitions found at 36 CFR part 800 apply to the terms used in this Standard Treatment. IX. *Appendices:* [Appendices will be attached. Their full text can be accessed as explained in the notice above.] Authority: 36 OFR 800.14(d). Dated: June 4, 2008. John N. Fowler, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E8-13007 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-K6-M ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Request for Comments on Proposed Policy Statement on Archaeology and Heritage Tourism AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. ACTION: Notice of Intent To Adopt a Policy Statement on Archaeology and Heritage Tourism. SUMMARY: In 2003 the Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP)appointed a Task Force on Archaeology to identify archaeological issues that merited the ACHP's attention. One issue identified was the need to better encourage responsible use of archaeological resources for public benefit, including education programs and heritage tourism. The Task Force has developed a draft policy statement, along with guidance, entitled “Using Archaeological Resources for Public Benefit, including Education and Heritage Tourism,” and now seeks public comments on it. DATES: Submit comments on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this draft policy statement and guidance to Dr. Tom McCulloch, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 803, Washington, DC 20004. Fax
(202)606-8647. You may submit electronic comments to: *archaeology@achp.gov* . Please note that all comments submitted to the ACHP will become part of the public record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Tom McCulloch,
(202)606-8554, *archaeology@achp.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP)is an independent federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our nation's historic resources, and advises the President and Congress on national historic preservation policy. The current draft policy statement and guidance is the product of a Task Force subcommittee that included ACHP members and their expert staff, Federal agency officials knowledgeable about historic preservation and tourism, the ACHP's tribal member, the ACHP's Native American Advisory Group, representatives of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. Formal discussion sessions were held at the national meetings of the Society for Historical Archaeology in Williamsburg, Virginia, and the Society for American Archaeology in Austin, Texas. The subcommittee determined that a policy statement with some accompanying guidance was the appropriate vehicle to promulgate the ACHP's position on the need for a more prominent role for archaeology in heritage tourism and education. The Subcommittee met four times to develop an initial draft of these documents, which were then presented to the full Archaeology Task Force where they were refined into the present document. At its most recent meeting on April 18, 2008, the Task Force members agreed to place before the full ACHP membership this latest draft of the policy for their review and comment. A full copy of the draft can be found at the end of this notice. The ACHP membership also agreed with the Task Force's plans to circulate the draft policy and guidance for public comment in this **Federal Register** notice, and post it on the ACHP's Web site. After review of comments received, the Chair of the Task Force plans to bring the policy and guidance before the full ACHP membership for adoption at its August 15, 2008 quarterly meeting. Several particular issues were explored in developing this statement and guidance, that we would specifically appreciate comments on, including:
(1)*Use of the policy statement* . The policy is intended to help ACHP staff, federal agencies, State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, local communities with archaeological assets (like Preserve America and Main Street communities), tourism industry professionals, and others when determining whether and how to use archaeology to help instill a greater appreciation and understanding of the American past, and when making decisions about incorporating archaeology and archaeological resources into heritage tourism projects and programs.
(2)*Balancing use of archaeological properties in tourism and education with privacy concerns* . This issue is addressed in Principle 2 of the draft policy statement. Guidance for this principle says that many archaeological sites are valued by cultural and lineal descendants for religious or cultural reasons and would prefer not to open them to the general public. The guidance goes on to say that religious or cultural values associated with the archaeological resources should be considered in making decisions about appropriate public visitation.
(3)*Consultation with others in making use decisions* . Decisions about appropriate use should be made in consultation with those who ascribe such significance to the archaeological resources, in addition to those with an interest in public education, heritage tourism, and resource conservation.
(4)*Management and sustainability needs* . Use of archaeological resources in heritage tourism and education requires adequate personnel and financial resources for success. Guidance for this principle focuses on the need to consider a wide range of issues that include resource protection, access, current and long-term threats, and the requirement for site maintenance and sustainability. Text of the Draft Policy Statement and Guidance The following is the text of the draft policy statement and guidance: ACHP Policy Statement: Using Archaeological Resources for Public Benefit, Including Education and Heritage Tourism Introduction The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(NHPA)aims among other things “to insure future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy the rich heritage of our Nation.” 16 U.S.C. 470(b)(5). The NHPA goes on to state that “it shall be the policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with other nations and in partnership with the States, local governments, Indian tribes, and private organizations and individuals to—(1) use measures, including financial and technical assistance, to foster conditions under which our modern society and our prehistoric and historic resources can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.” 16 U.S.C. 470-1. Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America,” signed by President George W. Bush on March 3, 2003, builds on this mandate, stating that “it is the policy of the Federal Government to provide leadership in preserving America's heritage by actively advancing the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the Federal Government, and by promoting intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of historic properties.” Executive Order 13287 recognizes the importance of preserving “the unique cultural heritage of communities and of the Nation, and to realize the economic benefit that these properties can provide.” Archaeological Resources and Historic Properties “Archaeological resources” include archaeological properties (sites), material collections derived from field investigation and study of those sites, and related records and syntheses of those studies. “Archaeological properties” are defined by the National Park Service as “the place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains.” Archaeological properties may also be “historic properties,” that is, properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological resources have significant value and benefits as heritage assets, and can contribute to public understanding and appreciation of the past through heritage education programs and heritage tourism initiatives at a local, statewide, or regional level. As demonstrated in a public opinion poll conducted in 2000 by Harris Interactive for the Society for American Archaeology, archaeological resources and the archaeological research process hold particular fascination and interest for many members of the public. The Harris Poll found that most Americans “support the goals and practice of archaeology, endorse laws protecting archaeological sites and artifacts, and think archaeology is important to today's society.” Many of these same individuals are likely to be active heritage tourists. Heritage Tourism and Archaeology Heritage tourism is defined in Executive Order 13287 as “the business and practice of attracting and accommodating visitors to a place or area based especially on the unique or special aspects of that locale's history, landscape, and culture.” The National Trust for Historic Preservation further defines cultural heritage tourism as “travel to experience the places and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present” ( *Getting Started: How to Succeed in Heritage Tourism* , National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1993). The practice of archaeology, public appreciation of the stories about the past to which archaeology can contribute, and public access to interpreted sites and archaeological collections have long been recognized internationally as subjects worthy of tourism development. A number of popular tourism destinations in the United States, such as Mesa Verde National Park or Jamestown Island, incorporate archaeological resources. At other locations, engaging visitors to actively participate in archaeological field work under controlled and limited conditions may also be appropriate. Such “participatory archaeology” can offer an excellent opportunity for educating a segment of the public about archaeology and resource stewardship. At the same time, it is also clear that legitimate issues arise about tourism development and the visitor experience and their potential impact on the archaeological record. Such issues may include the adequacy of resource conservation, sustainability, and management; the appropriateness of public access and associated site improvements at a particular location; the cultural sensitivity of some remains as well as their interpretation; and the economic viability of open sites and necessary visitor facilities. Careful consideration of these issues may conclude that it is appropriate to use archaeological collections and results of archaeological research in heritage tourism, but not the actual, physical, “site.” In such cases, other means of interpreting and presenting the results of archaeological study should be considered, including electronic “virtual” tours, exhibits, film, offsite interpretation, and other methods. Management and economic issues also need to be assessed in reaching decisions about the viability and sustainability of archaeological heritage tourism. Just because an archaeological site is opened and presented to the public does not mean it will be visited or appreciated. A sound and realistic business plan is necessary. Issues to consider here include the potential market and audience for this form of tourism; whether site development is an appropriate use of the resources; the impact of a site's location and ownership on public access; immediate and long-term financial and management needs; and the ability and willingness of responsible parties to prepare and implement necessary development, interpretive, and public use plans. Principles The following principles and accompanying guidance have been adopted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP)to assist ACHP staff, federal agency decision-makers, and other parties when determining whether and how to use archaeology to help instill a greater appreciation and understanding of the American past, and when making decisions about incorporating archaeology and archaeological resources into heritage tourism projects and programs. These principles and guidance will also be useful for State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, local communities with archaeological assets (such as Preserve America and Main Street communities), tourism industry professionals, and businesses and not-for-profit organizations involved in heritage development projects. — *The public interest in archaeological resources and their interpretation makes them an excellent focus for heritage tourism and related public education efforts* . — *While some archaeological properties, or groups of properties in an area, may be appropriate for public education programs or heritage tourism development, others may not* . — *Decisions about when, where, and how to interpret and present archaeological properties and resources to the public should be made in consultation with a broad range of parties with an interest in public education, heritage tourism, resource conservation, and the particular place that would be interpreted* . — *Responsible public interpretation for education or tourism includes current scholarship. Facts and findings from the archaeological work should be integrated into the presented story to help bring the past and its investigation to life for the general public* . — *Archaeological properties or resources that are made part of public education efforts and/or heritage tourism projects are supportable and sustainable through professional, adequately funded, and well-developed and executed management programs* . Guidance — *The public interest in archaeological resources and their interpretation makes them an excellent focus for heritage tourism and related public education efforts* . The Society for American Archaeology's public opinion poll has demonstrated the strong public interest in and appreciation for archaeological knowledge, archaeological properties and the materials they contain, and the archaeological discovery process. There is often even greater interest in the stories and methods of interpretation about people, places, and events of the past that are reconstructed as a result of archaeological research and interpretation. The science of archaeology can foster a greater understanding of and appreciation for peoples and cultures of the past as well as the traditions, events and places valued by living peoples today. Tourism and public education programs can assist in mutual understanding and respect between peoples and societies, and between the present and the past. — *While some archaeological properties, or groups of properties in an area, may be appropriate for public education programs or heritage tourism development, others may not* . In making decisions about whether a given archaeological resource's preservation and use is the best way to tell this story to the public, the physical manifestations of the archaeological resources, and how their physical features lend themselves to being viewed and understood by members of the public, needs to be carefully considered. Ascribed values associated with the archaeological resources, including their value to cultural and lineal descendants as well as particular segments of the interested public, may either support or be in conflict with public access. The pros and cons of public uses need to be considered in this light. Archaeological properties and related collections are fragile and non-renewable; many are valued by cultural and lineal descendants of the site's creators for religious or cultural reasons, and would prefer not to open them up to the general public. Some resources may be physically inaccessible to the public, such as those located on a military reservation or tribal lands. If present, and when properly studied, archaeological elements of a standing historic property or the location of a past historic event can add considerably to the interpretation and appreciation of the property. Among other factors, the presence or absence of fragile or culturally sensitive remains, as well as the ability to manage visitation, should be taken into account in reaching decisions about appropriate uses for public education or tourism. Where public access is inappropriate or difficult, or cannot be effectively managed, alternative means of presenting archaeological properties and information to the public may be desirable. Such alternatives may include offsite interpretation and exhibits, “virtual” tours, and other methods. — *Decisions about when, where, and how to interpret and present archaeological properties and resources to the public should be made in consultation with a broad range of parties with an interest in public education, heritage tourism, resource conservation, and the particular place that would be interpreted* . Decisions should be based on a broad understanding of historical and cultural context. This should include the rarity, state of preservation, and current state of knowledge about the resources. It also should include knowledge of the values placed on the resources by living groups, and any associated concerns about privacy, preservation, interpretability, and appropriate uses of the resources. Any ascribed religious or cultural values associated with the archaeological resources should be fully and carefully considered in making decisions about appropriate public visitation. Whether or how such associated values are interpreted and presented to the broader public should be determined in consultation with those who ascribe such significance to the archaeological resources. There should be an appropriate consideration of protection and access. Such consideration should include a weighing of current or anticipated long-term threats, and adequate provision for the maintenance and sustainability of any archaeological resources that are used for tourism or other educational purposes. — *Responsible public interpretation for education or tourism includes current scholarship. Facts and findings from the archaeological work should be integrated into the presented story to help bring the past and investigation to life for the general public* . Scholarship includes sufficient and accurate professional research as well as other sources of knowledge, such as relevant oral histories and traditional knowledge, necessary to support responsible archaeological heritage tourism. The ability of a vocational archaeologist to contribute to this endeavor should not be overlooked. There needs to be reliable and accurate information about the resources in order to present the relevant facts and tell a compelling story. Archaeological properties as interpreted today are the end results of physical and cultural processes in operation over long periods of time. Heritage tourists will benefit from an understanding of the process of creation, discovery, and interpretation. Public interpretation for heritage tourism should be germane to the particular archaeological resource as well as broader educational goals. Information should illuminate not only the specific archaeological site and its remains but also past lifeways, cultural practices, and development patterns that they illustrate. Archaeological properties used for heritage tourism should also, as practicable, provide a context that helps visitors appreciate a site's value to any cultural and lineal descendants living today. — *Archaeological properties or resources that are made part of public education efforts and/or heritage tourism projects are supportable and sustainable through professional, adequately funded, and well-developed and executed management programs* . A broad range of governmental and non-governmental organizations can and should participate in decisions about the uses of archaeological resources for public education and heritage tourism purposes, to ensure these projects combine excellent scholarship, responsible stewardship, and sustainable development and management. Governmental entities, non-governmental organizations, private non-profit, and business enterprises that control archaeological resources should look for ways to include archaeological interpretation and public access where appropriate as part of mitigation programs (such as those negotiated through Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act). In some cases, publicly owned archaeological properties and remains may best be protected and managed through public interpretation and controlled public access. Archaeological properties with active non-managed visitation that are receiving unmitigated impacts because of that visitation should be considered for more formal public interpretation and/or control of public access. With adequate professional supervision and support, members of the public, non-professional volunteers, and cultural and lineal descendants can all play a significant role in “participatory archaeology” at certain sites. Such programs may be an appropriate use of archaeological resources for heritage tourism and education. Both the appropriateness of excavation in the first place, as well as future stewardship of the archaeological site and resulting collections, needs to be determined prior to it being excavated as a part of a heritage tourism or public education program. Select references and resources on heritage tourism
(1)Government Sources —NPS “Discover Archaeology,” “Visit Archaeology,” and “Archaeology in the Parks”; ( *http://www.nps.gov/archeology/PUBLIC/discover.htm); (http://www.nps.gov/history/archeology/visit/index.htm); (http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2000/000l/000lpub1.cfm)* . —USDA Forest Service “Passport in Time Program” and “Heritage Opportunity Spectrum for Tourism
(HOST)Project”; ( *http://www.passportintime.com/); (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/heritage/heritage_strategy.shtml* ). —Bureau of Land Management “Adventures in the Past”; ( *http://www.blm.gov/heritage/adventures/* ). —Preserve America; ( *http://www.preserveamerica.gov* ). —Advisory Council on Historic Preservation “List of federal government programs that support heritage tourism”; ( *http://www.achp.gov/heritagetourism-assist.html* ); ( *http://www.grants.gov* ).
(2)State and Private Sources —Arkansas Archaeological Survey “Archaeological Parks in the U. S.”; ( *http://www.uark.edu/misc/aras/* ). —Society for American Archaeology “Archaeology for the Public” and SAA Archaeological Record, Special Issue on “Archaeology and Heritage Tourism” (vol. 5, no. 3, May 2005): ( *http://www.saa.org/Public/home/home.html* ); ( *http://www.saa.org/publications/theSAAarchRec/may05.pdf* ). —Society for Historical Archaeology “Unlocking the Past” and “Exploring Historical Archaeology”: ( *http://www.sha.org/unlockingthepast/index.htm* ); ( *http://www.sha.org/EHA/splash.htm* ). —National Trust for Historic Preservation “Cultural Heritage Tourism” and “Share Your Heritage”; ( *http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/heritage-tourism/* ); ( *http://www.culturalheritagetourism.org/resources/shareYourHeritage.htm* ). —National Geographic Society “Geotourism Principles”; ( *http://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/sustainable/aboutgeotourism.html* ). —American Association of Museums;( *http://www.aam-us.org/* ).
(3)International Organizations —International Council on Monuments and Sites “Ename Charter for the Interpretation of Cultural Heritage Sites”; ( *http://www.enamecharter.org/* ). —UNESCO: Cultural Tourism portal;( *http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URLID=11408&URLDO=DOTOPIC&URLSECTION=201.html* ). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 470j. Dated: June 4, 2008. John N. Fowler, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E8-13004 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-K6-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Goose Creek Watershed Livestock Grazing Analysis on the Tongue Ranger District, Bighorn National Forest, Sheridan and Johnson Counties, WY AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)to update range management planning on seven
(7)cattle and horse allotments in the Goose Creek area, which will result in development of new allotment management plans (AMPs). The agency gives notice of the full environmental analysis and decision-making process that will occur on the proposal so that interested and affected people may become aware of how they may participate in the process and contribute to the final decision. DATES: Comments and input regarding the proposal were requested from the public, other groups and agencies, via a legal notice published in the Casper Star-Tribune November 7, 2007. Additional comments may be made at the addresses below, and would be most helpful if submitted within thirty days of the publication of this notice. Based on past actions of this type, the Responsible Official has determined that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for this project. The draft environmental impact statement is expected March 2009, and the final environmental impact statement is expected June 2009. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Clarke McClung, Tongue District Ranger, 2013 Eastside Second Street, Sheridan, Wyoming 82801. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Walters-Clark, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Bighorn National Forest, phone
(307)674-2600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The allotments are located approximately 25 miles by road, west of Sheridan, Wyoming in the Big Goose drainage. National Forest System lands within the Bighorn National Forest will be considered in the proposal. The purpose of the analysis is to determine if livestock grazing will continue on the analysis area. If the decision is to continue livestock grazing, then updated management strategies outlining how livestock will be grazed will be developed to assure implementation of the 2005 Revised Bighorn National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) management direction. The analysis will consider actions that continue to improve trends in vegetation, watershed conditions, and ecological sustainability relative to livestock grazing within the allotments. Management actions are proposed to be implemented beginning in the year 2011. The Bighorn Forest Plan identifies livestock grazing as an appropriate use and makes initial determinations for land scapable and suitable for grazing by domestic livestock. The seven allotments involved are: Big Goose, Little Goose, Rapid Creek, Little Goose Canyon, Walker Prairie, Tourist, and Stull Lakes. *Purpose and Need for Action:* The purpose of this project is to determine if livestock grazing will continue to be authorized on the seven allotments, and if it is to continue, how to best utilize adaptive management strategies to maintain or achieve desired conditions and meet forest plan objectives. Livestock grazing is currently occurring on most of the allotments under existing allotment management plans
(AMPs)and through direction provided in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). Portions of the Stull Lakes allotment are vacant; however, livestock grazing is occurring on the Antler Creek portion. Continuation of livestock grazing will require the review of existing management strategies and, if necessary, updating them to implement forest plan direction and meet Section 504 of Public Law 104-19 (Rescission Bill, signed 7/27/95). The results of this analysis may require modifying term grazing permits. Modification will be documented in updated AMPs for the allotments. *Proposed Action:* The proposed action is to continue livestock grazing using adaptive management strategies to meet or move toward Forest Plan and allotment-specific desired conditions. This includes changing livestock management strategies and construction of additional improvements (fences and water developments). *Possible Alternatives:* Two additional alternatives have been identified to date:
(1)No action; remove livestock grazing from these allotments, and
(2)No change; continuance of current management strategies. *Responsible Official:* Clarke McClung, District Ranger, Tongue Ranger District, Bighorn National Forest, 2013 Eastside 2nd Street, Sheridan, Wyoming 82801. *Nature of Decision To Be Made:* The Responsible Official will consider the results of the analysis and its finding and then document the final decision in a Record of Decision (ROD). The decision will determine whether or not to authorize livestock grazing on all, part, or none of the allotments, and if so, what adaptive management design criteria, adaptive options, and monitoring will be implemented so as to meet or move toward the desired conditions in the defined timeframe. *Scoping Process:* Formal scoping for this project occurred in November 2007. *Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review:* A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45-days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp* . v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc* . v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21. Dated: June 4, 2008. Clarke McClung, Tongue District Ranger. [FR Doc. E8-13060 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of New Fee Sites; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) AGENCY: Caribou-Targhee National Forest, USDA Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of new fee sites. SUMMARY: The Soda Springs Ranger District of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest will begin charging a $8.00 fee for overnight camping at the Pine Bar and Mill Canyon Campgrounds on the Soda Springs Ranger District. There will also be a $2.00 fee for an extra vehicle. Overnight camping at other campgrounds on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest has shown that the public appreciates and enjoys the availability of developed recreation campground facilities. Funds from the use of these developed campground facilities will be used for the continued operation and maintenance of Pine Bar and Mill Canyon Campgrounds. DATES: Pine Bar and Mill Canyon Campgrounds will become available for use May 25, 2009. ADDRESSES: Forest Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maury Young, Recreation Technician, 208-847-8953, or Bart Andreasen, Recreation Fee Coordinator, 208-624-1165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the **Federal Register** whenever new recreation fee areas are established. The Caribou-Targhee National Forest currently has 41 other developed campgrounds. These campgrounds are well used and are very popular during the summer and fall seasons. A business analysis of these two campgrounds has shown that people desire having this sort of developed recreation experience in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. A market analysis indicates that the $8.00 per night fee is both reasonable and acceptable for this sort of recreation experience. Date: June 6, 2008. Larry Timchak, Caribou-Targhee National Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-13188 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 08-00008] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review from American Sugar Export Company LLC. SUMMARY: Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification is sought and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at
(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct. Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five
(5)copies, plus two
(2)copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021-X H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 08-00008.” A summary of the application follows. Summary of the Application *Applicant:* American Sugar Export Company LLC (“ASEC”), 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. *Contact:* Robert C. Cassidy, Counsel to the Applicant, Telephone:
(202)863-7282. *Application No.:* 08-00008. *Date Deemed Submitted:* May 29, 2008. *Members* (in addition to applicant): Listed below. ASEC and its Members seek a Certificate to cover the following specific Export Trade, Export Markets, and Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations. Export Trade Products U.S.-origin sugar and syrups meeting the following definitions: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 1701, cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form; HTSUS 1806.10.43 through HTSUS 1806.10.75, cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form: Containing 90 percent or more by dry weight of sugar; HTSUS 2106.90.42 through HTSUS 2106.90.46, food preparations not elsewhere specified or included: Syrups derived from cane or beet sugar, containing added coloring but not added flavoring matter. Export Markets The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands). Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation To engage in Export Trade in the Export Markets, ASEC and its Members intend to undertake the following activities: 1. With respect to the Export Markets, ASEC and/or one or more of its Members may: a. Engage in joint bidding or selling arrangements and allocate sales resulting from such arrangements among the Members; and b. By agreement, including agreement with Export Intermediaries:
(i)Establish the prices at which Products will be sold;
(ii)Establish standard terms of sale of Products;
(iii)Establish standard quality grades for Products;
(iv)Establish target prices for sales of Products by its Members, with each Member remaining free to deviate from such target prices in its sole discretion;
(v)Subject to the limitations set forth below, establish the quantity of Products for sales in specific Export Markets;
(vi)Allocate among the Members the Export Markets or customers in the Export Markets;
(vii)Refuse to quote prices for, or to market or sell Products; and
(viii)Engage in joint promotional activities aimed at developing existing or new Export Markets, such as advertising and trade shows; 2. With respect to Export Markets, ASEC may communicate the same information to each Member and, in the event of an over commitment of Products from Members, may communicate with Members about reductions in commitments. 3. ASEC and/or one or more of its Members may enter into agreements to act in certain Export Markets as the Members' exclusive or non-exclusive Export Intermediary(ies) for the quantity of Products dedicated by Members for sale by ASEC or any Member(s) in such Export Markets. In any such agreement
(i)ASEC or the Member(s) acting as an exclusive Export Intermediary may agree not to represent any other Supplier of Products with respect to such Export Markets and
(ii)Members may agree that they will export the quantity of Products dedicated for sales in such Export Markets only through ASEC or the Member(s) acting as the exclusive Export Intermediary, and that they will not export independently any of the Products dedicated to ASEC, either directly or through any other Export Intermediary. 4. ASEC and/or one or more of its Members may enter into exclusive and non-exclusive agreements appointing third parties as Export Intermediaries for the sale of Products in the Export Markets. Such agreements may contain the price, quantity, quality, terms of sales, territorial, and customer restrictions for the Export Markets contained in and subject to the restrictions of paragraph 1, above. 5. The Members may refuse to deal with Export Intermediaries other than ASEC and its Members. 6. ASEC and/or one or more of its Members may solicit individual non-Member Suppliers to sell Products and/or offer Export Trade Facilitation Services through the certified activities of ASEC and/or its Members; provided, however, that ASEC and/or one or more of its Members will make such solicitations or offers to non-Member Suppliers on a transaction-by-transaction basis only and then only when the Members have not independently committed to a total quantity of Products sufficient to cover such transaction and ASEC and/or the Member(s) does not pay non-Member domestic Suppliers more than the price to be received by ASEC and/or its Member(s) pursuant to the transaction, and provided further that ASEC and/or such Member(s) may exchange only such information with such non-Member Suppliers as is reasonably required by such transaction. 7. With respect to the sale of Products to the Export Markets only, ASEC may compile for, collect from, and disseminate to its Members, and the Members may discuss among themselves, in meetings conducted by ASEC or independently via telephone and other modes of communication as they decide appropriate, information about the following subjects: a. Sales and marketing efforts, and activities and opportunities for sale of Products in Export Markets, including but not limited to selling strategies and pricing, projected demand for Products, standard or customary terms of sales in the Export Markets, prices and availability of Products from competitors, and specifications for Products by customers in the Export Markets; b. Export prices, Products quality and quantity, Products source, and delivery dates for Products in the Export Markets; c. Terms and conditions of contracts for sale in the Export Markets of Products by ASEC and its Members; d. Joint bidding or selling arrangements in the Export Markets, and the allocation of sales resulting from such arrangements among the Members; e. Expenses specific to exporting to and within the Export Markets, including without limitation, transportation, trans- or intermodal shipments, insurance, inland freight to port, port storage, commissions, export sales, documentation, financing, customs duties, and taxes; f. U.S. and foreign legislation, regulations, and policies affecting export sales; and g. ASEC's and/or its Members' export operations, including without limitation, sales and distribution networks established by ASEC or its Members in the Export Markets, and prior export sales by Members (including export price information). 8. ASEC and its Members may prescribe conditions for withdrawal of Members from and admission of Members to ASEC; provided, however, that each Member shall have the right to withdraw at any time without further liability to pay dues or assessments except to pay to the corporation any remaining amounts due under a written subscription signed by the Member agreeing to make such contribution. 9. With respect to Products for sale in the Export Markets, ASEC may, for itself or on behalf of its Members, establish and implement a quality assurance program for Products, including without limitation establishing, staffing, and operating a laboratory to conduct quality testing, promulgating quality standards or grades, inspecting Products samples, and publishing guidelines for and reports of the results of laboratory testing. 10. Applicant may conduct meetings of its Members, including meetings via telephone and other modes of communication as they decide appropriate, to engage in the activities described in paragraphs one through nine, above. Definitions “Supplier” means a person who produces, provides, or sells Products or Export Trade Facilitation Services. “Export Intermediary” means a person who acts as a distributor, representative, sales or marketing agent, or broker, or who performs similar functions, including providing or arranging for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services. “Export Trade Facilitation Services” are activities that assist the progress of exporting, such as professional services in the areas of government relations and assistance with state and federal programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; marketing; negotiations; joint ventures; shipping; export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; transfer of technology; transportation services; and facilitating the formation of shippers' associations. Members (Within the Meaning of 325.2(1) of the Regulations) Suppliers of Products The Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC, 3184 Elder Street, Boise, ID 83705, Tel: (208)383-6500, Fax: (208)383-6688. American Crystal Sugar Company, 101 North Third Street, Moorhead, MN 56560, Tel: 218-236-4400, Fax: 218-236-4422. American Sugar Holdings, Inc. and American Sugar Refining, Inc. (a subsidiary of American Sugar Holdings, Inc.), 1 Federal Street, Yonkers, NY 10705, Tel: 914-963-2400, Fax: 914-476-4072. Imperial Sugar Company, One Imperial Square, 8016 Highway 90-A, Sugar Land, TX 77478, Tel: 281-491-9181. Michigan Sugar Company, 2600 South Euclid Avenue, Bay City, MI 48706, Tel: 989-686-0161, Fax: 989-686-3269. Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative, 7525 Red River Road, Wahpeton, ND 58075, Tel: 701-642-8411, Fax: 701-671-1369. Sidney Sugars Incorporated, 101 North Third Street, Moorhead, MN 56560, Tel: 218-236-4400, Fax: 218-236-4422. Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, P.O. Box 500, Renville, MN 56284, Tel: 320-329-8305, Fax: 320-329-3252. Spreckels Sugar Company, Inc., P.O. Box 500, Renville, MN 56284, Tel: 320-329-8305, Fax: 320-329-3252. United States Sugar Corporation, 111 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Clewiston, FL 33440, Tel: 863-983-8121, Fax: 863-983-9827. Western Sugar Cooperative, 7555 East Hampden Avenue, Suite 600, Denver, CO 80231, Tel: 303-813-3500, Fax: 303-832-4084. Export Intermediaries For Products Domino Foods, Inc., 1 Federal Street, Yonkers, NY 10705-1079, Tel: 914-709-8053. United Sugars Corporation, 7401 Metro Blvd., Suite 350, Edina, MN 55439, Tel: 952-896-0131, Fax: 952-896-0400. ASEC has proposed that the following Terms and Conditions govern its proposed Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation: Terms and Conditions of Certificate 1. In engaging in Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations, except as provided in paragraph 7, above, neither ASEC nor its Members shall intentionally disclose, directly or indirectly, to each other or any other Supplier of Product any information about its or any Supplier's costs, production, capacity, inventories, domestic prices, domestic sales, domestic orders, terms of domestic marketing or sale, or U.S. business plans, strategies or methods, unless:
(1)Such information is already generally available to the trade or public; or
(2)such disclosure is a material part of the negotiations for an actual or potential bona fide sale or purchase of Product and the disclosure is limited to that prospective purchaser or seller. 2. Participation by a Member in any Export Trade Activity or Method of Operation under the Certificate shall be entirely voluntary to that Member, subject to the provisions of paragraph 8, above, and subject to the honoring of contractual commitments for sales of Product in specific export transactions. A Member may withdraw from coverage under the Certificate at any time by giving written notice to ASEC, a copy of which ASEC shall promptly transmit to the Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney General. 3. ASEC and its Members will comply with requests made by the Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the Secretary or the Attorney General for information or documents relevant to conduct under the certificate. The Secretary of Commerce will request such information or documents when either the Attorney General or the Secretary of Commerce believes that the information or documents are required to determine that the Export Trade, Export Trade Activities, or Methods of Operation of a person protected by this certificate of review continues to comply with the standards of Section 303(a) of the Act. Dated: June 6, 2008. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-13200 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-817] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand produced and/or exported by G Steel Public Company Limited (G Steel). The period of review
(POR)is November 1, 2005 through October 31, 2006. Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain adjustments and clerical error corrections for these final results which change the margin. This administrative review also covers Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co., Ltd. (NSM), an exporter that did not have any U.S. sales or shipments during the POR, and for which the Department is rescinding this review. The final results are listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or Stephen Bailey, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3362 and
(202)482-0193, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 7, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results and partial rescission of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Thailand. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission,* 72 FR 69187 (December 7, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results.* We received case briefs from respondent G Steel and a domestic interested party, Nucor Corporation (Nucor), on January 7, 2008. Additionally, on January 7, 2008, NSM submitted a letter to the Department, in which it stated that it supported the Department's preliminary determination to rescind the review with respect to NSM because it did not have any entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We received rebuttal briefs from G Steel, Nucor, and United States Steel Corporation (petitioner) on January 11, 2008. Since no party requested a hearing, no public hearing was held. Final Partial Rescission In our *Preliminary Results,* we preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to NSM because it had no entries of hot-rolled steel from Thailand during the POR. *See Preliminary Results* . We have received no new information contradicting this decision. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to NSM. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products covered by this antidumping duty order are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 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 4.0 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 within 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 to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), 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 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 bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • 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 HTSUS. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS 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 flat products 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 HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received The Department received case and rebuttal briefs from Nucor and G Steel. Additionally, the Department received a rebuttal brief from petitioner. All case and rebuttal briefs for the final results are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, dated June 4, 2008 (Decision Memo), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Additionally, certain issues that contain proprietary information and arguments are addressed in the memorandum “Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: G Steel Public Company Limited” from Dena Crossland, Analyst, to The File, through Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, dated June 4, 2008 (Final Analysis Memo), which is also hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues that Nucor and G Steel have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memo. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in the Decision Memo, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, located at 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1117. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Import Administration Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* under the heading **Federal Register** Notices. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we made the following changes from the *Preliminary Results* :
(1)We revised our adverse facts available methodology by relying on G Steel's sales to unaffiliated customers and the sales from G Steel's resellers to end-users in the margin calculation, and excluding G Steel's sales to its affiliated resellers from the margin calculation. Therefore, we have not utilized the arm's-length test;
(2)We revised our adverse facts available methodology for purposes of the cost test by comparing the home market sales to unaffiliated customers to the CONNUM with the highest cost;
(3)We used home market net quantity, rather than home market gross quantity, in our analysis;
(4)We made adjustments for quantity and indirect selling expenses in G Steel's reseller databases; and
(5)We disregarded from our analysis G Steel's purchases of hot-rolled steel products from a certain supplier. Final Results of Review We determine that the following dumping margin exists for the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) G Steel Public Company Limited 6.40 Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. 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 period of review produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate 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 Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Antidumping duties for the rescinded company NSM, shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. 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 steel from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above;
(2)for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or in the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.86 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation (66 FR 49622; September 28, 2001). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice also 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 duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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. We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 4, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Use of Adverse Facts Available. Comment 2: Affiliation. Comment 3: Reseller Databases. Comment 4: Clerical Errors. Comment 5: Liquidation Instructions. [FR Doc. E8-13267 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Seats for the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (CBNMS or Sanctuary) is seeking applicants for the following vacant seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (Council): Education Primary. 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 2-3 year terms, pursuant to the Council's Charter. DATES: Applications are due by July 31st, 2008. ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained on the Cordell Bank Web site at: *http://cordellbank.noaa.gov* , and from Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Rowena Forest, P.O. Box 159, Olema, CA 94950. Completed applications should be sent to the above mailing address or faxed to
(415)663-0315. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rowena Forest/CBNMS, *Rowena.Forest@noaa.gov* , P.O. Box 159, Olema, CA 94950,
(415)663-0314 x105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Council for Cordell Bank was established in 2002 to support the joint management plan review process currently underway for the CBNMS and its neighboring sanctuaries, Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries. The Council has members representing education, research, conservation, maritime activity, and community-at-large. The government seats are held by representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States Coast Guard, and the managers of the Gulf of the Farallones, Monterey Bay and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries. The Council holds four regular meetings per year, and one annual retreat. Authority: 16 U.S.C. Sections 1431, *et seq.* (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated May 30, 2008. Daniel J. Basta, Director, National Marine Sanctuary Program, National Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-12915 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI33 Marine Mammals; File No. 13428 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Niladri Basu, Ph.D., Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan, 109 South Observatory Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, has applied in due form for a permit to import tissues from baikal seals (Phoca sibirica) from Japan for the purpose of scientific research. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 13428. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Kate Swails, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The applicant is requesting authorization to import 40 brain tissues from baikal seals. These samples were collected in 2005 under a joint agreement between the East-Siberian Research and Production Fisheries Center (Russia) and the Center for Marine Environmental Studies (Japan). The purpose of this study is to determine:
(1)the types and amounts of heavy metals that baikal seals accumulate in specific brain regions; and
(2)whether these exposures are a neurotoxicological concern by using novel biomarker technologies. A permit is requested for the duration of one year. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: June 6, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-13246 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI16 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of a Liquefied Natural Gas Facility off Massachusetts AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization
(IHA)to Neptune LNG, L.L.C. (Neptune) to take, by harassment, small numbers of several species of marine mammals incidental to construction of an offshore liquefied natural gas
(LNG)facility in Massachusetts Bay for a period of 1 year. DATES: Effective July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and application are available by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225 or by telephoning the contact listed here. A copy of the application containing a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address, by telephoning the contact listed here ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) or online at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) and U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG)Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) on the Neptune LNG Deepwater Port License Application is available for viewing at *http://dms.dot.gov* under the docket number 22611. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candace Nachman or Ken Hollingshead, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of TM all numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [“Level A harassment”]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [“Level B harassment”]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. Summary of Request On December 27, 2007, NMFS received an application from Neptune requesting an IHA to take small numbers of several species of marine mammals, by Level B (behavioral) harassment, for a period of 1 year, incidental to construction of an offshore LNG facility in Massachusetts Bay. Description of the Project On March 23, 2007, Neptune received a license to own, construct, and operate a deepwater port (Port or Neptune Port) from MARAD. The Port, which will be located in Massachusetts Bay, will consist of a submerged buoy system to dock specifically designed LNG carriers approximately 22 mi (35 km) northeast of Boston, Massachusetts, in Federal waters approximately 260 ft (79 m) in depth. The two buoys will be separated by a distance of approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km). Neptune will be capable of mooring LNG shuttle and regasification vessels
(SRVs)with a capacity of approximately 140,000 cubic meters (m 3 ). Up to two SRVs will temporarily moor at the proposed deepwater port by means of a submerged unloading buoy system. Two separate buoys will allow natural gas to be delivered in a continuous flow, without interruption, by having a brief overlap between arriving and departing SRVs. The annual average throughput capacity will be around 500 million standard cubic feet per day (mmscfd) with an initial throughput of 400 mmscfd, and a peak capacity of approximately 750 mmscfd. The SRVs will be equipped to store, transport, and vaporize LNG, and to odorize, meter and send out natural gas by means of two 16-in (40.6-cm) flexible risers and one 24-in (61-cm) subsea flowline. These risers and flowline will lead to a proposed 24-in (61-cm) gas transmission pipeline connecting the deepwater port to the existing 30-in (76.2-cm) Algonquin Hubline TM (Hubline TM ) located approximately 9 mi (14.5 km) west of the proposed deepwater port location. The Port will have an expected operating life of approximately 20 years. Figure 1-1 of Neptune's application shows an isometric view of the Port. On February 15, 2005, Neptune submitted an application to the USCG and MARAD under the Deepwater Port Act for all Federal authorizations required for a license to own, construct, and operate a deepwater port for the import and regasification of LNG off the coast of Massachusetts. Because, as described later in this document, there is a potential for marine mammals to be taken by haras TM ent, incidental to construction of the facility and its pipeline, Neptune has applied for a 1-year IHA for activities commencing in July 2008. Detailed information on these activities can be found in the MARAD/USCG Final EIS on the Neptune Project (see ADDRESSES for availability). Detailed information on the LNG facility's pipeline and port construction and noise generated from these activities was included in NMFS' Notice of Proposed IHA, which published in the **Federal Register** on February 19, 2008 (73 FR 9092). No changes have been made to these proposed activities. Comments and Responses A notice of receipt and request for public comment on the application and proposed authorization was published on February 19, 2008 (73 FR 9092). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received the following comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), the Whale Center of New England (WCNE), Nahant Safer Waters in Massachusetts, Inc. (SWIM), and one private citizen. *Comment 1:* The MMC recommends issuance of the IHA provided that all mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures identified in the proposed IHA **Federal Register** notice (73 FR 9092, February 19, 2008) are included in the authorization. *Response:* NMFS agrees with the MMC's recommendation. All measures proposed in the initial **Federal Register** notice are included in the authorization. *Comment 2:* The MMC recommends that the beginning of construction activities in 2009 be postponed until June 1 instead of beginning on May 1. The MMC notes that NMFS' proposed vessel speed limits in the area from January 1 to May 15, to reduce the likelihood of vessel collisions with the North Atlantic right whale, indicate that right whales may be present into the middle of May. Delaying construction until June 1 will allow a two-week buffer to increase the likelihood that all right whales have left the area. *Response:* The authorization requires Neptune to employ both a visual monitoring program and a passive acoustic monitoring
(PAM)program for detection of North Atlantic right whales and other marine mammals in the vicinity of construction activities. Both of these programs were developed in accordance with recommendations made by the NMFS Northeast Region during its section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA)and by the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS). All construction activities will be conducted under a level of heightened awareness if a North Atlantic right whale is acoustically detected by the PAM devices. Construction will cease if a whale is detected either visually within 500 yards (457 m) of construction activities or acoustically and will not resume until the animal is known to have left the area. Therefore, NMFS believes that the use of this dual monitoring program will reduce the potential for impacts to the North Atlantic right whale to the lowest level practicable, even with construction activities resuming on May 1, 2009. *Comment 3:* The MMC notes that construction activities producing loud noises could occur at night and under poor sighting conditions when visual detections of animals would be impaired. Even under good sighting conditions, observers are unlikely to see all whales or protected species in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. The MMC states that the use of PAM provides additional, but limited, means of detection of vocalizing marine mammals in the vicinity. The MMC recommends that a real-time passive acoustic array be used at all times during the construction period as a supplement to visual monitoring efforts. *Response:* NFMS agrees with the MMC that PAM should be used at all times during the construction period. A detailed description of how PAM will be used to assist visual monitoring is provided in the draft Prevention, Monitoring, and Mitigation Plan for the Construction Phase: Neptune Project, Massachusetts Bay (Neptune, 2008). The PAM primarily serves as an early warning and supplemental measure for marine mammal visual monitoring provided by two marine mammal observers
(MMOs)on each construction vessel. The PAM will be a near real-time system. Neptune will equip MMOs with night vision devices for marine mammal monitoring during low-light hours. *Comment 4:* The MMC and WCNE both concur with NMFS' finding in the proposed IHA **Federal Register** notice that the take numbers requested in Neptune's application seem a bit low (73 FR 9092, February 19, 2008). Therefore, the MMC recommends that NMFS reanalyze marine mammal density in the area, the area to be ensonified to 160 dB, and the number of days that construction activities will occur to derive more accurate estimates of the numbers of marine mammals likely to be taken incidental to construction. *Response:* NMFS recalculated the cetacean density data and estimated take number based on the compilation of a large number of databases published by the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS, 2006). The recalculated density numbers were then multiplied by the area to be ensonified to 120 dB, which is used as the threshold for estimating the onset of Level B (behavioral) haras TM ent for continuous sounds. The number of days that construction activities will occur were also included. Please refer to the “Estimates of Take by Harassment” section found later in this document for a detailed description of how the new take numbers were calculated. *Comment 5:* The WCNE questions why only acoustic models were used to determine the zone of influence
(ZOI)created by construction activities for this project. Referring to the Northeast Gateway LNG Port (NEG or NEG Port), the WCNE states that there was a significant amount of data gathered on the sounds created by, and the zone of impact from that project, through the use of required passive acoustic arrays. The WCNE suggests that these data should be analyzed and made available to test whether the ZOI suggested by Neptune's acoustic models are supported. Until such actual results are available and analyzed, the WCNE suggests that no action should take place on the current permit application. *Response:* The acoustic array in place in Massachusetts Bay near the NEG Port and the site of construction for Neptune has not been used for sound source verification of vessel noise and other acoustic activities that occurred last year during construction of the NEG Port. Similarly, they were not used to validate the ZOI around the NEG Port construction site. NMFS has determined that in the absence of any in-water measurements, acoustic models must be used to determine the ZOI. The modeling conducted very early in the planning stages for the project, before a company had been contracted to perform the Neptune Port construction, most likely overestimates the 120-dB ZOI. In a letter submitted by Neptune to NMFS on May 28, 2008, Neptune indicated that certain vessels were used in the modeling as worst case examples. The pipeline construction company now under contract to construct the Neptune Port will not be using a vessel such as the *Britoil 51* , which was used in the modeling and shown to have a broadband source level of 199.7 dB re 1 μPa at 1m. Construction will involve vessels closer in characteristics to other vessels that were modeled, creating an area of 120-dB ensonification of approximately 52 km 2 (15 nm 2 ), not the maximum of approximately 161 km 2 (47 nm 2 ) predicted in the original modeling. *Comment 6:* The WCNE states that in their research efforts on northern Stellwagen Bank in 2006, they identified over 250 individual humpback whales, including 33 mother-calf pairs using standard photo-identification techniques, and even that number is considered an underestimate by the WCNE. Similar numbers, with similar effort, were identified by the WCNE in 2007. Given the proximity of the project to Stellwagen Bank, the WCNE states that it is possible for any of these animals on any given day to be exposed to project noise of over 120 dB or to other related activities which could disturb them. *Response:* NMFS believes a small number of humpback whales might be incidentally taken by Level B harassment if they happen to occur in the ZOI where noise from construction activities reach over 120 dB. However, the maximum size of the ZOI has been recalculated to be 52 km 2 (15 nm 2 ) with a vessel's dynamic positioning thrusters being operated at the surface. This maximum ZOI would only occur inside the SBNMS' western boundary, in an area that is still northwest of Stellwagen Bank. In addition, between the proposed project are and Stellwagen Bank, there is a steep drop off from the 50-m isobath where construction noise would not propagate as far when compared to at the surface, where the maximum ZOI could occur. Therefore, the identification of 250 individual humpback whales in the northern Stellwagen Bank by the WCNE does not mean that individuals on the Bank would be harassed. To the contrary, the fact that the majority of whales occur within the SBNMS, especially gathering around the Stellwagen Bank, means that fewer whales would be taken by Level B harassment in the vicinity of the project area, which is outside the Sanctuary's boundaries. *Comment 7:* Citing the WCNE′s own research on humpback whales in the SBNMS and other studies (cited as Seipt *et al.* , 1989), the WCNE states that a more realistic upper bound of the number of animals that may be taken during any given year by the project is more likely to be up to 400 individuals each of humpback, fin, and minke whales, each of which may be taken multiple times on multiple days (no calculation provided). *Response:* NMFS cannot evaluate whether the WCNE′s estimated take numbers are scientifically supported because the WCNE did not provide any valid calculation indicating how these numbers were assessed. The photo-identification of 250 humpback whales (including 33 mother-calf pairs) in the northern Stellwagen Bank, as mentioned in the previous Comment, does not support the WCNE's take estimate. The research conducted by Seipt *et al.* (1990), titled “ *Population Characteristics of Individual Fin Whales, Balaenoptera physalus, in Massachusetts Bay, 1980-1987* ,” was published in the Fishery Bulletin in 1990. While the study described the use of photo-identification technology on fin whale population studies in Massachusetts Bay and presented fin whale sighting and resighting data between 1980 and 1987, it did not provide any population estimate or density assessment of the species in the study area. Therefore, NMFS does not believe these data can be used for fin whale take estimates in the proposed project area. In addition, NMFS' own population assessment of the Gulf of Maine humpback stock is 847 whales (Waring *et al.* , 2007). The WCNE's estimated annual take of 400 humpback whales (47 percent of the population) within a maximum 120 dB re 1 μPa ZOI of 52 km 2 (15 nm 2 ) is not scientifically supportable. Likewise, the WCNE's estimated annual take numbers of 400 fin whales, which accounts for 18 percent of the Western North Atlantic population of 2,269 whales (Waring *et al.* , 2007); and 400 minke whales, which is 12 percent of the Canadian East Coast population of 3,312 whales (which are mostly sighted off Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Canada; Waring *et al.* , 2007); are not good estimates because no valid calculations were provided on how these numbers were derived. *Comment 8:* Although the data on the number of right whales that use the area, especially during the winter and early spring, are limited, the WCNE indicates that the data they do have suggests the project site is one of the more frequently used sites within their study area, and acoustic detections of whales in the past two years have been numerous. The WCNE believes it is likely that whales which use Jeffreys Ledge in the fall and Cape Cod Bay
(CCB)in the spring transit through the project site. In fall 2007, the WCNE identified over 70 right whales on Jeffreys Ledge in October through December; over 100 individuals were seen in CCB in spring 2007. Hence, the WCNE states that an appropriate estimate of North Atlantic right whales to be harassed by the proposed project would be 100 individuals annually; although if managing conservatively, the actual number might be somewhat higher (no references provided). *Response:* Data sets used by the NCCOS (2006), which include survey efforts and sightings data from ship and aerial surveys and opportunistic sources between 1970 and 2005 from a wide range of sources, indicate that right whales spend most of their time across the southern Gulf of Maine in CCB in spring, with highest abundance located over the deeper waters on the northern edge of the Great South Channel and deep waters parallel to the 100-m (328-ft) isobath of northern Georges Bank and Georges Basin. The data collected by the WCNE focused on CCB, which is 30 40 mi (48 64 km) southeast of the proposed project area, and Jeffreys Ledge, which is approximately 12-14 mi (19-22.5 km) northeast of the proposed project area at its southwestern most point. Both areas have different oceanographic features and ecological characteristics and are more important habitat for right whales than the project area. In addition, Weinrich *et al.* (2006), in their report on the distribution of baleen whales in the Neptune proposed LNG project area, state: North Atlantic right whales are sporadic visitors to the study area [Neptune project area] during the April to November period. Right whales typically aggregate in [CCB] during the late winter and early spring (Mayo and Marx, 1990), then move east to the Great South Channel during the spring (Kenney and Wishner, 1995). They then move east along the northern edge of Georges Bank, and into the Bay of Fundy and Nova Scotian shelf during the summer and early fall (Kraus *et al.* , 1988; Winn *et al.* , 1986; Baumgartner *et al.* , 2003). Once they leave the Bay of Fundy, pregnant females migrate to the coastal waters of the southern U.S. to calve, while the distribution of much of the rest of the population remains unknown (Winn *et al.* , 1986). Recent work on Jeffreys Ledge, immediately to the north of Cape Ann, has indicated that significant numbers of right whales may use the area as a feeding habitat from October through at least December (Weinrich *et al.* , 2000; Weinrich and Sardi, 2004; Unpublished data). Right whale sighting plots presented in this report support this statement, and it is consistent with the survey data published in the NCCOS
(2006)report, which indicates that right whales do not use the proposed project area regularly, especially during the months for which construction activities are planned. Weekly construction reports submitted by NEG indicated only one visual sighting of a North Atlantic right whale in the NEG project area (which is just south of the Neptune Port) in the month of December. The authorization issued to Neptune does not allow for any construction activities from December 1 through April 30. An acoustic array near the NEG Port construction site detected 11 North Atlantic right whale calls in September, two in October, and two in December. Barring weather delays, construction activities at the Neptune Port in 2008 should be completed in early October. Therefore, NMFS does not believe that the WCNE's estimated annual take of 100 North Atlantic right whales by the proposed project is reasonable, especially given that the WCNE did not provide the calculation regarding how this take number was assessed. *Comment 9:* The WCNE points out that special attention should be given to project activities occurring in the fall. This is a particularly sensitive time for endangered humpback and fin whales, which have been exploiting a new prey source annually since 2000, within the proposed project area, as supported by the studies conducted by Weinrich and Sardi
(2005)and as noted in the Neptune LNG Final EIS (USCG and MARAD, 2006). The WCNE states that heavy industrial activity during these months would result in either take levels of these species at far greater levels than during any other month or in habitat displacement altogether. The WCNE notes that while they did see both species feeding in the NEG construction area in fall 2007, there were fewer whales, and those whales were resident for shorter periods, than in the previous three years. Since the WCNE does not have annual measurements of prey biomass, they state that it is possible that this is merely related to annual fluctuations in food availability. *Response:* NMFS reviewed the Weinrich and Sardi
(2005)report on the distribution of baleen whales in the waters surrounding the Neptune LNG project, but we did not find that the report contained any quantitative analysis of the cetacean density data showing that there is a statistical significance of baleen whales' use of the proposed project area on a seasonal or monthly basis. The cetacean sighting data, plotted in an area that includes most of the SBNMS, part of Massachusetts Bay, the west terminal portion of the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), and the proposed project area, clearly show that most humpback, fin, and minke whales were sighted within the SBNMS (Weinrich and Sardi, 2005). NMFS recognizes that there is a potential for take of small numbers of marine mammals by Level B harassment as a result of this project; however, NMFS does not agree with the WCNE that there would be takes at far greater levels during the fall months for humpback and fin whales, as strict monitoring and mitigation measures, described in the “Marine Mammal Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting” section later in this document, will be implemented to keep the impacts to the lowest level practicable. *Comment 10:* The WCNE states that whales would be harassed not just by exposure to sound sources of over 120 dB re 1 μPa, but they may also be disturbed by multiple boats in a limited area. The WCNE cites studies conducted by Borgaard *et al.*
(1999)and Stone and Tasker
(2006)on whales affected by continuous activity from dredging coupled with vessel traffic and seismic activities. The WCNE states that in its comments regarding the NEG IHA application in 2007, they recommended that if in the first year [of the project] abundance of any of the key species are notably lower than that of previous years, the IHA should stipulate that project operations should cease until it can be determined if that change was related to project activities or other ecological factors. The WCNE notes that abundance was lower, and they believe that the full impact of the project cannot be assessed until the underlying reasons for the lower whale use can be determined. *Response:* It is true that marine mammals may be disturbed by multiple boats in a limited area, especially within the Boston TSS. However, this concern is not related to the issuance of this IHA since the construction of a deepwater LNG facility would only increase vessel traffic in the vicinity by a very small amount, about 1.5 percent (NMFS, 2007). The study by Borgaard *et al.*
(1999)cited by the WCNE was focused on the effects of large scale industrial activity, which involved dredging and blasting, on large cetaceans in Bull Arm, Trinity Bay, Newfoundland from 1992 through 1995. The research indicates that humpback whales were more affected by continuous activity from dredging, coupled with vessel traffic, but appeared tolerant of transient blasting and frequent vessel traffic. Individually-identified minke whales were resighted in the industrialized area and appeared tolerant of vessel traffic. Stone and Tasker
(2006)in their research analyzed the effects of airgun seismic surveys on marine mammals in UK waters. The airgun used in seismic surveys produces impulse sounds, which is fundamentally different sound in acoustic characteristics from the intermittent noises produced during the proposed deepwater LNG port construction. No blasting will occur during Port construction. The weekly construction reports submitted by NEG to NMFS during its construction phase do not indicate any large or long-term reactions of marine mammals to the presence of the construction or support vessels. When animals were detected within the ZOI, mitigation measures to reduce the ZOI were implemented immediately. The IHA is issued for a duration of 1 year. NMFS will evaluate any new scientific information that may surface during the project period and assess any impacts that may result due to the deepwater port construction and operation. Based on the new information and monitoring reports, NMFS will determine whether any additional monitoring or mitigation measures are warranted for future authorizations. *Comment 11:* The WCNE notes that Neptune's application falsely states, “Pinnipeds are unlikely to be present during summer and will not be affected.” The WCNE states that they have many sighting records of harbor seals at sea in the project area during the summer months. Hence, they need to be included in any IHA request for the area during summer. *Response:* NMFS concurs with the WCNE's assertion that harbor seals should be included in the take authorization. Harbor seals have been added to the IHA (see the “Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity” and “Estimates of Take by Harassment” sections later in the document). *Comment 12:* The WCNE requests that Neptune withdraw the IHA application and resubmit it with more realistic numbers, such as those posed by the WCNE above (i.e., 400 humpback, 400 fin, 400 minke, and 100 North Atlantic right whales, all of which may be taken multiple times over multiple days). They also suggest that Neptune be required to obtain a Letter of Authorization (LOA), rather than an IHA. The WCNE feels that the take levels they posed are more realistic, and coupled with the possibility of displacing animals from preferred food sources, seem to them to be “well above” the levels of “incidental harassment” for which the permit category is intended. *Response:* NMFS has revised the incidental harassment take estimates for project construction. The development of these numbers is explained in the “Estimates of Take by Harassment” section found later in this document. Also, as stated in responses above, NMFS does not believe the WCNE's estimated take numbers are scientifically supported, especially given that the WCNE did not provide any valid calculations indicating how these numbers were assessed. NMFS has defined “incidental harassment” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an accidental taking. This does not mean that the taking is unexpected, but rather it includes those takings that are infrequent, unavoidable, or accidental.” NMFS believes that incidental harassment of marine mammals near the Neptune Port construction site will be infrequent. *Comment 13:* The WCNE states that they would also be amenable to NMFS issuing the IHA as requested by Neptune in their application to allow the annual take of two North Atlantic right whales, one minke whale, two fin whales, three humpback whales, and the other take levels requested in the application. The WCNE states, “If this option is taken, we would strongly urge that the permit include an explicit statement of the maximum number of annual violations that can take place before ALL port construction or operations must cease ANY activity which is likely to harass a marine mammal, either by exposing to sounds above 120 dB or by resulting in a behavioral disturbance, including displacement.” In order to determine when such a violation occurs, the WCNE requests that Neptune produce real-time, daily plots of sound levels as detected by the acoustic arrays, which can be plotted against independent sightings of marine mammals, as well as all of the acoustic detections of marine mammals by Neptune's array. *Response:* The numbers cited by the WCNE from the Neptune application were requests for Port operations, not construction. The requested take numbers for construction in Neptune's application are slightly higher (but only by a few individuals for each species). In its proposed IHA **Federal Register** notice (73 FR 9092, February 19, 2008), NMFS indicated that the take levels requested by Neptune in its application for construction were too low. NMFS reevaluated species density, the area to be ensonified to 120 dB, and number of days of construction to develop more realistic take levels (see the “Estimates of Take by Harassm>ent” section found later in this document). The taking of marine mammals in a manner not described in the IHA is strictly prohibited. Any violation of the IHA is subject to prosecution; therefore, NMFS does not include “a maximum number” of violations that may be committed before enforcement action is taken against the holder. To this end, the IHA issued to Neptune contains the following conditions: The taking, by incidental Level B harassment only, is limited to the species listed [in the IHA]. The taking by Level A harassment, injury, or death of these species, or the taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization; and Any person who violates any provision of this IHA is subject to civil and criminal penalties, permit sanctions, and forfeiture as authorized under the MMPA. *Comment 14:* The WCNE urges that there be an explicit stipulation that blasting activities are specifically not covered by the IHA, and such activities would require applying for a new permit and a new public review process. *Response:* NMFS concurs with the WCNE. The IHA does not authorize blasting to be used for port construction at the Neptune site. If, during the course of the construction, an unexpected need for blasting arises, the blasting cannot take place until a blasting plan is submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)and a Blasting Mitigation Plan prepared in consultation with NOAA for submittal to, and approval by, FERC. A new application would need to be submitted to NMFS and reviewed in the same manner as the original IHA application. *Comment 15:* SWIM notes that the endangered whales that frequent the waters of Massachusetts Bay are utterly dependent upon their hearing and their acoustic “sonar” for navigation, finding food, and survival, and that these animals do not remain wholly in the bounds of the SBNMS. SWIM endorses the comments made by the WCNE. *Response:* NMFS analyzed the distribution of endangered whales in Massachusetts Bay and determined that TM all numbers of these populations may be impacted by port construction activities but also determined that the activities would have a negligible impact. Several mitigation and monitoring measures are required by the IHA to reduce the impact to the lowest level practicable (see the “Marine Mammal Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting” section later in this document). Responses to the comments submitted by the WCNE have been provided previously. *Comment 16:* One commenter opposed the issuance of permits that allows the killing of marine mammals. *Response:* NMFS does not believe that the authorized activities will result in the death (or injury) of any marine mammals, nor does this IHA authorize any marine mammal mortality (or injury). Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity Marine mammal species that could occur within the Neptune facility impact area include several species of cetaceans and pinnipeds: North Atlantic right, blue, fin, sei, minke, humpback, killer, long-finned pilot, and sperm whales, Atlantic white-beaked, Atlantic white-sided, bottlenose, common, Risso's, and striped dolphins, harbor porpoise, and gray, harbor, harp, and hooded seals. Table 3-1 in the IHA application outlines the marine mammal species that occur in Massachusetts Bay and the likelihood of occurrence of each species. Information on those species that may be impacted by this activity are discussed in detail in the MARAD/USCG Final EIS on the Neptune LNG proposal. Please refer to that document for more information on these species and potential impacts from construction of this LNG facility. In addition, general information on these marine mammal species can also be found in the NMFS U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (Waring *et al.* , 2007), which is available at: *http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm205/* . An updated summary on several commonly sighted marine mammal species distribution and abundance in the vicinity of the action area is provided below. Humpback Whale The highest abundance for humpback whales was distributed primarily along a relatively narrow corridor following the 100-m (328 ft) isobath across the southern Gulf of Maine from the northwestern slope of Georges Bank, south to the Great South Channel, and northward alongside Cape Cod to Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge. The relative abundance of whales increased in the spring with the highest occurrence along the slope waters (between the 40- and 140-m, 131- and 459-ft, isobaths) off Cape Cod and Davis Bank, Stellwagen Basin and Tillies Basin and between the 50- and 200-m (164- and 656-ft) isobaths along the inner slope of Georges Bank. High abundance was also estimated for the waters around Platts Bank. In the summer months, abundance increased markedly over the shallow waters (<50 m, or <164 ft) of Stellwagen Bank, the waters (100-200 m, 328-656 ft) between Platts Bank and Jeffreys Ledge, the steep slopes (between the 30- and 160-m isobaths, 98- and 525-ft isobaths) of Phelps and Davis Bank north of the Great South Channel towards Cape Cod, and between the 50- and 100-m (164- and 328-ft) isobath for almost the entire length of the steeply sloping northern edge of Georges Bank. This general distribution pattern persisted in all seasons except winter, when humpbacks remained at high abundance in only a few locations including Porpoise and Neddick Basins adjacent to Jeffreys Ledge, northern Stellwagen Bank and Tillies Basin, and the Great South Channel. Fin Whale Spatial patterns of habitat utilization by fin whales were very similar to those of humpback whales. Spring and summer high-use areas followed the 100-m (328 ft) isobath along the northern edge of Georges Bank (between the 50- and 200-m, 164- and 656-ft, isobaths), and northward from the Great South Channel (between the 50- and 160-m, 164- and 525-ft, isobaths). Waters around Cashes Ledge, Platts Bank, and Jeffreys Ledge are all high-use areas in the summer months. Stellwagen Bank was a high-use area for fin whales in all seasons, with highest abundance occurring over the southern Stellwagen Bank in the summer months. In fact, the southern portion of SBNMS was used more frequently than the northern portion in all months except winter, when high abundance was recorded over the northern tip of Stellwagen Bank. In addition to Stellwagen Bank, high abundance in winter was estimated for Jeffreys Ledge and the adjacent Porpoise Basin (100- to 160-m, 328- to 525-ft, isobaths), as well as Georges Basin and northern Georges Bank. Minke Whale Like other piscivorus baleen whales, highest abundance for minke whale was strongly associated with regions between the 50- and 100-m (164- and 328-ft) isobaths, but with a slightly stronger preference for the shallower waters along the slopes of Davis Bank, Phelps Bank, Great South Channel, and Georges Shoals on Georges Bank. Minke whales were sighted in SBNMS in all seasons, with highest abundance estimated for the shallow waters (approximately 40 m, 131 ft) over southern Stellwagen Bank in the summer and fall months. Platts Bank, Cashes Ledge, Jeffreys Ledge, and the adjacent basins (Neddick, Porpoise, and Scantium) also supported high relative abundance. Very low densities of minke whales remained throughout most of the southern Gulf of Maine in winter. North Atlantic Right Whale North Atlantic right whales were generally distributed widely across the southern Gulf of Maine in spring with highest abundance located over the deeper waters (100- to 160-m, or 328- to 525-ft, isobaths) on the northern edge of the Great South Channel and deep waters (100-300 m, 328-984 ft) parallel to the 100-m (328-ft) isobath of northern Georges Bank and Georges Basin. High abundance was also found in the shallowest waters (< 30 m, <98 ft) of CCB, over Platts Bank and around Cashes Ledge. Lower relative abundance was estimated over deep-water basins including Wilkinson Basin, Rodgers Basin, and Franklin Basin. In the summer months, right whales moved almost entirely away from the coast to deep waters over basins in the central Gulf of Maine (Wilkinson Basin, Cashes Basin between the 160- and 200-m, 525- and 656-ft, isobaths) and north of Georges Bank (Rogers, Crowell, and Georges Basins). Highest abundance was found north of the 100-m (328-ft) isobath at the Great South Channel and over the deep slope waters and basins along the northern edge of Georges Bank. The waters between Fippennies Ledge and Cashes Ledge were also estimated as high-use areas. In the fall months, right whales were sighted infrequently in the Gulf of Maine, with highest densities over Jeffreys Ledge and over deeper waters near Cashes Ledge and Wilkinson Basin. In winter, CCB, Scantum Basin, Jeffreys Ledge, and Cashes Ledge were the main high-use areas. Although SBNMS does not appear to support the highest abundance of right whales, sightings within SBNMS are reported for all four seasons, albeit at low relative abundance. Highest sighting within SBNMS occurred along the southern edge of the Bank. Pilot Whale Pilot whales arrived in the southern Gulf of Maine in spring, with highest abundance in the region occurring in summer and fall. Summer high-use areas included the slopes of northern Georges Bank along the 100-m (328-ft) isobath and pilot whales made extensive use of the shoals of Georges Bank (<60 m, <97 ft, depth). Similarly, fall distributions were also primarily along the slopes of northern Georges Bank, but with high-use areas also occurring in the deep-water basins and ledges of the south-central Gulf of Maine. Within SBNMS, pilot whales were sighted infrequently and were most often estimated at low density. CCB and southern SBNMS were the only locations with pilot whale sightings for winter. Atlantic White-sided Dolphin In spring, summer and fall, Atlantic white-sided dolphins were widespread throughout the southern Gulf of Maine, with the high-use areas widely located on either side of the 100-m (328-ft) isobath along the northern edge of Georges Bank, and north from the Great South Channel to Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, Platts Bank, and Cashes Ledge. In spring, high-use areas existed in the Great South Channel, northern Georges Bank, the steeply sloping edge of Davis Bank, and Cape Cod, southern Stellwagen Bank, and the waters between Jeffreys Ledge and Platts Bank. In summer, there was a shift and expansion of habitat toward the east and northeast. High-use areas were identified along most of the northern edge of Georges Bank between the 50- and 200-m (164- and 656-ft) isobaths and northward from the Great South Channel along the slopes of Davis Bank and Cape Cod. High sightings were also recorded over Truxton Swell, Wilkinson Basin, Cashes Ledge and the bathymetrically complex area northeast of Platts Bank. High sightings of white-sided dolphin were recorded within SBNMS in all seasons, with highest density in summer and most widespread distributions in spring located mainly over the southern end of Stellwagen Bank. In winter, high sightings were recorded at the northern tip of Stellwagen Bank and Tillies Basin. A comparison of spatial distribution patterns for all baleen whales (Mysticeti) and all porpoises and dolphins combined showed that both groups have very similar spatial patterns of high- and low-use areas. The baleen whales, whether piscivorus or planktivorous, were more concentrated than the dolphins and porpoises. They utilized a corridor that extended broadly along the most linear and steeply sloping edges in the southern Gulf of Maine indicated broadly by the 100 m (328 ft) isobath. Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge supported a high abundance of baleen whales throughout the year. Species richness maps indicated that high-use areas for individual whales and dolphin species co-occurred, resulting in similar patterns of species richness primarily along the southern portion of the 100-m (328-ft) isobath extending northeast and northwest from the Great South Channel. The southern edge of Stellwagen Bank and the waters around the northern tip of Cape Cod were also highlighted as supporting high cetacean species richness. Intermediate to high numbers of species are also calculated for the waters surrounding Jeffreys Ledge, the entire Stellwagen Bank, Platts Bank, Fippennies Ledge, and Cashes Ledge. Killer Whale, Common Dolphin, Bottlenose Dolphin, and Harbor Porpoise Although these four species are some of the most widely distributed small cetacean species in the world (Jefferson *et al.* , 1993), they were not commonly seen in the vicinity of the project area in Massachusetts Bay (Wiley *et al.* , 1994; NCCOS, 2006; Northeast Gateway Marine Mammal Monitoring Weekly Reports, 2007). Harbor Seal and Gray Seal In the U.S. western North Atlantic, both harbor and gray seals were usually found from the coast of Maine south to southern New England and New York (Waring *et al.* , 2007). Along the southern New England and New York coasts, harbor seals occur seasonally from September through late May (Schneider and Payne, 1983). In recent years, their seasonal interval along the southern New England to New Jersey coasts had increased (deHart, 2002). In U.S. waters, harbor seal breeding and pupping normally occur in waters north of the New Hampshire/Maine border, although breeding has occurred as far south as Cape Cod in the early part of the 20th century (Temte *et al.* , 1991; Katona *et al.* , 1993). Although gray seals were often seen off the coast from New England to Labrador, within U.S. waters, only TM all numbers of gray seals have been observed pupping on several isolated islands along the Maine coast and in Nantucket-Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts (Katona *et al.* , 1993; Rough, 1995). In the late 1990s, a year-round breeding population of approximately 400 gray seals was documented on outer Cape Cod and Muskeget Island (Waring *et al.* , 2007). Potential Effects on Marine Mammals The effects of sound on marine mammals are highly variable and can be categorized as follows (based on Richardson *et al.* , 1995):
(1)The sound may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal (i.e., lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both);
(2)the sound may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral response;
(3)the sound may elicit reactions of variable conspicuousness and variable relevance to the well being of the marine mammal; these can range from temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions, such as vacating an area at least until the sound ceases;
(4)upon repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit diminishing responsiveness (habituation) or disturbance effects may persist; the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in characteristics, infrequent, and unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with situations that a marine mammal perceives as a threat;
(5)any anthropogenic sound that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce
(mask)the ability of a marine mammal to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from conspecifics, and underwater environmental sounds such as surf noise;
(6)if mammals remain in an area because it is important for feeding, breeding, or some other biologically important purpose even though there is chronic exposure to sound, it is possible that there could be sound-induced physiological stress; this might in turn have negative effects on the well-being or reproduction of the animals involved; and
(7)very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and presumably marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed the animal's hearing threshold for there to be any temporary threshold shift
(TTS)in its hearing ability. For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to the duration of the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher for there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment. In addition, intense acoustic (or explosive events) may cause trauma to tissue associated with organs vital for hearing, sound production, respiration, and other functions. This trauma may include minor to severe hemorrhage. Sound from Port and pipeline construction will cause some possible disturbance to small numbers of cetaceans and pinnipeds. The installation of the suction piles will produce only low levels of sound during the construction period and will not increase the numbers of animals affected. Modeling results indicate that noise levels would be below 90 dB re 1 μPa within 0.2 mi (0.3 km) of the source. During construction of the Port and pipeline, underwater sound levels will be temporarily elevated. These elevated sound levels may cause some species to temporarily disperse from or avoid construction areas, but they are expected to return shortly after construction is completed. The likelihood of a vessel strike of a marine mammal during pipe laying and trenching operations is low since equipment will be towed at very slow speeds (approximately 5 ft/min, 1.5 m/min). Any whales foraging near the bottom would be able to avoid collision or interaction with the equipment, and displacement would be temporary for the duration of the plow pass. Using conservative estimates of both marine mammal densities in the Project area and the size of the 120-dB ZOI, the calculated number of individual marine mammals for each species that could potentially be harassed annually is small. NMFS concluded that there would be no biologically significant effects on the survival and reproduction of these species or stocks. Please see the “Estimates of Take by Harassment” section for the calculation of these numbers. Estimates of Take by Harassment There are three general types of sounds recognized by NMFS: continuous, intermittent (or transient), and pulsive. Sounds of short duration that are produced intermittently or at regular intervals, such as sounds from pile driving, are classified as “pulsed.” Sounds produced for extended periods, such as sound from generators, are classified as “continuous.” Sounds from moving sources, such as ships, can be continuous, but for an animal at a given location, these sounds are “transient” (i.e., increasing in level as the ship approaches and then diminishing as it moves away). Construction of the Port will not cause pulsive sounds. The sound sources of potential concern are continuous and intermittent sound sources, including underwater noise generated during pipeline/flowline construction. Both continuous and intermittent noise sources are subject to NMFS′ 120 dB re 1 μPa threshold for determining levels of continuous underwater noise that may result in the disturbance of marine mammals. Pipe-laying activities will generate continuous but transient sound and will likely result in variable sound levels during the construction period. Depending on water depth, the 120-dB contour during pipe-laying activities will extend from the source (the Port) out to 3.9 km (2.1 nm) and cover an area of 52 km 2 (15 nm 2 ), and, for the flowline at the Port, the 120-dB contour will extend from the pipeline route out to 4.2 km (2.3 nm) and cover an area of 49 km 2 (14.3 nm 2 ). (This information is different from what is contained in the March 23, 2007, application submitted by Neptune to NMFS. Neptune conducted its acoustic modeling in the very early planning stages of the project, when little information was available on the types of vessels that could potentially be used during construction. Since that time, a contractor has been hired to construct the Port. The vessels to be used during Neptune Port construction are estimated to generate broadband underwater source levels in the range of 180 dB re 1 μPa at 1m, similar to several of the vessels modeled by JASCO for Neptune and not in the range of 200 dB re 1 μPa at 1m, which was also included in the original modeling as a worst case scenario. For more information on the modeling conducted by JASCO, please refer to Appendix B of Neptune's application.) Installation of the suction pile anchors at the Port will produce only low levels of underwater sound, with no source levels above 120-dB for continuous sound. The basis for Neptune's “take” estimate is the number of marine mammals that potentially could be exposed to sound levels in excess of 120 dB. Typically, this is determined by applying the modeled ZOI (e.g., the area ensonified by the 120-dB contour) to the seasonal use (density) of the area by marine mammals and correcting for seasonal duration of sound-generating activities and estimated duration of individual activities when the maximum sound-generating activities are intermittent to occasional. Nearly all of the required information is readily available in the MARAD/USCG Final EIS, with the exception of marine mammal density estimates for the project area. In the case of data gaps, a conservative approach was used to ensure that the potential number of takes is not underestimated, as described next. NMFS recognizes that baleen whale species other than North Atlantic right whales have been sighted in the project area from May to November. However, the occurrence and abundance of fin, humpback, and minke whales is not well documented within the project area. Nonetheless, NMFS used the data on cetacean distribution within Massachusetts Bay, such as those published by the NCCOS (2006), to determine potential takes of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area. The NCCOS study used cetacean sightings from two sources:
(1)the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (NARWC) sightings database held at the University of Rhode Island (Kenney, 2001); and
(2)the Manomet Bird Observatory
(MBO)database, held at the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). The NARWC data contained survey efforts and sightings data from ship and aerial surveys and opportunistic sources between 1970 and 2005. The main data contributors included: the Cetacean and Turtles Assessment Program, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, International Fund for Animal Welfare, NEFSC, New England Aquarium, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and the University of Rhode Island. A total of 406,293 mi (653,725 km) of survey track and 34,589 cetacean observations were provisionally selected for the NCCOS study in order to minimize bias from uneven allocation of survey effort in both time and space. The sightings-per-unit-effort
(SPUE)was calculated for all cetacean species by month covering the southern Gulf of Maine study area, which also includes the project area (NCCOS, 2006). The MBO's Cetacean and Seabird Assessment Program
(CSAP)was contracted from 1980 to 1988 by NEFSC to provide an assessment of the relative abundance and distribution of cetaceans, seabirds, and marine turtles in the shelf waters of the northeastern U.S. (MBO, 1987). The CSAP program was designed to be completely compatible with NEFSC databases so that marine mammal data could be compared directly with fisheries data throughout the time series during which both types of information were gathered. A total of 8,383 mi (5,210 km) of survey distance and 636 cetacean observations from the MBO data were included in the NCCOS analysis. Combined valid survey effort for the NCCOS studies included 913,840 mi (567,955 km) of survey track for small cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) and 1,060,226 mi (658,935 km) for large cetaceans (whales) in the southern Gulf of Maine. The NCCOS study then combined these two data sets by extracting cetacean sighting records, updating database field names to match the NARWC database, creating geometry to represent survey tracklines and applying a set of data selection criteria designed to minimize uncertainty and bias in the data used. Based on the comprehensiveness and total coverage of the NCCOS cetacean distribution and abundance study, NMFS calculated the estimated take number of marine mammals based on the most recent NCCOS report published in December, 2006. A summary of seasonal cetacean distribution and abundance in the project area is provided previously in this document, in the “Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity” section. For a detailed description and calculation of the cetacean abundance data and SPUE, refer to the NCCOS study (NCCOS, 2006). SPUE for the spring, summer, and fall seasons were analyzed, and the highest value SPUE for the season with the highest abundance of each species was used to determine relative abundance. Based on the data, the relative abundance of North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, minke, and pilot whales and Atlantic white-sided dolphins, as calculated by SPUE in number of animals per square kilometer, is 0.0082, 0.0097, 0.0265, 0.0059, 0.0407, and 0.1314 n/km, respectively. In calculating the area density of these species from these linear density data, NMFS used 0.4 km (0.25 mi), which is a quarter the distance of the radius for visual monitoring (see Monitoring, Mitigation, and Reporting section later in this document), as a conservative hypothetical strip width (W). Thus the area density
(D)of these species in the project area can be obtained by the following formula: D = SPUE/2W Based on the calculation, the estimated take numbers by Level B haras TM ent for the 1-year IHA period for North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, minke, and pilot whales and Atlantic white-sided dolphins, within the 120-dB ZOI of the LNG Port facility area of approximately 52 km 2 (15 nm 2 ) maximum ZOI, corrected for 50 percent underwater, are 48, 57, 155, 35, 238, and 770, respectively. This estimate is based on an estimated 60 days of construction activities that will produce sounds of 120 dB or greater. These numbers represent approximately 15, 2.5, 18, 1, 0.95, and 1.5 percent of the populations for these species in the western North Atlantic, respectively. There is no danger of injury, death, or hearing impairment from the exposure to these noise levels. In addition, harbor porpoises and harbor seals could also be taken by Level B harassment as a result of the deepwater LNG port project. The numbers of estimated take of these species are not available because they are rare in the project area. The minimum population estimates for the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise and the western North Atlantic stock of harbor seal are 60,970 and 91,546, respectively (Waring *et al.* , 2007). Since Massachusetts Bay represents only a small fraction of the western North Atlantic basin where these animals occur, and these animals do not regularly congregate in the vicinity of the project area, NMFS believes that only relatively small numbers (less than two percent) of these marine mammal species would be potentially affected by the Neptune LNG deepwater project. From the most conservative estimates of both marine mammal densities in the project area and the size of the 120-dB ZOI, the maximum calculated number of individual marine mammals for each species that could potentially be harassed annually is small relative to the overall population sizes (18 percent for humpback whales and 15 percent for North Atlantic right whales and no more than 2.5 percent of any other species). Potential Impacts on Habitat Construction of the Neptune Port and pipeline could affect marine mammal habitat in several ways: seafloor disturbance, increased turbidity, and generation of additional underwater sound in the area. Construction activities will temporarily disturb 418 acres (1.7 km 2 ) of seafloor (11 acres, 0.04 km 2 , at the Port, 85 acres, 0.3 km 2 , along the pipeline route, and an estimated 322 acres, 1.3 km 2 , due to anchoring of construction and installation vessels). Pipeline installation, including trenching, plowing, jetting, and backfill, is expected to generate the most disturbance of bottom sediments. Sediment transport modeling conducted by Neptune indicates that initial turbidity from pipeline installation could reach 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) but will subside to 20 mg/L after 4 hours. Turbidity associated with the flowline and hot-tap will be considerably less and also will settle within hours of the work being completed. Resettled sediments also will constitute to seafloor disturbance. When re-suspended sediments resettle, they reduce growth, reproduction, and survival rates of benthic organisms, and in extreme cases, smother benthic flora and fauna. Plankton will not be affected by resettled sediment. The project area is largely devoid of vegetation and consists of sand, silt, clay, or mixtures of the three. Recovery of soft-bottom benthic communities impacted by project installation is expected to be similar to the recovery of the soft habitat associated with the construction of the HubLine TM (Algonquin Gas Transmission L.L.C., 2004). Post-construction monitoring of the HubLine TM indicates that areas that were bucket-dredged showed the least disturbance. Displaced organisms will return shortly after construction ceases, and disrupted communities will easily re-colonize from surrounding communities of similar organisms. Similarly, disturbance to hard-bottom pebble/cobble and piled boulder habitat is not expected to be significant. Some organisms could be temporarily displaced from existing shelter, thereby exposing them to increased predation, but the overall structural integrity of these areas will not be reduced (Auster and Langton, 1998). Short-term impacts on phytoplankton, zooplankton (holoplankton), and planktonic fish and shellfish eggs and larvae (meroplankton) will occur as a result of the project. Turbidity associated with Port and pipeline installation will result in temporary direct impacts on productivity, growth, and development. Phytoplankton and zooplankton abundance will be greatest during the summer construction schedule. Fish eggs and larvae are present in the project area throughout the year. Different species of fish and invertebrate eggs and larvae will be affected by the different construction schedules. The temporary disturbance of benthic habitat from trenching for and burial of the transmission pipeline will result in direct, minor, adverse impacts from the dispersion of fish from the area and the burying or crushing of shellfish. In the short-term, there will be a temporary, indirect, and beneficial impact from exposing benthic food sources. Seafloor disturbance could also occur as a result of resettling of suspended sediments during installation and construction of the Port and pipeline. Redeposited sediments will potentially reduce viability of demersal fish eggs and growth, reproduction, and survival rates of benthic shellfish. In extreme cases, resettled sediments could smother benthic shellfish, although many will be able to burrow vertically through resettled sediments. Construction activities will not create long-term habitat changes, and marine mammals displaced by the disturbance to the seafloor are expected to return soon after construction ceases. Marine mammals also could be indirectly affected to the extent benthic prey species are displaced or destroyed by construction activities. Affected species are expected to recover soon after construction ceases and will represent only a small fraction of food available to marine mammals in the area. Marine Mammal Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Port Construction Minimization Measures General Construction activities will be limited to a May through November time frame so that acoustic disturbance to the endangered North Atlantic right whale can largely be avoided. Construction activities must be suspended immediately and NMFS contacted if a dead or injured marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the project area, and the death or injury of the animal could be attributable to the LNG facility construction. Activities will not resume until review and approval is given by NMFS. Visual Monitoring Program The Neptune Project will employ two MMOs on each lay barge, bury barge, and diving support vessel for visual shipboard surveys during construction activities. Qualifications for these individuals will include direct field experience on a marine mammal/sea turtle observation vessel and/or aerial surveys in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico. The observers (one primary, one secondary) are responsible for visually locating marine mammals at the ocean's surface, and, to the extent possible, identifying the species. The primary observer will act as the identification specialist, and the secondary observer will serve as data recorder and also assist with identification. Both observers will have responsibility for monitoring for the presence of marine mammals. All observers will receive NMFS-approved MMO training and be approved in advance by NMFS after review of their qualifications. The MMOs will be on duty at all times when any vessel is moving and at selected periods when construction vessels are idle, including when other vessels move around the construction lay barge. The MMOs will monitor the construction area beginning at daybreak using 25x power binoculars and/or hand-held binoculars, resulting in a conservative effective search range of 0.5 mi (0.8 km) during clear weather conditions for the shipboard observers. The MMO will scan the ocean surface by eye for a minimum of 40 minutes every hour. All sightings will be recorded in marine mammal field sighting logs. Observations of marine mammals will be identified to species or the lowest taxonomic level possible and their relative position in relation to the vessel will be recorded. Night vision devices will be standard equipment for monitoring during low-light hours and at night. During all phases of construction, MMOs will be required to scan for and report all marine mammal sightings to the vessel captain. The captain will then alert the environmental coordinator that a marine mammal is near the construction area. The MMO will have the authority to bring the vessel to idle or to temporarily suspend operations if a baleen whale is seen within 0.6 mi (1 km) of the moving pipelay vessel or construction area. The MMO or environmental coordinator will determine whether there is a potential for harm to an individual animal and will be charged with responsibility for determining when it is safe to resume activity. A vessel will not increase power again until the marine mammal(s) leave(s) the area or has/have not been sighted for 30 minutes. The vessel will then power up slowly. Construction and support vessels will be required to display lights when operating at night, and deck lights will be required to illuminate work areas. However, use of lights will be limited to areas where work is actually occurring, and all other lights will be extinguished. Lights will be downshielded to illuminate the deck and will not intentionally illuminate surrounding waters, so as not to attract whales or their prey to the area. Distance and Noise Level for Cut-Off
(1)During construction, if a marine mammal is detected within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of a construction vessel, the vessel superintendent or on-deck supervisor will be notified immediately. The vessel's crew will be put on a heightened state of alert. The marine mammal will be monitored constantly to determine if it is moving toward the construction area. The observer is required to report all North Atlantic right whale sightings to NMFS as soon as possible.
(2)Construction vessels will cease any movement in the construction area if a marine mammal other than a right whale is sighted within or approaching to a distance of 100 yd (91 m) from the operating construction vessel. Construction vessels will cease any movement in the construction area if a right whale is sighted within or approaching to a distance of 500 yd (457 m) from the operating construction vessel. Vessels transiting the construction area such as pipe haul barge tugs will also be required to maintain these separation distances
(3)Construction vessels will cease all activities that emit sounds reaching a received level of 120 dB re 1 μPa or higher at 100 yd (91 m) if a marine mammal other than a right whale is sighted within or approaching to this distance, or if a right whale is sighted within or approaching to a distance of 500 yd (457 m), from the operating construction vessel. The back-calculated source level, based on the most conservative cylindrical model of acoustic energy spreading, is estimated to be 139 dB re 1 μPa.
(4)Construction may resume after the marine mammal is positively reconfirmed outside the established zones (either 500 yd (457 m) or 100 yd (91 m), depending upon species). Vessel Strike Avoidance
(1)While moving, all construction vessels will remain 0.6 mi (1 km) away from right whales and all other whales to the extent possible and 100 yd (91 m) away from all other marine mammals to the extent physically feasible given navigational constraints as required by NMFS.
(2)MMOs will direct a moving vessel to slow to idle if a baleen whale is seen within 0.6 mi (1 km) of the vessel.
(3)All construction vessels 300 gross tons or greater will maintain a speed of 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less. Vessels less than 300 gross tons carrying supplies or crew between the shore and the construction site must contact the appropriate authority or the construction site before leaving shore for reports of recent right whale sighting and, consistent with navigation safety, restrict speeds to 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less within 5 mi (8 km) of any recent sighting location.
(4)All vessels transiting through the Cape Cod Canal and CCB between January 1 and May 15 will reduce speeds to 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less, follow the recommended routes charted by NOAA to reduce interactions between right whales and shipping traffic, and avoid aggregations of right whales in the eastern portion of CCB. To the extent practicable, pipe deliveries will be avoided during the January to May time frame. In the unlikely event the Canal is closed during construction, the pipe haul barges will transit around Cape Cod following the Boston TSS and all measures for the SRVs when transiting to the Port.
(5)Construction and support vessels will transit at 10 knots or less in the following seasons and areas, which correspond to times and areas in NMFS' proposed rule (71 FR 36299, June 26,2006) to implement speed restrictions to reduce the likelihood and severity of ship strikes of right whales: • Southeast U.S. Seasonal Management Area
(SMA)from November 15 through April 15, which is bounded by the shoreline, 31° 27′ N. (i.e., the northern edge of the Mandatory Ship Reporting System
(MSRS)boundary) to the north, 29° 45′ N. to the south, and 80° 51.6′ W. (i.e., the eastern edge of the MSRS boundary); • Mid-Atlantic SMAs from November 1 through April 30, which encompass the waters within a 30 nm (55.6 km) area with an epicenter at the midpoint of the COLREG demarcation line crossing the entry into the following designated ports or bays:
(a)Ports of New York/New Jersey;
(b)Delaware Bay (Ports of Philadelphia and Wilmington);
(c)Entrance to the Chesapeake Bay (Ports of Hampton Roads and Baltimore)
(d)Ports of Morehead City and Beaufort, North Carolina;
(e)Port of Wilmington, North Carolina;
(f)Port of Georgetown, South Carolina;
(g)Port of Charleston, South Carolina; and
(h)Port of Savannah, Georgia; • CCB SMA from January 1 through May 15, which includes all waters in CCB, extending to all shorelines of the Bay, with a northern boundary of 42° 12′ N.; • Off Race Point SMA year round, which is bounded by straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the order stated: 42° 30′ N. 70° 30′ W. 42° 30′ N. 69° 45′ W. 41° 40′ N. 69° 45′ W. 41° 40′ N. 69° 57′ W. 42° 04.8′ N. 70° 10′ W. 42° 12′ N. 70° 15′ W. 42° 12′ N. 70° 30′ W. 42° 30′ N. 70° 30′ W.; and • Great South Channel SMA from April 1 through July 31, which is bounded by straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the order stated: 42° 30′ N. 69° 45′ W. 42° 30′ N. 67° 27′ W. 42° 09′ N. 67° 08.4′ W. 41° 00′ N. 69° 05′ W. 41° 40′ N. 69° 45′ W. 42° 30′ N. 69° 45′ W. PAM Program In addition to visual monitoring, Neptune will utilize a PAM system to aid in the monitoring and detection of vocalizing marine mammals in the project area. Neptune has engaged personnel from NMFS and the SBNMS regarding available passive acoustic technology that could be used to enhance the PAM program. The PAM system will be capable of detecting, localizing (range and bearing), and classifying marine mammals in near real-time. When combined with an action and communication plan, Neptune will have the capability to make timely decisions and undertake steps to minimize the potential for collisions between marine mammals and construction vessels. The PAM system for the Neptune project involves the installation of an array of auto-detection monitoring buoys moored at regular intervals in a circle surrounding the site of the terminal and associated pipeline construction. Buoys will be arranged to maximize auto detection and provide localization capability. With the existing technology, this would require six buoys moored every 5 nm (9.3 km) to provide some overlap in coverage. The buoys are designed to monitor the sound output from construction activities to ensure predicted levels are not exceeded and to detect the presence of vocally active marine mammals. Passive acoustic devices will be actively monitored for detections by a NMFS-approved bioacoustic technician. Other Measures Mesh grates will be used during flooding and hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and flowlines to minimize impingement and entrainment of marine mammals. Operations involving excessively noisy equipment will “ramp-up” sound sources, as long as this does not jeopardize the safety of vessels or construction workers, allowing whales a chance to leave the area before sounds reach maximum levels. Contractors will be required to utilize vessel-quieting technologies that minimize sound. Contractors will be required to maintain individual Spill Prevention, Control, and Containment Plans in place for construction vessels during construction. An environmental coordinator with experience coordinating projects to monitor and minimize impacts to marine mammals will be onsite to coordinate all issues concerning marine protected species, following all of the latest real-time marine mammal movements. The coordinator will work to ensure that environmental standards are adhered to and adverse interactions between project equipment and marine mammals do not occur. Reporting During construction, weekly status reports will be provided to NMFS utilizing standardized reporting forms. In addition, the Neptune Port Project area is within the Mandatory Ship Reporting Area (MSRA), so all construction and support vessels will report their activities to the mandatory reporting section of the USCG to remain apprised of North Atlantic right whale movements within the area. All vessels entering and exiting the MSRA will report their activities to WHALESNORTH. During all phases of project construction, sightings of any injured or dead marine mammals will be reported immediately to the USCG and NMFS, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by project activities. Any right whale sightings will be reported to the NMFS Sighting Advisory System. Sightings of injured or dead marine mammals not associated with project activities can be reported to the USCG on VHF Channel 16 or to NMFS Stranding and Entanglement Hotline. In addition, if the injury or death was caused by a project vessel (e.g., SRV, support vessel, or construction vessel), USCG must be notified immediately, and a full report must be provided to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office. The report must include the following information:
(1)the time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(2)the name and type of vessel involved;
(3)the vessel's speed during the incident;
(4)a description of the incident;
(5)water depth;
(6)environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(7)the species identification or description of the animal; and
(8)the fate of the animal. An annual report on marine mammal monitoring and mitigation will be submitted to NMFS Office of Protected Resources and NMFS Northeast Regional Office within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA. The weekly reports and the annual report must include data collected for each distinct marine mammal species observed in the project area in Massachusetts Bay during the period of Port construction. Description of marine mammal behavior, overall numbers of individuals observed, frequency of observation, and any behavioral changes and the context of the changes relative to construction activities shall also be included in the annual report. Additional information that will be recorded during construction and contained in the reports include: date and time of marine mammal detections (visually or acoustically), weather conditions, species identification, approximate distance from the source, activity of the vessel or at the construction site when a marine mammal is sighted, and whether or not thrusters were in use and how many at the time of the sighting. ESA On January 12, 2007, NMFS concluded consultation with MARAD and the USCG under section 7 of the ESA on the proposed construction and operation of the Neptune LNG facility. The finding of that consultation was that the construction and operation of the Neptune LNG terminal adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of northern right, humpback, and fin whales, and is not likely to adversely affect sperm, sei, or blue whales and Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, green, or leatherback sea turtles. Because the issuance of an IHA to Neptune under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA is a Federal action, NMFS also conducted a section 7 consultation, and it was determined that issuance of the IHA will not have effects on listed species beyond what was previously analyzed. National Environmental Policy Act MARAD and the USCG released a Final EIS for the proposed Neptune LNG Deepwater Port. A notice of availability was published by MARAD on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 64606). The Final EIS provides detailed information on the proposed project facilities, construction methods, and analysis of potential impacts on marine mammals. The Final EIS is incorporated as part of the MMPA record of decision
(ROD)for this action. NMFS was a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Draft and Final EISs based on a Memorandum of Understanding related to the Licensing of Deepwater Ports entered into by the U.S. Department of Commerce along with 10 other government agencies. NMFS has adopted the USCG and MARAD FEIS and issued a separate ROD for issuance of the IHA. Determinations NMFS has determined that the impact of construction of the Neptune Port Project may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior of TM all numbers of certain species of marine mammals that may be in close proximity to the Neptune LNG facility and associated pipeline during its construction. These activities are expected to result in some local short-term displacement, resulting in no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or stock for subsistence use does not apply for this action. These determinations are supported by measures described earlier in this document under “Marine Mammal Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting” and MARAD's ROD (and NMFS' Biological Opinion on this action). As a result of the described mitigation measures, no take by injury or death is requested, anticipated, or authorized, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very unlikely due to the relatively low noise levels (and consequently TM all ZOI). The likelihood of such effects will be avoided through the incorporation of the shut-down mitigation measures mentioned in this document. While the number of marine mammals that may be harassed will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the Port construction, the estimated number of marine mammals to be harassed is small relative to overall population sizes. Authorization As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to Neptune for the taking (by Level B harassment only) during construction of the Neptune Port provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: June 6, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-13264 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Notice of Meeting The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 19 June 2008, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials. Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: *http://www.cfa.gov* . Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address, or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date. Dated in Washington DC, 22 May 2008. Thomas Luebke, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13062 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6330-01-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0065] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Overtime AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning overtime. The clearance currently expires on August 31, 2008. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ernest Woodson, Contract Policy Division, GSA
(202)501-3775. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose Federal solicitations normally do not specify delivery schedules that will require overtime at the Government's expense. However, when overtime is required under a contract and it exceeds the dollar ceiling established during negotiations, the contractor must request approval from the contracting officer for overtime. With the request, the contractor must provide information regarding the need for overtime. B. Annual Reporting Burden *Respondents:* 1,270. *Responses Per Respondent:* 1. *Total Responses:* 1,270. *Hours Per Response:* .25. *Total Burden Hours:* 318. *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VPR), Room 4041, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone
(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0065, Overtime, in all correspondence. Dated: May 30, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E8-13153 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel AGENCY: Department of Defense, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs). ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended), the Department of Defense
(DoD)announces a meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel (hereafter referred to as the Panel). DATES: July 24, 2008 (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.) ADDRESSES: Naval Heritage Center Theater, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt Col Thomas Bacon, Designated Federal Officer, Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, Skyline 5, Suite 810, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3206; Telephone:
(703)681-2890; Fax:
(703)681-1940; E-mail Address: *baprequests@tma.osd.mil* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of Meeting:* The Panel will review and comment on recommendations made to the Director, TRICARE Management Activity, by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee regarding the Uniform Formulary. *Meeting Agenda:* Sign-In; Welcome and Opening Remarks; Public Citizen Comments; Scheduled Therapeutic Class Reviews—Triptans, Osteoporosis Agents, and Newly approved drugs under review; Panel Discussions and Vote, and comments following each therapeutic class review. *Meeting Accessibility:* Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and will be provided only to the first 220 people that sign in. All persons must sign in legibly. Prior to the public meeting, the Panel will conduct an Administrative Work Meeting from 7 a.m. to 7:50 a.m. to discuss administrative matters of the Panel. The Administrative Work Meeting will be held at the Naval Heritage Center Conference Room, 701, Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20004. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.160, the Administrative Work Meeting will be closed to the public. *Written Statements:* Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Panel at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Panel's Designated Federal Officer; the Designated Federal Officer's contact information can be obtained from the General Services Administration's Federal Advisory Committee Act Database— *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp* . Written statements that do not pertain to the scheduled meeting of the Panel may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five
(5)business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members. *Public Comments:* In addition to written statements, the Panel will set aside one
(1)hour for individual or interested groups to address the Panel. To ensure consideration of their comments, individuals and interested groups should submit written statements as outlined in this notice; but if they still want to address the Panel, then they will be afforded the opportunity to register to address the Panel. The Panel's Designated Federal Officer will have a “Sign Up Roster” available at the Panel meeting, for registration on a first-come, first-serve basis. Those wishing to address the Panel will be given no more than five
(5)minutes to present their comments, and at the end of the one
(1)hour time period no further public comments will be accepted. Anyone who signs up to address the Panel but is unable to do so due to the time limitation, may submit their comments in writing; however, they must understand that their written comments may not be reviewed prior to the Panel's deliberation. Accordingly, the Panel recommends that individuals and interested groups consider submitting written statements instead of addressing the Panel. Dated: May 5, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-13230 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [DOD-2008-OS-0070] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Defense Information Systems Agency, DoD. ACTION: Notice to add a system of records. SUMMARY: The Defense Information Systems Agency proposes to add a system of records notice to its existing inventory of records 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 14, 2008 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Defense Information Systems Agency, Code S1 32, P.O. Box 4502, Arlington, VA 22204-4502. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jeanette M. Weathers-Jenkins at
(703)681-2103. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Information Systems Agency 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 reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a (r), of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on June 2, 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: June 5, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. K890.11 System Name: Manage to Pay
(M2P)Files. System location: Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), ATTN: CFE7, P.O. Box 4502, Arlington, VA 22204-4502. Categories of individuals covered by the system: DISA civilian employees. Categories of records in the system: Individual's name, Social Security Number (SSN), Grade, Pay cost, Location code (Org), Program element code (PE), Object class code (EEIC), Gross reconciliation code (GRC), Hours, Document number, and Emergency or Special Pay Code (ESP). Authority for maintenance of the system: 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense; DoD Directive 5105.19, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA); and E.O. 9397 (SSN). Purpose(s): To assist DISA officials and employees in the management, supervision, and administration of the decentralized payroll system. 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: The “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of the DISA'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: Electronic media. Retrieveability: Individual's name and/or organization and program element code. Safeguards: Guards secure buildings during non-duty hours. Management personnel, who are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the records, control access to the records. Use of the information is restricted to those who require the records in the performance of their official duties and with a need-to-know. Access to personnel information is further restricted by the use Common Access Card
(CAC)authorization. Retention and disposal: Records are continuously updated. Obsolete computer records are erased or overwritten. System manager(s) and address: System manager, CFE7, Defense Information Systems Agency, P.O. Box 4520, Arlington, VA 22204-4502. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to System Manager, CFE7, Defense Information Systems Agency, P.O. Box 4520, Arlington, VA 22204-4502. The individual should refer to the office where he/she is/was assigned or affiliated. Include address and telephone number applicable to the period during which the record was maintained. Social Security Number
(SSN)will be used for positive identification. Records access procedure: Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to System Manager, CFE7, Defense Information Systems Agency, P.O. Box 4520, Arlington, VA 22204-4502. The individual should refer to the office where he/she is/was assigned or affiliated and include address and telephone number applicable to the period during which the record was maintained. Social Security Number
(SSN)will be used for positive identification. Contesting record procedures: DISA's rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DISA Instruction 210-225-2 at 32 CFR part 316 or may be obtained from the system manager. Record source categories: Employee, DISA Accounting system, DISA payroll database records. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. [FR Doc. E8-13228 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [USAF-2008-0011] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DOD. ACTION: Notice to Add a System of Records. SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force is proposing to add a system of records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: The changes will be effective on July 14, 2008, unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCISI, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Novella Hill at
(703)696-6518. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force notices for systems of records 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 systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, will be submitted on June 4, 2008, to the House Committee on Government Oversight and 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: June 5, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. F024 AF USTRANSCOM B DoD System name: DOD Transportation Repository Records. System location: Defense Enterprise Computing Center, 5450 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg PA 17055-0975. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Military personnel, dependents, medical patients/evacuees, and DOD civilians. Individuals traveling in the Defense Transportation System. Categories of records in the system: Individual's name, personal identifier (i.e. Social Security Number (SSN)), rank, unit identification code (UIC), Service affiliation and blood type. Blood type is used for compiling aggregate numbers of passengers with a specific blood type to facilitate adequate supplies of blood in the event of an emergency (e.g., a passenger plane crashes). Authority for maintenance of the system: 10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense; 10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; 10 U.S.C. 5013, Secretary of the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force; DoD Regulation 4500.9E, Transportation and Traffic Management; and E.O. 9397 (SSN). Purposes: To track DOD cargo and personnel moving within the Defense Transportation System
(DTS)both in time of peace and war. DTS is DOD transportation infrastructure which supports Department of Defense common-user transportation needs across the range of military operations. 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: Routine Uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: The Department of Defense ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the Air Force'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: Electronic storage media. Retrievability: Individual's name, SSN, and blood type. Safeguards: Access is restricted by password. Data located in restricted access-controlled facilities. Common Access Card
(CAC)log-on/authentication will be implemented into IGC from the program standup. Log-in accounts will be validated on a regular basis to insure minimal risk of compromised accounts. Retention and disposal: Retention of records in an active status is for five years. After five years, data is archived to magnetic tape and then stored an additional year; the tapes are then destroyed by burning. System Manager and address: Data Owner and Policy Official: United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), ATTN: TCJ5/4-PT, 508 Scott Drive, Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357. Data Processor: Defense Logistics Agency (Integrated Data Environment/Global Transportation Network Convergence (IGC)) Program Manager, J-626, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCISI, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800. Individuals should provide full name and Social Security Number (SSN). Record access procedure: An individual seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCISI, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800. Individuals should provide full name and Social Security Number (SSN). Contesting record procedures: The Air Force rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents or appealing initial agency determinations are published in Air Force Instruction 33-332; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be obtained from the system manager. Record source categories: Automated feeder systems of service members' affiliation. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. [FR Doc. E8-13227 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS)for Use of Pinecastle Training Range, Florida AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969, and the regulations implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy
(DON)announces its intent to prepare a SEIS on the use of Pinecastle Training Range in Florida. The SEIS supplements the FEIS for “Renewal of Authorization to Use Pinecastle Range, Ocala National Forest, Florida” dated January 2002. The Record of Decision for the FEIS for “Renewal of Authorization to Use Pinecastle Range, Ocala National Forest, Florida” was dated March 29, 2002 and published in the **Federal Register** on April 10, 2002 (67 FR 17418). Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.9, a SEIS is being prepared for the limited purpose of supplementing the 2002 FEIS to analyze new information regarding Range Compatibility Zones
(RCZs)and to assess the effectiveness of existing mitigation measures to determine if any additional mitigation measures or a modification to the governing range Operating Plan are warranted. After completion of the 2002 FEIS, a new safety modeling program was adopted by the Navy. This new modeling program, SAFERANGE, when applied to current training operations, indicates that the Range Compatibility Zones, formerly referred to as Range Safety Zones, are larger than previously modeled. Impacts associated with this significant new information are the focus of the SEIS. The new RCZs could affect the following counties in Florida: Marion, Lake, Volusia, and Putnam. The SEIS will analyze the environmental effects resulting from the revised RCZs and the effectiveness of existing mitigation measures to determine if additional actions or modifications to the range Operating Plan are necessary to maintain public safety and ensure range sustainability. The SEIS will also evaluate past, present and reasonably foreseeable future land use proposals and forestry actions from a cumulative impacts perspective. The SEIS will not propose any changes to the Fleet's Training and Readiness Program. The targets, ordnance, method of delivery (air-to-ground), and volume of munitions utilized at Pinecastle for military training are not changing, and, therefore, will not be re-analyzed in the SEIS. The Navy is also initiating a public scoping period for the SEIS with this announcement. Public input is requested to ensure the scope of the SEIS analysis incorporates public concerns and affords the public an input in the decision-making process. *Dates and Addresses:* The Navy must receive scoping comments within 30 days of June 12, 2008. Comments may be submitted by mail or electronically through the project Web site at *www.pinecastleseis.com.* Mail scoping comments to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast, Attention: Mr. Richard Davis (Code EV21), 2155 Eagle Drive, North Charleston, SC 29406. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Davis, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast (Code EV21), 2155 Eagle Drive, North Charleston, SC, 29406 or telephone: 843-820-5589, facsimile: 843-820-7465. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Navy is initiating the scoping process to identify community concerns and local issues to be addressed in the SEIS. Federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, and interested persons are encouraged to provide comments to the Navy to identify specific issues or topics of environmental concern that should be addressed in the SEIS. Written comments must be postmarked within thirty days from the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Notices announcing the intent to prepare a SEIS will also appear in local newspapers. Dated: June 4, 2008. T.M. Cruz, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13284 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 11, 2008. 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. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: June 6, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Consolidated State Performance Report (Part I and Part II). *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 53. *Burden Hours:* 29,707. *Abstract:* The Consolidated State Performance Report
(CSPR)is the required annual reporting tool for each State, Bureau of Indian Education, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as authorized under Section 9303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). *Additional Information:* *Focused Question for Public Comment:* ED *Facts* Data Linkages for Prepopulation of CSPR. The SY 2006-07 CSPR contained questions that were “Initially Pre-populated from ED *Facts* .” The “ *Initial Prepopulation* ” strategy allowed CSPR coordinators the flexibility to use either the data submitted through ED *Facts* or an alternative data source to respond to questions on the CSPR. An unintended consequence of this strategy was that states could provide the Department two different answers to the same question, one answer provided through ED *Facts* and a different response submitted by the state's CSPR coordinator. It is ED's intention and desire to move as many of those questions, which were “Initially prepopulated” in 2006-07 to full utilization of ED *Facts* Submissions for 2007-08. As a result, CSPR coordinators will only be able to amend responses to their state's CSPR by working with their ED *Facts* coordinator to resubmit a file through ED *Facts* . The Department plans to move cautiously towards this new strategy by carefully reviewing each state's Ed *Facts* transition agreement to ensure that all states will continue to have the capacity to submit their CSPR to the Department in a timely manner and with complete and accurate information. Since the Transition Agreements covering data on the 2007-08 school year have not been finalized, the Department has not had the opportunity to determine which questions on the 2007-08 CSPR will be exclusively pre-populated by data submitted through ED *Facts* . In order to not delay the publication of the SY 2007-08 CSPR for public comment, we have set questions, which were initially prepopulated in 2006-07 back to “Manual Entry” for this 2007-08 CSPR package. The Department is soliciting public comment from the states on the viability of moving any or all of the following questions, which were initially pre-populated in 2006-07 to exclusive pre-population for 2007-08 or 2008-09. Questions on the 2007-08 CSPR which were “Initially Prepopulated from ED *Facts* ” in 2006-07 are listed below: Question No. Descriptor 1.3.1 Student Achievement in Mathematics. 1.3.2 Student Achievement in Reading Language Arts. 1.4.3 Accountability of Districts That Received Title I Funds. 1.4.9.1.2 Public School Choice—Students. 1.4.9.1.3 Funds Spent on Public School Choice. 1.4.9.2.2 Supplemental Educational Services—Students. 1.4.9.2.3 Funds Spent on Supplemental Educational Services. 1.6.5.1 Immigrant Students. 1.8.1 Graduation Rates. 1.9.2.1 Homeless Children and Youths Served by McKinney-Vento Subgrants. 1.9.2.2 Subpopulations of Homeless Students Served. 1.9.2.5.1 Reading Assessment. 1.9.2.5.2 Mathematics Assessment. 1.10.1 Category 1 Child Count. 1.10.2 Category 2 Child Count. 2.3.1.1 Eligible Migrant Children. 2.3.1.2 Priority for Services. 2.3.1.3 Limited English Proficient. 2.3.1.4 Children with Disabilities (IDEA). 2.3.2.1 Dropouts. 2.3.2.3.1 Reading/Language Arts Participation. 2.3.3.1.1 MEP Students Served During the Regular School Year. 2.3.3.1.2 Priority for Services—During the Regular School Year. 2.3.3.3 MEP Participation—Program Year. 2.3.4.1 Schools and Enrollment. 2.3.4.2 Schools Where MEP Funds Were Consolidated in Schoolwide Programs. 2.3.6.1.2 MEP Staff. 2.4.1.2 Students Served—Subpart 1. 2.4.1.6.1 Academic Performance in Reading—Subpart 1. 2.4.1.6.2 Academic Performance in Mathematics—Subpart 1. 2.4.2.6.1 Academic Performance in Reading—Subpart 2. 2.4.2.6.2 Academic Performance in Mathematics—Subpart 2. 2.7.2.1 State Definitions. 2.7.2.2.1 Out-of-School Suspensions for Violent Incident Without Physical Injury. 2.7.2.2.2 Out-of-School Expulsions for Violent Incident Without Physical Injury. 2.7.2.3.1 Out-of-School Suspensions for Violent Incident with Physical Injury. 2.7.2.3.2 Out-of-School Expulsions for Violent Incident with Physical Injury. 2.7.2.4.1 Out-of-School Suspensions for Weapons Possession. 2.7.2.4.2 Out-of-School Expulsions for Weapons Possession. 2.7.2.5.1 Out-of-School Suspensions for Alcohol-Related Incidents. 2.7.2.5.2 Out-of-School Expulsions for Alcohol-Related Incidents. 2.7.2.6.1 Out-of-School Suspensions for Illicit Drug-Related Incidents. 2.7.2.6.2 Out-of-School Expulsions for Illicit Drug-Related Incidents. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3718. 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. E8-13195 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Correction Notice. SUMMARY: On June 5, 2008, the Department of Education published a comment period notice in the **Federal Register** (Page 32004, Column 1) for the information collection, “National Assessment of Educational Progress 2008-2010 Operational and Pilot Surveys System Clearance—2009 Wave 1.” The title is hereby corrected to “National Assessment of Educational Progress 2008-2010 Operational and Pilot Surveys System Clearance—2009 Wave 2.” The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Dated: June 6, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. [FR Doc. E8-13196 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Overview Information; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs)—Classification and Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Interventions; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.133A-5. Dates: *Applications Available:* June 12, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 1, 2008. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* June 27, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the DRRP program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: Research, training, demonstration, development, dissemination, and technical assistance. An applicant for assistance under this program must demonstrate in its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR 350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant may take to meet this requirement are found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional information on the DRRP program can be found at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP.* *Priorities:* NIDRR has established two priorities for this competition. The *General DRRP Requirements* priority is from the notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25472). The *Classification and Measurement* *of Medical Rehabilitation Interventions* priority is from the notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132). Note: On February 1, 2008, we also published a notice in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 6162) inviting applications for a number of competitions, including one using the *Classification and Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Interventions* priority. None of the applications we received for the *Classification and Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Interventions* competition announced in this notice was successful. Accordingly, through this notice, we are inviting applications for another competition using the *Classification and Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Interventions* priority. *Absolute Priorities:* For FY 2008, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105I(3) we consider only applications that meet these priorities. These priorities are: *General Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
(DRRP)Requirements* and *Classification and Measurement of Medical Rehabilitation Interventions.* *Program Authority:* 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a). *Applicable Regulations:*
(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, and 97.
(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 350.
(c)The notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25472).
(d)The notice of final priority and definitions for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132, 6140). Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education
(IHEs)only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $350,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $325,000-$350,000. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $350,000 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** . Note: The maximum amount includes direct and indirect costs. *Estimated 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:* States; public or private agencies, including for-profit agencies; public or private organizations, including for-profit organizations; IHEs; and Indian tribes and tribal organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* Cost sharing is required by 34 CFR 350.62(a)(3)(i), will be negotiated at the time of the grant award. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html* . To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: Education Publications Center, 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 from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.133A-5. 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. We recommend that you limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 75 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. Single spacing may be used for 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 recommended 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 recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). The application package will provide instructions for completing all components to be included in the application. Each application must include a cover sheet (Standard Form 424); budget requirements (ED Form 524) and narrative justification; other required forms; an abstract, Human Subjects narrative, Part III narrative; resumes of staff; and other related materials, if applicable. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* June 12, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 1, 2008. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* Interested parties are invited to participate in a pre-application meeting and to receive information and technical assistance through individual consultation with NIDRR staff. The pre-application meeting will be held on June 27, 2008. Interested parties may participate in this meeting by conference call with NIDRR staff from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., Washington, DC time. NIDRR staff also will be available from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the same day, by telephone, to provide information and technical assistance through individual consultation. For further information or to make arrangements to participate in the meeting via conference call or for an individual consultation, contact Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), room 6029, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov* . Applications for grants under this program 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. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 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 Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects competition, CFDA number 84.133A-5, 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 Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects competition—CFDA number 84.133A-5 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 84.133, not 84.133A-5). 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 4:30:00 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 4:30:00 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 4:30:00 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 4:30:00 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 4:30:00 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 4:30:00 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 84.133A-5) 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 84.133A-5) 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 84.133A-5) 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 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 350.54 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* Additional factors we consider in determining the merits of an application are as follows— The Secretary is interested in outcomes-oriented research or development projects that use rigorous scientific methodologies. To address this interest, applicants are encouraged to articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research or development activities. Proposals should describe how results and planned outputs are expected to contribute to advances in knowledge, improvements in policy and practice, and public benefits for individuals with disabilities. Applicants should propose projects that are designed to be consistent with these goals. We encourage applicants to include in their application a description of how results will measure progress towards achievement of anticipated outcomes (including a discussion of measures of effectiveness), the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support new intervention approaches and strategies. Submission of the information identified in this section V. 2. *Review and Selection Process* is voluntary, except where required by the selection criteria 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 Notification (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* . Note: NIDRR will provide information by letter to grantees on how and when to submit the final performance report. 4. *Performance Measures:* NIDRR assesses the quality of its funded projects through review of grantee performance and products. Each year, NIDRR examines a portion of its grantees to determine: • The percentage of newly-awarded NIDRR projects that are multi-site, collaborative, controlled studies of interventions and programs. • The number of accomplishments ( *e.g.* , new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices) developed or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field. • The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals. • The percentage of new grants that include studies funded by NIDRR that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous methods. NIDRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their annual performance reports
(APRs)in support of these performance measures. Updates on the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA)indicators, revisions, and methods appear on the NIDRR Program Review Web site: *http://www.neweditions.net/pr/commonfiles/pmconcepts.htm* . Grantees should consult this site on a regular basis to obtain details and explanations on how NIDRR programs contribute to the advancement of the Department's long-term and annual performance goals. VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6029, PCP, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov* . 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: June 9, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-13258 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Overview Information; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs)—Technology Access in Resource-Limited Environments; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008; Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.133A-9 Dates: Applications Available: June 12, 2008. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 1, 2008. Date of Pre-Application Meeting: June 27, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the DRRP program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: Research, training, demonstration, development, dissemination, and technical assistance. An applicant for assistance under this program must demonstrate in its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR 350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant may take to meet this requirement are found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional information on the DRRP program can be found at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP.* *Priorities:* NIDRR has established two priorities for this competition. The *General DRRP Requirements* priority is from the notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25472). The *Technology Access in Resource-Limited Environments* priority is from the notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132). Note: On February 1, 2008, we also published a notice in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 6162) inviting applications for a number of competitions, including one using the *Technology Access in Resource-Limited Environments* priority. None of the applications we received for the *Technology Access in Resource-Limited Environments* competition announced in that notice were successful. Accordingly, through this notice, we are inviting applications for another competition using the *Technology Access in Resource-Limited Environments* priority. *Absolute Priorities:* For FY 2008, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet these priorities. These priorities are: *General Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
(DRRP)Requirements* and *Technology Access in Resource-Limited Environments.* *Program Authority:* 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a). *Applicable Regulations:*
(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, and 97.
(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 350.
(c)The notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25472).
(d)The notice of final priority and definitions for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132, 6141). Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education
(IHEs)only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $950,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $948,999-$950,000. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $950,000 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** . Note: The maximum amount includes direct and indirect costs. *Estimated 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:* States; public or private agencies, including for-profit agencies; public or private organizations, including for-profit organizations; IHEs; and Indian tribes and tribal organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* Cost sharing is required by 34 CFR 350.62(a)(3)(i) and will be negotiated at the time of the grant award. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html.* To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: Education Publications Center, 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 from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.133A-9. 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. We recommend that you limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 125 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. Single spacing may be used for 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 recommended 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 recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). The application package will provide instructions for completing all components to be included in the application. Each application must include a cover sheet (Standard Form 424); budget requirements (ED Form 524) and narrative justification; other required forms; an abstract, Human Subjects narrative, Part III narrative; resumes of staff; and other related materials, if applicable. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* Applications Available: June 12, 2008. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 1, 2008. Date of Pre-Application Meeting: Interested parties are invited to participate in a pre-application meeting and to receive information and technical assistance through individual consultation with NIDRR staff. The pre-application meeting will be held on June 27, 2008. Interested parties may participate in this meeting by conference call with NIDRR staff from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., Washington, DC time. NIDRR staff also will be available from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the same day, by telephone, to provide information and technical assistance through individual consultation. For further information or to make arrangements to participate in the meeting via conference call or for an individual consultation, contact Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), room 6029, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov.* Applications for grants under this program 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. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 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 Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects competition, CFDA number 84.133A-9, 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 Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects competition—CFDA number 84.133A-9 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 84.133, not 84.133A-9). 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 4:30:00 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 4:30:00 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 4:30:00 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 4:30:00 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 4:30:00 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 4:30:00 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 84.133A-9), 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 84.133A-9), 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 84.133A-9), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 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 350.54 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* Additional factors we consider in determining the merits of an application are as follows— The Secretary is interested in outcomes-oriented research or development projects that use rigorous scientific methodologies. To address this interest, applicants are encouraged to articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research or development activities. Proposals should describe how results and planned outputs are expected to contribute to advances in knowledge, improvements in policy and practice, and public benefits for individuals with disabilities. Applicants should propose projects that are designed to be consistent with these goals. We encourage applicants to include in their application a description of how results will measure progress towards achievement of anticipated outcomes (including a discussion of measures of effectiveness), the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support new intervention approaches and strategies. Submission of the information identified in this section V.2. *Review and Selection Process* is voluntary, except where required by the selection criteria 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 Notification (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.* Note: NIDRR will provide information by letter to grantees on how and when to submit the final performance report. 4. *Performance Measures:* NIDRR assesses the quality of its funded projects through review of grantee performance and products. Each year, NIDRR examines a portion of its grantees to determine: • The percentage of newly-awarded NIDRR projects that are multi-site, collaborative, controlled studies of interventions and programs. • The number of accomplishments (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices) developed or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field. • The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals. • The percentage of new grants that includes studies funded by NIDRR that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous methods. NIDRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their annual performance reports in support of these performance measures. Updates on the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA)indicators, revisions, and methods appear on the NIDRR Program Review Web site: *http://www.neweditions.net/pr/commonfiles/pmconcepts.htm.* Grantees should consult this site on a regular basis to obtain details and explanations on how NIDRR programs contribute to the advancement of the Department's long-term and annual performance goals. VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6029, PCP, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov.* 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: June 9, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-13259 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Overview Information; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs)—Health Care Coordination for Individuals With Disabilities; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008; Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.133A-1 *Dates:* Applications Available: June 12, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 1, 2008. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* June 27, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the DRRP program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: Research, training, demonstration, development, dissemination, and technical assistance. An applicant for assistance under this program must demonstrate in its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR 350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant may take to meet this requirement are found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional information on the DRRP program can be found at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP* . *Priorities:* NIDRR has established two priorities for this competition. The *General DRRP Requirements* priority is from the notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25472). The *Health Care Coordination for Individuals with Disabilities* priority is from the notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132). Note: On February 1, 2008, we also published a notice in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 6162) inviting applications for a number of competitions, including one using the *Health Care Coordination for Individuals with Disabilities* priority. None of the applications we received for the *Health Care Coordination for Individuals with Disabilities* competition announced in that notice were successful. Accordingly, through this notice, we are inviting applications for another competition using the *Health Care Coordination for Individuals with Disabilities* priority. *Absolute Priorities:* For FY 2008, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet these priorities. These priorities are: *General Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects
(DRRP)Requirements* and *Health Care Coordination for Individuals with Disabilities* . *Program Authority:* 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a). *Applicable Regulations:*
(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, and 97.
(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 350.
(c)The notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25472).
(d)The notice of final priority and definitions for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132, 6139). Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education
(IHEs)only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $300,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $289,999-$300,000. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $300,000 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** . Note: The maximum amount includes direct and indirect costs. *Estimated 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:* States; public or private agencies, including for-profit agencies; public or private organizations, including for-profit organizations; IHEs; and Indian tribes and tribal organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* Cost sharing is required by 34 CFR 350.62(a)(3)(i) and will be negotiated at the time of the grant award. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html* . To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: Education Publications Center, 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 from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.133A-1. 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. We recommend that you limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 75 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. Single spacing may be used for 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 recommended 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 recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). The application package will provide instructions for completing all components to be included in the application. Each application must include a cover sheet (Standard Form 424); budget requirements (ED Form 524) and narrative justification; other required forms; an abstract, Human Subjects narrative, Part III narrative; resumes of staff; and other related materials, if applicable. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* June 12, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 1, 2008. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* Interested parties are invited to participate in a pre-application meeting and to receive information and technical assistance through individual consultation with NIDRR staff. The pre-application meeting will be held on June 27, 2008. Interested parties may participate in this meeting by conference call with NIDRR staff from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m., Washington, DC time. NIDRR staff also will be available from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the same day, by telephone, to provide information and technical assistance through individual consultation. For further information or to make arrangements to participate in the meeting via conference call or for an individual consultation, contact Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), room 6029, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov* . Applications for grants under this program 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. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 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 Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects competition, CFDA number 84.133A-1, 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 Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects competition—CFDA number 84.133A-1 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 84.133, not 84.133A-1). 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 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 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 84.133A-1), 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 84.133A-1), 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 84.133A-1), 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 350.54 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* Additional factors we consider in determining the merits of an application are as follows— The Secretary is interested in outcomes-oriented research or development projects that use rigorous scientific methodologies. To address this interest, applicants are encouraged to articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research or development activities. Proposals should describe how results and planned outputs are expected to contribute to advances in knowledge, improvements in policy and practice, and public benefits for individuals with disabilities. Applicants should propose projects that are designed to be consistent with these goals. We encourage applicants to include in their application a description of how results will measure progress towards achievement of anticipated outcomes (including a discussion of measures of effectiveness), the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support new intervention approaches and strategies. Submission of the information identified in this section V. 2. *Review and Selection Process* is voluntary, except where required by the selection criteria 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 Notification (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* . Note: NIDRR will provide information by letter to grantees on how and when to submit the final performance report. 4. *Performance Measures:* NIDRR assesses the quality of its funded projects through review of grantee performance and products. Each year, NIDRR examines a portion of its grantees to determine: • The percentage of newly awarded NIDRR projects that are multi-site, collaborative, controlled studies of interventions and programs. • The number of accomplishments (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices) developed or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field. • The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals. • The percentage of new grants that includes studies funded by NIDRR that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous methods. NIDRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their annual performance reports in support of these performance measures. Updates on the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA)indicators, revisions, and methods appear on the NIDRR Program Review Web site: *http://www.neweditions.net/pr/commonfiles/pmconcepts.htm.* Grantees should consult this site on a regular basis to obtain details and explanations on how NIDRR programs contribute to the advancement of the Department's long-term and annual performance goals. VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6029, PCP, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov.* 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: June 9, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-13260 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 June 6, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP99-301-209. *Applicants:* ANR Pipeline Company. *Description:* ANR Pipeline Company submits an amendment to Rate Schedule FTS-1 negotiated rate agreement with Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc. (Contract No. 113450), to be effective 6/4/08. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-398-000. *Applicants:* East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC. *Description:* East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits Fourth Revised Sheet 105 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, effective 7/5/08. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-399-000. *Applicants:* Texas Eastern Transmission LP. *Description:* Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Seventh Revised Sheet 211 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff Seventh Revised Volume 1, to be effective 7/5/08. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0008. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-400-000. *Applicants:* Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. *Description:* Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC submits Second Revised Sheet 152 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be effective 7/5/08. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-401-000. *Applicants:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. *Description:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation submits Eleventh Revised Sheet 501 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective 7/5/08. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080605-0056. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13302 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0117; A-1-FRL-8578-4] Adequacy Status of the Connecticut 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets and Out-Year Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes; Connecticut AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of adequacy. SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public that EPA has found that the 2008, 2009 and 2012 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the February 1, 2008 Connecticut 8-hour ozone State Implementation Plan revision are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The submittal includes 2008, 2009 and 2012 motor vehicle emission budgets for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (Southwest Connecticut) and the Greater Connecticut 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. As a result of our finding, Connecticut must use these motor vehicle emission budgets for future conformity determinations. DATES: This finding is effective June 27, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald O. Cooke, Environmental Scientist, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023,
(617)918-1668, *cooke.donald@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Today's action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA New England sent a letter to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on June 2, 2008, stating that the 2008, 2009 and 2012 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (Southwest Connecticut) and the Greater Connecticut 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are adequate. Connecticut submitted the budgets on February 1, 2008, as part of the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration and reasonable further progress plan for Southwest and Greater Connecticut. This submittal was announced on EPA's conformity Web site, and received no comments. (See *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm* . Once there, click on “What SIP submissions are currently under EPA adequacy review?”) The 2008, 2009, and 2012 MVEBs, in tons per summer day (tpsd), for volatile organic compounds
(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) for Southwest and Greater Connecticut, are as follows: 2008, 2009 and 2012 Adequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Year Connecticut portion of the New York- Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (Southwest CT) Area VOC
(tpsd)NO <sup>X</sup>
(tpsd)Greater Connecticut area VOC
(tpsd)NO <sup>X</sup>
(tpsd)Year 2008 29.7 60.5 28.5 54.3 Year 2009 27.4 54.6 26.3 49.2 Year 2012 20.6 38.2 19.8 34.8 Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, preamble starting at 69 FR 40038, and we used the information in these resources while making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Dated: June 4, 2008. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. E8-13224 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0520, EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0585; FRL-8578-6] Adequacy Status of the Indiana and Ohio Portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana, Submitted 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for Transportation Conformity Purposes AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of adequacy. SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for volatile organic compounds
(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) in the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana area are adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations. Ohio submitted the Cincinnati-Hamilton budgets with an 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration on April 22, 2008. As a result of our finding, the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana area must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration for future transportation conformity determinations. DATES: This finding is effective June 27, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)353-8777, *Maietta.anthony@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we”, “us” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Background Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. On May 6, 2008, EPA Region 5 sent a letter to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency stating that the 2008 MVEBs for the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indian area, which were submitted with the state's 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration, are adequate. Receipt of these MVEBs was announced on EPA's transportation conformity Web site, and no comments were submitted. The finding is available at EPA's conformity Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm* . The adequate 2008 MVEBs, in tons per day (tpd), for VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> for the Indiana and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana area are as follows: 2008 MVEB
(tpd)VOC 46.00 NO <sup>X</sup> 91.36 Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do conform. Conformity to a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, preamble starting at 69 FR 40038, and we used the information in these resources while making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved. The finding and the response to comments are available at EPA's transportation conformity Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm* . Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Dated: June 3, 2008. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E8-13225 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8578-9] Gulf of Mexico Program Management Committee Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), EPA gives notice of a meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Program
(GMP)Management Committee (MC). For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Gloria Car, U.S. EPA, at
(228)688-2421 or *car.gloria@epa.gov* . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Gloria Car, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 8, 2008, from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, July 9, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 315 Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70130,
(504)525-1993. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria D. Car, Designated Federal Officer, Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Mail Code EPA/GMPO, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000 at
(228)688-2421. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed agenda topics include: Gulf of Mexico Alliance Update & Development of *Governors' Action Plan II* ; Upcoming Alliance Implementation Workshop; Coastal America Designation of Aquarium of the Americas; Gulf Business and Industry Initiatives; Binational Harmful Algal Bloom Pilot Update; NASA Remote Sensing Initiatives; MS River Monitoring Efforts; USGS Nutrient Loading Modeling Efforts; Gulf Regional Sediment Management Plan Update; Hypoxia Update. The meeting is open to the public. Dated: June 5, 2008. Gloria D. Car, Designated Federal Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13231 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Meeting; Sunshine Act Agency Holding the Meeting: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Date and Time: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 9 a.m. Eastern Time. Place: Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 1801 “L” Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. Status: The meeting will be open to the public. Matters to be Considered: Open Session 1. Announcement of Notation Votes; 2. Modified Strategic Plan for FY 2007-2012; 3. Systemic Program Update; and 4. State and Local Program Update. Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the **Federal Register** , the Commission also provides a recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission sessions.) Please telephone
(202)663-7100 (voice) and
(202)663-4074
(TTY)at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above. Contact Person for More Information: Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer on
(202)663-4070. This Notice Issued: June 9, 2008. Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat. [FR Doc. E8-13233 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [WC Docket No. 07-21; DA 08-1361] Comment Sought on Request of Verizon and Qwest to Extend Forbearance Relief From Cost Assignment Rules AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice; comments requested. SUMMARY: On April 24, 2008, the Commission conditionally granted AT&T's and BellSouth's (collectively AT&T) petitions for forbearance. On May 23, 2008, Verizon, on behalf of itself and Qwest, requested that the Commission grant the same forbearance to Verizon and Qwest. This document seeks comment on the issues raised in the Verizon/Qwest Request. DATES: Submit comments on or before June 26, 2008. Submit reply comments on or before July 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 07-21, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Agency Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS)/ *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* • *E-mail:* to *christi.shewman@fcc.gov.* Include WC Docket 07-21 in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* To the attention of Christi Shewman at 202-418-1587. Include WC Docket 07-21 on the cover page. • *Mail:* All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties should also send a copy of their filings to Christi Shewman, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. —The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. —All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. —Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. —Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/,* including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Comment Filing Procedures” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Shewman, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division,
(202)418-1686. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 24, 2008, the Commission conditionally granted AT&T's and BellSouth's (collectively AT&T) petitions for forbearance from 47 U.S.C. 220(a)(2) of the Act (to a limited extent) and various rules, including the following: 47 CFR 32.23 (nonregulated activities); 47 CFR 32.27 (transactions with affiliates); 47 CFR part 64, subpart I (allocation of costs); 47 CFR part 36 (jurisdictional separations procedures); 47 CFR part 69, subparts D and E (cost apportionment); and other related rules that are derivatives of, or dependent on, the foregoing rules. The Commission referred to the statutory provision and Commission rules from which AT&T sought forbearance collectively as the “Cost Assignment Rules.” The grant was expressly conditioned on, among other things, the Wireline Competition Bureau's approval of a compliance plan to be filed by AT&T describing in detail how it will continue to fulfill its statutory and regulatory obligations. On May 23, 2008, Verizon, on behalf of itself and Qwest, requested that the Commission grant the same forbearance to Verizon and Qwest. By this public notice, we seek comment on the issues raised in the Verizon/Qwest Request. Interested parties may file comments on the Verizon/Qwest Request on or before June 26, 2008 and reply comments on or before July 7, 2008. All pleadings should reference WC Docket No. 07-21. This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. *See* 47 CFR 1.1200, 1.1206. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. *See* 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written *ex parte* presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b). *Comments may be filed using:*
(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or
(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,* 63 FR 24121 (1998). • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of *before* entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554. *People with Disabilities:* To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Filings and comments are also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 160, 220. Federal Communications Commission. Marcus Maher, Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-13292 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Employee Thrift Advisory Council Time and Date: 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), June 30, 2008. Place: 2nd Floor, Training Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Status: Open. Matters to be Considered: 1. Approval of the minutes of the December 19, 2007 meeting. 2. Report of the Executive Director on Thrift Savings Plan Status. 3. Discussion Draft Legislation. 4. Other proposals. 5. New business. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas K. Emswiler, Committee Management Officer,
(202)942-1660. Dated: June 10, 2008. Thomas K. Emswiler, General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. [FR Doc. 08-1353 Filed 6-10-08; 1:59 pm]
Connectionstraces to 123
Traces to 123 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
159 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 72
  • 10 CFR 50
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 13 CFR 121
  • 68 Stat. 929
  • 83 Stat. 444
  • Pub. L. 86-373
  • 73 Stat. 688
  • 88 Stat. 1242
  • Pub. L. 95-601
  • 92 Stat. 2951
  • Pub. L. 102-486
  • 106 Stat. 3123
  • Pub. L. 91-190
  • 83 Stat. 853
  • Pub. L. 97-425
  • 96 Stat. 2229
  • Pub. L. 100-203
  • 101 Stat. 1330
  • 112 Stat. 2750
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 119 Stat. 806
  • 68 Stat. 955
  • 96 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2202
  • 98 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2252
  • 14 CFR 71
  • 17 CFR 232
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 19 CFR 10
  • 19 CFR 10.11-10
  • 361 F.3d 1378
  • 26 CFR 1
  • T.D. 9398
  • 33 CFR 165
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
+ 119 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
C.F.R.§ 72.214
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 605
C.F.R.§ 50.109
C.F.R.§ 72.62
U.S.C.§ 552
U.S.C.§ 2071
U.S.C.§ 2021
U.S.C.§ 5841
F. App'x361 F.3d 1378
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
F. App'x803 F.2d 1016
Cites 282 · 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.