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 · 2008-06-16 · United States Marshals Service, Department of Justice · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

104,243 words·~474 min read·/register/2008/06/16/08-1361

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

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 0 [Docket No. USMS 102; AG Order No. 2974-2008] RIN 1105-AB14 Revision to United States Marshals Service Fees for Services AGENCY: United States Marshals Service, Department of Justice. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule proposes to increase the fee from $45 per person per hour to $55 per person per hour for process served or executed personally by a United States Marshals Service employee, agent, or contractor. This proposed fee increase reflects the current costs to the United States Marshals Service for service of process in federal court proceedings.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments to the Office of General Counsel, United States Marshals Service, Washington, DC 20530-1000. To ensure proper handling, please reference Docket No. USMS 102 on your correspondence. Comments may also be submitted electronically to: *usmsregs@usdoj.gov* or to *http://www.regulations.gov* by using the electronic comment form provided on that site. Comments submitted electronically must include Docket No.
USMS 102 in the subject box. You may also view an electronic version of this rule at the *http://www.regulations.gov* site. Comments are also available for public inspection at the Office of General Counsel by calling
(202)307-9054 to arrange for an appointment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Lazar, Associate General Counsel, United States Marshals Service, Washington, DC 20530-1000, telephone number
(202)307-9054. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Legal Authority for the U.S. Marshals Service To Charge Fees The Attorney General must establish fees to be taxed and collected for certain services rendered by the U.S. Marshals Service in connection with federal court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. 1921(b). These services include, but are not limited to, serving writs, subpoenas, or summonses, preparing notices or bills of sale, keeping attached property, and certain necessary travel. 28 U.S.C. 1921(a). To the extent practicable, these fees shall reflect the actual and reasonable costs of the services provided. 28 U.S.C. 1921(b). The Attorney General initially established the fee schedule in 1991 based on the actual costs, e.g., salaries, overhead, etc., of the services rendered and the hours expended at that time. 56 FR 2436 (Jan. 23, 1991). Due to an increase in the salaries and benefits of U.S. Marshals Service personnel over time, the initial fee schedule was amended in 2000. 65 FR 47859 (Aug. 4, 2000). The current fee schedule is inadequate and no longer reflects the actual and reasonable costs of the services rendered. Federal Cost Accounting and Fee Setting Standards and Guidelines Being Used When developing fees for services, the U.S. Marshals Service adheres to the principles contained in Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-25 Revised (“Circular No. A-25”). Circular No. A-25 states that, as a general policy, a “user charge * * * will be assessed against each identifiable recipient for special benefits derived from Federal activities beyond those received by the general public.” *Id.* § 6. The U.S. Marshals Service follows the guidance contained in Circular No. A-25 to the extent that it is not inconsistent with any federal statute. Specific legislative authority to charge fees for services takes precedence over Circular No. A-25 when the statute “prohibits the assessment of a user charge on a service or addresses an aspect of the user charge (e.g., who pays the charge; how much is the charge; where collections are deposited).” *Id.* § 4(b). When a statute does not address issues of how to calculate fees or what costs to include in fee calculations, Circular No. A-25 instructs that its principles and guidance should be followed “to the extent permitted by law.” *Id.* According to Circular No. A-25, federal agencies should charge the full cost or the market price of providing services that provide a special benefit to identifiable recipients. *Id.* § 6. Circular No. A-25 defines full cost as including “all direct and indirect costs to any part of the Federal Government of providing a good, resource, or service. These costs include, but are not limited to, an appropriate share of”: • Direct or indirect personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits such as medical insurance and retirement; • Physical overhead, consulting, and other indirect costs including material and supply costs, utilities, insurance, travel, and rents or imputed rents on land, buildings, and equipment; • The management and supervisory costs; and • The costs of enforcement, collection, research, establishment of standards, and regulation. *Id.* § 6(d). Processes Used To Determine the Amount of the Fee Revision The Attorney General initially established the fee schedule in 1991 based on the average salaries, benefits, and overhead of the Deputy U.S. Marshals who executed process on behalf of a requesting party. The fee schedule was revised in 2000. The 2000 rates, which still currently are charged are:
(1)For process forwarded for service from one U.S Marshals Service office or suboffice to another—$8 per item forwarded;
(2)For process served by mail—$8 per item mailed;
(3)For process served or executed personally—$45 per hour (or portion thereof) for each item served by one U.S. Marshals Service employee, agent, or contractor, plus travel costs and any other out-of-pocket expenses. For each additional U.S. Marshals Service employee, agent, or contractor who is needed to serve process—$45 per person per hour for each item served, plus travel costs and any other out-of-pocket expenses.
(4)For copies at the request of any party—$.10 per page;
(5)For preparing notice of sale, bill of sale, or U.S. Marshal deed—$20 per item;
(6)For keeping and advertisement of property attached—actual expenses incurred in seizing, maintaining, and disposing of the property. In 2007, the U.S. Marshals Service conducted an analysis to determine whether, in light of the increase in salaries and expenses of its workforce over the previous seven-year time period, the existing fee schedule continued to reflect the costs of serving process. The following cost module was designed to reflect the average hourly cost of serving process in person on behalf of a requesting party. Cost module Hourly Wage $33.00 Fringe Benefits 14.18 Indirect Costs 10.28 Total Personnel Costs 57.46 The hourly wage was determined by dividing the annual salary, including locality pay, of the average Deputy U.S. Marshal in 2007 who served process into the Deputy's total work hours for the year. The cost of Law Enforcement Availability Pay also was factored into the hourly wage of an average Deputy U.S. Marshal. 1 The fringe benefits rate reflected 43 percent of wage costs. Finally, the indirect costs, which reflected the costs of administrative services, including management/supervisory compensation and benefits, depreciation, utilities, supplies, and equipment, comprised approximately 22 percent of the total wage and benefits costs. As a result of the cost module, the U.S. Marshals Service determined that the existing fee schedule no longer reflected the actual and reasonable costs of serving process. 1 The Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-329, § 633, 108 Stat. 2425
(1994)(codified at 5 U.S.C. 5545a), provides that law enforcement officers, such as Deputy U.S. Marshals, who are required to work unscheduled hours in excess of each regular work day, are entitled to a 25% premium pay in addition to their base salary. The total personnel costs of serving process were rounded to the nearest five-dollar increment. Thus, in order to recover the actual and reasonable costs of serving process, the U.S. Marshals Service is proposing to charge $55 per hour (or portion thereof) for each item served by one Deputy U.S. Marshal. This represents a 20 percent increase ($10 per hour) from the existing fee for serving process revised in 2000. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this proposed rule and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the current fee structure, the U.S. Marshals Service collected $1,610,552.72 in service of process fees in FY 2007. 2 The implementation of this proposed rule will provide the U.S. Marshals Service with an estimated additional $325,000 in revenue over the revenue that would be collected under the current fee structure. This revenue increase represents a recovery of costs based on an increase in salaries, expenses, and employee benefits over the previous seven-year period. 2 This amount does not include $534,518 in U.S. Marshal commissions collected and the recovery of out-of-pocket expenses for sales during FY 2007. This proposed rule does not affect commissions, only the fees charged for service of process. The economic impact on individual entities that utilize the services of the U.S. Marshals Service will be minimal. The service of process fees only will affect entities that pursue litigation in federal court and, in most instances, seek to have the U.S. Marshals levy upon or seize property. The service of process fees will be increased by only $10 per hour from the previous rate increase seven years ago. The fees will be consonant with similar fees already paid by these entities in state court litigation. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 1(b) (Principles of Regulation). The Department of Justice has determined that this proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and, accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13132 This proposed rule 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the Department of Justice has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 concerning civil justice reform. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This proposed rule does not contain collection of information requirements and would not be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501-20). List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Whistleblowing. Accordingly, Title 28, Part 0, Subpart T of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 0—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519. § 0.114 [Amended] 2. In § 0.114, paragraph (a)(3) is amended by removing the fee “$45” and adding the fee “$55” in its place wherever it occurs. Dated: June 5, 2008. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General. [FR Doc. E8-13437 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-04-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Part 549 [BOP-1088-P] RIN 1120-AB20 Psychiatric Evaluation and Treatment AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to revise its regulations on providing psychiatric treatment and medication to inmates. We propose these revised regulations to clarify and update the regulations in light of more recent caselaw. DATES: Comments are due by August 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Our e-mail address is *BOPRULES@BOP.GOV.* Comments should be submitted to the Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. You may view an electronic version of this regulation at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may also comment via the Internet to BOP at *BOPRULES@BOP.GOV* or by using the *www.regulations.gov* comment form for this regulation. When submitting comments electronically you must include the BOP Docket No. in the subject box. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone
(202)307-2105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau proposes to revise its regulations on providing psychiatric treatment and medication to inmates. We published a proposed regulation document on this subject in the **Federal Register** on December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74892). We now withdraw that proposed regulation document and propose these revised regulations. First, we rename the subpart “Psychiatric Evaluation and Treatment” to more accurately reflect the substance of the regulations. The previous title, “Administrative Safeguards for Psychiatric Treatment and Medication,” did not reflect the Bureau's ability to conduct psychiatric evaluations before involuntary hospitalization in a suitable facility for care and treatment. Below, we provide a section-by-section analysis of the proposed regulations. *Section 549.40 Purpose and scope.* This section states that the purpose of the subpart is to describe procedures for voluntary and involuntary psychiatric evaluation, hospitalization, care, and treatment, in a suitable facility for persons in Bureau custody. These procedures are authorized by 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313 and 18 U.S.C. 4042. Current 28 CFR 549.43 refers to Title 18 U.S.C. 4241-4247, which comprised Chapter 313. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-248) (Walsh Act), enacted on July 27, 2006, amended title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 313, to add a new section 4248, related to sexual offenders. We therefore refer now to 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313 as a whole, instead of referring to specific sections of the statute. This section also notes that this subpart applies to inmates in Bureau custody as defined by 28 CFR part 500, specifically § 500.1(c), which defines inmates as “all persons in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or Bureau contract facilities, including persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States; D.C. Code felony offenders; and persons held as witnesses, detainees, or otherwise.” *Section 549.41 Hospitalization in a suitable facility.* This section explains that, as used in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313 and this subpart, “hospitalization in a suitable facility” includes the Bureau's designation of inmates to medical referral centers or correctional institutions which provide the required care or treatment. *Section 549.42 Use of psychiatric medications.* This section describes how psychiatric medications will be used. Psychiatric medications will only be used for treatment of diagnosable mental illnesses and disorders, and their symptoms, for which such medication is accepted treatment, and that psychiatric medication will be administered only after following the applicable procedures in this subpart. This section is derived from current § 549.40. In this regulation, we clarify that psychiatric medication is to be used only for a diagnosable psychiatric disorder or symptoms for which such medication is accepted treatment. Previously, the regulation allowed medication for “symptomatic behavior.” The word “symptoms” is more accurate medical terminology. *Section 549.43 Transfer for psychiatric or psychological examination.* This section describes the Bureau's transfer authority. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Chapter 229, Subchapter C (§ 3621(b)), the Bureau is authorized to transfer inmates between facilities. Accordingly, the Bureau may transfer an inmate to a suitable facility for psychiatric or psychological examination to determine whether hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment is needed. *Section 549.44 Voluntary hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment, and voluntary administration of psychiatric medication.* This section derives from current § 549.41. In this section, we state that an inmate may be hospitalized in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment after providing informed and voluntary consent when, in the professional medical judgment of qualified health services staff, such care or treatment is required and prescribed. This section is revised to more closely conform with the language of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313. We change the words “psychiatric treatment and medication” to “psychiatric hospitalization and treatment.” We also clarify that inmates may be voluntarily admitted for psychiatric hospitalization and treatment when determined necessary by qualified health services staff. As current § 549.41 provides, this section likewise provides that an inmate may provide informed and voluntary consent to the administration of psychiatric medication which complies with the requirements of this subpart. This section also more thoroughly describes voluntary consent, explaining that the inmate's ability to provide informed and voluntary consent, both for hospitalization and for administration of psychiatric medications, will be assessed by qualified health services staff and documented in the inmate's medical record. *Section 549.45 Involuntary hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment.* This section derives from current § 549.42. Current § 549.42 describes procedures for involuntary admission of sentenced inmates, but does not describe procedures for unsentenced inmates. In this section, we state that a court determination is necessary for involuntary hospitalization or commitment of inmates pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313, who are in need of psychiatric care or treatment, but are unwilling or unable to voluntarily consent. Section 4245 in that chapter specifically provides for involuntary hospitalization by court order of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment if needed for psychiatric care or treatment. This section also describes due process procedures for involuntary hospitalization of inmates who are not subject to hospitalization under 18 U.S.C. 4245 (because not serving a sentence of imprisonment), such as alien detainees subject to an order of deportation, exclusion or removal, material witnesses, contempt of court commitments, etc. If an examiner determines pursuant to § 549.43 of this subpart that such an inmate should be hospitalized for psychiatric care or treatment, and the inmate is unwilling or unable to consent, the Bureau will provide the inmate with an administrative hearing to determine whether hospitalization for psychiatric care or treatment is warranted. The hearing will comply with the applicable procedural safeguards set forth in § 549.46(a). However, the availability of this administrative hearing procedure in appropriate cases does not limit the Bureau's ability to seek judicial hospitalization or commitment of inmates under any applicable provision of Chapter 313, such as judicial commitment of inmates, whether sentenced or unsentenced, as sexually dangerous persons under 18 U.S.C. 4248. Finally, this regulation states that, following an inmate's involuntary hospitalization for psychiatric care or treatment as provided in this subsection, psychiatric medication may be involuntarily administered only after following the additional administrative procedures provided in § 549.46 of this subpart. *Section 549.46 Procedures for involuntary administration of psychiatric medication.* This section derives from current § 549.43. Subsection
(a)states that when an inmate is unwilling or unable to provide voluntary written informed consent for recommended psychiatric medication, the inmate will be scheduled for an administrative hearing, which will provide procedural safeguards as listed in current § 549.43. These safeguards appear almost verbatim in the proposed regulation, with some exceptions: In subsection (a)(7), we remove “unable to function in the open population of a mental health referral center or a regular prison” as a separate basis to justify involuntary administration of medication. Under the proposed regulations, this reason may still justify involuntary psychiatric medication when otherwise part of an inmate's grave disability. *See,* *e.g.* , *U.S.* v. *Gonzalez-Aguilar,* 446 F.Supp. 2d 1099 (D.Ariz. 2006); *U.S.* v. *White,* 431 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2005). Also in subsection (a)(7), we delete language that allowed the psychiatrist conducting an administrative hearing to determine whether medication is necessary to make an inmate competent to stand trial. This revision stems from the Supreme Court decision in *Sell* v. *U.S.,* 539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174 (2003). Under the *Sell* decision, where involuntary treatment is considered solely for the purpose of rendering the defendant competent to stand trial, only the trial court may order involuntary medication after applying the standards set forth by the *Sell* Court. This is reflected in subsection (b). In subsection (a)(11), we state that if an inmate was afforded an administrative hearing which resulted in the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication, and the inmate subsequently consented to the administration of such medication, and then later revokes his consent, a follow-up hearing will be held before resuming the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication. All such follow-up hearings will fully comply with the procedures otherwise outlined in subsection (a). This will ensure that the inmate receives administrative process whenever psychiatric medication is given involuntarily, regardless of whether the inmate received such medication voluntarily in the past. Subsection
(b)restates exceptions found in current § 549.43(b) and
(c)to the above procedural safeguards. The Bureau may involuntarily administer psychiatric medication to inmates, without following the procedures outlined above, in psychiatric emergencies and in the case of a court order for the purpose of restoring a person's competency to stand trial. Subsection (b)(2) states that, absent a psychiatric emergency as defined in (b)(1), the involuntary medication procedures in
(a)do not apply to the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication for the sole purpose of restoring a person's competency to stand trial. Only a federal court of competent jurisdiction may order the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication for the sole purpose of restoring a person's competency to stand trial. Current § 549.43(c) states that procedures in this section do not apply to military prisoners, unsentenced Immigration and Naturalization detainees, unsentenced prisoners in Bureau custody, and District of Columbia Code offenders. We delete this language for the following reasons: First, proposed § 549.45(b) provides procedures for inmates in Bureau custody who are not otherwise subject to hospitalization pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313. We do not, therefore, need to have an exception to the procedural safeguards for unsentenced immigration detainees or other unsentenced inmates in Bureau custody. Secondly, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313 and various Federal court decisions required certain due process procedures before involuntary hospitalization or involuntary psychiatric treatment. Under former 18 U.S.C. 4247(j), these due process procedures did not apply to military prisoners or DC Code violators. However, new 10 U.S.C. 876b provides that military prisoners who are incompetent to stand trial or who have been found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility may be committed to the custody of the Attorney General and that the procedures authorized under 18 U.S.C. 4241(d), 4246, and 4243 apply. Likewise, under new 18 U.S.C. 4247(j), DC Code violators are subject to commitment procedures specified at 18 U.S.C. 4245 and 4246. Accordingly, we revise the list of exceptions in 28 CFR 549.43(c) to remove the reference to military prisoners and D.C. Code felony offenders. Executive Order 12866 This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Director has determined that this regulation is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this regulation has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13132 This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Director, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This regulation pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This regulation is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This regulation will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 549 Prisoners. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Bureau of Prisons. Under the rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we propose to amend 28 CFR part 549 as follows. PART 549—MEDICAL SERVICES 1. Revise the authority citation for 28 CFR part 549 to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. 876b; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, 3524, 4001, 4005, 4042, 4045, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), Chapter 313, 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984, as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510. 2. Revise subpart C of part 549 to read as follows: Subpart C—Psychiatric Evaluation and Treatment Sec. 549.40 Purpose and scope. 549.41 Hospitalization in a suitable facility. 549.42 Use of psychiatric medications. 549.43 Transfer for psychiatric or psychological examination. 549.44 Voluntary hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment and voluntary administration of psychiatric medication. 549.45 Involuntary hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment. 549.46 Procedures for involuntary administration of psychiatric medication. Subpart C—Psychiatric Evaluation and Treatment § 549.40 Purpose and scope.
(a)This subpart describes procedures for voluntary and involuntary psychiatric evaluation, hospitalization, care, and treatment, in a suitable facility, for persons in Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) custody. These procedures are authorized by 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313 and 18 U.S.C. 4042.
(b)This subpart applies to *inmates* in Bureau custody, as that term is defined in 28 CFR part 500. § 549.41 Hospitalization in a suitable facility. As used in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313 and this subpart, “hospitalization in a suitable facility” includes the Bureau's designation of inmates to medical referral centers or correctional institutions which provide the required care or treatment. § 549.42 Use of psychiatric medications. Psychiatric medications will be used only for treatment of diagnosable mental illnesses and disorders, and their symptoms, for which such medication is accepted treatment. Psychiatric medication will be administered only after following the applicable procedures in this subpart. § 549.43 Transfer for psychiatric or psychological examination. The Bureau may transfer an inmate to a suitable facility for psychiatric or psychological examination to determine whether hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment is needed. § 549.44 Voluntary hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment, and voluntary administration of psychiatric medication.
(a)*Hospitalization.* An inmate may be hospitalized in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment after providing informed and voluntary consent when, in the professional medical judgment of qualified health services staff, such care or treatment is required and prescribed.
(b)*Psychiatric medication.* An inmate may also provide informed and voluntary consent to the administration of psychiatric medication which complies with the requirements of § 549.42 of this subpart.
(c)*Voluntary consent.* An inmate's ability to provide informed and voluntary consent for both hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment, and administration of psychiatric medications, will be assessed by qualified health services staff and documented in the inmate's medical record. Additionally, the inmate must sign a consent form to accept hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment and the administration of psychiatric medications. These forms will be maintained in the inmate's medical record. § 549.45 Involuntary hospitalization in a suitable facility for psychiatric care or treatment.
(a)*Hospitalization of inmates pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313.* A court determination is necessary for involuntary hospitalization or commitment of inmates pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313, who are in need of psychiatric care or treatment, but are unwilling or unable to voluntarily consent.
(b)*Hospitalization of inmates not subject to hospitalization pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313.* Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4042, the Bureau is authorized to provide for the safekeeping, care, and subsistence, of all persons charged with offenses against the United States, or held as witnesses or otherwise. Accordingly, if an examiner determines pursuant to § 549.43 of this subpart that an inmate not subject to hospitalization pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Chapter 313 should be hospitalized for psychiatric care or treatment, and the inmate is unwilling or unable to consent, the Bureau will provide the inmate with an administrative hearing to determine whether hospitalization for psychiatric care or treatment is warranted. The hearing will comply with the applicable procedural safeguards set forth in § 549.46(a).
(c)*Psychiatric medication.* Following an inmate's involuntary hospitalization for psychiatric care or treatment as provided in this section, psychiatric medication may be involuntarily administered only after following the administrative procedures provided in § 549.46 of this subpart. § 549.46 Procedures for involuntary administration of psychiatric medication. Except as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section, the Bureau will follow the administrative procedures of paragraph
(a)of this section before involuntarily administering psychiatric medication to any inmate.
(a)Procedures. When an inmate is unwilling or unable to provide voluntary written informed consent for recommended psychiatric medication, the inmate will be scheduled for an administrative hearing. The hearing will provide the following procedural safeguards:
(1)Unless an exception exists as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section, the inmate will not be involuntarily administered psychiatric medication before the hearing.
(2)The inmate must be provided 24-hours advance written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose, of the hearing, including an explanation of the reasons for the psychiatric medication proposal.
(3)The inmate must be informed of the right to appear at the hearing, to present evidence, to have a staff representative, to request witnesses, and to request that witnesses be questioned by the staff representative or by the person conducting the hearing. If the inmate does not request a staff representative, or requests a staff representative with insufficient experience or education, or one who is not reasonably available, the institution mental health division administrator must appoint a qualified staff representative.
(4)The hearing is to be conducted by a psychiatrist other than the attending psychiatrist, and who is not currently involved in the diagnosis or treatment of the inmate.
(5)Witnesses should be called if they are reasonably available and have information relevant to the inmate's mental condition or need for psychiatric medication. Witnesses who will provide only repetitive information need not be called.
(6)A treating/evaluating psychiatrist/clinician, who has reviewed the case, must be present at the hearing and must present clinical data and background information relative to the inmate's need for psychiatric medication. Members of the treating/evaluating team may also be called as witnesses at the hearing to provide relevant information.
(7)The psychiatrist conducting the hearing must determine whether involuntary administration of psychiatric medication is necessary because, as a result of the mental illness or disorder, the inmate is dangerous to self or others, poses a serious threat of damage to property affecting the security or orderly running of the institution, or is gravely disabled (manifested by extreme deterioration in personal functioning).
(8)The psychiatrist must prepare a written report regarding the initial decision. The inmate must be promptly provided a copy of the initial decision report, and informed that he/she may appeal it to the institution's mental health division administrator. The inmate's appeal, which may be handwritten, must be submitted within 24 hours after receipt of the hearing officer's report. Upon request of the inmate, the staff representative will assist the inmate in preparing and submitting the appeal.
(9)If the inmate appeals the initial decision, psychiatric medication must not be administered before the administrator issues a decision on the appeal, unless an exception exists as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section. The inmate's appeal will ordinarily be reviewed by the administrator or his designee within 24 hours of its submission. The administrator will review the initial decision and ensure that the inmate received all necessary procedural protections, and that the justification for administering psychiatric medication is appropriate.
(10)A psychiatrist, other than the attending psychiatrist, must provide follow-up monitoring of the patient's treatment or medication at least once every 30 days after the initial decision. The follow-up must be documented in the medical record.
(11)If an inmate was afforded an administrative hearing which resulted in the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication, and the inmate subsequently consented to the administration of such medication, and then later revokes his consent, a follow-up hearing will be held before resuming the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication. All such follow-up hearings will fully comply with the procedures outlined in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(10)of this section.
(b)*Exceptions.* The Bureau may involuntarily administer psychiatric medication to inmates in the following circumstances without following the procedures outlined in paragraph
(a)of this section:
(1)*Psychiatric emergencies.*
(i)During a psychiatric emergency, psychiatric medication may be administered only when the medication constitutes an appropriate treatment for the mental illness or disorder and its symptoms, and alternatives (e.g., seclusion or physical restraint) are not available or indicated, or would not be effective. If psychiatric medication is still recommended after the psychiatric emergency, and the emergency criteria no longer exist, it may only be administered after following the procedures in §§ 549.44 or 549.46 of this subpart.
(ii)For purposes of this subpart, a psychiatric emergency exists when a person suffering from a mental illness or disorder creates an immediate threat of:
(A)Bodily harm to self or others;
(B)Serious destruction of property affecting the security or orderly running of the institution; or
(C)Extreme deterioration in personal functioning secondary to the mental illness or disorder.
(2)*Court orders for the purpose of restoring competency to stand trial.* Absent a psychiatric emergency as defined above, § 549.46(a) of this subpart does not apply to the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication for the sole purpose of restoring a person's competency to stand trial. Only a federal court of competent jurisdiction may order the involuntary administration of psychiatric medication for the sole purpose of restoring a person's competency to stand trial. [FR Doc. E8-13261 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0386] RIN 1625-AA08 Marine Events Regattas; Annual Marine Events in the Eighth Coast Guard District AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to update the list of marine events and regattas that take place in the Eighth Coast Guard District and to change patrol requirements for these events. This update is needed to provide effective control over regattas and marine events to insure safety of life in each regatta or marine event area. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0386 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 CDR John Arenstam, Eighth Coast Guard District Prevention Division,
(504)671-2109 or e-mail, *John.J.Arenstam@uscg.mil.* If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. 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-2008-0386, 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-2008-0386) 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 Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), Hale Boggs Federal Building, 500 Poydras Street, Room 1230, New Orleans, LA 70130, between 8 a.m. and 3:30 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 33 CFR part 100 provides regulations to provide effective control over regattas and marine parades conducted on U.S. navigable waters to insure safety of life in the regattas or marine parade area. Section 100.801 regulates events that take place in the Eighth Coast Guard District. This section needs to be updated because the Coast Guard has reorganized Coast Guard Group Offices and Marine Safety Offices into Coast Guard Sector Commands and the events listed in Table 1 of § 100.801 need to be revised to reflect current events. The Coast Guard also proposes to modify Coast Guard patrol requirements for Eighth Coast Guard regattas and marine parades. Section 100.801(a) requires the Coast Guard to patrol marine events in the Eighth Coast Guard District. The Coast Guard feels that not all events require Coast Guard patrols and therefore proposes to leave this at the discretion of the local Coast Guard Captain of the Port. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule would update § 100.801 Table 1 and list regattas and marine parades in the Eighth Coast Guard District by Coast Guard Sector Commands vice Coast Guard Groups Offices. It would also change § 100.801(a) to allow the local Coast Guard Captain of the Port to establish Coast Guard patrol requirements. 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. The proposed regattas and marine parades listed in this rule will restrict vessel traffic from transiting certain areas of Eighth Coast Guard District waters; however the effect of this regulation will not be significant because these events are short duration and the special local regulation governing vessel movements and restrictions are also short duration. Additionally, the public is given advance notification through the **Federal Register** and thus will be able to plan operations around the event in advance. 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 entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area during the regattas or marine parade. The special local regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for short periods of times and vessel traffic could pass safely around the regulated area or through the regulated area with permission of the patrol commander. And before the effective period, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river. 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 CDR John Arenstam, Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70003,
(504)671-2109, e-mail *John.J.Arenstam@uscg.mil.* 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 guide 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. This rule carries out maritime safety and is not likely to have any significant effects on public health and the environment. We have also concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact form this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Amend § 100.801 by revising paragraph
(a)and table 1 to read as follows: § 100.801 Annual Marine Events in the Eighth Coast Guard District.
(a)The Coast Guard may patrol the event area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM.” Table 1 of § 100.801—Eighth Coast Guard District Table Of Annual Marine Events I. Sector Ohio Valley 1. WEBN/Riverfest Fireworks *Sponsor:* WEBN. *Date:* 1 Day—Sunday before Labor Day. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River 469.2-470.5, Cincinnati, OH. 2. Aurora Thunder Regatta *Sponsor:* Aurora Riverfront Beautification Committee. *Date:* Last weekend in August. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River, at approximately mile 496.0-499.0, mid-channel, Aurora, IN. 3. Ohio River Way Paddlefest *Sponsor:* Ohio River Way (Paddlefest). *Date:* Last weekend in June. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River Miles 461.5—470.5, Cincinnati, OH. 4. Thunder Over Louisville. *Sponsor:* Thunder Over Louisville. *Date:* 5 Days—2nd half of April. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River miles 602.0-606.0, Louisville, KY. 5. Kentucky Derby Festival Great Steamboat Race *Sponsor:* Kentucky Derby Festival/Belle of Louisville Operating Board. *Date:* 1 Day—Last Week in April or First Week in May. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River 596.0-604.3, Louisville, KY. 6. Thunder on the Ohio *Sponsor:* Evansville Freedom Festival. *Date:* 6 Days—Last Week in June and First Week in July. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River miles 791.0-795.0, Evansville, IN. 7. Indiana Governor's Cup *Sponsor:* Madison Regatta Inc. *Date:* 4 Days—1st Weekend in July. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River miles 555.0-560.0, Madison, IN. 8. Kentucky Drag Boat Association Inc.: Drag Boat Races *Sponsor:* Kentucky Drag Boat Association Inc. *Date:* 3 Days—2nd half of August. *Regulated Area:* Green River miles 70.0-71.5, Livermore, KY. 9. Ducks on the Ohio *Sponsor:* Goodwill Industries, Inc. *Date:* 1 Day—2nd half of August or September. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River miles 791.5-793.5, Evansville, IN. 10. Clarksville Riverfest—Wakeboard Contest, Regatta, Fireworks *Sponsor:* City of Clarksville, TN. *Date:* 2nd Weekend in September. *Regulated Area:* Mile Marker 125-126 Cumberland River. 11. Spirit of Freedom Fireworks Florence, TN—Fireworks *Sponsor:* Urban Broadcasting. *Date:* 4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Mile Marker 255 to 257 Tennessee River. 12. Lake Guntersville 4th of July Celebration—Fireworks. *Sponsor:* Lake Guntersville, AL Chamber of Commerce. *Date:* 4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Mile Marker 356 to 358 Tennessee River. 13. The Great Kiwanis Duck Race—Rubber Duck Regatta *Sponsor:* Kiwanis Club of Chattanooga, TN. *Date:* 3rd Weekend in June. *Regulated Area:* Mile Marker 463 to 464 Tennessee River. 14. Chattanooga Dragon Boat Festival—Rowing Race *Sponsor:* Dynamic Events and Management. *Date:* 1st Weekend in August. *Regulated Area:* Mile Marker 463 to 464 Tennessee River. 15. Pickwick Challenge—Powerboat Race *Sponsor:* Pickwick Challenge, LLC. *Date:* 1st Weekend in May. *Regulated Area:* Mile Marker 206 to 210 Tennessee River. 16. Lighting Up the Cumberland—Fireworks *Sponsor:* Town of Cumberland City, TN. *Date:* 1st Saturday prior to 4th of July or on 4th of July if day is a Saturday. *Regulated Area:* Mile Marker 103 to 105 Cumberland River. 17. Knoxville Dragon Boat Races—Rowing Race *Sponsor:* Dynamic Events & Management. *Date:* 4th Weekend in August. *Regulated Area:* Mile Marker 647 to 648 Tennessee River. 18. Marietta Invitational Rowing Regatta *Sponsor:* Marietta High School. *Date:* 1 Day—2nd or 3rd weekend in April. *Regulated Area:* Muskingum River Mile 0.5 to 1.5, Marietta, OH. 19. West Virginia Governor's Cup Regatta *Sponsor:* University of Charleston. *Date:* 1 Day—2nd or 3rd weekend in April. *Regulated Area:* Kanawha River Mile 59.5 to 62.0, Charleston, WV. 20. Point Pleasant Sternwheel Regatta *Sponsor:* City of Point Pleasant. *Date:* 3 Days—1st or 2nd weekend in July. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River Mile 265.0 to 266.0, Point Pleasant, WV. 21. Charleston 4th of July Celebration *Sponsor:* City of Charleston. *Date:* 2 Days—1st week in July. *Regulated Area:* Kanawha River Mile 57.5 to 59, Charleston, WV. 22. Summer Motion *Sponsor:* Summer Motion Inc. *Date:* 3 Days—first week in July. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River Mile 321.6 to 323.3. 23. Marietta Riverfront Roar Tunnel Boat Races *Sponsor:* Marietta Riverfront Roar. *Date:* 2 Days—2nd or 3rd weekend in July. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River Mile 171.5 to 172.5, Marietta, OH. 24. Dawg Dazzle Fireworks Spectacular *Sponsor:* Big Sandy Superstore Arena. *Date:* 1 Day—1st week in July. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River Mile 307.8 to 308.8, Huntington, WV. 25. Brundage Memorial Regatta *Sponsor:* Brundage Regatta Committee. *Date:* 1 Day—3rd or 4th weekend in May. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River Mile 182.5 to 183.5. 26. St. Mary Medical Center Foundation Gala *Sponsor:* St. Mary Medical Center Foundation. *Date:* 1 Day—2nd or 3rd weekend in May. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River Mile 307.8 to 308.8. 27. Dragon Boat Festival *Sponsor:* Three Rivers Rowing Association. *Date:* Middle of September. *Regulated Area:* Monongahela River Miles 0.3, Pittsburgh, PA. 28. Pirates Fireworks *Sponsor:* Pittsburgh Pirates. *Date:* 3rd or 4th Friday of the month from April to September. *Regulated Area:* Allegheny River Miles 0.4 to 0.6, Pittsburgh, PA. 29. Wheeling Vintage Regatta *Sponsor:* Wheeling Vintage Race Boat Association. *Date:* First week in September. *Regulated Area:* Ohio River Miles 90.4 to 91.5, Wheeling, WV. II. Sector Upper Mississippi River 1. Hudson Hot Air Affair *Sponsor:* Hudson Hot Air Affair, Inc. *Dates:* 1 day—1st Friday in February. *Regulated Area:* St. Croix River mile 016.7. 2. Winter Carnival—Comcast Fireworks *Sponsor:* St. Paul Festival and Heritage Foundation. *Dates:* 1 day—1st Saturday in February. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 840.5-841.0. 3. St. Patrick's Water Parade *Sponsor:* Lake West Chamber of Commerce. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd Saturday in March. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 013.0. 4. Deke Slayton Airfest, LaCrosse *Sponsor:* Deke Slayton Airfest. *Dates:* 3 days—3rd week in May. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 703.0. 5. That Was Then, This Is Now Boat Show & Exhibition *Sponsor:* Clear Lake Chapter of the ACBS. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd Saturday in May. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 454.0-456.0. 6. Tan-Tar-A Memorial Day Fireworks *Sponsor:* Tan-Tar-A Resort. *Dates:* 1 day—Last Sunday in May. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 026.0. 7. Lodge of the Four Seasons Memorial Day *Sponsor:* Lodge of the Four Seasons. *Dates:* 1 day—Last Sunday in May. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 014.0. 8. Steamboat Sports Festival *Sponsor:* Peoria Area Community Events. *Dates:* 2 day—2nd weekend in June. *Regulated Area:* Illinois River mile 162.3-163.7. 9. Burlington Steamboat Days *Sponsor:* Burlington Steamboat Days. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd Sunday in June. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 404.0. 10. Winona Steamboat Days Fireworks *Sponsor:* Winona Steamboat Days Festival. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd Sunday in June. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 725.4-725.7. 11. Taste of the Quad Cities *Sponsor:* Taste of the Quad Cities. *Dates:* 1 day—2nd Friday in June. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 485.2. 12. Great Rivers Towboat Festival *Sponsor:* Great Rivers Towboat Festival. *Dates:* 2 day—3rd Weekend in June. *Regulated Area:* Illinois River mile 000.2. 13. Water Ski Days *Sponsor:* Lake City Chamber of Commerce. *Dates:* 2 day—3rd Weekend in June. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 772.4-772.8. 14. Taste of Minnesota *Sponsor:* Taste of Minnesota. *Dates:* 5 day—Last week in June/ First week in July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 840.0. 15. Sioux City Big Parade *Sponsor:* City of Sioux City. *Dates:* 1 day—Last weekend in June. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River mile 732.0. 16. KC Riverfest *Sponsor:* For—KC, Inc. *Dates:* 1 day—Last weekend in June/ First weekend in July. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River mile 365.0. 17. Bellevue Heritage Days *Sponsor:* Bellevue Heritage Days. *Dates:* 1 day—Last weekend in June/ First weekend in July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 556.6-557.0. 18. Hudson Booster Days *Sponsor:* Hudson Boosters. *Dates:* 1 day—Last weekend in June/ First weekend in July. *Regulated Area:* St. Croix River mile 017.0. 19. 3rd Annual Dosh River Rally *Sponsor:* Village of Meredosia. *Dates:* 1 day—First weekend in July. *Regulated Area:* Illinois River mile 072.1. 20. Mississippi Fireworks Festival *Sponsor:* Alton Exposition Commission. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd or 4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 202.5-203.0. 21. Radio Dubuque *Sponsor:* Radio Dubuque. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd or 4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 581.2-583.0. 22. Omaha World Herald Fireworks *Sponsor:* Omaha Royals. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd or 4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River miles 612.1-613.9. 23. Riverfest 2007—St. Charles *Sponsor:* City of St. Charles. *Dates:* 2 day—3rd or 4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River miles 028.2-028.8. 24. Red White and Boom *Sponsor:* Davenport One Chamber. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd or 4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 482.5. 25. Fair of St. Louis *Sponsor:* Fair St. Louis. *Dates:* 2 day—Between the 1st and 4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 179.2-180.0. 26. Louisiana July 4th Fireworks *Sponsor:* Louisiana Chamber of Commerce. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 282.0-283.0. 27. John E. Curran Fireworks *Sponsor:* John E. Curran. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd or 4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 009.0. 28. Nauvoo 4th of July *Sponsor:* Nauvoo Chamber of Commerce. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 375.0-376.0. 29. Red White and Boom Peoria *Sponsor:* JMP Radio. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Illinois River miles 162.5-162.1. 30. Stillwater 4th of July *Sponsor:* City of Stillwater/St. Croix Events. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* St. Croix River miles 022.9-023.5. 31. Minneiska 4th of July *Sponsor:* City of Minneiska. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 743.0. 32. Fort Madison 4th of July *Sponsor:* City of Fort Madison. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 383.0-384.0. 33. Lake City 4th of July Fireworks *Sponsor:* Lake City Chamber of Commerce. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 772.4-772.8. 34. Hermann 4th of July *Sponsor:* Hermann Chamber of Commerce *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River mile 098.5. 35. Muscatine 4th of July *Sponsor:* Greater Muscatine Chamber of Commerce. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 455.0-456.0. 36. National Tom Sawyer Days *Sponsor:* Hannibal JayCees. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 308.0-309.0. 37. Mike Herrington Fireworks *Sponsor:* Mike Herrington. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 002.0. 38. Riverfest, La Crosse *Sponsor:* Riverfest, Inc. *Dates:* 4 days—1st or 2nd week of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 698.0. 39. Salute to America *Sponsor:* Salute to America Foundation, Inc. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River miles 143.0-143.5. 40. Grafton Chamber 4th of July Fireworks *Sponsor:* Grafton Chamber of Commerce. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Illinois River mile 001.0. 41. Parkville 4th of July Fireworks *Sponsor:* Main Street Parkville Assoc. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River mile 377.7. 42. Harrah's Fireworks Extravaganza *Sponsor:* Harrah's Casino and Hotel. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River mile 615.3. 43. Hooligan Bay Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Hooligan Bay Resort. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 038.0. 44. Tan-Tar-A 4th of July Fireworks *Sponsor:* Tan-Tar-A Resort. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 026.0. 45. Red, White and Boom Minneapolis *Sponsor:* Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 854.0. 46. Chillicothe 4th of July *Sponsor:* Chillicothe 4th of July. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Illinois River mile 179.1-180.1. 47. Lodge of the Four Seasons 4th of July *Sponsor:* Lodge of the Four Seasons. *Dates:* 1 day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 014.0. 48. Gravois Mills Fireworks *Sponsor:* Town of Gravois. *Dates:* 1 day—1st week of July. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 010.0. 49. Live on the Levee *Sponsor:* Fair St. Louis. *Dates:* Friday and Saturday, every weekend from the 2nd week of July until 2nd week in August. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 179.2-180.0. 50. Prairie du Chien Area Chamber Fireworks *Sponsor:* Prairie du Chien Area Chamber of Commerce. *Dates:* 1 day—2nd weekend of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 634.0. 51. Clinton Riverboat Days *Sponsor:* Clinton Riverboat Days. *Dates:* 2 days—2nd weekend of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 518.0-519.0. 52. Stars and Stripes River Day *Sponsor:* Naturally Guttenberg. *Dates:* 1 day—2nd weekend of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 615.0. 53. Sioux City Rivercade *Sponsor:* Rivercade Association. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd week of July. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River mile 732.2. 54. Lumberjack Days *Sponsor:* St. Croix Events. *Dates:* 4 days—3rd week of July. *Regulated Area:* St. Croix River miles 022.9-028.5. 55. Prairie Air Show *Sponsor:* Prairie Airshow, Inc. *Dates:* 1 day—2nd weekend of July. *Regulated Area:* Illinois River mile 162.0. 56. Aquatennial Power Boat Grand Prix *Sponsor:* Champboat Series LLC. *Dates:* 2 days—3rd weekend of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 854.8-855.8. 57. Target Aquatennial Fireworks *Sponsor:* Marketing Minneapolis, LLC. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd weekend of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 853.2-854.2. 58. Rivertown Days *Sponsor:* Hasting Riverboat Days. *Dates:* 2 days—3rd weekend of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 812.0-815.3. 59. Cassville Twin-o-Rama *Sponsor:* Cassville Twin-O-Rama. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd weekend of July. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 606.5. 60. Amelia Earhart Festival *Sponsor:* Amelia Earhart Festival Committee. *Dates:* 2 days—3rd weekend of July. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River miles 422.0-424.5. 61. River City Days *Sponsor:* River City Days Association. *Dates:* 2 days—1st week of August. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 791.6. 62. New Piasa Chautaqua *Sponsor:* New Piasa Chautaqua *Dates:* 1 day—1st weekend of August. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 215.0. 63. Great River Tug *Sponsor:* Tug Committee. *Dates:* 2 day—2nd weekend of August. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River miles 497.2-497.6. 64. Evansville Day Drag Boat Race *Sponsor:* St. Louis Drag Boat Association. *Dates:* 2 day—2nd weekend of August. *Regulated Area:* Kaskaskia River mile 010.0-011.0. 65. Lansing Fish Days *Sponsor:* Lansing Lions Club. *Dates:* 2 day—2nd weekend of August. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 662.5-663.8. 66. Lake Rescue Shoot Out *Sponsor:* Lake Rescue Shoot Out INC. *Dates:* 2 day—4th weekend of August. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 021.0-023.0. 67. Tan-Tar-A Fireworks *Sponsor:* Tan-Tar-A Resort. *Dates:* 1 day—1st weekend of September. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 026.0. 68. Mike Herrington Labor Day Fireworks *Sponsor:* Mike Herrington. *Dates:* 1 day—1st weekend of September. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 002.0. 69. Lodge of the Four Seasons *Sponsor:* Lodge of the Four Seasons. *Dates:* 1 day—1st weekend of September. *Regulated Area:* Lake of the Ozarks mile 014.0. 70. First City Festival *Sponsor:* Leavenworth Main Street Program. *Dates:* 2 day—2nd weekend of September. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River mile 397.0-398.0. 71. Rodeo Cup XXVI *Sponsor:* Old Fort Yacht Club. *Dates:* 1 day—2nd weekend of September. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 374.0-375.0. 72. New Athens Drag Boat Race *Sponsor:* St. Louis Drag Boat Association. *Dates:* 2 day—2nd weekend of September. *Regulated Area:* Kaskaskia River mile 028.0-029.0. 73. Riverfest 2007 *Sponsor:* Riverside Riverfest Committee. *Dates:* 2 day—3rd weekend of September. *Regulated Area:* Missouri River mile 371.1-371.3. 74. Railroad Days *Sponsor:* Marquette Action Club. *Dates:* 1 day—3rd weekend of September. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 634.5. 75. Missouri Governor's Cup *Sponsor:* Valley Sailing Club. *Dates:* 2 day—1st weekend of October. *Regulated Area:* Upper Mississippi River mile 211.0-212.0. III. Sector Lower Mississippi River 1. Memphis in May Canoe & Kayak Race *Sponsor:* Outdoors, Inc. *Date:* 1 Day—1st or 2nd Saturday in May. *Regulated Area:* Lower Mississippi River miles 735.5-738.5, Memphis, TN. 2. Memphis in May Sunset Symphony Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Memphis in May International Festival, Inc. *Date:* 1 Day—Saturday before Memorial Day. *Regulated Area:* Lower Mississippi River miles 735.0-736.0, Memphis, TN. 3. Riverfest, Little Rock, Arkansas *Sponsor:* Riverfest, Inc. *Date:* 1 Day—Sunday before Memorial Day. *Regulated Area:* Arkansas River miles 118.8-119.5, Main Street Bridge, Little Rock, AR. 4. Riverfest Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Old Fort Riverfest Committee. *Date:* 1 Day—2nd or 3rd Saturday in June. *Regulated Area:* Arkansas River miles 297.0-298.0, Fort Smith, AR. 5. Fourth of July Fireworks *Sponsor:* Memphis Center City Commission. *Date:* 1 Day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Lower Mississippi River miles 735.5-736.5, Mud Island, Memphis, TN. 6. Pops on the River Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. *Date:* 1 Day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Arkansas River miles 118.8-119.5, Main Street Bridge, Little Rock, AR. 7. Uncle Sam Jam Fireworks, Alexandria, LA *Sponsor:* Champion Broadcasting of Alexandria. *Date:* 1 Day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Red River, miles 83.0-87.0, Alexandria, LA. IV. Sector Corpus Christi 1. Buccaneer Days Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Buccaneer Commission, Inc. *Date:* 1 Day—3rd or 4th Friday in April. *Regulated Area:* Bayfront, all waters inside Corpus Christi Marina Levee, Corpus Christi Bay, TX. 2. Corpus Christi 4th of July Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Buccaneer Commission, Inc. *Date:* 1 day—July 4. *Regulated Area:* Bayfront, all waters inside Corpus Christi Marina Levee, Corpus Christi Bay, TX. 3. City of Port Aransas 4th of July Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* City of Port Aransas. *Date:* 1 day—July 4. *Regulated Area:* 600 foot radius from point halfway between Port Aransas Harbor Daybeacon 2 to Port Aransas Ferry Landing in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Port Aransas, TX. 4. Bayfest Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Bayfest, Inc. *Date:* 1 day—Last Saturday in September. *Regulated Area:* Bayfront, all waters inside Corpus Christi Marina Levee, Corpus Christi Bay, TX. 5. Harbor Lights *Sponsor:* City of Corpus Christi. *Date:* 1 day—1st Saturday in December. *Regulated Area:* Bayfront, all waters inside Corpus Christi Marina Levee, Corpus Christi Bay, TX. 6. Wendell Family Fireworks *Sponsor:* City of Rockport. *Date:* 1 day—July 4. *Regulated Area:* 700 foot radius at the northeast point of Rockport Beach Park. V. Sector Houston-Galveston 1. Port Arthur Fourth of July Fireworks Demonstration, Port Arthur, TX *Sponsor:* The City of Port Arthur and Lamar State College. *Date:* 1 Day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* All waters of the Sabine-Neches Canal, bank to bank, from Wilson Middle School to the northern terminus of Old Golf Course Road. 2. Neches River Festival and Fireworks, Beaumont, TX *Sponsor:* Port Neches Chamber of Commerce. *Date:* 2 Days—2nd or 3rd Weekend in May. *Regulated Area:* Adjacent to Port Neches between the northern boundary at 30°00′00″ N and the southern boundary at 29°59′42″ N. 3. Contraband Days Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Contraband Days Festivities, Inc. *Date:* 1 Day—2nd Saturday of May. *Regulated Area:* 500 foot radius from the fireworks barge in Lake Charles anchored at approximate position 30°13′5 ″ N, 093°13′42″ W Lake Charles, LA. 4. Neches River 4th of July Celebration *Sponsor:* City of Beaumont. *Date:* 1 Day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* River Front Park, Beaumont, TX—All waters of the Neches River, bank to bank, from the Trinity Industries Dry Dock to the northeast corner of the Port of Beaumont's dock No. 5. 5. National Safe Boating Week *Sponsor:* Houston Power Squadron. *Date:* Last weekend in May or first weekend in June. *Regulated Area:* Clear Creek Channel from Light 2 up to, but not including, the South Shore Harbor Marina. 6. Sylvan Beach Fireworks Display, Sylvan Beach, Houston, TX *Sponsor:* City of LaPorte. *Date:* 1 Day—End of June or early July. *Regulated Area:* Rectangle extending 250 feet East, 250 feet West; 1000 feet North, and 1000 feet South, centered around fireworks barge at Sylvan Beach, Houston, TX. 7. Clear Lake Fireworks Display, Clear Lake, Houston, TX *Sponsor:* Clear Lake Chamber of Commerce. *Date:* 1 Day—4th of July. *Regulated Area:* Rectangle extending 500 feet East, 500 feet West; 1000 feet North, and 1000 feet South, centered around fireworks barge at Light 19 on Clear Lake, Houston, TX. 8. Blessing of the Fleet *Sponsor:* Clear Lake Elks Club. *Date:* First Sunday in August. *Regulated Area:* Clear Creek Channel from Light 2 up to, but not including, the South Shore Harbor Marina. 9. Galveston Harbor Lighted Boat Parade *Sponsor:* Historic Downtown/Strand Partnership. *Date:* Last Saturday in November. *Regulated Area:* Galveston Channel from Pier 9 to the Pelican Island Bridge. 10. Christmas Boat Parade on Clear Lake *Sponsor:* Clear Lake Area Chamber of Commerce. *Date:* 2nd Saturday in December. *Regulated Area:* Clear Lake, Texas. From South Shore Harbor Marina down Clear Lake Channel, to Clear Creek Channel Light 2. 11. Kemah Board Walk Summer Season Fireworks Display, Kemah, TX *Sponsor:* Kemah Boardwalk. *Date:* Friday nights in June and July including July 4. *Regulated Area:* Clear Creek Channel including a 840 ft radius centered around fireworks barge on south side of channel, 100 ft off Kemah Boardwalk, Galveston, TX. VI. Sector New Orleans 1. Rivertown Christmas Festival *Sponsor:* City of Port Allen. *Date:* 1 Day—3rd Saturday in December. *Regulated Area:* Located on Levee Batture, in vicinity of Old Ferry Landing, all waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 230-231, extending the entire width of the river. 2. Donaldsonville Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Donaldsonville Tourism Commission. *Date:* 1 Day—31 December. *Regulated Area:* located on the Levee Batture, all waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 175-176, extending the entire width of the river. 3. New Orleans New Years Eve *Sponsor:* Mardi Gras World, INC. *Date:* 1 Day—31 December. *Regulated Area:* In vicinity of Jackson Square, all waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 94 to 95, extending the entire width of the river. 4. Lundi Gras River Parade and Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* (King REX and King ZULU) New Orleans RiverWalk Mktg. Group and ZULU Social Aid and Pleasure Club. *Date:* 1 Day—LUNDI GRAS DAY. *Regulated Area:* Delivery of King Rex to Spanish Plaza and King ZULU to Woldenburg Park, all waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 93 to 96, extending the entire width of the river New Orleans, LA. 5. Independence Day Celebration *Sponsor:* Saint John the Baptist Parish. *Date:* 1 Day—3 July. *Regulated Area:* In vicinity of Saint Peters Church Reserve, LA. All waters of the Lower Mississippi River, from mile marker 138.5-139.5, extending the entire width of the river. 6. Donaldsonville Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Donaldsonville Tourism Commission. *Date:* 1 Day—03 July. *Regulated Area:* In the vicinity of Crescent Park Donaldsonville, LA. All waters of the Lower Mississippi River, from mile marker 175-176, extending the entire width of the river. 7. Independence Day Celebration *Sponsor:* Saint Charles Parish Fireworks. *Date:* 1 Day—03 July. *Regulated Area:* Levee Batture, in the vicinity of I-310 Bridge Luling, LA. All waters of the Lower Mississippi River, from mile marker 121—122, extending the entire width of the river. 8. Independence Day Celebration (Dueling Barges) *Sponsor:* Riverfront Marketing Group. *Date:* 1 Day—04 July. *Regulated Area:* In vicinity of Jackson Square and Spanish Plaza. All waters of Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 94.3-95.3, extending the entire width of the river. 9. Independence Day Celebration *Sponsor:* WBRZ-TV, Baton Rouge, LA. *Date:* 1 Day—04 July. *Regulated Area:* In the vicinity of the USS KIDD, All waters of Lower Mississippi River, from mile marker 228.8-229.8, extending the entire width of the river. 10. Fourth of July Star-Spangled Celebration *Sponsor:* USS KIDD Veterans Memorial Baton Rouge, LA. *Date:* 1 Day—04 July. *Regulated Area:* In the vicinity of 305 South River Road Baton Rouge, LA. All waters of the Lower Mississippi River, from mile marker 229.4-230, extending the entire width of the river. 11. Independence Day Celebration *Sponsor:* Boomtown Casino. *Date:* 1 Day—04 July. *Regulated Area:* In the vicinity of Boomtown Casino, Harvey Canal from mile marker 4-5, extending the entire width of the canal. 12. Independence Day Celebration *Sponsor:* City of Morgan City. *Date:* 1 Day—04 July. *Regulated Area:* Morgan City Port Allen Route mile marker 4-5. 13. LA Shrimp and Petroleum Festival & Fair Association *Sponsor:* City of Morgan City. *Date:* 1 Day—1st Sunday in September. *Regulated Area:* Between Berwick Bay Southern Pacific Railroad Bridge and 1/4 mile past HWY 182 Bridge on the Lower Atchafalaya River and Berwick Bay. VII. Sector Mobile 1. Seroma's 4th of July *Sponsor:* Seroma's 4th of July. *Date:* 1 Day—July 4th. *Regulated Area:* 100 feet east of Pitt's Slip, Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, FL. 2. South Georgia Showdown *Sponsor:* Flint River Racers. *Date:* 1 Day—Last Weekend in August, or First Weekend in September. *Regulated Area:* South of Earl Maye Boat Basin, Flint River, Bainbridge, GA. 3. Thunder on the Gulf *Sponsor:* Gulf Coast Power Boat Association. *Date:* 2 Days—3rd weekend in August. *Regulated Area:* Gulf of Mexico, Orange Beach, FL. e Beach, AL. 4. GYA Challenge Cup *Sponsor:* Pensacola Yacht Club. *Date:* 1 Day—4th weekend in June. *Regulated Area:* Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, FL. 5. Christmas on the River *Sponsor:* Demopolis Chamber of Commerce. *Date:* 1 Day—1st Saturday in December from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. CST. *Regulated Area:* Tombigbee River from lock 4 to Caldwell Landing. 6. Christmas by the River *Sponsor:* Moss Point Active Citizens. *Date:* 1 Day—1st Saturday in December from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. CST. *Regulated Area:* Escataba River from bridge 613 to Moss Point City Docks. 7. Christmas on the Water *Sponsor:* Biloxi Bay Chamber of Commerce. *Date:* 1 Day—1st Saturday in December. *Regulated Area:* Biloxi Channel from marker 5 to marker 28, Biloxi, MS. 8. Isle of Capri Anniversary Celebration *Sponsor:* River Boat Corporation (Isle of Capri). *Date:* 1 Day—August 1st from 8:45 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. CST. *Regulated Area:* Mississippi Sound just South of Biloxi Ocean Springs Bridge, Biloxi, MS. 9. Billy Bowlegs Pirate festival gs Pirate Festival *Sponsor:* Greater Fort Walton Beach Chamber of Commerce. *Date:* 1 Day—1st weekend in June. *Regulated Area:* Santa Rosa Sound, East of the Brooks Bridge to Fort Walton Yacht Club at Smack Pt., west to St. Simons Church. 10. Dauphin Island Race *Sponsor:* Fairhope, Lake Forest, Mobile, and Buccaneer Yacht Clubs. *Date:* 1 Day—Next to last or last weekend in April. *Regulated Area:* Mobile Bay, Middle Bay Light to Marker #37, Mobile, AL. 11. Big River Blast *Sponsor:* City of Chattahoochee. *Date:* 1 Day—3rd weekend in April from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. CST. *Regulated Area:* Appalachicola River from the dam to quarter mile south of the dam, Chattahoochee, FL. 12. Chattahoochee Challenge *Sponsor:* City of Chattahoochee. *Date:* 1 Day—Last weekend in March from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. CST. *Regulated Area:* Appalachicola River from the dam to half a mile south of the dam, Chattahoochee, FL. 13. Harbor Walk Fireworks Display *Sponsor:* Legendary Incorporated. *Date:* Every Thursday evening from May to September, Memorial Day and Labor Day, from 8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. CST. *Regulated Area:* East Pass, 560 foot safety radius around barge, Destin, FL. 14. Smoking the Sound *Sponsor:* Biloxi Bay Chamber of Commerce. *Date:* 2 Days—Between the 4th week in March and the 2nd week in April from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. CST. *Regulated Area:* from bouy # 2 to # 35 in Biloxi Ship Channel. 15. Christmas Afloat *Sponsor:* Christmas Afloat Incorporated. *Date:* 1 Day—2nd or 3rd Saturday in December. *Regulated Area:* Warrior River mile 341, Tuscaloosa County, AL. 16. Air Sea Rescue *Sponsor:* Gulf Coast Shows. *Date:* 1 Day—3rd or 4th weekend in February. *Regulated Area:* Mobile River half a mile down river and half a mile upriver from the Mobile Convention Center. 17. Blessing of the Fleet *Sponsor:* St. Michael's Catholic Church. *Date:* 1 Day—1st Sunday in June. *Regulated Area:* Entire Biloxi Channel, Biloxi, MS. 18. Blessing of the Fleet *Sponsor:* St. Margaret Church. *Date:* 1 Day—2nd or 3rd Sunday in May. *Regulated Area:* Entire Bayou La Batre, Bayou La Batre, AL. 19. Flag Day Parade *Sponsor:* Warrior River Boating Association. *Date:* 1 Day—July 3rd. *Regulated Area:* Warrior River Bankhead Lake River miles 368.4-386.4, Cottondale, AL. 20. Blue Angels Air Show *Sponsor:* Naval Air Station Pensacola. *Date:* 1 Day—2nd weekend in July. *Regulated Area:* A 5 nautical mile radius from a center point located 1500 feet out from the Pensacola Beach shoreline in front of the Pensacola Beach water tank, Pensacola Beach, FL. 21. Boat Parade of Lights *Sponsor:* City of Panama City/ St. Andrews Project. *Date:* 1 Day—2nd Saturday in December from 5:30 to 7:30. *Regulated Area:* St. Andrews Bay from St. Andrews Bay Yacht Club to St. Andrews Bay Marina. 22. Mardi Gras Boat Parade *Sponsor:* Gulf Shores Homeport Marina. *Date:* 1 Day—Monday before Mardi Gras Fat Tuesday. *Regulated Area:* GIWW Pen Mobile Channel from Homeport Marina to Sailboat Bay. 23. Blessing of the Fleet *Sponsor:* Panama City Marina. *Date:* 1 Day—Last Saturday in March. *Regulated Area:* Panama City Marina to east end of seawall. 24. Mobile Boat and Sportsman Show *Sponsor:* Gulf Coast Shows. *Date:* 4 Days—3rd or 4th weekend of February. *Regulated Area:* Mobile River, 1/2 mile upriver and 1/2 mile down river from the Mobile Convention Center. 25. Bass Tournament Weigh-In *Sponsor:* Gulf Coast Shows. *Date:* 2 Days—3rd or 4th weekend in February. *Regulated Area:* Mobile River, 1/2 mile upriver and 1/2 mile down river from the Mobile Convention Center. 26. Water Ski Demonstration *Sponsor:* Gulf Coast Shows. *Date:* 1 Day—3rd or 4th weekend in February. *Regulated Area:* Mobile River, 1/2 mile upriver and 1/2 mile down river from the Mobile Convention Center. Dated: May 21, 2008. J.R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-13272 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R9-IA-2008-0075; 96100-1671-0000-B6; 1018-AT56] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Petition To Reclassify the Argentine Population of the Broad-Snouted Caiman From Endangered to Threatened AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 90-day finding on a petition to reclassify the Argentine population of the broad-snouted caiman ( *Caiman latirostris* ) from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action of reclassifying the broad-snouted caiman in Argentina from endangered to threatened status under the Act may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review of the broad-snouted caiman to determine if reclassification of the population in Argentina, as petitioned, is warranted under the Act. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are requesting submission of any new information on the broad-snouted caiman since its original listing as an endangered species in 1976. At the conclusion of our status review, we will make the requisite recommendation under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act and issue a 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. DATES: To be considered in the 12-month finding on this petition, we will accept comments and information from all interested parties until September 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit information, materials, and comments by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS-R9-IA-2008-0075]; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive; Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov* . This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie T. Maltese, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone: 703-358-1708; facsimile: 703-358-2276; e-mail: *ScientificAuthority@fws.gov* . Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Information Solicited We intend that any final action resulting from this status review will be as accurate and effective as possible based on the best available scientific and commercial information. Therefore, we solicit information, comments, or suggestions on the broad-snouted caiman from the public, concerned government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party. We are opening a 90-day public comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status of the Argentine population of the broad-snouted caiman, as well as the status of the species throughout its range, including:
(1)Information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection and use, food habits, population density and trends, habitat trends, and effects of management on broad-snouted caimans in the wild;
(2)Information on broad-snouted caiman ranching programs in Argentina and throughout the caiman's range; including efficacy of programs, origin of parental stock, stock supplementation for any purpose, including genetic purposes, growth rates, birth and mortality rates in captivity, location of ranches in comparison to wild populations, effects of ranching on the species' natural habitats and wild populations, wastewater management, and any other factors occurring from ranching activities that might negatively affect or reduce the species' natural habitat or range;
(3)Information on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, trends in domestic and international trade, illicit hunting of wild broad-snouted caimans, illegal trade and enforcement efforts and current and/or future solutions to poaching and illegal trade, products resulting from caiman ranching programs, current identification systems for products including tagging and marking, and use of the species by the scientific community;
(4)Information on the effects of other potential threat factors, including contaminants, changes in the distribution and abundance of wild populations, disease outbreaks within ranching programs, large mortality events, or negative effects resulting from the presence of invasive species;
(5)Information on management programs for broad-snouted caiman conservation in the wild, including private or government-funded conservation programs that benefit broad-snouted caimans; and
(6)Information relevant to the possibility that the Argentine population of the broad-snouted caiman may qualify as a distinct population segment. We will base our finding on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received during the public comment period. You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments you send by e-mail or fax. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that we will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on *http://www.regulations.gov* . While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this 90-day finding, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority (see previous section: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Background We received a petition from the Government of Argentina dated November 5, 2007, requesting that we reclassify the broad-snouted caiman ( *Caiman latirostris* ) in Argentina from endangered to threatened. The petition contained detailed information about the natural history and biology of the broad-snouted caiman, including the species' current status and distribution. The broad-snouted caiman is a medium-sized crocodilian reaching no more than 2 meters (6.6 feet) in total length at maturity. Species distribution includes Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and northern Uruguay. The species is found mostly in freshwater marsh, swamp, and mangrove habitats. Recent surveys in Argentina indicate that much of the original broad-snouted caiman's habitat remains, and healthy wild populations have been located. Experimental caiman ranching programs have proven successful, indicating that the establishment of ranching programs could yield commercial-scale results if properly managed. On May 22, 1975, the Fund for Animals, Inc.
(Fund)submitted a request to the Service to list as endangered species 216 taxa of animals and plants that were listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, or Convention) and that did not already appear on the U.S. Lists of Endangered Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Fund contended that signature and ratification of CITES by the United States was an acknowledgment of the endangered status of these species and that they therefore should appear on the Lists pursuant to the Act (40 FR 44329). CITES is an international treaty for the conservation of wild fauna and flora subject to trade; it was drafted in 1973 and had been ratified by enough nations by 1975 to enter into force. The United States ratified the treaty on September 13, 1973 (41 FR 24062; June 14, 1976). Accession to CITES is open to all nations that wish to reduce the impact of international trade on wildlife and plants. CITES includes three Appendices that list species meeting specific criteria. Depending on the Appendix in which they are listed, species are subject to permitting requirements intended to ensure that international trade in them is legal and does not threaten their survival. Appendix-I species are those that are threatened with extinction and which are, or may be, affected by trade. Commercial trade in Appendix-I species is strictly prohibited. On July 1, 1975, the date the Convention was entered into force, Appendix I of the Convention included over 200 species, including the broad-snouted caiman. As a result of the Fund's listing request, the Service published a proposed rule on September 26, 1975: “Proposed Endangered Status for 216 Species Appearing on Convention on International Trade” (40 FR 44329). The proposed rule requested public comments regarding amendment of the Lists through the addition of species included in CITES Appendix I. On June 14, 1976, a final rule entitled “Endangered Status for 159 Taxa of Animals” was published in the **Federal Register** (41 FR 24062). These species included some, but not all, of the Appendix-I species that had been listed under CITES and whose listing under the Act had been requested by the Fund. In 1976, the Convention had only been ratified for one year, and ratification by additional member nations was necessary for CITES to become a stronger international trade measure. Until the number of Parties to CITES increased, however, the commercial importance of the species that were determined to be endangered in the listing rule and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to control international trade continued to be factors of major concern. It was believed that the listing action was imperative, to provide an interim regulatory mechanism to restrict U.S. trade in listed species and, ultimately, as a supportive measure to further address the conservation purposes of CITES. The broad-snouted caiman is currently listed in Appendix I of CITES, range-wide except in Argentina ( *http://www.cites.org* ). The Argentine population was downlisted to Appendix II in 1997, with support from the United States. In addition, under CITES Resolution 11.12: *Universal Tagging System for the Identification of Crocodilian Skins* , all crocodilian skins must be affixed with a non-reusable tag from the country of origin prior to entering international trade ( *http://www.cites.org* ). Tagging crocodilian skins allows individual countries to track quotas, prevent illegal trade, and ensure that annual take is not detrimental to the survival of the species. Through a system of permits, the CITES Appendix-II listing allows international trade in Argentine broad-snouted caiman parts and products throughout the world, with one exception: Trade in Argentine broad-snouted caiman specimens is prohibited in the United States because the species is listed as endangered (41 FR 24062; June 14, 1976) under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). With this petition, the Government of Argentina requests reclassification of the species from endangered to threatened in their country only, because populations are healthy, habitat remains plentiful, and caiman ranching programs have proven successful. Reclassification of the species may allow the establishment of trade in ranched specimens of broad-snouted caimans from Argentina to the United States and re-export from other CITES Parties. Finding On the basis of the information provided in the petition, we have determined that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information that reclassifying the broad-snouted caiman from endangered to threatened in Argentina may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if reclassification of the species is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species. Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we are required to make a finding as to whether reclassification of the broad-snouted caiman is warranted within 12-months of receipt of the petition. Author The primary author of this document is Marie T. Maltese of the Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section). Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: June 4, 2008. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-13162 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 73 116 Monday, June 16, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request: Food Stamp Program Pre-Screening Tool Survey AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed revision of this currently approved collection. The information collection involves the use of a Web-based pre-screening tool for the general public to use to determine potential eligibility for Food Stamp Program benefits. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate, automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Patrick Waldron, Branch Chief, Program Development Division, Food Stamp Program, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 810, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Patrick Waldron at 703-305-2486 or via e-mail to *Patrick.Waldron@fns.usda.gov* . All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, Room 810. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Patrick Waldron at
(703)305-2495. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Food Stamp Program Pre-Screening Tool. *OMB Number:* 0584-0519. *Expiration Date:* August 31, 2008. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* In June 2003, the Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS)deployed an interactive Web-based food stamp pre-screening tool that can be utilized by the general public to determine potential Food Stamp Program eligibility. A previous notice was published in the **Federal Register** on May 31, 2005 at 70 FR 30922 (2005). The pre-screening tool helps the users determine their eligibility for food stamps. Once the user enters household size, income, expenses and resource information, the tool will calculate and provide the user with an estimated range of benefits that the household may be eligible to receive. Since food stamp eligibility and benefit amount may vary by location, FNS makes it clear that the tool is only an estimator, and the household will need to contact the local agency to determine actual eligibility and the appropriate benefit amount. Other data collected are: • ID (Each entry is assigned a unique identifier); • State: State or territory in which the user resides; • Number of Children: Number of children in the household; • Number of Elderly: Number of elderly members in the household; • Migrant Workers: Is anyone in the household a seasonal or migrant farm worker; • Homeless: Is the household homeless or living in a shelter; • User Type: Who is using the tool; • User Referral: How the user heard about the tool; • Amount: If user was eligible to receive benefits and if so the estimated range of benefits. Although the tool also requests the name and age of the user, FNS does not retain this information or any other specific information like social security numbers, birthdays, etc. about the household itself in the tool. However, the system does request the following information during the initial process in which the user enters data: • Whether the user is using the tool for personal reasons or on behalf of others; and • If they are using it on behalf of others, the user will be asked to identify him/herself (e.g., relative of a person in need, advocacy organization, faith-based group, etc.) using a drop down menu. Once the user logs out of the system, none of the user-provided information is retained by FNS. The survey component of the tool was removed since the program analysis of this data is no longer necessary. Thus, the projected annual burden hours of 48,183 are reduced by 4,183. Estimate of Burden Pre-Screening Tool Component Burden *Affected Public:* Individuals and Households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 264,000 per year. *Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Total Number of Annual Responses:* 264,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 44,000 hours. *Estimated Total Pre-Screening Tool Annual Burden* = 44,000. Dated: June 10, 2008. Roberto Salazar, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. E8-13410 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed additions to the Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. *Comments Must be Received On or Before:* July 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Products Sponge, Cellulose Heavy Duty Scrubber *NSN:* 7920-00-NIB-0466. *NPA:* Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, MS. *Coverage:* B-List for the broad Government requirements as specified by the General Services Administration. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, TX. Portfolio, Clear Front Report Cover w/Prongs *NSN:* 7510-00-NIB-0811—Black with prongs. *NSN:* 7510-00-NIB-0812—Light Blue with prongs. *NSN:* 7510-00-NIB-0813—Red with prongs. *NSN:* 7510-00-NIB-0814—Dark Green with prongs. *NPA:* Susquehanna Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Lancaster, PA. *Coverage:* A-List for the total Government requirements as specified by the General Services Administration. Dispenser, Tape *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1882—Package Sealing. *NPA:* Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH. *Coverage:* A-List for the total Government requirements as specified by the General Services Administration. Stapler, Spring Power *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1916—20 sheet capacity. *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1917—65 sheet capacity. *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1992—15 sheet capacity. *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1993—25 sheet capacity. *NPA:* Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Winston-Salem, NC. *Coverage:* A-List for the total Government requirements as specified by the General Services Administration. USB Flash Drive, Flip Style *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1873—1 GB, no encryption. *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1874—2 GB, no encryption. *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1875—4GB, no encryption. *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1877—1GB, with encryption. *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1878—2GB, with encryption. *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1879—4GB, with encryption. *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1974—8GB, no encryption. *NSN:* 7520-00-NIB-1976—8GB, with encryption. *NPA:* North Central Sight Services, Inc., Williamsport, PA. *Coverage:* A-List for the total Government requirements as specified by the General Services Administration.. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Federal Supply Services, Region 2, New York, NY Services *Service Type/Location:* Administrative Support Services, Caribbean National Forest, El Portal Rain Forest Center, Rio Grande, PR. *NPA:* The Corporate Source, Inc., New York, NY. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Cherokee, National Forests—Tennessee, Cleveland, TN. *Service Type/Location:* Base Supply Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, Crane, IN. *NPA:* L.C. Industries For The Blind, Inc., Durham, NC. *Contracting Activity:* Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC), Norfolk, VA. *Service Type/Location:* Document Destruction, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Albuquerque District, 4101 Jefferson Plaza, NE., Albuquerque, NM. *NPA:* Adelante Development Center, Inc., Albuquerque, NM. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, NM. *Service Type/Location:* Grounds Maintenance, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Basewide, Cape Canaveral AFS, FL. *NPA:* PRIDE Industries, Roseville, CA. *Contracting Activity:* 45 CONS/LGCZ, Patrick AFB, FL. *Service Type/Location(s):* Laundry Services, Clement J. Zablocki Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 5000 West National Avenue, Milwaukee, WI; Laundry Services, North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 3001 Green Bay Road, North Chicago, IL. *NPA:* Goodwill Industries of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc., Milwaukee, WI. *Contracting Activity:* Department of Veterans Affairs, Great Lakes Network—Contract Service Center, Milwaukee, WI. *Service Type/Location:* Mailroom Operations, Fort Knox, Fort Knox, KY. *NPA:* Employment Source, Inc., Fayetteville, NC. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Army Armor Center & Fort Knox, Fort Knox, KY. *Service Type/Location:* Mailroom Operations, Internal Revenue Service, 880 Front Street, San Diego, CA. *NPA:* ServiceSource, Inc., Alexandria, VA (PRIME Contractor). *NPA:* Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Sub-Contractor). *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service Headquarters, Oxon Hill, MD. *Service Type/Location:* Mailroom Operations, United States Coast Guard, Integrated Support Command (ISC), Alameda Mail Center, Alameda, CA. *NPA:* Pacific Coast Community Services, Richmond, CA. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Coast Guard—Alameda, Alameda, CA. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E8-13361 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List: Additions and Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List products and a service previously furnished by such agencies. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additions On April 18, 2008, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (73 FR 21107) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List: Services: *Service Type/Location:* Base Supply Center & HAZMAT, Naval Air Station—Joint Reserve Base (NASJRB), New Orleans, LA. *NPA:* Raleigh Lions Clinic for the Blind, Inc., Raleigh, NC. *Contracting Activity:* Fleet and Industrial Supply Center—Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Fort Sam Houston, Camp Bullis, Building 6116, San Antonio, TX. *NPA:* Training, Rehabilitation, & Development Institute, Inc., San Antonio, TX. *Contracting Activity:* Southern Region Contracting Center—West, Fort Sam Houston, TX. Deletions On April 18, 2008, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (73 FR 21107) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action should not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and service deleted from the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following products and service are deleted from the Procurement List: Products: Computer Accessories *NSN:* 7045-01-483-7832—CD Organizer. *NSN:* 7045-01-483-7837—Ergo Gel Keyboard and Monitor Platform. *NPA:* Wiscraft Inc.—Wisconsin Enterprises for the Blind, Milwaukee, WI. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr., New York, NY. Frame, Transparency Mounting *NSN:* 6750-00-378-6825. *NPA:* Industries of the Blind, Inc., Greensboro, NC. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Office and Photographic Equipment Division. Hydration On-the-Move System *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0041—Canteen, One Quart Flexible—Echo. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0071—Bravo Woodland. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0072—Bravo Desert. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0073—Bravo Black. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0074—Delta Woodland. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0075—Delta Desert. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0076—Delta Black. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0077—Alpha Woodland. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0092—Warrior Woodland. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0093—Warrior Desert. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0094—Warrior Black. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0095—Sierra Woodland. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0096—Sierra Desert. *NSN:* 8465-00-NIB-0097—Sierra Black. *NPA:* The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr., New York, NY. Service: *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, Social Security Administration Building, 142 Auburn Street, Pontiac, MI. *NPA:* New Horizons Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Region 5, Chicago, IL. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E8-13362 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* High Seas Fishing Vessel Reporting Requirements. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0349. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 850. *Number of Respondents:* 550. *Average Hours per Response:* Report for days fished, 5 minutes; for negative reporting (no fishing that day), 1 minute. *Needs and Uses:* Vessels licensed under the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act are required to report their catch and effort (logbooks) when fishing on the high seas. Monthly negative reports are required if not fishing. These logbooks are not required if the vessel is already reporting catches and effort under other National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)regulations. The information is needed for fishery management and to provide data to international organizations. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: June 11, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13440 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Coral Reef Conservation Program Administration. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0448. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 112. *Number of Respondents:* 28. *Average Hours Per Response:* Waiver requests, 30 minutes; reviewer comments, 1 hour, 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program provides funds to a broad-based group of applicants with experience in coral reef conservation to conduct activities to protect and conserve coral reef ecosystems. The information submitted is used to determine:
(1)whether the applicant qualifies for a waiver of matching funds, and
(2)if a proposed project is consistent with the coral reef conservation priorities of authorities with jurisdiction over the area where the project will be carried out. Respondents will be applicants to the grant program and/or reviewers of relevant project proposals. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit organizations; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov).* Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: June 11, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13441 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Import Certificates, End-User Certificates, and Delivery Verification Procedures AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison,
(202)482-4896, *lhall@bis.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This collection of information provides the certification of the overseas importer to the U.S. Government that specific commodities will be imported from the U.S. and will not be reexported, except in accordance with U.S. export regulations. II. Method of Collection Submitted electronically or in paper form. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0694-0093. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Review:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,222. *Estimated Time per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 645. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 11, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13504 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-357-812 Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is partially rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2006, to November 30, 2007 with respect to eleven companies. This rescission, in part, is based on the timely withdrawal of the request for review by the interested parties that requested the review. A complete list of the companies for which the administrative review is being rescinded is provided in the background section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2657 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On December 3, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 67889 (December 3, 2007). In response, on December 31, 2007, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners) requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007. The petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made by thirteen Argentine producers/exporters. 1 In addition, the Department received requests for review from four Argentine exporters included in the petitioners’ request. Furthermore, the Department received one request from an exporter that was not included in petitioners’ request for review. On January 28, 2008, the Department initiated a review of the 14 companies 2 for which an administrative review was requested. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 73 FR 4829 (January 28, 2008). On February 19, 2007, petitioners timely withdrew their requests for review of the following companies: AGLH S.A., Algodonera Avellaneda S.A., Bomare S.A. (Bodegas Miguel Armengol), Mercoline S.A., Productos Afer S.A., and Seabird Argentina S.A. On March 18, 2008, petitioners timely withdrew their requests for review of El Mana S.A., HoneyMax S.A., and Nexco S.A. On May 22, 2008, both petitioners and CAA/Mielar submitted letters withdrawing their requests for an administrative review of CAA/Mielar. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the order is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise under the scope of the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Rescission, in Part, of Administrative Review Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, or withdraws at a later date if the Department determines it is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. The petitioners timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review within the 90-day deadline for the following companies: AGLH S.A., Algodonera Avellaneda S.A., Bomare S.A. (Bodegas Miguel Armengol), El Mana S.A., HoneyMax S.A., Mercoline S.A., Nexco S.A., Productos Afer S.A., and Seabird Argentina S.A. Because the petitioners were the only party to request administrative review of each of these companies, we are rescinding the review with regard to AGLH S.A., Algodonera Avellaneda S.A., Bomare S.A. (Bodegas Miguel Armengol), El Mana S.A., HoneyMax S.A., Mercoline S.A., Nexco S.A., Productos Afer S.A., and Seabird Argentina S.A. With respect to CAA/Mielar, both petitioners and CAA/Mielar withdrew their review requests after the 90-day deadline, despite petitioners’ and CAA/Mielar’s claims to the contrary in their May 22, 2008 requests for withdrawal. However, the Department finds it reasonable to extend the withdrawal deadline for CAA/Mielar because the Department has not yet devoted significant time or resources to this review. Further, we find that neither petitioners' nor CAA/Mielar’s withdrawal of their requests for a review of CAA/Mielar constitutes an abuse of our procedures. *See, e.g., Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 13810, 13811 (March 17, 2006). As a result, we are rescinding this review with regard to CAA/Mielar. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)15 days after the publication of this notice. The Department will direct CBP to assess antidumping duties for these companies at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry for entries during the period December 1, 2006 to November 30, 2007. Notification to Parties This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period of time. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 351.213(d)(4) of the Department's regulations and sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: June 9, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. 1 Petitioners requested Compania Apicola Argentina S.A.
(CAA)and Mielar S.A. (Mielar) as separate entities. However, in a previous segment of this proceeding, the Department treated these two companies as a single entity. 2 The **Federal Register** notice lists 15 companies but, as explained in footnote 1, CAA and Mielar are currently being treated as a single entity based on decisions made in a previous segment of this proceeding. Accordingly, there are a total of 14 companies for which reviews were requested. [FR Doc. E8-13481 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-351-838) Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4929 or (202)482-4007, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 4, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil for the period February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 73 FR 6477 (February 4, 2008). The Department received timely requests from the petitioner, 1 and the Louisiana Shrimp Association, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil. On April 7, 2008, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil with respect to 43 companies. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews* , 73 FR 18754 (April 7, 2008) ( *Initiation Notice* ). The Department stated in its initiation of this review that it intended to rely on U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)data to select respondents. *See Initiation Notice* . However, our review of the CBP database showed no entries of certain frozen warmwater shrimp originating in Brazil, subject to AD/CVD duties, during the period February 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008. *See* April 9, 2008, Memorandum to the File from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor entitled “Release of POR Entry Data from CBP”. We released the results of our CBP data query to interested parties and invited them to comment on the CBP data and respondent selection. On April 17, 2008, the petitioner submitted comments, which we addressed in the May 29, 2008, Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor, Senior Case Analysts, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled “Intent to Rescind Administrative Review.” On April 30, 2008, we sent a “No Shipments Inquiry” to CBP to confirm that there were no shipments or entries of frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil during the POR. We received no information from CBP to contradict the results of our data query that there were no shipments or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). Rescission of Review Section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department’s regulations stipulates that the Secretary may rescind an administrative review if there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. As there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review. This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: June 9, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. 1 The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. [FR Doc. E8-13476 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-909 Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008. SUMMARY: On January 23, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) in the antidumping investigation of certain steel nails (“nails”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The Department amended it preliminary determination on February 7, 2008, based on comments from interested parties. The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary and amended preliminary determinations of sales at LTFV. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations for the mandatory respondents. We determine that nails from the PRC are being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Renkey or Alex Villanueva, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2312 and
(202)482-3208, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on January 23, 2008. *See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination* , 73 FR 3928 (January 23, 2008) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). The Department published an amended preliminary determination on February 7, 2008. *See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 73 FR 7254 (February 7, 2008) (“ *Amended Preliminary Determination* ”). The Department issued a post-preliminary determination on April 21, 2008, in which it applied a new targeted dumping methodology. *See* Memorandum to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration entitled “Post-Preliminary Determinations on Targeted Dumping,” dated April 21, 2008 (“Post-Preliminary Determination”). We issued ITW 1 and Xingya Group 2 additional supplemental questionnaires on January 28, 2008, and February 6, 2008, respectively. We received ITW's response on February 5, 2008, and Xingya Gorup's response on February 13, 2008. 1 Illinois Tool Works Inc., Paslode Division (“ITW Paslode”) and Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Paslode Shanghai”) (collectively, “ITW”). 2 Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd, Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd., Yunfa International Resources In., Senco Products, Inc. (“Senco”), and Omnifast Inc. (“Omnifast”) (collectively “Xingya Group”). Between February 11 and February 22, 2008, the Department conducted verifications of ITW Paslode 3 and Xingya Group's affiliated importers Senco 4 and Omnifast 5 in Chicago and Cincinnati, respectively. Between March 7 and March 21, 2008, the Department verified Paslode Shanghai, 6 Xingya Group, 7 and Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. 8 in the PRC. *See* the “Verification” section below for additional information. 3 *See* Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst: Verification of the Sales Response of Illinois Tool Works Inc., Paslode Division in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, dated March 3, 2008 (“ITW Paslode Verification Report”). 4 *See* Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst: Verification of the Sales Response of Senco Products, Inc. in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, dated April 10, 2008 (“Senco Verification Report”). 5 *See* Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst: Verification of the Sales Response of Omnifast LLC in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, dated April 8, 2008 (“Omnifast Verification Report”). 6 *See* Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst: Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, dated April 15, 2008 (“Paslode Shanghai Verification Report”). 7 *See* Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst: Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of the Xingya Group in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China,” dated April 21, 2008 (“Xingya Group Verification Report”). 8 *See* Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst: Verification of the Sales of Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, dated April 18, 2008. In the *Preliminary Determination* , based on our examination of Petitioners' targeted dumping allegations for ITW filed on December 11, 2007, and revised on December 13, 2007, and for Xingya Group filed on December 14, 2007, we preliminarily determined that there was a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differs significantly among regions for ITW and purchasers for Xingya Group. Therefore, based on Petitioners' allegation, we conducted an analysis to determine whether targeted dumping occurred. The Department further stated that it was in the process of re-assessing the framework and standards for both targeted dumping allegations and targeted dumping analyses, and that it intended to develop a new framework in the context of this proceeding. We invited comments regarding certain principles involved in targeted dumping allegations and analyses. Accordingly, we received comments from Petitioners in this investigation, 9 and the mandatory respondents, ITW and Xingya Group, on February 15, 2008. These parties submitted rebuttal comments on March 10, 2008. 9 Petitioners are: Mid Continent Nail Corporation; Davis Wire Corporation; Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (Atlas Steel & Wire Division); Maze Nails (Division of W.H. Maze Company); Treasure Coast Fasteners, Inc.; and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union. On April 21, 2008, the Department issued a decision memorandum in this investigation and the companion investigation on certain steel nails from the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), in which the Department described the application of a new methodology to analyze targeted dumping. *See* Memorandum to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration entitled “Post-Preliminary Determinations on Targeted Dumping,” dated April 21, 2008. Based on this analysis, the Department found that a pattern of export prices for identical merchandise existed that differed significantly among purchasers for Xingya Group. *See* Memorandum to: James C. Doyle, Director, from: Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, RE: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, Regarding: Post-Preliminary Determination Analysis on Targeted Dumping: Results for the Xingya Group, dated April 21, 2008. As a result, we applied the average-to-transaction methodology to the targeted export prices and found a margin of 48.63 percent for Xingya Group. However, the Department did not find a pattern of export prices for identical merchandise that differed significantly among regions for ITW. *See* Memorandum to: James C. Doyle, Director, from: Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, RE: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, Regarding: Post-Preliminary Determination Analysis on Targeted Dumping: Results for ITW, dated April 21, 2008. As a result, we applied the average-to-average methodology to all U.S. sales and found a *de minimis* margin of 0.11 percent for ITW. On April 24, 2008, the Department issued a letter to all parties in the two investigations providing clarifications concerning the Post-Preliminary Determination. We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* , *Amended Preliminary Determination* , and Post-Preliminary Determinations. On May 1, 2008, Petitioners, ITW, Xingya Group, Jinhai and Hybest Tools, 10 Xuzhou, Curvet, and Tengyu, 11 Dinglong, Shanxi Pioneer, and Tianjin Couny, 12 and Hilti 13 filed case briefs. On May 8, 2008, Petitioners, ITW, and Xingya Group filed rebuttal briefs. On May 7, 2008, Petitioners and Xingya Group submitted briefs on the Department's targeted dumping methodology and on May 14, 2008, Petitioners, Xingya Group, and ITW submitted rebuttal briefs. Additionally, Dubai Wire filed a public version of its rebuttal briefs to Petitioners' targeted dumping brief on the record of this investigation. 14 We also held a hearing on May 16, 2008, to discuss PRC-specific case issues and on May 19, 2008, we held a joint public hearing on the targeted dumping issues raised in this investigation and *Nails from the UAE* . 10 Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd. (“Jinhai”) and Hybest Tools Group Co., Ltd. (“Hybest Tools”). 11 Xuzhou CIP International Group Co., Ltd (“Xuzhou”), Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co, Ltd (“Curvet”), and Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. (“Tengyu7rdquo;). 12 Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Shandong Dinglong”), Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Shanxi Pioneer”), and Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin County”). 13 Hilti Inc. and Hilti (China) Ltd. (“Hilti). 14 Dubai Wire resubmitted its rebuttal brief on May 16, 2008, as the Department rejected the original rebuttal brief because it contained arguments that did not address comments made in Petitioners' targeted dumping case brief. *See* Memorandum to The File entitled “Return of Dubai Wire FZE (Dubai Wire) Rebuttal Brief on Targeted Dumping Issues,” dated May 16, 2008. Dubai filed the public version of its refiled rebuttal brief on the record of this investigation on May 16, 2008, as well. On May 6, 2008, National Nail Corp., an importer of subject merchandise, requested that the Department confirm that the scope of this investigation excludes plastic cap roofing nails. 15 The Department rejected this request, and all submissions associated with this request, as untimely. *See* Letter from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias to National Nail Corp., dated June 2, 2008. 15 The May 6, 2008, submission was filed on the record of the UAE investigation on May 7, 2008. On May 12, 2008, Petitioners submitted a letter for the record of the PRC investigation opposing National Nail Corp.'s exclusion request. This letter was submitted for the record of the UAE investigation on May 27, 2008. National Nail Corp. responded to this letter on May 20, 2008. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum,” dated June 6, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination and Amended Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of information on the record of this investigation, and comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculations for ITW and Xingya Group. We have revalued several of the surrogate values used in the *Preliminary Determination* . The values that were modified for this final determination are those for surrogate financial ratios, carton, hydrochloric acid, stainless steel wire rod, and the wage rate. For further details see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 11, 14, 16, 18, and 19 and Memorandum to the File from Matthew Renkey, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Final Determination, dated June 6, 2008 (“Final Surrogate Value Memo”). In addition, we have made some company-specific changes since the *Preliminary Determination* . Specifically, we have incorporated, where applicable, post-preliminary clarifications based on verification and made certain clerical error corrections for both ITW and Xingya Group. For further details on these company-specific changes, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 20 and 21. Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails that are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by electroplating or hot-dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point. Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated into strips or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel nails subject to this proceeding are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75. Excluded from the scope of this proceeding are roofing nails of all lengths and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not galvanized. Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.10.00. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are certain brads and finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in shank diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated with adhesive or polyester film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are fasteners having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments Banded Brads and Finish Nails On July 30, 2007, 16 Stanley Fastening Systems, LP (“Stanley”), an interested party in this proceeding, requested that banded brads and finish nails imported with a “nailer kit” or “combo kit” 17 as a single package be excluded from this investigation as being outside the “class or kind” of merchandise. 18 Based on the scope exclusion request from Stanley, the fact that Petitioners are in agreement with this request, and there appears to be no impediment to enforceability by CBP, we preliminarily determined that the above-described products are not subject to the scope of this investigation. Since the *Preliminary Determination* , no party to this proceeding has commented on this issue and we have found no additional information that would compel us to reverse our preliminary finding. Thus, for purposes of the final determination, we continue to find that the above-described products are not subject to the scope of this investigation. 16 This submission was filed on the record of *Nails from the UAE* on July 30, 2007. 17 A “nailer kit” consists of a pneumatic nailer, a “starter box” of branded products and a carrying case. A “combo kit” consists of an air compressor, a pneumatic nailer, and a “starter box” of banded products and related accessories, such as an air hose. 18 On December 12, 2007, Stanley revised its July 30, 2007, scope exclusion request arguing that its new request reflects a broader exclusion and is easily administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)because the description of the excluded brads and finish nails is framed solely in terms of their physical characteristics. Fasteners Suitable for Use in Gas-Actuated Hand Tools In its case brief filed on April 30, 2008, Hilti, Inc., an interested party in this proceeding, reiterated its request, submitted on January 3, 2008, that the Department modify the scope of the investigation to exclude fasteners suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools. 19 Hilti claimed that modification of the scope to exclude these fasteners was supported by Petitioners 20 and, additionally, because the description of the excluded nails is framed solely in terms of their physical characteristics, the exclusion would be easily administered by CBP. Furthermore, Hilti pointed out that the principles and rationale the Department applied to Stanley's scope request ( *see* discussion above) in the *Preliminary Determination* applied equally to Hilti's scope request. On January 8, 2008, ITW filed comments opposing Hilti's scope request. 19 We stated in the *Preliminary Determination* that we received this request too late to consider for purposes of the preliminary determination, but would consider it for the final determination. 20 On January 9, 2008, Petitioners filed a letter stating that they agree with Hilti's January 8, 2008, scope exclusion request. Hilti rebutted ITW's January 8, 2008, submission arguing that ITW offered no material reason for seeking the imposition of antidumping duties against the product at issue, other than its assertion that it is a U.S. manufacturer of such merchandise. Moreover, Hilti claimed that ITW has never opposed Petitioners' own initial exclusion of nails suitable for use in powder actuated hand tools, which Hilti claimed are functionally similar and competitive with nails suitable for use in gas-actuated tools, but simply classified under a different HTSUS number. In its rebuttal brief submitted on May 8, 2008, ITW reiterated its arguments in its January 8, 2008, submission that, because it was the only U.S. producer of the product at issue, Petitioners' agreement to the proposed exclusion was not relevant in light of ITW's opposition. In addition, ITW claimed that it was perfectly reasonable and legitimate for it to oppose a petition generally, while at the same time opposing certain exclusions to that petition. Based on the scope exclusion request from Hilti, Inc., the fact that Petitioners were in agreement with this request, and that there appeared to be no impediment to enforceability by CBP, 21 we determined that the above-described products were not subject to the scope of this investigation. 22 21 *See* Memorandum to the File from Kate Johnson, Senior Case Analyst, entitled “Scope Exclusion Request,” dated May 1, 2008. 22 While the Department notes ITW's objection, it strives to craft a scope that both includes the specific products for which Petitioners have requested relief, and excludes those products which may fall within the general scope definition, but for which Petitioners do not seek relief. Aluminum Nails and Stainless Steel Nails On February 27, 2008, Duo-Fast Northeast (Duo-Fast), an interested party in this proceeding, requested that the Department exclude two types of nails from the scope of this proceeding:
(1)aluminum nails, and
(2)stainless steel nails. 23 The plain language of the scope indicates that the scope does not cover aluminum nails because nails made from aluminum are not made from steel and are, thus, not subject merchandise. However, stainless steel nails are explicitly covered in the scope of this proceeding, as the plain language of the scope covers nails produced from any type of steel, without limitation. Therefore, we have not modified the scope of investigation in accordance with Duo-Fast's requests. 23 On March 18, 2008, Petitioners submitted a letter for the record opposing Duo-Fast's exclusion request. Targeted Dumping We have analyzed the case and rebuttal briefs with respect to targeted dumping issues submitted for the record in this investigation and in *Nails from the UAE* . As a result of our analysis, we made certain changes in the targeted dumping test we applied in the post-preliminary determination for purposes of the final determination. These changes result in a finding of targeted dumping in one region for ITW, but for Xingya Group we find that no customers were targeted. However, as indicated below, ITW's overall margin is *de minimis* , while for Xingya Group, we continue to find an overall dumping margin above *de minmis* as indicated below. For further discussion, see Comments 1 through 9 in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum”; *see also* ITW Final Analysis Memo; Xingya Group Final Analysis Memos. Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), provides that, if an interested party:
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party “promptly after receiving a request from {the Department} for information, notifies {the Department} that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in which such party is able to submit the information,” the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) if:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission ..., in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” *See also Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA)* , H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). ITW For this final determination, in accordance with sections 773(c)(3)(A) and
(B)of the Act and section 776(a)(2)(A),
(B)and
(D)of the Act, we have determined that the use of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is warranted for three unreported materials used by ITW in the production process. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 20E; Paslode Shanghai Verification Report at 10. As partial AFA, we are using the highest single monthly usage rate for each material, by CONNUM, and applying this monthly usage ratio to all months of the POI. *See* ITW Final Analysis Memo for further details on these three unreported materials; *see also* Final Surrogate Value Memo for the surrogate values used to value these materials. We are also applying partial AFA to ITW's indirect labor usage because ITW failed to report all labor involved directly or indirectly with the production of nails. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 20F; Paslode Shanghai Verification Report at Verification Exhibit 18B. As partial AFA, we are taking the highest number of hours worked by an individual classified in the indirect labor category for the month of October verified by the Department and multiplying this by the number of unreported workers and then by the number of months of the POI. The Department will then determine what percentage increase in the overall indirect labor hours these total additional hours constituted and then we will multiply this percentage by the current indirect labor rate in ITW's FOP database in order to ensure that this adverse inference only affects indirect labor hours. *See* ITW Final Analysis Memo. Xingya Group For Xingya Group, we also find it appropriate to apply partial AFA for the staples packing FOP in accordance with section 773(c)(3)(B) and sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(D)of the Act, since this packing input was not previously reported to the Department. For sawdust, although this material was identified in Xingya Group's narrative description of the production process, we find that partial AFA is appropriate as this material was never previously reported as an FOP, and the information that Xingya Group had provided about sawdust did not verify. As partial AFA for staples and sawdust, we will use the highest monthly usage observed for the POI, information that we obtained at verification. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 21F; Xingya Group Verification Report at 14. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by ITW, Xingya Group, and one separate rate applicant, Suntec Industries Co., Ltd., for use in our final determination. *See* the Department's verification reports on the record of this investigation in the CRU with respect to ITW, Xingya Group, and Suntec. For all verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by respondents. Surrogate Country In the *Preliminary Determination* , we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for the following reasons:
(1)it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise;
(2)it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and
(3)we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. *See Preliminary Determination* . For the final determination, we received no comments and made no changes to our findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market-economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by * Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China * , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”), and Section 351.107(d) of the Department's regulations. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we found that ITW, Xingya Group, and the separate rate applicants who received a separate rate (“Separate Rate Applicants”) demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by ITW, Xingya Group, and the Separate Rate Applicants demonstrate both a *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation, and, thus are eligible for separate rate status. Additionally, based on comments received from certain Separate Rate Applicants, verification minor corrections, and a review of the record, we found that the combination rates or the spelling of names for certain exporters were not properly included in the *Preliminary Determination* and/or *Amended Preliminary Determination* . Because these errors pertain to the identification of the proper separate rates recipients for this investigation, the Department is making these corrections effective as of January 23, 2008, the date of the *Preliminary Determination* . Any liquidation instructions for the provisional measures period would reflect these corrections. The PRC-Wide Rate In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that certain companies and the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests information. In the *Preliminary Determination* we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate that they operate free of government control over their export activities. No additional information has been placed on the record with respect to these entities after the *Preliminary Determination* . The PRC-wide entity has not provided the Department with the requested information; therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, the Department continues to find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). *See also* , *SAA* at 870. We determined that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity. Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a NME country are subject to government control and because only the companies listed under the “Final Determination Margins” section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate - the PRC-wide rate - to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. *See* , *e.g.* , *Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the respondents which are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below. Critical Circumstances In the *Preliminary Determination* , we found that there had been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period for Xingya Group and the PRC-wide entity. In addition, we relied on a period of five months as the period, which was the maximum duration for the information we had available at that time, for comparison in preliminarily determining whether imports of the subject merchandise were massive. For the final determination, however, we collected an additional three months of data from Xingya Group and ITW. After analyzing the additional data, we continue to find that the PRC-wide entity had massive imports of nails over a relatively short period of time. *See* Memorandum to the File from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst: Critical Circumstances Data for the Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, dated June 6, 2008, at Attachment I (“CC MTF”) for the exact percentage changes. Thus, for the final determination we find that Xingya Group did not have massive imports over a relatively short period of time and no longer find critical circumstances for Xingya Group. Additionally, we continue to find that ITW and the Separate Rates Applicants did not have massive imports of nails over a relatively short period of time. *Id* . Corroboration At the *Preliminary Determination* , in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated our adverse facts available (“AFA”) margin by comparing the U.S. price and normal values from the petition to the U.S. price and normal values for the respondents. Because no parties challenged calculation of the PRC-wide rate, we continue to find that the margin of 118.04 percent has probative value. *See* Xingya Group Final Analysis Memo at 1. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 118.04 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the POI: Nails from the PRC Weighted-average Dumping Margins Exporter Producer Weighted-Average Margin Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 0%% Xingya Group: Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd, Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd., Hong Kong Yu Xi Co., Ltd. Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd., Senco-xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd., Wuxi Chengye Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Jisco Corporation Qingdao Jisco Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Koram Panagene Co., Ltd. Qingdao Koram Steel Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Handuk Industrial Co., Ltd. Rizhao Handuk Fasteners Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Kyung Dong Corp. Rizhao Qingdong Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Xi'an Metals & Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd. Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Beijing Hongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Tianjin Dagang Huasheng Nailery Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Chongqing Hybest Tools Group Co., Ltd. Chongqing Hybest Nailery Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% China Silk Trading & Logistics Co., Ltd. Maanshan Longer Nail Product Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% China Silk Trading & Logistics Co., Ltd. Wuxi Qiangye Metalwork Production Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Beijing Daruixing Global Trading Co., Ltd. Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Beijing Daruixing Global Trading Co., Ltd. Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Beijing Daruixing Global Trading Co., Ltd. Tianjin Kunxin Hardware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Beijing Daruixing Global Trading Co., Ltd. Tianjin Hewang Nail Making Factory 21.24 %% Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd. Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd. Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd. Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd. Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Cana (Tianjin) Hardware Ind., Co., Ltd. Cana (Tianjin) Hardware Ind., Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co, Ltd. Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co, Ltd. 21.24 %% Nanjing Dayu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd. Nanjing Dayu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd. Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd. Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd. Qingyun Hongyi Hardware Factory 21.24 %% Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd. Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd. Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Zhaoqing Harvest Nails Co., Ltd. Zhaoqing Harvest Nails Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd. S-mart Tianjin Technology Development Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd. Tianjin Jishili Hardware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd. Tianjin Baisheng Metal Product Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd. Tianjin Foreign Trade (Group) Textile & Garment Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd. Dagang Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation Huanghua Shenghua Hardware Manufactory Factory 21.24 %% Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation Tianjin Dagang Dongfu Metallic Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nail Factory 21.24 %% Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation Tianjin Dagang Linda Metallic Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation Tianjin Dagang Yate Nail Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation Tianjin Jieli Hengyuan Metallic Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation Tianjin Shishun Metallic Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation Tianjin Yihao Metallic Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp Corporation Tianjin Yongcang Metallic Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Xiangtong Intnl. Industry & Trade Corp. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Yitian (Nanjing) Hardware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Nanjing Da Yu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Tianjin Chentai International Trading Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Tianjin Longxing (Group) Huanyu Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Wuhu Xin Lan De Industrial Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Tianjin Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Hebei Super Star Pneumatic Nails Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Shaoxing Chengye Metal Producting Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Tianjin Shenyuan Steel Producting Group Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Certified Products International Inc. Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Tianjin Bosai Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Beijing Yonghongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Tianjin City Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Huanghua Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Huanghua Yufutai Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Qingyuan County Hongyi Hardware Products Factory 21.24 %% Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Tianjin Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Tianjin Baisheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nails Factory 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Dingzhou Ruili Nail Production Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Haixing Hongda Hardware Production Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Huanghua Xinda Nail Production Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Tianjin Huachang Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Tianjin Huapeng Metal Company 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Tianjin Huasheng Nails Production Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Tianjin Jin Gang Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Tianjin Kunxin Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Tianjin Linda Metal Company 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Tianjin Xinyuansheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Tianjin Yongyi Standard Parts Production Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Tianli Industries Co. Wuqiao Huifeng Hardware Production Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Wuqiao County Huifeng Hardware Products Factory 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Wuqiao County Xinchuang Hardware Products Factory 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Haixing Linhai Hardware Products Factory 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Tianjin Baisheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Tianjin City Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Tianjin City Dagang Area Jinding Metal Products Factory 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Tianjin Jishili Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Tianjin Jietong Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Tianjin Ruiji Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Wuxi Baolin Nail-Making Machinery Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Sinochem Tianjin Imp & Exp Shenzhen Corp. Tianjin JLHY Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Qingdao D&L Group Ltd. Tianjin City Daman Port Area Jinding Metal Products Factory 21.24 %% Qingdao D&L Group Ltd. Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Qingdao D&L Group Ltd. Huanghua Jinhai Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Qingdao D&L Group Ltd. Dong'e Fuqiang Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Xiantong Material & Trade Co., Ltd. Tianjin Xiantong Fucheng Gun Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Zhongshan Junlong Nail Manufactures Co., Ltd. Zhongshan Junlong Nail Manufactures Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd. Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd. Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% S-mart (Tianjin) Technology Development Co., Ltd. Tianjin Jishili Hardware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% S-mart (Tianjin) Technology Development Co., Ltd. Tianjin Baisheng Metal Product Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% S-mart (Tianjin) Technology Development Co., Ltd. Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nail Factory 21.24 %% S-mart (Tianjin) Technology Development Co., Ltd. Tianjin Shishun Metal Product Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% S-mart (Tianjin) Technology Development Co., Ltd. Tianjin Xinyuansheng Metal Product Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd. Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nails Manufacture Plant 21.24 %% Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd. Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nails Manufacture Plant 21.24 %% Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd. Tianjin Dagang Longhua Metal Products Plant 21.24 %% Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd. Tianjin Dagang Shenda Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd. Tianjin Jietong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd. Tianjin Qichuan Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd. Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd. Zhangjiagang Longxiang Packing Materials Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Union Enterprise (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. Union Enterprise (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Beijing Hong Sheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. Beijing Hong Sheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% PT Enterprise Inc. Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% PT Enterprise Inc. Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% PT Enterprise Inc. Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd. Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd. Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd. Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Yitian Nanjing Hardware Co., Ltd. Yitian Nanjing Hardware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp. Cym (Nanjing) Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanghai Seti Enterprise International Co., Ltd. Suzhou Yaotian Metal Products Co. Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Xuzhou CIP International Group Co., Ltd. Xuzhou CIP International Group Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Xuzhou CIP International Group Co., Ltd. Qingdao International Fastening Systems Inc. 21.24 %% Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd. Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Wuhu Xin Lan De Industrial Co., Ltd. Wuhu Xin Lan De Industrial Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd. Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Mingguang Abundant Hardware Products Co., Ltd. Mingguang Abundant Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Group Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Import and Export Co., Ltd. Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Import and Export Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product. Co., Ltd. Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product. Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd. Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% Guangdong Foreign Trade Import & Export Corporation Shanghai Nanhui Jinjun Hardware Factory 21.24 %% Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry and Business Co., Ltd. Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry and Business Co., Ltd. 21.24 %% PRC-Wide Rate 118.04 %% Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the Separate Rate Applicants entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 23, 2008, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* . CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. The Department continues to find that critical circumstances exist for the PRC-wide entity and therefore we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 25, 2007, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. In accordance with the preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances, we instructed CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from Xingya Group, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after October 25, 2007, which is 90 days prior to January 23, 2008, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the **Federal Register** . Because we do not find critical circumstances for Xingya Group in this final determination, we will instruct CBP to terminate suspension of liquidation, and release any cash deposits or bonds, on imports during the 90 day period prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. Because the Department found that the weighted-average dumping margin for subject merchandise produced and exported by Paslode Shanghai is *de minimis* , the Department will instruct CBP not to suspend liquidation of any entries of nails from the PRC as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . The Department will not require any cash deposit or posting of a bond for ITW when the subject merchandise is produced and exported by Paslode Shanghai. Accordingly, we will direct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for shipments of nails entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 23, 2008, the date of publication o the *Preliminary Determination* . These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 6, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Targeted Dumping: *Comment 1:* Appropriateness of Implementing New Methodology in These Investigations *Comment 2:* Identifying Alleged Targets *Comment 3:* Statistical Validity of Standard Deviation Test *Comment 4:* Reliance on Identical Product Comparisons for Determining Targeted Dumping *Comment 5:* Alleged Masking of Dumping Under 33%% Pattern Test Threshold *Comment 6:* Flaws of “Gap Test” *Comment 7:* Alleged Masking of Dumping by Respondents Under Standard Deviation Test *Comment 8:* Statistical Validity of P/2 Test *Comment 9:* Programming Errors Surrogate Values: *Comment 10:* Wire Rod Surrogate Value *Comment 11:* Surrogate Companies *Comment 12:* Scrap Surrogate Value *Comment 13:* Sigma Cap for Wire Rod *Comment 14:* Carton Surrogate Value *Comment 15:* Tape Surrogate Value *Comment 16:* Wage Rate *Comment 17:* Wire Drawing Powder Surrogate Value *Comment 18:* Hydrochloric Acid Surrogate Value *Comment 19:* Stainless Steel Wire Rod Surrogate Value Company Specific Comments: *Comment 20:* ITW A. Database Use B. Indirect Selling Expense Calculation C. Interest Expense D. Exclusion of Selling Expenses from SG&A Ratio E. Possible Unreported Factors of Production F. Unreported Indirect Labor Hours G. Unreported Market-Economy Purchases *Comment 21:* Xingya Group A. Market Economy Ocean Freight B. Partial AFA for Certain CEP Expenses Reported by Ominfast, Partial AFA for Senco's Advertising Expenses, and Incorporation of Corrections for USBROKU, USDUTYU and EARLPYU C. Senco's Indirect Selling Expenses D. Application of Total AFA or an Intermediate Input Methodology to Xingya Group Due to the Misreporting of Its Production Process E. SXNC's Purchases of Collating Paper F. Partial AFA for Certain Misreported and Unreported SXNC Factors of Production G. Critical Circumstances Separate Rate Applicants: *Comment 22:* Misidentification of Separate Rate Recipients *Comment 23:* Separate Rate Calculation [FR Doc. E8-13474 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-520-802) Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: We determine that certain steel nails (nails) from the United Arab Emirates
(UAE)are not being, or are not likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at not LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Kate Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4136 or
(202)482-4929, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 23, 2008, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of nails from the UAE. *See Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination* , 73 FR 3945 (January 23, 2008) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). In the *Preliminary Determination* , based on our examination of the petitioners' 1 targeted dumping allegation filed on October 26, 2007, we preliminarily determined that there is a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differs significantly among purchasers. Therefore, based on the petitioners' allegation, we conducted an analysis to determine whether targeted dumping occurred. The Department further stated that it was in the process of re-assessing the framework and standards for both targeted dumping allegations and targeted dumping analyses, and that it intended to develop a new framework in the context of this proceeding. We invited comments regarding certain principles involved in targeted dumping allegations and analyses. Accordingly, we received comments from the petitioners and the respondent Dubai Wire FZE/Global Fasteners Ltd (Dubai Wire) on February 15, 2008. These parties submitted rebuttal comments on March 10, 2008. 1 The petitioners are: Mid Continent Nail Corporation; Davis Wire Corporation; Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (Atlas Steel & Wire Division); Maze Nails (Division of W.H. Maze Company); Treasure Coast Fasteners, Inc.; and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union. From March 3 through March 12, 2008, we verified the constructed value
(CV)and sales questionnaire responses of Dubai Wire. On March 31 and April 1, 2008, we issued the CV and sales verification reports, respectively. *See* Memorandum to the File entitled “Verification of the Cost Response of Dubai Wire FZE in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the UAE,” dated March 31, 2008 (CVR), and Memorandum to the File entitled “Verification of the Sales Response of Dubai Wire FZE and Its Affiliate Global Fasteners Ltd in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates,” dated April 1, 2008 (SVR). On April 21, 2008, the Department issued a decision memorandum in this investigation and the companion investigation on nails from the People's Republic of China
(PRC)( *Nails from the PRC* ), in which the Department described the application of a new methodology to analyze targeted dumping. Based on this analysis, the Department did not find a pattern of export prices for identical merchandise that differed significantly among purchasers. *See* Memorandum to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Post-Preliminary Determinations on Targeted Dumping,” dated April 21, 2008; and Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, entitled “Post-Preliminary Determination on Targeted Dumping: Results for Dubai Wire FZE/Global Fasteners Ltd,” dated April 21, 2008. As a result, we applied the average-to-average methodology to all U.S. sales and found a *de minimis* margin (0.09 percent) for Dubai Wire. On April 24, 2008, the Department issued a letter to all parties in the two investigations providing clarifications concerning the post-preliminary determinations. On April 30, 2008, the petitioners and Hilti, Inc. (Hilti), an importer of the subject merchandise, filed case briefs. Dubai Wire filed a case brief on May 1, 2008. On May 7, 2008, the petitioners and Dubai Wire filed rebuttal briefs. On May 6, 2008, National Nail Corp., an importer of subject merchandise in *Nails from the PRC* , requested that the Department confirm that the scope of this investigation excludes plastic cap roofing nails. 2 The Department rejected this request, and all submissions associated with this request, as untimely filed on June 2, 2008. *See* Letter from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias to White and Case, dated June 2, 2008. 2 The May 6, 2008, submission was filed on the record of the UAE investigation on May 7, 2008. On May 12, 2008, the petitioners submitted a letter for the record of the PRC investigation opposing National Nail Corp.'s exclusion request. This letter was submitted for the record of the UAE investigation on May 27, 2008. National Nail Corp. responded to this letter on May 20, 2008. On May 15, 2008, Illinois Tool Works, Inc. and Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (collectively, ITW) submitted the public version of their scope arguments contained in the public version of ITW's rebuttal brief filed on May 8, 2008, in *Nails from the PRC.* *See* “Scope Comments” section, below. As the Department established a separate briefing schedule on targeted dumping issues, the petitioners and Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd., Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd., Senco Products, Inc., and Omnifast LLC (collectively, Xingya Group), a respondent in *Nails from the PRC* , submitted case briefs with respect to these issues on May 7, 2008. 3 On May 14, 2008, the Xingya Group, ITW, and Dubai Wire submitted rebuttal briefs to the petitioners' targeted dumping brief. 4 On May 19, 2008, we held a joint public hearing on the targeted dumping issues raised in this investigation and *Nails from the PRC* . 3 The public version of Xingya Group's brief was submitted for the record of this investigation on May 12, 2008. 4 Dubai Wire resubmitted its rebuttal brief on May 16, 2008, as the Department rejected the original rebuttal brief because it contained arguments that did not address comments made in the petitioners' targeted dumping case brief. *See* Memorandum to The File entitled “Return of Dubai Wire FZE (Dubai Wire) Rebuttal Brief on Targeted Dumping Issues,” dated May 16, 2008. The public versions of the petitioners' and ITW's targeted dumping rebuttal briefs filed in Nails from the PRC were submitted to this record on May 15, 2008. Period of Investigation The period of investigation
(POI)is April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition ( *i.e.* , May 2007). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails that are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by electroplating or hot-dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point. Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated into strips or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel nails subject to this proceeding are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75. Excluded from the scope of this proceeding are roofing nails of all lengths and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not galvanized. Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.10. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are certain brads and finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in shank diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated with adhesive or polyester film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are fasteners having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments Banded Brads and Finish Nails On July 30, 2007, 5 Stanley Fastening Systems, LP (Stanley), an interested party in this proceeding, requested that banded brads and finish nails imported with a “nailer kit” or “combo kit” as a single package be excluded from this investigation as being outside the “class or kind” 6 of merchandise. 7 Based on the scope exclusion request from Stanley, the fact that the petitioners are in agreement with this request, and that there appears to be no impediment to enforceability by CBP, we preliminarily determined that the above-described products are not subject to the scope of this investigation. Since the *Preliminary Determination* , no party to this proceeding has commented on this issue and we have found no additional information that would compel us to reverse our preliminary finding. Thus, for purposes of the final determination, we continue to find that the above-described products are not subject to the scope of this investigation. 5 This submission was filed on the record of Nails from the PRC on July 30, 2007, and on the record of the instant investigation on January 7, 2008. 6 A “nailer kit” consists of a pneumatic nailer, a “starter box” of branded products and a carrying case. A “combo kit” consists of an air compressor, a pneumatic nailer, and a “starter box” of banded products and related accessories, such as an air hose. 7 On December 12, 2007, Stanley revised its July 30, 2007, scope exclusion request arguing that its new request reflects a broader exclusion and could be easily administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)because the description of the excluded brads and finish nails is framed solely in terms of their physical characteristics. Fasteners Suitable for Use in Gas-Actuated Hand Tools In its case brief filed on April 30, 2008, Hilti, an interested party in this proceeding, reiterated its request, submitted on January 8, 2008, that the Department modify the scope of the investigation to exclude fasteners suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools. 8 Hilti claimed that modification of the scope to exclude these fasteners was supported by the petitioners 9 and, additionally, because the description of the excluded nails is framed solely in terms of their physical characteristics, the exclusion could be easily administered by CBP. Furthermore, Hilti pointed out that the principles and rationale the Department applied to Stanley's scope request (see discussion above) in the *Preliminary Determination* applied equally to Hilti's scope request. 8 We stated in the *Preliminary Determination* that we received this request too late to consider for purposes of the preliminary determination, but would consider it for the final determination. 9 On January 9, 2008, the petitioners filed a letter stating that they agree with Hilti's January 8, 2008, scope exclusion request. Hilti rebutted ITW's January 8, 2008, submission arguing that ITW offered no material reason for seeking the imposition of antidumping duties against the product at issue, other than its assertion that it is a U.S. manufacturer of such merchandise. Moreover, Hilti claimed that ITW has never opposed the petitioners' own initial exclusion of nails suitable for use in powder- actuated hand tools, which Hilti claimed are functionally similar and competitive with nails suitable for use in gas-actuated tools, but simply classified under a different HTSUS subheading. In its rebuttal brief submitted on May 8, 2008, in *Nails from the PRC* , 10 ITW reiterated its arguments in its January 8, 2008, submission that, because it is the only U.S. producer of the product at issue, the petitioners' agreement to the proposed exclusion is not relevant in light of ITW's opposition. In addition, ITW claimed that it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate for it to oppose a petition generally, while at the same time opposing certain exclusions to that petition. 10 This brief was submitted for the UAE record on May 15, 2008. Based on the scope exclusion request from Hilti, the fact that the petitioners are in agreement with this request, and that there appears to be no impediment to enforceability by CBP, 11 we have determined that the above-described products are not subject to the scope of this investigation. 12 11 *See* Memorandum to the File from Kate Johnson, Senior Case Analyst, entitled “Scope Exclusion Request,” dated May 1, 2008. 12 While the Department notes ITW's objection, it strives to craft a scope that both includes the specific products for which the petitioners have requested relief, and excludes those products which may fall within the general scope definition, but for which the petitioners do not seek relief. Aluminum Nails and Stainless Steel Nails On February 27, 2008, Duo-Fast Northeast (Duo-Fast), an interested party in this proceeding, requested that the Department exclude two types of nails from the scope of this proceeding:
(1)aluminum nails, and
(2)stainless steel nails. 13 The plain language of the scope indicates that the scope does not cover aluminum nails because nails made from aluminum are not made from steel and are, thus, not subject merchandise. However, stainless steel nails are explicitly covered in the scope of this proceeding, as the plain language of the scope covers nails produced from any type of steel, without limitation. Therefore, we have not modified the scope of investigation in accordance with Duo-Fast's requests. 13 On March 18, 2008, the petitioners submitted a letter for the record opposing Duo-Fast's exclusion request. Targeted Dumping We have analyzed the case and rebuttal briefs with respect to targeted dumping issues submitted for the record in this investigation and in *Nails from the PRC* . As a result of our analysis, we made certain changes in the targeted dumping test we applied in the post-preliminary determination for purposes of the final determination. These changes continued to result in a negative targeted dumping finding for Dubai Wire. For further discussion, see Comments 1 through 9 in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” ( *Decision Memo* ) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 6, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. See also Memorandum to The File entitled “Dubai Wire FZE/Global Fasteners Ltd. Final Determination Margin Calculation,” dated June 6, 2008. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties to this investigation are addressed in the *Decision Memo* . A list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the *Decision Memo* , is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memo* can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by Dubai Wire for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Dubai Wire. *See* CVR and SVR. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculation for Dubai Wire. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Decision Memo. Final Determination Margins We determine that the weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Weighted-Average Margin Percentage Dubai Wire FZE/Global Fasteners Ltd. 0.00 All Others 0.00 Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Termination of Suspension of Liquidation Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the sole investigated company is 0.00 percent ( *de minimis* ), we will direct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 23, 2008, and to release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit. ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 6, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum Targeted Dumping Issues *Comment 1:* Appropriateness of Implementing New Methodology in this Investigation *Comment 2:* Identifying Alleged Targets *Comment 3:* Statistical Validity of Standard Deviation Test *Comment 4:* Reliance on Identical Products for Determining Targeted Dumping *Comment 5:* Alleged Masking of Dumping Under 33-Percent Pattern Test Threshold *Comment 6:* Flaws of “Gap Test" *Comment 7:* Alleged Masking of Dumping by Respondents Under Standard Deviation Test *Comment 8:* Statistical Validity of P/2 Test *Comment 9:* Programming Errors Company-Specific Calculation Issues *Comment 10:* Addition of G&A, Financial and Selling Expenses to GFL Processing Costs *Comment 11:* Weight-Averaging of Dubai Wire and GFL Expenses for G&A and Financial Expense Ratios *Comment 12:* Scrap Offset Revisions *Comment 13:* Affiliated Party Loans and Leases *Comment 14:* Calculation of Financial Expense Offset *Comment 15:* Adjustment of GFL CV Profit Ratio for COM Revisions *Comment 16:* Calculation of CV Selling Expenses and Profit Based on GFL Screw Sales *Comment 17:* LOT Adjustment for CV Comparisons [FR Doc. E8-13490 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-865 Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Dach or Scot Fullerton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1655 and
(202)482-1386, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period of review (“POR”) November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 61859 (November 1, 2007). On November 30, 2007, Nucor Corporation (“Petitioner”), a domestic producer of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Baosteel Group Corporation, Shanghai Baosteel International Economic & Trading Co., Ltd., and Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (collectively “Baosteel”). On December 27, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, (“Notice of Initiation”), 72 FR 73315 (December 27, 2007). On April 14, 2008, we preliminarily rescinded this review based on evidence on the record indicating that there were no entries into the United States. *See Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The People's Republic of China, (“Preliminary Rescission”)* , 73 FR 20021 (April 14, 2008). We invited interested parties to submit comments on our Preliminary Rescission. We did not receive any comments on our Preliminary Rescission. Scope of the Review For purposes of this review, the products covered 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 review. Specifically included within the scope of this review 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 review, 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 review unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this review: . 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 review 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 review, 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 U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007. Final Rescission of Review Because there is no information on the record which indicates that Baosteel made sales to the United States of subject merchandise during the POR, and because we did not receive any comments on our *Preliminary Rescission* , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the PRC for the period of November 1, 2006, to October 31, 2007. 1 The cash deposit rate for Baosteel will continue to be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. This notice is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: June 9, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. 1 See, e.g, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan; Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 26041 (May 3, 2006). [FR Doc. E8-13487 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-839] Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) received a request for initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on polyester staple fiber (“PSF”) from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) from Woongjin Chemical Co. Ltd. (“Woongjin”). After reviewing this request, we preliminarily determine that Woongjin is the successor-in-interest to Saehan Industries Inc. (“Saehan”), and as a result, should be accorded the same treatment previously accorded Saehan with regard to the antidumping duty order on PSF from Korea. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-3853. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on certain PSF from Korea. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Republic of Korea* , 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000). On April 23, 2008, Woongjin requested that the Department initiate a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on PSF from Korea to determine that, for purposes of the antidumping law, Woongjin is the successor-in-interest to Saehan. See April 23, 2008, letter from Woongjin. Saehan was a producer and exporter of PSF from Korea that participated in the administrative review covering the period May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003. As a result of this review, Saehan received a cash deposit rate of 2.13 percent. *See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination To Revoke the Order in Part,* 69 FR 61341 (October 18, 2004); amended by *Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea* , 69 FR 67891 (November 22, 2004). Saehan has not participated in any other administrative reviews of PSF from Korea. Scope of the Review For the purposes of this order, the product covered is PSF. PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to this order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.00.25 is specifically excluded from this order. Also specifically excluded from this order are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.216, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In this case, the Department finds that the information submitted by the respondent provides sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to warrant a review to determine whether Woongjin is the successor-in-interest to Saehan. Thus, in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review to determine whether Woongjin is the successor-in-interest to Saehan for purposes of determining antidumping duty liability with respect to imports of PSF from Korea. Furthermore, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits the Department to combine the notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review and the notice of preliminary results in a single notice if the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this case, we find that the evidence provided by Woongjin is sufficient to preliminarily determine that its change of corporate name from Saehan to Woongjin, resulting from a change in stock ownership along with a change of some of the board of directors, did not affect the company's operations. In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in:
(1)Management;
(2)production facilities;
(3)supplier relationships; and
(4)customer base. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan,* 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002); *Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992). While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. *See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999); *Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review,* 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the former company, the Department will accord the new company the same antidumping treatment as its predecessor. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), we preliminarily determine that Woongjin is the successor-in-interest to Saehan. In its April 23, 2008 submission, Woongjin provided evidence supporting its claim to be the successor-in-interest to Saehan. Documentation attached to Woongjin's April 23, 2008, submission shows that the purchase of 50 percent of Saehan's shares by the Woongjin Group, and the subsequent name change to Woongjin resulted in little or no change in management, production facilities, supplier relationships, or customer base. This documentation consists of:
(1)A list of major shareholders along with their percentage holdings before and after the name change;
(2)A list of the board of directors before and after the name change demonstrating that those members of the board involved in the day-to-day activities of the company, including the President, the Business Administration Division Director, and the Auditor, have all remained the same;
(3)Saehan shareholder meeting minutes regarding the name change;
(4)Saehan's and Woongjin's business registration certificate which demonstrates that despite the name change, the business registration number remained the same;
(5)Certificate of corporate registration that demonstrated the name change from Saehan to Woongjin;
(6)Announcement to Saehan's customers of the name change;
(7)Corporate organizational charts demonstrating that the organizational structure remained unchanged despite the name change;
(8)Organizational charts of the PSF production and sales divisions demonstrating that the organizational structure remained unchanged before and after the name change;
(9)Woongjin's Internet Web site demonstrating that Saehan is now Woongjin;
(10)A list of suppliers before and after the name change demonstrating that Woongjin has maintained Saehan's supplier relationships with only some minor variations (which Woongjin explains are due to timing changes and normal business turnover); and
(11)A list of customers before and after the name change demonstrating that Woongjin has maintained Saehan's customer base with only some minor variations (which Woongjin explains are due to timing changes and normal business turnover). The documentation described above demonstrates that there was little or no change in management structure, supplier relationships, production facilities, or customer base. Therefore, we determine that expedited action is warranted and we preliminarily find that Woongjin is the successor-in-interest to Saehan and, thus, should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to PSF from Korea. Because we have concluded that expedited action is warranted, we are combining these notices of initiation and preliminary results. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Persons interested in attending the hearing, if one is requested, should contact the Department for the date and time of the hearing. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in those comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. All written comments shall be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. The Department will publish the final results of this changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e). The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and
(2)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216. Dated: June 6, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-13506 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-822 Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-3853. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty order on certain helical spring lock washers (“HSLW”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), as amended on November 23, 1993. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China* , 58 FR 53914 (October 19, 1993), and *Amended Final Determination and Amended Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China* , 58 FR 61859 (November 23, 1993). On November 26, 2007, the Department initiated an administrative review of Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd. (also known as Zhejiang Wanxin Group, Ltd.) (“HSW” or “Respondent”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 65938 (November 26, 2007). On May 15, 2008, both HSW and Shakeproof Assembly Components Division of Illinois Tool Works Inc. (“Shakeproof” or “Petitioner”) requested that the Department exercise its discretion and extend the deadline for withdrawal of administrative review beyond 90 days, thereby allowing both HSW's and Shakeproof's May 15, 2008, withdrawal requests to be considered timely. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are HSLWs of carbon steel, of carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non-heat-treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. HSLWs are designed to:
(1)Function as a spring to compensate for developed looseness between the component parts of a fastened assembly;
(2)distribute the load over a larger area for screws or bolts; and
(3)provide a hardened bearing surface. The scope does not include internal or external tooth washers, nor does it include spring lock washers made of other metals, such as copper. HSLWs subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Rescission of Review Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, or withdraws its request at a later date if the Department determines that it is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. Both HSW and Shakeproof withdrew their requests for review on May 15, 2008, which is after the 90-day deadline. Nonetheless, the Department accepts the withdrawal requests because it has not yet expended significant resources on this review. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the administrative review of HSW covering the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) 15 days after publication of this rescission notice. The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties 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). Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders 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. This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: June 10, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-13494 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Entry of Shipments of Cotton, Wool, Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable Fiber Textiles and Apparel in Excess of U.S. - China Bilateral Textile Agreement Limits for 2008. June 11, 2008. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (the Committee). ACTION: Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-4212. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854). This notice serves to remind interested parties that charges against the limits subject to the U.S. - China Bilateral Textile Agreement signed on November 8, 2005 (the Agreement) are by date of export and not date of entry. A properly completed electronic visa (ELVIS) transmission will be required for all shipments exported prior to January 1, 2009 that are subject to Agreement limits, regardless of the date of entry into the United States. Shipments exported in 2008 in excess of agreed limits are in violation of the terms of the Agreement. Shipments exported from China on and after January 1, 2009 will not require an ELVIS transmission. The purpose of this notice is to advise the public that CITA reserves the right to permanently deny entry to or to stage entry to goods that have been shipped in excess of the 2008 limits under the Agreement. Overshipments of merchandise subject to the Agreement shall be subject to delayed and staged entry, in a manner similar to the procedures followed for overshipments of 2005 China textile safeguard limits, as published in the Federal Register Notice on December 5, 2005 (70 FR 72427). Any overshipments of the 2008 limits of the Agreement shall be subject to the following procedures: 1. Entry will not be allowed until one month after the expiration date of the agreement limit. Therefore entry will not be allowed until February 1, 2009. 2. At that time, only 5 percent of the 2008 base limit will be allowed entry for a one month period beginning on that date. 3. An additional 5 percent will be allowed entry monthly until all overshipments are allowed entry. CITA will publish a notice and directive to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)later this year indicating the categories involved in staged entry and the 5 percent quantities to be allowed in monthly beginning February 1, 2009. R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-13482 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System Feasibility of a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Memorandum of Understanding With Poland AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Request for industry feedback regarding experience in public (particularly defense) procurements conducted by the Republic of Poland. SUMMARY: DoD is soliciting information from U.S. industry that has had experience participating in public defense procurements conducted by or on behalf of Poland's Ministry of National Defense or Armed Forces. DoD is considering the possibility of negotiating a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Memorandum of Understanding (RDP MOU) with Poland. The contemplated MOU would involve reciprocal waivers of buy-national laws by each country. This would mean that Poland would be added to the list of “qualifying countries” in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and that offers of products of Poland would be exempt from the U.S. Buy American Act and Balance of Payments Program policy that would otherwise require DoD to add 50 percent to the price of the foreign products when evaluating offers. This also means that U.S. products should be exempt from any analogous “Buy Polish” law or policy applicable to Poland's defense procurements. DoD is interested in industry comments relating to the transparency, integrity, and general fairness of Poland's public (defense) procurement processes. DoD is also interested in comments relating to the degree of reciprocity that exists between the United States and Poland when it comes to the openness of defense procurements to offers of products of the other country. DATES: Comments, which will be treated in a confidential manner, must be received by July 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to: Office of the Director, Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and Strategic Sourcing, ATTN: OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (CPIC), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060; or by e-mail to *barbara.glotfelty@osd.mil* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara Glotfelty, telephone 703-697-9351. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RDP MOUs that DoD has entered into with 21 countries are signed by the Secretary of Defense and his counterpart. The purpose of these MOUs is to promote rationalization, standardization, and interoperability of defense equipment with allies and friendly governments. It provides a framework for ongoing communication regarding market access and procurement matters that affect effective defense cooperation. Based on the RDP MOU, each country affords the other certain benefits on a reciprocal basis, consistent with national laws and regulations. For 19 of the 21 MOU countries, these include evaluation of offers without applying price differentials under “Buy National” laws (e.g., the Buy American Act), and making provision for duty-free entry of goods delivered under covered contracts. Poland is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization Ally of the United States. The countries with which DoD has RDP MOUs are identified in DFARS 225.872-1. Should an RDP MOU be concluded with Poland, Poland would be added to the list of qualifying countries. If, based on and in conjunction with the RDP MOU, DoD determines that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to apply the restrictions of the Buy American Act to the acquisition of Polish defense equipment and supplies, Poland would be listed in DFARS 225.872-1(a). If a determination will be made on a purchase-by-purchase basis, Poland would be listed in DFARS 225.872-1(b). RDP MOUs generally include language by which the parties agree that their procurements will be conducted in accordance with certain implementing procedures. These procedures include publication of notices of proposed purchases; the content and availability of solicitations for proposed purchases; notification to each unsuccessful offeror; feedback, upon request, to unsuccessful offerors concerning the reasons they were not allowed to participate in a procurement or were not awarded a contract; and providing for the hearing and review of complaints arising in connection with any phase of the procurement process to ensure that, to the extent possible, complaints are equitably and expeditiously resolved between an offeror and the procuring activity. While DoD is evaluating Poland's laws and regulations in this area, DoD would benefit from knowledge of U.S. industry experience in participating in Poland's public defense procurements. DoD is, therefore, asking U.S. firms that have participated or attempted to participate in procurements by or on behalf of Poland's Ministry of National Defense or Armed Forces to provide input as to whether the procurements were conducted in accordance with published procedures with fairness and due process and, if not, the nature of the problems encountered. All comments received will be treated as confidential submissions. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. [FR Doc. E8-13458 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System Reinstitution of Small Business Set-Asides for Certain Acquisitions Under the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Notice of reinstitution of small business set-asides under the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program. SUMMARY: The Director, Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and Strategic Sourcing has reinstituted the use of small business set-aside procedures for solicitations issued under the Designated Industry Groups (DIGs), including Construction (except dredging), Subsector 236—Construction of Buildings; non-nuclear ship repair acquisitions conducted by the Department of the Navy under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 3366111, Product or Service Code J999 (West Coast only); Architect and Engineering Services (including Surveying and Mapping); and Refuse Systems and Related Services. The Director, Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and Strategic Sourcing has also reinstituted the use of small business set-aside procedures for construction solicitations issued under specific construction NAICS codes for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Defense Education Activity, and the U.S. Special Operations Command. This action is required under the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program because DoD has failed to attain its 40 percent goal in these DIGs. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lee Renna, OUSD(AT&L), Assistant Director, DoD Office of Small Business Programs, 201-12th Street South, Suite 406, Arlington, VA 22202; telephone 703-604-0157. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the Small Business Administration issued a final policy directive and an implementation plan on May 25, 1999, for the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program. The Program is further implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)Subpart 19.10 and the Defense FAR Supplement Subpart 219.10. Under the Program, small business set-asides are suspended for certain DIGs. However, pursuant to sections III.D.2.a. and IV.A.3. of the final policy directive and implementation plan, participating agencies such as DoD are required to reinstitute the use of small business set-asides whenever the small business awards under any DIG fall below 40 percent. Reinstitution of small business set-asides is limited to the organizational units(s) within the participating agency that failed to meet the small business participation goal(s). The Federal Procurement Data System—Next Generation indicates that for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2007, DoD's small business participation rate was less than 40 percent in the following DIGs: 1. Construction (Except Dredging), Subsector 236, Construction of Buildings. 2. Non-Nuclear Ship Repair, Product or Service Code J999 (West Coast only). 3. Architect and Engineering Services (including Surveying and Mapping). 4. Refuse Systems and Related Services. In addition to the DIGs identified above, section IV.A.3. of the final policy directive and implementation plan requires that small business set-asides also be reinstituted when an individual organizational unit attained less than a 35 percent small business participation rate, even when DoD's overall achievement in the DIG was 40 percent or greater. The 35 percent rule applies only to Architect and Engineering services and the Construction Subsectors and only for the specific NAICS codes (formerly known as Standard Industrial Classification codes) that fell below 35 percent. Accordingly, the Director, Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, and Strategic Sourcing has directed that subsequent contracting opportunities in excess of the amount reserved for emerging small businesses be solicited through competition restricted to eligible small businesses, for individual organizational units as follows: 1. *Department of the Army.* (a)(1) Construction, Subsector 236, Construction of Buildings.
(2)Construction, Subsector 237, Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. • NAICS 237120.
(3)Construction, Subsector 238, Specialty Trade Contractors. • NAICS 238110. • NAICS 238290. • NAICS 238350.
(b)Architect and Engineering Services (including Surveying and Mapping).
(c)Refuse Systems and Related Services. 2. *Department of the Navy.* (a)(1) Construction, Subsector 236, Construction of Buildings.
(2)Construction, Subsector 237, Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. • NAICS 237120. • NAICS 237990.
(3)Construction, Subsector 238, Specialty Trade Contractors. • NAICS 238120. • NAICS 238190. • NAICS 238390.
(b)Non-Nuclear Ship Repair, Product or Service Code J999 (West Coast only).
(c)Architect and Engineering Services (including Surveying and Mapping). 3. *Department of the Air Force.* (a)(1) Construction, Subsector 236, Construction of Buildings.
(2)Construction, Subsector 237, Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. • NAICS 237120.
(b)Architect and Engineering Services (including Surveying and Mapping). 4. *Defense Contract Management Agency.* Construction, Subsector 236, Construction of Buildings. 5. *Defense Logistics Agency.*
(a)Construction, Subsector 236, Construction of Buildings.
(b)Construction, Subsector 238, Specialty Trade Contractors. • NAICS 238110. • NAICS 238120. • NAICS 238220. 6. *Defense Commissary Agency.* Refuse Systems and Related Services. 7. *Washington Headquarters Services.*
(a)Construction, Subsector 236, Construction of Buildings.
(b)Architect and Engineering Services (including Surveying and Mapping). 8. *Defense Information Systems Agency.* Construction, Subsector 238, Specialty Trade Contractors. • NAICS 238990. 9. *Defense Threat Reduction Agency.* Construction, Subsector 237, Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. • NAICS 237990. 10. *Defense Education Activity.* Construction, Subsector 238, Specialty Trade Contractors. • NAICS 238990. 11. *U.S. Special Operations Command.*
(a)Construction, Subsector 237, Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. • NAICS 237310.
(b)Construction, Subsector 238, Specialty Trade Contractors. • NAICS 238170. Consistent with the revised final policy directive and implementation plan, section III.D.3.b., competition in the four DIGs with an estimated award value that is equal to or less than the emerging small business reserve amount will be restricted to emerging small businesses, provided that the contracting officer determines there is a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible emerging small businesses that will be competitive in terms of market price, quality, and delivery. If no such reasonable expectation exists, requirements will be processed in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.5 or 19.8. The use of unrestricted competition will be reinstated upon determining, after annual review, that contract awards to small business concerns again meet the required goals. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. [FR Doc. E8-13459 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 10, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of the Secretary *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Generic Application Package for Discretionary Grant Programs. *Frequency:* Other: New Awards. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* * Responses:* 12,012. * Burden Hours:* 290,287. * Abstract:* The Department is requesting an extension of the approval for the Generic Application Package that numerous ED discretionary grant programs use to provide to applicants the forms and information needed to apply for new grants under those grant program competitions. The Department will use this Generic Application Package for discretionary grant programs that:
(1)Only use the standard ED or Federal-wide grant applications forms that have been cleared separately through OMB and
(2)only use selection criteria chosen from the menu of criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR); statutory selection criteria or a combination of EDGAR and statutory selection criteria. The use of the standard ED grant application forms and the use of EDGAR and/or statutory selection criteria promotes the standardization and streamlining of ED discretionary grant application packages. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3655. 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. E8-13411 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g. , “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 10, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Postsecondary Education *Type of Review:* Reinstatement. *Title:* Upward Bound Annual Performance Report. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 1,143. *Burden Hours:* 10,287. *Abstract:* Grantees in the Upward Bound Programs (Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math-Science, and Veterans Upward Bound) must submit this report annually. The Department uses the reports to evaluate the performance of grantees prior to awarding continuation funding and to assess grantees' prior experience at the end of the budget period. The Department will also aggregate the data across projects to provide descriptive information on the programs and to analyze their outcomes in response to the Government Performance and Results Act. A System of Records Notice
(SORN)for the Privacy Act System of Records associated with this information collection is underway. Privacy Data will not be retrieved until an approved SORN has been published in the **Federal Register** for 30 days, or is approved by OMB. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3582. 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. E8-13412 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Innovation and Improvement; Overview Information; Charter Schools Program
(CSP)Grants to Non-State Educational Agencies for Planning, Program Design, and Implementation and for Dissemination; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Numbers: 84.282B and 84.282C. *Dates: Applications Available:* June 16, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* July 31, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* September 29, 2008. *Full Text of Announcement* I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the CSP is to increase national understanding of the charter school model and to expand the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the Nation by providing financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and to evaluate the effects of charter schools, including their effects on students, student academic achievement, staff, and parents. The non-State Educational Agency (non-SEA) grants for planning, program design, and implementation, and non-SEA grants for dissemination provide funds for these purposes to eligible applicants in States in which the SEA does not have an approved application under the CSP. Non-SEA eligible applicants that propose to use grant funds for planning, program design, and implementation must apply under CFDA No. 84.282B. Non-SEA eligible applicants that request funds for dissemination activities must submit their applications under CFDA No. 84.282C. *Priority:* This priority is from the notice of final priorities for discretionary grant programs, published in the **Federal Register** on October 11, 2006 (71 FR 60046). *Competitive Preference Priority:* For FY 2008, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional 10 points to an application that meets this priority. This priority is: *Secondary Schools.* Projects that support activities and interventions aimed at improving the academic achievement of secondary school students who are at greatest risk of not meeting challenging State academic standards and not completing high school. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221-7221j. *Applicable Regulations:*
(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
(b)The notice of final priorities for discretionary grant programs published in the **Federal Register** on October 11, 2006 (71 FR 60046). Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply only to institutions of higher education. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 99 apply only to educational agencies or institutions. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $3,000,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $130,000-$175,000 per year. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $150,000 per year. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 17-23. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 36 months under CFDA No. 84.282B. Up to 24 months under CFDA No. 84.282C. Note: Planning and implementation grants awarded by the Secretary to non-SEA eligible applicants will be awarded for a period of up to 36 months, no more than 18 months of which may be used for planning and program design and no more than two years of which may be used for the initial implementation of a charter school. Dissemination grants are awarded for a period of up to two years. III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligible Applicants *Planning and Initial Implementation (CFDA No. 84.282B):* Non-SEA eligible applicants in States with a State statute specifically authorizing the establishment of charter schools and in which the SEA elects not to participate in the CSP or does not have an application approved under the CSP. *Dissemination (CFDA No. 84.282C):* Charter schools, as defined in section 5210(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(ESEA). Note: A charter school may apply for funds to carry out dissemination activities, whether or not the charter school previously applied for or received funds under the CSP for planning or implementation, if the charter school has been in operation for at least three consecutive years and has demonstrated overall success, including—
(1)Substantial progress in improving student academic achievement;
(2)High levels of parent satisfaction; and
(3)The management and leadership necessary to overcome initial start-up problems and establish a thriving, financially viable charter school. Note: *Eligible applicant* is defined in section 5210(3) of the ESEA. The following States currently have approved applications under the CSP: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin. In these States, non-SEA eligible applicants interested in participating in the CSP should contact the SEA for information related to the State's CSP subgrant competition. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* These programs do not require cost sharing or matching. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Erin Pfeltz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone:
(202)205-3525 or by e-mail: *erin.pfeltz@ed.gov* . If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program. *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. The Secretary strongly encourages applicants to limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 50 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted. The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* June 16, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* July 31, 2008. Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* September 29, 2008. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* These competitions are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for these competitions. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* *Use of Funds for Post-Award Planning and Design of the Educational Program and Initial Implementation of the Charter School.* A non-SEA eligible applicant receiving a grant under this program may use the grant funds only for—
(a)Post-award planning and design of the educational program, which may include
(i)refinement of the desired educational results and of the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those results; and
(ii)professional development of teachers and other staff who will work in the charter school; and
(b)Initial implementation of the charter school, which may include
(i)informing the community about the school;
(ii)acquiring necessary equipment and educational materials and supplies;
(iii)acquiring or developing curriculum materials; and
(iv)other initial operational costs that cannot be met from State or local sources. *Use of Funds for Dissemination Activities.* A charter school may use these funds to assist other schools in adapting the charter school's program (or certain aspects of the charter school's program), or to disseminate information about the charter school through such activities as—
(a)Assisting other individuals with the planning and start-up of one or more new public schools, including charter schools, that are independent of the assisting charter school and the assisting charter school's developers and that agree to be held to at least as high a level of accountability as the assisting charter school;
(b)Developing partnerships with other public schools, including charter schools, designed to improve student performance in each of the schools participating in the partnership;
(c)Developing curriculum materials, assessments, and other materials that promote increased student achievement and are based on successful practices within the assisting charter school; and
(d)Conducting evaluations and developing materials that document the successful practices of the assisting charter school and that are designed to improve student performance in other schools. We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications.* Applications for grants under the Charter Schools Program, CFDA Numbers 84.282B and 84.282C, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov.* Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement *and* submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.* You may access the electronic grant application for the Charter Schools Program 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 84.282, not 84.282B or 84.282C). Please note the following: • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 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 program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include
(1)registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to 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. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; *and* • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Erin Pfeltz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970. FAX:
(202)205-5630. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.282B or 84.282C), 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 84.282B or 84.282C), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark.
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.282B or 84.282C), 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 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information *Selection Criteria:* Non-SEA eligible applicants applying for CSP grant funds must address both the statutory application requirements and the selection criteria described in the following paragraphs. Each applicant applying for CSP grant funds may choose to respond to the application requirements in the context of its responses to the selection criteria. The statutory application requirements for all applicants submitting under CFDA Nos. 84.282B and 84.282C are listed in paragraph
(a)in this section. The selection criteria for non-SEA applicants for *Planning, Program Design, and Implementation Grants (CFDA No. 84.282B)* are listed in paragraph
(b)in this section. The selection criteria for non-SEA applicants for *Dissemination Grants (CFDA No. 84.282C)* are listed in paragraph
(c)in this section.
(a)*Application Requirements (CFDA Nos. 84.282B and 84.282C).*
(i)Describe the educational program to be implemented by the proposed charter school, including how the program will enable all students to meet challenging State student academic achievement standards, the grade levels or ages of students to be served, and the curriculum and instructional practices to be used;
(ii)Describe how the charter school will be managed;
(iii)Describe the objectives of the charter school and the methods by which the charter school will determine its progress toward achieving those objectives;
(iv)Describe the administrative relationship between the charter school and the authorized public chartering agency;
(v)Describe how parents and other members of the community will be involved in the planning, program design, and implementation of the charter school;
(vi)Describe how the authorized public chartering agency will provide for continued operation of the charter school once the Federal grant has expired, if that agency determines that the charter school has met its objectives;
(vii)If the charter school desires the Secretary to consider waivers under the authority of the CSP, include a request and justification for waivers of any Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the applicant believes are necessary for the successful operation of the charter school and a description of any State or local rules, generally applicable to public schools, that will be waived for, or otherwise not apply to, the school;
(viii)Describe how the grant funds will be used, including how these funds will be used in conjunction with other Federal programs administered by the Secretary;
(ix)Describe how students in the community will be informed about the charter school and be given an equal opportunity to attend the charter school;
(x)Describe how a charter school that is considered an LEA under State law, or an LEA in which a charter school is located, will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; and
(xi)If the eligible applicant desires to use grant funds for dissemination activities under section 5202(c)(2)(C) of the ESEA, describe those activities and how those activities will involve charter schools and other public schools, LEAs, developers, and potential developers.
(b)*Selection Criteria (CFDA No. 84.282B)* . The following selection criteria are from section 5204 of the ESEA and 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. The maximum possible score for all the criteria in this section is 130 points. The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion. In evaluating an application from a non-SEA eligible applicant for Planning, Program Design, and Implementation, the Secretary considers the following criteria:
(i)The quality of the proposed curriculum and instructional practices (20 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe the educational program to be implemented by the proposed charter school, including how the program will enable all students to meet challenging State student academic achievement standards, the grade levels or ages of students to be served, and the curriculum and instructional practices to be used.
(ii)The degree of flexibility afforded by the SEA and, if applicable, the LEA to the charter school (10 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to include a description of how the State's law establishes an administrative relationship between the charter school and the authorized public chartering agency and exempts the charter school from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools. The Secretary also encourages the applicant to include a description of the degree of autonomy the charter school will have over such matters as the charter school's budget, expenditures, daily operation, and personnel in accordance with its State's charter school law.
(iii)The extent of community support for the application (20 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe how parents and other members of the community will be informed about the charter school, and how students will be given an equal opportunity to attend the charter school.
(iv)The ambitiousness of the objectives for the charter school (10 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe the objectives for the charter school and how these grant funds will be used, including how these funds will be used in conjunction with other Federal programs administered by the Secretary, in meeting these objectives.
(v)The quality of the strategy for assessing achievement of those objectives (20 points).
(vi)The likelihood that the charter school will meet those objectives and improve educational results for students during and after the period of Federal financial assistance (10 points).
(vii)The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental involvement (10 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe how parents and other members of the community will be involved in the planning, program design, and implementation of the charter school.
(viii)The quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director; and the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (10 points).
(ix)The contribution the charter school will make in assisting educationally disadvantaged and other students to achieve State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards (20 points).
(c)*Selection Criteria (CFDA No. 84.282C)* . The following selection criteria are from section 5204 of the ESEA and 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. The maximum possible score for all the criteria in this section is 110 points. The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion. In evaluating an application from a non-SEA eligible applicant for a dissemination grant, the Secretary considers the following criteria:
(i)The quality of the proposed dissemination activities and the likelihood that those activities will improve student achievement (30 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe the objectives for the proposed dissemination activities and the methods by which the charter school will determine its progress toward achieving those objectives.
(ii)The extent to which the school has demonstrated overall success, including—
(1)Substantial progress in improving student achievement (10 points);
(2)High levels of parent satisfaction (10 points); and
(3)The management and leadership necessary to overcome initial start-up problems and establish a thriving, financially viable charter school (10 points).
(iii)The extent to which the results of the proposed project will be disseminated in a manner that will enable others to use the information or strategies (20 points).
(iv)The quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director and the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (10 points).
(v)The quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (20 points). VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we will notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notice (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* 4. *Performance Measures:* The goal of the CSP is to support the creation and development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students. The Secretary has set two performance indicators to measure this goal:
(1)The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation, and
(2)the percentage of charter school students who are achieving at or above the proficient level on State examinations in mathematics and reading. Additionally, the Secretary has established the following measure to examine the efficiency of the CSP: Federal cost per student in implementing a successful school (defined as a school in operation for three or more consecutive years). All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report documenting their contribution in assisting the Department in meeting these performance measures. VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* Erin Pfeltz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone:
(202)205-3525 or by e-mail: *erin.pfeltz@ed.gov.* If you use a TDD, call the FRS toll-free at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . Dated: June 11, 2008. Douglas B. Mesecar, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement. [FR Doc. E8-13470 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY International Energy Agency Meetings AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of meetings. SUMMARY: A meeting involving members of the Industry Advisory Board
(IAB)to the International Energy Agency
(IEA)will take place on June 23-25, 2008, at the headquarters of the IEA in Paris, France, in connection with the IEA's Emergency Disruption Simulation Exercise (ERE4); and on June 25, 2008, a meeting of the IAB will be held in connection with a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ). DATES: June 23-25, 2008. ADDRESSES: 9, rue de la Fédération, Paris, France. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana D. Clark, Assistant General for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-3417. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meetings is provided: A meeting involving members of the Industry Advisory Board
(IAB)to the International Energy Agency
(IEA)in connection with Emergency Response Exercise 4
(ERE4)will be held at the headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la Fédération, Paris, France on June 23-25, 2008. The ERE4 sessions will be held from 2 p.m.-5:30 p.m. on June 23, from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. on June 24, and from 9:30 a.m.-3 p.m. on June 25. In addition, after the session on June 23, the IEA intends to brief traders and media representatives on their anticipated roles in the ERE4 exercise, and an additional meeting of the IAB will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. on June 25. The purpose of ERE4 is to train IEA Government delegates in the use of IEA emergency response procedures by reacting to a hypothetical oil supply disruption scenario. The purpose of the IAB meeting is to collect participants' feedback on the progress of ERE4. The agenda for the IAB meeting is to collect the reactions and assessments of IAB participants in ERE4 for communication to the IEA and to review the agenda of the June 25, 2008, meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ). The agenda for ERE4 is under the control of the IEA. It is expected that the IEA will adopt the following agenda: I. Training Session on IEA Emergency Response Measures for New SEQ Participants and Selected IEA Non-Member Countries (June 23, 2008, 2 p.m.-5:30 p.m.) 1. Welcome Address by the IEA Deputy Executive Director. 2. Introduction by the SEQ Chairman. 3. Introduction to IEA Emergency Response Policies and Objectives. 4. How the Global Oil Market Works. 5. Natural Gas Market. 6. IEA Energy Statistics and Oil Data Systems. 7. The Media's Perspective. 8. Introduction to the Oil Disruption Simulation Exercise. II. Emergency Disruption Response Exercise 4
(ERE4)(June 24, 2008, 9 a.m.-6 p.m., and Continuing June 25, 9:30 a.m.-3 p.m.) June 24, morning: 1. Welcome, Introductions, and Explanations of the Exercise. 2. Scenario 1: Explanation, Presentation, Break-Out Sessions. June 24, afternoon: 3. Plenary Discussion of Scenario 1. 4. Scenario 2: Presentation and Break-Out Sessions. 5. Plenary Discussion of Scenario 2. June 25, morning: 6. Scenario 3: Presentation and Break-Out Sessions. June 25, afternoon: 7. Plenary Discussion of Scenario 3. 8. Wrap-up and Concluding Remarks. A meeting of the IAB to the IEA will be held at the headquarters of the IEA commencing at 3:30 p.m. on June 25, 2008. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions
(SEQ)on June 25 at the same location and time. The agenda of the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda: 1. Adoption of the Agenda. 2. Approval of the Summary Record of the 122nd Meeting. 3. Status of Compliance with IEP Stockholding Commitments. 4. Committee Observers from IEA Non-Member Countries. 5. Emergency Response Exercise 4: —Initial Response Plan and Proposed Country Shares. —Participation of Non-Member Country Delegates in ERE4. 6. Emergency Response Review Program: —Draft Questionnaire. —ERR Schedule. 7. Policy and Other Developments in Member Countries: —Accession of Poland to the IEA. 8. The SEQ Program of Work for 2009-2010. 9. Documents for Information: —Monthly Oil Statistics: March 2008. —Emergency Reserve Situation of IEA Member Countries on April 1, 2008. —Emergency Reserve Situation of IEA Candidate Countries on April 1, 2008. —Base Period Final Consumption: 2Q 2007-1Q 2008. —Update of Emergency Contacts List. 10. Other Business: —Tentative Schedule of Meetings: —September 17-18, 2008. —November 18-20, 2008. —March 24-26, 2009. As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of the IAB are open to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions; representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, or the IEA. Issued in Washington, DC, June 10, 2008. Diana D. Clark, Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs. [FR Doc. E8-13452 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No.: P-2146-111] Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application and Applicant-Prepared EA Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions to Intervene and Protests, and Soliciting Comments, and Final Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions June 6, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application and applicant-prepared environmental assessment has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No.:* P-2146-111. c. *Date filed:* July 28, 2005. d. *Applicant:* Alabama Power Company. e. *Name of Project:* Coosa River Hydroelectric Project, which includes the Weiss, H. Neely Henry, Logan Martin, Lay and Bouldin developments, the Mitchell Hydroelectric Project (P-82), and the Jordan Hydroelectric Project (P-618). Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) has requested that Project Nos. 2146, 82, and 618 be consolidated into one project. We are processing these three projects under Project No. 2146-111. f. *Location:* On the Coosa River, in the states of Alabama and Georgia. The Logan Martin development affects less than an acre of federal lands, the Lay development affects 133.5 acres of federal lands, the Mitchell Project affects 127.3 acres of federal lands, and the Jordan Project affects 10.1 acres of federal lands. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r) h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Jerry L. Stewart, Senior Vice President and Senior Production Officer, Alabama Power Company, 600 North 18th Street, P.O. Box 2641, Birmingham, AL 35291-8180. i. *FERC Contact:* Janet Hutzel, Telephone
(202)502-8675, and e-mail *janet.hutzel@ferc.gov* j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, and final recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. Motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. k. This application has been accepted for filing. l. The proposed Coosa River Project would consist of seven developments. The Weiss, H. Neely Henry, and Logan Martin developments would operate in peaking mode. The Lay, Mitchell, Jordan, and Bouldin developments would operate in run-of-river mode. The total capacity for all developments is 960.9 megawatts (MW). The project works would include the following: Weiss Development The Weiss development consists of:
(1)A total of 30,798 feet of water retaining structures which includes a diversion dam and gated spillway, powerhouse about 3.5 miles from the spillway, and earth embankments consisting of:
(a)A 7,000-foot-long power canal which carries water from the main reservoir to the powerhouse forebay,
(b)a 1,300 foot-long tailrace canal which carries water from the tailrace to the Coosa River,
(c)1.7-mile-long east and 1.8-mile-long west earthfill embankments, extending from the powerhouse,
(d)1.35-mile-long east and 1.0-mile-long west earth embankments extending from the spillway,
(e)three freeboard dikes,
(f)120-foot-long and 140-foot-long concrete gravity non-overflow structures to the left and right of the powerhouse,
(g)a retaining wall to the left of the spillway and a non-overflow structure to the right of the spillway,
(h)a concrete gated spillway equipped with five 40-foot-wide by 38-foot-high Tainter gates and one 16-foot-wide by 22-foot-high Tainter gate which serves as a trash gate,
(i)a second trash gate of same dimension located to the right of the powerhouse, and
(j)a 20-mile-long bypassed reach of the Coosa River;
(2)a 52-mile-long, 30,200-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 564 feet mean sea level (msl), and total storage capacity of 704,404 acre-feet at maximum elevation 574 feet msl;
(3)a 256-foot-long concrete power house with a total rated capacity of 87.75 MW;
(4)trashracks located at the turbine intakes with 6-inch bar spacing;
(5)a substation; and
(6)other appurtenances. The project annually generates an estimated 215,500 megawatt-hours
(MWh)of energy. H. Neely Henry Development The H. Neely Henry development consists of:
(1)A total of 4,705 feet of water retaining structures, which includes a concrete dam and two earthen embankment sections consisting of:
(a)A 305-foot-long spillway equipped with six 40-foot-wide by 29-foot-high Tainter gates,
(b)a 300-foot-long intake section,
(c)a 120-foot-long non-overflow bulk head section at the east end of the spillway, and
(d)a 133-foot-long non-overflow section at the west end of the spillway;
(2)a 78-mile-long, 11,235-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 508 feet msl, with a total storage capacity of 30,640 acre-feet at normal elevation 508 feet msl;
(3)a 300-foot-long concrete power house with a total rated capacity of 72.9 MW;
(4)trashracks located at the turbine intakes with 6-inch bar spacing;
(5)a substation; and
(6)other appurtenances. The project annually generates an estimated 210,700 MWh of energy. Logan Martin Development The Logan Martin development consists of:
(1)A total of 6,192 feet of water retaining structures, which includes a 100-foot-high concrete dam and gated spillway, a powerhouse and earthen embankment section consisting of:
(a)A 327-foot-long concrete spillway equipped with six 40-foot-wide by 38-foot-high Tainter gates, and one 17.5-foot-wide by 21-foot-high vertical trash gate,
(b)a 4,650-foot-long east earth embankment,
(c)850-foot-long west earth embankment,
(d)a 120-foot-long concrete powerhouse intake;
(2)a 48.5-mile-long, 15,263-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 465 feet msl, with a total storage capacity of 273,500 acre-feet at normal elevation 465 feet msl;
(3)a 295-foot-long concrete power house with a total rated capacity of 128.25 MW;
(4)trashracks located at the turbine intakes with 6-inch bar spacing;
(5)a substation; and
(6)other appurtenances. The project annually generates an estimated 400,200 MWh of energy. Lay Development The Lay development consists of:
(1)A total of 2,120 feet of water retaining structures, which includes a concrete dam and gated spillway, integrated powerhouse, and an earthen embankment section consisting of:
(a)A 194-foot-long concrete bulkhead,
(b)a 304-foot-long concrete intake section,
(c)a 930-foot-long gated concrete spillway section equipped with twenty-six 30-foot-wide by 17-foot-high radial lift gates,
(d)a 180-foot-long concrete bulkhead, and
(e)a 512-foot-long earth embankment;
(2)a 48.2-mile-long, 12,000-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 465 feet msl;
(3)a 376-foot-long concrete powerhouse with a total rated capacity of 177 MW;
(4)a total of 144 trashracks located at the turbine intakes with 6-inch bar spacing;
(5)a substation and
(6)other appurtenances. The project annually generates an estimated 639,445 MWh of energy. Mitchell Development The Mitchell development consists of:
(1)A total of 1,264 feet of water retaining structures, which includes a concrete dam and gated spillway, and two powerhouses consisting of:
(a)A 964-foot-long gated concrete spillway section equipped with twenty-three 30-foot-wide by 15-foot-high timber faced radial lift gates, and three 30-foot-wide by 25-foot-high steel faced radial gates;
(2)a 14-mile-long 5,850-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 312 feet msl;
(3)two powerhouses, which include:
(a)The original 449-foot-long concrete powerhouse with a total rated capacity of 20 MW and b) a new 300-foot-long concrete powerhouse with a total rated capacity of 150 MW;
(4)a total of 124 trashracks located at the turbine intakes with 6-inch bar spacing;
(5)a substation; and
(6)other appurtenances. The project annually generates an estimated 527,666 MWh of energy. Jordan Development The Jordan development consists of:
(1)A total of 2,066 feet of water retaining structures, which includes a 125-foot-high concrete dam and gated spillway, and integrated powerhouse consisting of:
(a)A 75-foot-long non-overflow concrete bulkhead,
(b)a 246-foot-long concrete intake section,
(c)a 1330-foot-long gated concrete spillway equipped with eighteen 34-foot-wide by 8-foot-high radial lift gates, and seventeen 30-foot-wide by 18-foot-high vertical lift gates, and
(d)a 177-foot-long non-overflow concrete bulkhead;
(2)an 18-mile-long, 5,880-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 252 feet msl;
(3)a 300-foot-long concrete power house with a total rated capacity of 100 MW;
(4)four trashracks located at the turbine intakes with 4-inch bar spacing;
(5)a substation; and
(6)other appurtenances. The project annually generates an estimated 148,543 MWh of energy. Bouldin Development The Bouldin development consists of:
(1)A total of 9,428 feet of water retaining structures, which includes a 210-foot-high concrete dam, a powerhouse integrated with the project intake, and two earthen embankments consisting of:
(a)A 2,200-foot-long earth embankment to the left of the intake,
(b)a 228-foot-long concrete intake section equipped with three 40-foot-wide by 35.5-foot-high Tainter gates, and
(c)a 7,000-foot-long earth embankment to the right of the intake;
(2)a 3-mile-long, 920-acre intake canal at normal pool elevation 252 feet msl;
(3)a 228-foot-long concrete powerhouse with a total rated capacity of 225 MW;
(4)sixty-three trashracks located at the turbine intakes with 6-inch bar spacing;
(5)a substation; and
(6)other appurtenances. The project annually generates an estimated 822,000 MWh of energy. m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. Register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. All filings must
(1)Bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST,” “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;”
(2)set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;
(3)furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and
(4)otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010. o. *Procedural Schedule:* At this time we do not anticipate the need for preparing a draft environmental assessment. Recipients will have 30 days to provide the Commission with any written comments on the environmental assessment (EA). All comments filed with the Commission will be considered in the Order taking final action on the license applications. However, should substantive comments requiring re-analysis be received on the EA, we will consider preparing a subsequent EA. The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone Target date Filing of recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions (August 2008). Notice of Availability of the EA (single EA) (February 2009). p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13424 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 459-220] Ameren/UE; Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests June 9, 2008. a. * Type of Application:* Non-project use of project lands and waters. b. *Project Number:* P-459-220. c. *Date Filed:* May 23, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Ameren/UE. e. *Name of Project:* Osage Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The project is located at Topsider Bar near mile marker 18.8+0.5 of the Glaize Arm of the Lake of the Ozarks, in Camden County, Missouri. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)825(r) and 799 and 801. h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Jeff Green, Shoreline Supervisor, Ameren/UE, P.O. Box 993, Lake Ozark, MO 65049,
(573)365-9214. i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Christopher Yeakel at
(202)502-8132, or e-mail address: *christopher.yeakel@ferc.gov* . j. *Deadline for filing comments and or motions:* July 11, 2008. k. *Description of Request:* The application filed on May 23, 2008, requests approval to permit the construction of a new boat dock and after-the-fact approval to replace the floatation on an existing dock with a capacity of 9 watercraft by Ebling Enterprises at Topsider Bar near mile marker 18.8+0.5 of the Glaize Arm of the Lake of the Ozarks. The new 20-slip dock would be a total of 260 feet long and would have one central walkway. The existing dock with a capacity of 9 watercraft is 80 feet long and 32 feet wide and contains a fuel pumping station. No dredging, fuel dispensing, or sewage pumping facilities are proposed. l. *Locations of the Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field (p-459) to access the document. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , for TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers (P-459-220). All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. p. *Agency Comments* —Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13415 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2210-173] Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests June 9, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters. b. *Project No:* 2210-173. c. *Date Filed:* May 20, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Appalachian Power Company. e. *Name of Project:* Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project. f. *Location:* The project is located on the Roanoke River, in Bedford, Pittsylvania, Franklin, and Roanoke Counties, Virginia. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. h. *Applicant Contact:* Elizabeth B. Parcell, Environmental Coordinator I, Appalachian Power Company, P.O. Box 2021, Roanoke, Virginia 24022-2121
(703)985-2348. i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Shana High, Telephone
(202)502-8674, and e-mail: *Shana.High@ferc.gov.* j. *Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protest:* July 11, 2008. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2210-173) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages e-filings. k. *Description of Request:* Appalachian Power Company
(APC)is seeking Commission approval to grant permission to construct a single dock with 2 boat slips adjacent to shoreline identified as an Impact Mitigation Zone (IMZ), as defined in the project's shoreline management plan (SMP). The proposed dock would serve two adjacent single-family homes at 111 and 113 Saunders Point Road in Huddleston, Virginia. The licensee is requesting a variance as required by the SMP for development within the IMZ. l. *Locations of the Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* for TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. p. *Agency Comments:* Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13414 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-415-000] International Paper Company and RSFC Land Management, LLC; Notice of Application June 9, 2008. Take notice that on June 2, 2008, International Paper Company (IP), 6400 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, TN 38197 and RSFC Land Management, LLC RSFC, 10877 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 710, Los Angeles, CA 90024, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an abbreviated joint application, pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations. In this joint application, IP requests Commission authorization to abandon by sale to RSFC approximately 17.83 miles of 6 5/8 -inch-diameter pipeline running from Tensas parish, Louisiana to Natchez, Mississippi, 1,000 feet of 6-inch-diameter pipeline, a 200 horsepower compressor station and appurtenant facilities. Accordingly, RSFC requests Commission authorization to acquire these facilities from IP. RSFC also requests a blanket certificate under Part 157 of the Commission's regulations as well as various waivers under Parts 154, 201, 260, and 284 all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Carolyn F. Corwin, Covington & Burling LLP, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, phone
(202)662-5338, *ccorwin@cov.com,* or Barbara S. Jost, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20006, phone
(202)973-4207, fax
(202)973-4499, *barbarajost@dwt.com.* Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment
(EA)and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. *Comment Date:* June 30, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13416 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP02-229-004] SG Resources Mississippi, L.L.C.; Notice of Application for Amendment June 6, 2008. Take notice that on May 29, 2008, SG Resources Mississippi, L.L.C. (SGRM), 28420 Hardy Toll Road North, Suite 125, Spring, Texas 77373, filed an application in Docket No. CP02-229-004, pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for an order authorizing its Supplemental Expansion Project, an amendment to its certificate issued in Docket No. CP02-229-000 on October 10, 2002 and amended in Docket No. CP02-229-002 on January 24, 2007. SGRM seeks authorization to
(i)increase the working gas capacity of each of the three previously authorized Southern Pines Energy Center storage caverns from 8 Bcf to 10 Bcf;
(ii)develop a fourth 12.8 Bcf cavern;
(iii)construct, own and operate two additional brine disposal wells;
(iv)construct, own, operate, and maintain a 24-inch pipeline loop of the existing Destin Lateral;
(V)install an interconnect pipeline that will connect the Destin Lateral Loop to the Destin Pipeline Company, LLP and Southeast Supply Header, LLC meter stations;
(vi)install two additional 8,000 horsepower compressors; and
(vii)substitute for the required sonar surveys on each cavern every five years a requirement to implement and maintain an enhanced cavern integrity monitoring program. SGRM also seeks reaffirmation of its previously authorized market based rates for its storage and hub services. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to James F. Bowe, Jr., Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP, 1101 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005,
(202)346-8000, Fax
(202)346-8102, e-mail *jbowe@dl.com.* Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment
(EA)and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* June 27, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13425 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP08-403-000] Atmos Energy Marketing, LLC, BP Energy Company, Delta Energy, LLC, Direct Energy, Hess Corporation, Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Integrys Energy Services, Inc., Interstate Gas Supply, Inc., National Energy Marketers Association, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Sequent Energy Management, L.P., Complainants, v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Respondent; Notice of Complaint June 9, 2008. Take notice that on June 6, 2008, pursuant to sections 4 and 5 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717c, Part 154 of the Commission's Regulations, Subpart G of Part 284 of the Commission Regulations, specifically sections 284.222(g) and 284.222(h), and Rule 206 of the Rules and Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Atmos Energy Marketing, LLC, BP Energy Company, Delta Energy, LLC, Direct Energy, Hess Corporation, Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Interstate Gas Supply, Inc., National Energy Marketers Association, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, and Sequent Energy Management, L.P. (Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Respondent), requesting the Commission to direct the Respondent to cease and desist from implementing unilaterally substantial changes to its current primary delivery points under currently effective contracts and new services, though actions that are not authorized under its tariff and are contrary to law. The Complainants further request emergency relief to require the Respondent to cease and desist from unilaterally compelling its firm shippers to amend the primary delivery points under their contracts by establishing an arbitrary deadline of July 31, 2008, for making elections for service at the new primary delivery points, or otherwise face the potential inability to continue to receive firm services in accordance with their currently effective contracts. The Complainants have requested fast track processing of the complaint. The Complainants state that a copy of the complaint has been served on the Respondent. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests, must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 20, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13413 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-365-000; Docket No. CP06-366-000] Bradwood Landing, LLC; NorthernStar Energy, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Bradwood Landing LNG Project June 6, 2008. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared this final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)for the construction and operation of the liquefied natural gas
(LNG)import terminal proposed by Bradwood Landing, LLC, and the associated natural gas sendout pipeline proposed by NorthernStar Energy, LLC (collectively referred to hereafter as NorthernStar) in the above-referenced dockets. The Bradwood Landing LNG Project facilities would be located in Clatsop and Columbia Counties, Oregon, and Cowlitz County, Washington. The final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the U.S. Department of Transportation are cooperating agencies for the development of the EIS. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis. Based on the analysis included in the EIS, the FERC staff concludes that if the Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the project sponsor's proposed mitigation, and the staff's additional mitigation recommendations, it would have mostly limited adverse environmental impacts and would be an environmentally acceptable action. The Bradwood Landing LNG Project would include the construction and operation of an LNG import terminal about 38 miles up the Columbia River from its mouth, at the location of the former lumber mill and town of Bradwood, in Clatsop County, Oregon. Elements of the LNG terminal include: • A dredged maneuvering area in the Columbia River adjacent to the existing navigation channel maintained by the COE; • A single berth capable of handling LNG carriers ranging in capacity from 100,000 to 200,000 cubic meters (m 3 ); • A set of four 16-inch-diameter unloading arms on the wharf, and a 1,240-foot-long cryogenic transfer pipeline from the wharf to the LNG storage tanks; • Two full-containment LNG storage tanks, each with a capacity of 160,000 m 3 ; and • A set of seven submerged combustion vaporizers to re-gasify LNG to natural gas, with a capacity to send out 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. The EIS also addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the associated natural gas sendout pipeline between the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal and an interconnection with the existing Williams Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Williams Northwest) interstate system near Kelso, Washington. The pipeline facilities would include: • A 36.3-mile-long, underground, high-pressure welded steel pipeline, consisting of 18.9 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Clatsop and Columbia Counties, Oregon, and 17.4 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Cowlitz County, Washington; • Five meter stations, including one at the LNG terminal, at the Georgia-Pacific Wauna paper mill delivery point, the interconnection with the existing Northwest Natural Gas Company intrastate system, the Portland General Electric Company Beaver power plant delivery point, and the Williams Northwest interconnection; and • At least five mainline block valves, two pig 1 launchers, and two pig receivers. 1 A “pig” is a tool used inside of a pipeline to clean or inspect it. The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,
(202)502-8371. Copies of the final EIS have been mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, individuals who have requested the final EIS, or provided comments; libraries and newspapers in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding. Hard copies of volume 1 (narrative text) of this EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them, and all others received a compact disk
(CD)that can be read from a personal computer with a CD-ROM drive. Volume 2, consisting of appendices, was only produced on CD. A limited number of hard copies and CDs are available from the Public Reference Room identified above. Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372). The administrative public record for this proceeding is available through the FERC's Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). Using the “Documents and Filings” tab, click on the “eLibrary link,” and select “General Search.” Enter the project docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP06-365) in the “Docket Number” field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC's Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* ). Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13419 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP05-45-002 and CP06-401-002] TransColorado Gas Transmission Company; Amended Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Transcolorado-Meeker Compressor Station Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues June 6, 2008. As previously noticed on March 18, 2008, and amended herein, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment
(EA)that will discuss the potential environmental impacts of TransColorado Gas Transmission Company's (TransColorado) relocation of previously authorized, but uninstalled, natural gas transmission system facilities in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. The proposed TransColorado-Meeker Compressor Station site replaces TransColorado's previously-filed site referred to as the Love Ranch Compressor Station. The EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the amended project. Your input will help determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on July 7, 2008. Details on how to submit comments are provided in the “Public Participation” section of this notice. This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this proposed project and to encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). Summary of the Proposed Project TransColorado proposes to relocate two compressor units previously authorized for installation at the existing Greasewood Compressor Station to an alternative site about 6 miles west (referred to as the TransColorado-Meeker Compressor Station site). Both the Greasewood Compressor Station and the proposed TransColorado-Meeker Compressor Station are in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Specifically, TransColorado proposes to amend its authorizations for both the North Expansion Project in Docket No. CP05-45-000 and the Blanco-Meeker Expansion Project in Docket No. CP06-401-000 to relocate a 2,370-horsepower unit and a 3,550-horsepower unit, respectively, to the TransColorado-Meeker Compressor Station site. TransColorado further seeks authority to construct and operate a new interconnection with Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC (Rockies Express) at the existing Meeker Compressor Station. Both compressor units were originally authorized to allow TransColorado to deliver up to 300,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) to Williams Energy Marketing and Trading Company (Williams) through Wyoming Interstate Company's
(WIC)pipeline system. Installation of the units was deferred to coincide with an increase in Williams' contract quantities beginning January 1, 2008. TransColorado states that relocating the compressor units and the new interconnect would accommodate the changing market needs of Williams on the TransColorado pipeline system and increases the overall delivery flexibility of the pipeline. Upon installation of the two compressors at the TransColorado-Meeker Compressor Station site, TransColorado would be capable of delivering 130,000 Dth/d to WIC at the Greasewood Compressor Station and 210,000 Dth/d to Rockies Express via the proposed interconnection at the Meeker Compressor Station. The TransColorado-Meeker Compressor Station site is located about 1,760 feet north of TransColorado's originally proposed Love Ranch site, and would now be installed entirely within Rockies Express's existing Meeker Compressor Station. Construction and operation of the proposed facilities would occur within the existing Meeker Compressor Station and affect 3.3 acres of previously disturbed land. The general location of the proposed facilities is shown in appendix. 1 1 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the **Federal Register** . Copies of all appendices are available on the Commission's Web site at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202)502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the “Additional Information” section of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. The EA Process We 2 are preparing this EA to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)which requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impact that could result if it authorizes TransColorado's proposal. By this notice, we are also asking federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided below. 2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects. NEPA also requires the FERC to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received will be considered during the preparation of the EA. The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings: • Geology and soils • Land use and visual quality • Cultural resources • Vegetation and wildlife (including threatened and endangered species) • Air quality and noise • Reliability and safety We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, where necessary, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, local libraries and newspapers, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are received and considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the “Public Participation” section below. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal and alternatives to the proposal, including alternative compressor station sites and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded: • Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426; • Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 1, PJ-11.1; • Reference Docket Nos. CP05-45-002 and CP06-401-002; and • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before July 7, 2008. Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments, interventions, or protests to this proceeding. See Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “eFiling” link and the link to the User's Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your computer's hard drive. Before you can file comments you will need to create an account by clicking on “Login to File” and then “New User Account.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.” In addition, there is a “ *Quick Comment* ” option available, which is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project. The *Quick-Comment User Guide* can be viewed at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/quick-comment-guide.pdf.* Quick Comment does not require a FERC eRegistration account; however, you will be asked to provide a valid e-mail address. All comments submitted under either eFiling or the Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the specified docket. Becoming an Intervenor In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor.” Intervenors play a more formal role in the process. Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) (see appendix 2). 3 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. 3 Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing comments electronically. Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered. Environmental Mailing List As described above, we may publish and distribute the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving an EA for review and/or comment, please return the Environmental Mailing List Form (appendix 3). If you do not return the Environmental Mailing List Form, you will be taken off the mailing list. All individuals who provide written comments will remain on our environmental mailing list for this project. Additional Information Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, then on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Finally, any public meetings or site visits scheduled for this proposed project will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13418 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER99-3151-008, etc.] PJM RTO Filers et al; Notice of Filing and Setting Forth Timeline June 6, 2008. PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC Docket No. ER99-3151-008. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket No. ER97-837-007. PSEG Power Connecticut LLC Docket No. ER03-327-002. PSEG Fossil LLC Docket No. ER08-447-000. PSEG Nuclear LLC Docket No. ER08-448-000. Allegheny Power Docket No. ER98-1466-005. Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC Docket No. ER00-814-006. Green Valley Hydro, LLC Docket No. ER00-2924-006. Buchanan Generation, LLC Docket No. ER02-1638-005. PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Docket No. ER00-1712-008. Lower Mount Bethel Energy, LLC Docket No. ER02-2408-003. PPL Brunner Island, LLC Docket No. ER00-744-006. PPL Holtwood, LLC Docket No. ER00-744-006. PPL Marlins Creek, LLC Docket No. ER00-744-006. PPL Montour, LLC Docket No. ER00-744-006. PPL Susquehanna, LLC Docket No. ER00-744-006. PPL University Park, LLC Docket No. ER02-1327-005. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC Docket No. ER00-1703-003. PPL Edgewood Energy, LLC Docket No. ER02-1749-003. PPL Shoreham Energy, LLC Docket No. ER02-1747-003. PPL Great Works, LLC Docket No. ER99-4503-005. PPL Maine, LLC Docket No. ER00-2186-003. PPL Wallingford Energy LLC Docket No. ER01-1559-004. Atlantic City Electric Company Docket No. ER96-1361-013. Delmarva Power & Light Company Docket No. ER99-2781-011. Potomac Electric Power Company Docket No. ER98-4138-009. Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc. Docket No. ER00-1770-019. Conectiv Bethlehem, LLC Docket No. ER02-453-010. Pepco Energy Services, Inc. Docket No. ER98-3096-015. Bethlehem Renewable Energy, LLC Docket No. ER07-903-002. Eastern Landfill Gas, LLC Docket No. ER05-1054-003. Potomac Power Resources, LLC Docket No. ER01-202-008. Fauquier Landfill Gas, LLC Docket No. ER04-472-007. Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc. Docket No. ER01-468-008. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Docket No. ER00-3621-009. Dominion Nuclear Marketing III, LLC Docket No. ER00-3746-009. Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. ER04-318-004. Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC Docket No. ER05-36-005. Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc. Docket No. ER05-37-005. Dominion Energy New England, Inc. Docket No. ER05-34-005. Dominion Energy Salem Docket No. ER05-35-005. Dominion Retail, Inc. Docket No. ER04-249-005. Elwood Energy, LLC Docket No. ER99-1695-010. Fairless Energy, LLC Docket No. ER02-23-011. Kincaid Generation, LLC Docket No. ER97-30-006. State Line Energy, LLC Docket No. ER96-2869-013. Virginia Electric and Power Company Docket No. ER97-3561-005. Docket No. ER00-1737-011. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Docket No. ER99-2948-012. Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc. Docket No. ER00-2918-011. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. Docket No. ER00-2917-011. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. Docket No. ER97-2261-022. Handsome Lake Energy, LLC Docket No. ER01-556-010. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC Docket No. ER01-1654-013. Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. Docket No. ER02-2567-011. Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine, LLC Docket No. ER02-699-005. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC Docket No. ER04-485-008. Raven One, LLC Docket No. ER07-247-003. Raven Two, LLC Docket No. ER07-245-003. Raven Three, LLC Docket No. ER07-244-003. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Docket No. ER00-3251-015. AmerGen Energy Company, LLC Docket No. ER99-754-016. Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. ER98-1734-014. Exelon Energy Company Docket No. ER01-1919-011. PECO Energy Company Docket No. ER01-1147-006. Exelon West Medway, LLC Docket No. ER01-513-021. Exelon Wyman, LLC Docket No. ER01-513-021. Exelon New Boston, LLC Docket No. ER01-513-021. Exelon Framingham, LLC Docket No. ER01-513-021. Exelon New England Power Marketing, L.P. Docket No. ER99-2404-011. FirstEnergy Operating Companies Docket No. ER01-1403-006. Pennsylvania Power Company, et al. Docket No. ER06-1443-002. Jersey Central Power & Light Company Docket No. ER04-366-005. FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Docket No. ER01-2968-007. FirstEnergy Generation Corporation Docket No. ER01-845-006. FirstEnergy Nuclear Generating Corporation Docket No. ER05-1122-004. FirstEnergy Generating Mansfield Unit 1 Corp. Docket No. ER08-107-001. Take notice that, as provided in the Notice Setting Forth Timeline issued May 22, 2008 in the above-referenced dockets, the comment period for the filings described below that were submitted on April 30, 2008, May 15, 2008, May 27, 2008, and June 2, 2008 in these dockets is established as set forth below. On April 30, 2008, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
(PJM)filed a Motion To Intervene Out-Of-Time and Submission of The PJM Simultaneous Import Limitation Study, pursuant to the above captioned dockets for the PJM RTO Filers. PJM requested CEII treatment for the power flow cases for the Simultaneous Import Limitation Study. On May 15, 2008, in conjunction with a conference call held on May 15, 2008 in the above-captioned dockets, PJM filed documents that it discussed on the conference call. On May 27, 2008, PJM filed additional power flow cases to supplement the Simultaneous Import Limitation Study and requested CEII treatment for these power flow cases. On June 2, 2008, pursuant to the May 22, 2008 Notice Setting Forth Timeline, PJM filed a supplement to the PJM Simultaneous Import Limitation Study (i.e. , the PJM East Study) in the above captioned dockets. PJM requested CEII treatment for the supplemental power flow cases filed on June 2, 2008. The May 22, 2008 notice also stated that a subsequent notice will instruct the PJM RTO Filers on when they must comply with the remaining requirements of a staff data request sent to the PJM RTO Filers on April 4, 2008. A number of entities have filed requests for clarification or rehearing of Order No. 697-A concerning the issue of how simultaneous transmission import capability is to be allocated among competing suppliers for purposes of performing the indicative screens. 1 Notice is hereby given that the PJM RTO Filers must file their revised updated market power analyses 45 days after the date of issuance of a Commission order addressing the issue of how simultaneous transmission import capability is to be allocated among competing suppliers for purposes of performing the indicative screens. 1 *Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities,* Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252, *clarified* , 121 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007), *order on reh'g,* Order No. 697-A, n. 208 FERC Stats. & Regs ¶ 31,268 (2008). Any person desiring to intervene or to protest the above-referenced filings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time 21 days after issuance of this notice. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13423 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER08-747-000; ER08-747-001] Beaver Ridge Wind, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order June 6, 2008. Beaver Ridge Wind, LLC (Beaver Ridge) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Beaver Ridge also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Beaver Ridge requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Beaver Ridge. On June 6, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Beaver Ridge should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). The Commission encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is July 7, 2008. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Beaver Ridge is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person, provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Beaver Ridge, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Beaver Ridge's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13420 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER08-859-000] Luna Energy Investments LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order June 6, 2008. Luna Energy Investments LLC (Luna Energy) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Luna Energy also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Luna Energy requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Luna Energy. On June 6, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Luna Energy, should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). The Commission encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is July 7, 2008. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Luna Energy is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Luna Energy, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Luna Energy's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13422 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER08-851-000; ER08-851-001] Valencia Power, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order June 6, 2008. Valencia Power, LLC (Valencia Power) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Valencia Power also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Valencia Power requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Valencia Power. On June 6, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Valencia Power, should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004). The Commission encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is July 7, 2008. Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Valencia Power is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Valencia Power, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes. The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Valencia Power's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability. Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13421 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2242-078] Eugene Water and Electric Board; Notice of Meeting To Discuss Additional Information Responses June 6, 2008. a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No.:* 2242-078. c. *Date Filed:* November 24, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Eugene Water and Electric Board. e. *Name of Project:* Carmen-Smith Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the McKenzie River in Lane and Linn Counties, near McKenzie Bridge, Oregon. The project occupies approximately 560 acres of the Willamette National Forest. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Randy L. Berggren, General Manager, Eugene Water and Electric Board, 500 East 4th Avenue, P.O. Box 10148, Eugene, OR 97440,
(541)484-2411. i. *Date and Time of Meeting:* June 26, 2008, at 1 p.m. EST. j. *Place:* This meeting will primarily occur via conference call; however, it is possible to participate in person at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)located in Washington, D.C. See item n. below for obtaining instructions on how to participate in the meeting. k. *FERC Contact:* Bob Easton,
(202)502-6045 or *robert.easton@ferc.gov.* l. *Background and Purpose of Meeting:* On November 24, 2006, Eugene Water and Electric Board filed a license application for the Carmen-Smith Project (FERC No. 2242). On October 30, 2007, FERC staff issued a request for additional information. Eugene Water and Electric Board filed its response to the additional information request on April 29, 2008. The purpose of this meeting is to clarify several issues associated with the filing of this information. m. *Proposed Agenda:* 1. Introduction of Participants; 2. Response to AIR 1—sources of the fishway operational costs; 3. Response to AIR 15 and 24—the location of roads relative to project boundary and their nexus to the project; 4. Response to AIR 16—effects of the proposed new road on spotted owl habitat; 5. Response to AIR 19—the location of Ice Creek, Trail Bridge, and Lakes End campgrounds and their nexus to the project; 6. Response to AIR 24—acreage of federal lands within the project boundary 7. Other items; 8. Follow-up Actions. n. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone (or in person). Please contact Bob Easton (see item k. for contact information) or Patti Leppert ((202) 502-6034; *patricia.leppert@ferc.gov* ) by June 24, 2008, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to participate in the meeting. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13417 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0443; FRL-8580-1] Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Budget in Submitted Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Phoenix Metropolitan Nonattainment Area for Transportation Conformity Purposes; Arizona AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Adequacy. SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that the Agency has found that the motor vehicle emissions budget in the submitted *MAG 2007 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (December 2007)* (“2007 MAG 5% Plan”) is adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The 2007 MAG 5% Plan was submitted to EPA on December 21, 2007 by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality as a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan. The 2007 MAG 5% Plan includes a demonstration of no less than five percent annual emissions reductions in particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10) and a demonstration of PM-10 attainment in the Phoenix metropolitan area by 2010. As a result of our finding, the Maricopa Association of Governments and the U.S. Department of Transportation must use the motor vehicle emissions budget from the submitted five percent plan for PM-10 for future conformity determinations. DATES: This finding is effective July 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, U.S. EPA, Region IX, Air Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901;
(520)622-1622 or *tax.wienke@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Maricopa Association of Governments on May 30, 2008 stating that the 2010 motor vehicle emissions budget for PM-10 in the submitted 2007 MAG 5% Plan is adequate. The budget corresponds to the Phoenix metropolitan PM-10 nonattainment area, which encompasses roughly half of Maricopa County, including the cities of Phoenix and Mesa, and also the Apache Junction area of Pinal County, in central Arizona. Receipt of this motor vehicle emissions budget 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 2010 motor vehicle emissions budget (calculated for an annual average day) are provided in the following table: Adequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget [In metric tons per day] Budget year PM-10 motor vehicle emissions budget 2010 103.3 Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section 176(c). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans
(SIPs)and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do conform. 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 should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: June 5, 2008. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E8-13519 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054; FRL-8579-9] Board of Scientific Counselors, Homeland Security Subcommittee Meeting—July 2008 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC)Homeland Security Subcommittee. DATES: The meeting (teleconference call) will be held on Friday, July 11, 2008, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. eastern time. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the meetings will be accepted up to 1 business day before the meeting. ADDRESSES: Participation in the conference call will be by teleconference only—meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the call from Greg Susanke, whose contact information is listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: *ORD.Docket@epa.gov,* Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054. • *Fax:* Fax comments to:
(202)566-0224, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054. • *Mail:* Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific Counselors, Homeland Security Subcommittee Meeting—Spring 2008 Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054. • *Hand Delivery or Courier* . Deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054. Note: this is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0054. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific Counselors, Homeland Security Subcommittee Meeting—Spring 2008 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is
(202)566-1752. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Greg Susanke, Mail Drop 8104-R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at:
(202)564-9945; via fax at:
(202)565-2911; or via e-mail at: *susanke.greg@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information The meeting is open to the public. Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC agenda or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Greg Susanke, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes. EPA ORD is conducting a prospective and retrospective independent expert review through the BOSC, of its Homeland Security Research Program, to evaluate the program's relevance, quality, performance, and scientific leadership. The BOSC's evaluation and recommendations will provide guidance to ORD's National Homeland Security Research Center. Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to: review and discussion of the draft subcommittee report which includes overall comments and recommendations to ORD's National Homeland Security Research Program, and responses to subcommittee charge questions. *Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Greg Susanke at
(202)564-9945 or *susanke.greg@epa.gov* . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Greg Susanke, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: June 9, 2008. Mary Ellen Radzikowski, Acting Office Director, Office of Science Policy. [FR Doc. E8-13483 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2003-0002; FRL-8579-7] Notice of Availability for the Framework for Application of the Toxicity Equivalence Methodology for Polychlorinated Dioxins, Furans, and Biphenyls in Ecological Risk Assessment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of document availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)is announcing the availability of the final “Framework for Application of the Toxicity Equivalence Methodology for Polychlorinated Dioxins, Furans, and Biphenyls in Ecological Risk Assessment” (EPA/100/R-08/004). The purpose of the Framework is to assist EPA scientists in using the toxicity equivalence methodology to assess ecological risks from mixtures of dioxin-like chemicals, i.e., polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and biphenyls (PCBs), as well as to inform EPA decision makers, other agencies, and the public about this methodology. This framework provides an introduction to the toxicity equivalence methodology, offers considerations for how and when to apply the methodology, and presents practical examples of its use. The Framework thus serves to enhance the application of the best available science. This document is not intended to serve as guidance on how to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment for dioxin-like chemicals or to act as a regulation or binding policy. EPA's Risk Assessment Forum oversaw the development of this document, incorporating input obtained from an expert workshop, scientists throughout the Agency, stakeholders, and a peer review by twelve experts from a range of scientific disciplines. ADDRESSES: The final document is available electronically through the EPA Office of the Science Advisor's Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/osa/raf/tefframework/* . A limited number of paper copies will be available from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242; telephone 1-800-490-9198 or 513-489-8190; facsimile 301-604-3408; e-mail *NSCEP@bps-lmit.com* . Please provide your name and mailing addresses and the title and EPA number (as given above) of the requested publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seema Schappelle, Risk Assessment Forum, Mail Code 8105R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-3372; fax number:
(202)564-2070, E-mail: *schappelle.seema@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For more than a decade, EPA and other organizations have estimated the combined risks that mixtures of PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs pose to human health using the toxicity equivalence methodology. As both data and experience with the methodology have accumulated, experts have come to the consensus that the toxicity equivalence methodology can strengthen assessments of ecological risks as well. In 1998, EPA and DOI sponsored a workshop that recommended the development of further guidance on application of the toxicity equivalence methodology in ecological risk assessment. This framework has been developed in direct response to that workshop recommendation. EPA consulted with other federal agencies at key points during the document's development. In July 2003, EPA released a draft Framework for a 60-day public comment period. An external peer review was conducted in 2004 by twelve experts from a range of scientific disciplines. Dated: May 15, 2008. George M. Gray, EPA Science Advisor. [FR Doc. E8-13484 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval, Comments Requested June 5, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law No. 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Pursuant to the PRA, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 16, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* or via fax at
(202)395-5167; and to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via Internet at *Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov* and/or *PRA@fcc.gov.* Include in the comments the OMB control number of the collection as shown in the “Supplementary Information” section below or, if there is no OMB control number, the Title as shown in the “Supplementary Information” section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918, or via Internet at *Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov,* and/or *PRA@fcc.gov.* To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB:
(1)Go to the Web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* ,
(2)look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,”
(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,
(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,
(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box,
(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR you want to review (or its Title if there is no OMB control number) and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0463. *Title:* Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 07-186. *Form Number:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities; State, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents and Responses:* 5,045 respondents; 5,211 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 10-15 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Annual reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; Third Party Disclosure. *Total Annual Burden:* 27,412 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* None. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefit. The statutory authority can be found at section 225 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 225. The law was enacted on July 26, 1990, as Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information from individuals. *Privacy Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* On November 19, 2007, the Commission released the *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling ( *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Order* ), CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 07-186, adopting
(1)A new cost recovery methodology for interstate traditional Telecommunications Relay Services
(TRS)and interstate Speech-to-Speech
(STS)based on the Muliti-state Average Rate Structure
(MARS)plan proposed by Hamilton Relay, Inc.,
(2)a new cost recovery methodology for interstate captioned telephone service
(CTS)and interstate and intrastate Internet-Protocol
(IP)Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) based on the MARS plan,
(3)a cost recovery methodology for IP Relay based on price caps, and
(4)a cost recovery methodology for Video Relay Services
(VRS)that adopts tiered rates based on call volume. The *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Order* also clarifies the nature and extent that certain categories of costs are compensable from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund), and addresses certain issues concerning the management and oversight of the Fund, including financial incentives offered to consumers to make relay calls and the role of the Interstate TRS Fund Advisory Council. The *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Order* establishes reporting requirements associated with the MARS plan cost recovery methodology for compensation from the Fund. Specifically, TRS providers must submit to the Fund administrator the following information annually, on a per-state basis, regarding the previous calendar year:
(1)The per-minute compensation rate(s) for intrastate traditional TRS, STS and CTS,
(2)whether the rate applies to session minutes or conversation minutes,
(3)the number of intrastate session minutes for traditional TRS, STS and CTS, and
(4)the number of intrastate conversation minutes for traditional TRS, STS, and CTS. Also, STS providers must file a report annually with the Fund administrator and the Commission on their specific outreach efforts directly attributable to the additional compensation approved by the Commission for STS outreach. In the *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Order,* the Commission has assessed the effects of imposing the submission of rate data, and has found that there is no increased administrative burden on businesses with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission recognizes that the required rate data is presently available with the states and the providers of interstate traditional TRS, interstate STS, and interstate CTS, thereby no additional step is required to produce such data. The Commission therefore believes that the submission of the rate data does not increase an administrative burden on businesses. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13526 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Agency Meeting Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 17, 2008, to consider the following matters: *Summary Agenda:* No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda. Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' meetings; Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors; Memorandum and resolution re: Interim Final Rule; Request for Comment: Financial Education Programs that Include the Provision of Bank Products and Services. *Discussion Agenda:* Memorandum and resolutions re: Interim Rule on Processing Deposit Accounts in the Event of an Insured Depository Institution Failure and Final Rule on Large-Bank Insurance Determination Modernization. The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC. This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet at: *http://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/boardmeetings.asp.* This service is free and available to anyone with the following systems requirements: *http://www.vodium.com/home/sysreq.html* ( *http://www.vodium.com* ). Adobe Flash Player is required to view these presentations. The latest version of Adobe Flash Player can be downloaded at *http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer* . Installation questions or troubleshooting help can be found at the same link. For optimal viewing, a high speed Internet connection is recommended. The Board meetings videos are made available on-demand approximately one week after the event. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call
(703)562-6067 (Voice or TTY), to make necessary arrangements. Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at
(202)898-7122. Dated: June 10, 2008. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13379 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Agency Meeting Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 17, 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to section 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (9)(A)(ii), and (9)(B) of Title 5, United States Code, to consider matters relating to the Corporation's supervisory and corporate activities. The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at
(202)898-7122. Dated: June 10, 2008. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13380 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Docket No. 06-03] Premier Automotive Services, Inc. v. Robert L. Flanagan and F. Brooks Royster, III Served: June 11, 2008. *By the Commission:* Commissioners Joseph E. Brennan and Harold J. Creel, Jr.; with Commissioner Rebecca F. Dye, dissenting. Order On January 27, 2006, Premier Automotive Services, Inc. (“Premier” or “Complainant”) filed a complaint against Robert L. Flanagan and F. Brooks Royster, III (collectively “Respondents” or the “Maryland State Officials”) alleging that Respondents’ marine terminal leasing practices violate sections 10(b)(10), 10(d)(1) and 10(d)(4) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (“Shipping Act”), 46 U.S.C. 41102, 41104 and 41106. This proceeding is before the Commission on exceptions from an order of the Administrative Law Judge granting the Respondents' motion to dismiss. The issue before the Commission is whether the complaint against certain named officials of the State of Maryland is within the bounds of *Ex parte Young,* 209 U.S. 123 (1908), a judicially-created exception to state sovereign immunity from suit by private parties. For the reasons set forth below, the Commission holds that this proceeding is barred by the sovereign immunity interests of the State of Maryland. Accordingly, Complainant's exceptions are denied. I. Background A. Parties 1. Complainant Premier is a marine terminal operator involved in the business of providing marine terminal services to common carriers engaged in U.S. foreign commerce. Premier is an import/export vehicle processor and is a tenant at the Dundalk Marine Terminal (“Dundalk Terminal”) in Baltimore, MD. Premier's facilities are owned and operated by the Maryland Port Authority (“MPA”), an arm of the State of Maryland. 2. Respondents At the time the complaint was filed, Respondent Robert L. Flanagan was the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”) and the Chairman of the Maryland Port Commission (“MPC”). The complaint was brought against Flanagan in his official capacity. Respondent F. Brooks Royster, III was the Executive Director of the Maryland Port Authority (“MPA”) at the time of the complaint. The complaint names Royster in his official capacity. 1 MDOT, MPC and MPA are not named as parties. 1 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whenever a respondent named in an official capacity no longer holds the position for which he was named in the action, the official's successor is automatically substituted as a party. B. Summary of Proceedings This proceeding was initiated by the Complainant on January 27, 2006. On February 21, 2006, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss and Response to Request for Commission Investigation arguing that
(1)The case is barred by Constitutional principles of state sovereign immunity;
(2)the Shipping Act does not authorize private complaints for injunctive relief, and
(3)that the Respondents should not be held liable as individuals under provisions of the Shipping Act which are specifically applicable to common carriers, ocean transportation intermediaries and marine terminal operators. Complainant responded, in part, that the action is allowable under *Ex parte Young,* which provides an exception to state sovereign immunity, and that the Shipping Act provides generally for prospective injunctive relief, an essential component of the relief sought under *Ex parte Young.* The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) granted the motion to dismiss on March 31, 2006, finding that the complaint was barred by sovereign immunity since *Ex parte Young* did not apply. Premier filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision and Respondents filed a reply brief. The Commission heard oral argument on June 13, 2007. Pursuant to section 11(h) of the Shipping Act, Premier filed a concurrent action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland seeking injunctive relief pursuant to its Shipping Act claims at the Commission. The District Court ruled that the complaint was not barred by sovereign immunity under the *Young* doctrine; however, the Court denied injunctive relief finding that relief on the merits of the Shipping Act claim was not likely. *See Premier Automotive Services, Inc.* v. *Robert L. Flanagan,* *et al.* , No. 06-1761, slip op. at 33 (D. Md. Oct. 31, 2006). Premier then appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. *Premier Automotive Services, Inc.* v. *Flanagan,* 492 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2007). II. Positions of the Parties A. Premier Premier is an import/export vehicle processor which occupies facilities at the Dundalk Terminal in Baltimore, MD. Premier's facilities are owned and operated by the MPA, an arm of the State of Maryland. *Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc.* v. *Maryland Port Admin.,* 30 S.R.R. 358, 366 (2004). Premier's long-term lease of Lot 90 at the Dundalk Terminal ended in 2002. Since that time, Premier has been operating as a month-to-month tenant of MPA. Premier's processing facilities on Lot 90 provide a range of services to vehicle and heavy equipment manufacturers, importers and exporters, including vehicle and equipment receipt, release and assembly, accessory installation, body, paint and warranty work, and storage and other pier-side services. According to Premier, it has invested heavily in Lot 90, including the construction of a 27,500 square foot specialty building containing a body shop, paint shop, offices and wash line (the “Building”), which it owns and on which it pays real estate taxes. This Building is alleged to be an important component of Premier's ability to service its customers. However, under the terms of Premier's long-term lease, improvements to the leasehold revert to the Port upon termination of the lease. Premier alleges that the Respondent's marine terminal leasing practices violate sections 10(b)(10), 10(d)(1), and 10(d)(4) of the Shipping Act. Premier claims that MPA has no regulations governing the conduct or course of lease negotiations or the terms of MPA leases. According to Premier, upon expiration of its long-term lease with Premier, MPA repeatedly offered new leases that were commercially irrational and confiscatory in three related material respects. First, the proffered lease holds Premier to an unreasonable quota for processing vehicles through the leased premises; second, the lease proposals allow MPA to relocate Premier to facilities not comparable to Lot 90; and, third, in the event of such forced relocation, Premier would not have the right to terminate the lease while remaining subject to the same objectionable minimum volume processing quota. In combination, Premier alleges that these three provisions rendered MPA's lease offers commercially meaningless, if not confiscatory. Premier filed exceptions to the ALJ's finding that the action was barred by state sovereign immunity on the grounds that the ALJ misapplied the *Ex parte Young* doctrine. Premier argues that the distinctions drawn by the ALJ between “ministerial” and “discretionary” administrative decisions are misapplied, and that the analysis is therefore in error. Appeal of Premier from Order Dismissing Complaint at 2. Premier argues that while the initial administrative decision whether to lease property may be discretionary, once a state port authority determines to lease property, it is bound by the strictures of federal law, including the Shipping Act. *Id.* at 2-3. Accordingly, Premier argues that if the facts demonstrate a violation of the Shipping Act, then the actions of the Maryland State Officials in seeking to lease property in violation of federal law would not be shielded by state sovereign immunity under the Court's holding in *Ex parte Young.* B. Respondents Respondents filed a motion to dismiss asserting that state sovereign immunity bars the complaint, and arguing that *Ex parte Young* does not apply since the Complainant seeks injunctive relief related to a specific piece of real property in which the state claims an interest. Respondents cite *Idaho* v. *Coeur d' Alene Tribe,* 521 U.S. 261 (1997), for the proposition that state interests in land to which Maryland claims title are “special sovereignty interests” upon which a state remains entitled to sovereign immunity from claims in a federal forum. Respondents argue that the rationale of *Couer d'Alene* should be extended to include not only actions involving title and regulatory control over state lands, but also to actions related to leasing of state lands. The ALJ granted the Maryland State Officials' motion to dismiss based upon:
(1)The discretionary nature of MPA's leasing decisions;
(2)the complexity of discretionary state government processes involved, including the leasing process the Commission is asked to supervise; and
(3)the degree of intervention required by the Commission to police any subsequent negotiation process. On appeal, Respondents argue that the ALJ properly held that *Ex parte Young* does not authorize Premier's private complaint. Respondents reiterate the argument that the potential relief can overcome an otherwise legitimate *Ex parte Young* claim where the relief sought implicates special sovereignty interests, *i.e.* , the infringement upon property interests of a state. III. Discussion As explained by the Supreme Court in *Federal Maritime Comm'n* v. *South Carolina State Ports Authority,* 535 U.S. 743 (2002): The preeminent purpose of state sovereign immunity is to accord States the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities. See *In re Ayers,* 123 U.S. 443, 505 (1887). “The founding generation thought it ‘neither becoming nor convenient that the several States of the Union, invested with that large residuum of sovereignty which had not been delegated to the United States, should be summoned as defendants to answer the complaints of private citizens.’ ” *Alden* [v. *Maine* ], 527 U.S. at 748 (quoting *In re Ayers, supra,* at 505). 535 U.S. at 760. The Commission is now called to determine whether, through the legal fiction of allowing suit against state officials under the Court's doctrine announced in *Ex parte Young,* 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Commission may summon officials of the State of Maryland to answer the complaint of a private company, Premier. In resolving questions of the proper scope and application of *Ex parte Young,* we are instructed of the need “to ensure that the doctrine of sovereign immunity remains meaningful, while also giving recognition to the need to prevent violations of federal law,” *Idaho* v. *Coeur d'Alene Tribe,* 521 U.S. at 269. The Ex Parte Young Exception To Sovereign Immunity The Court's decisions firmly establish that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another state.” *Employees* v. *Missouri Dept. of Public Health and Welfare,* 411 U.S. 279, 280 (1973). Through its holding in *Federal Maritime Comm'n* v. *South Carolina State Ports Authority, supra,* the Court concluded that the Constitutional reach of state sovereign immunity similarly bars administrative tribunals from adjudicating complaints filed by a private party against a nonconsenting State. Premier's suit accordingly is barred by the State of Maryland's Eleventh Amendment immunity unless it falls within the exception recognized by the courts for certain suits seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against state officers in their official capacity. *See Ex parte Young,* 209 U.S. 123 (1908). The *Ex parte Young* exception has application in circumstances where an action, otherwise barred in federal court, is brought against a state official seeking prospective equitable relief for a violation of the Constitution or federal law. *Marie O.* v. *Edgar,* 131 F.3d 610, 615 (7th Cir. 1997) (“[S]uits against state officials seeking prospective equitable relief for ongoing violations of federal law are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under the *Ex parte Young* doctrine.”); *Antrican* v. *Odom,* 290 F.3d 178, 184 (4th Cir. 2002) ( *Ex parte Young* exception allows private citizens “to enjoin state officials in their official capacities from engaging in future conduct that would violate the Constitution or a federal statute.”) Actions under *Ex parte Young* have long been constrained by the courts. Such restraints include judicial review of the nature of the activities undertaken, *i.e.* , whether involving discretionary or ministerial actions of the state official, *Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma* v. *State of Oklahoma,* 37 F.3d 1422 (10th Cir. 1994); whether the complaint addresses “special sovereignty interests” of the state, *Idaho* v. *Coeur d'Alene Tribe, supra* ; whether the suit is in actuality an action against the state, *Pennhurst State School & Hosp.* v. *Halderman,* 465 U.S. 89, 101 (1984); 2 and the nature of the statutory scheme under which relief is sought, *Seminole Tribe of Fla.* v. *Florida,* 517 U.S. 44, 72 (1996). In *Idaho* v. *Coeur d'Alene Tribe, supra,* the Court voiced concern lest the *Ex parte Young* exception swallow the Eleventh Amendment rule of law: 2 In *Pennhurst,* the Court explained that a suit is against the sovereign if “the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with the public administration,” or if the effect of the judgment would be “to restrain the Government from acting, or to compel it to act.”, citing *Dugan* v. *Rank,* 372 U.S. 609, 620 (1963). To interpret *Young* to permit a federal-court action to proceed in every case where prospective declaratory and injunctive relief is sought against an officer, named in his individual capacity, would be to adhere to an empty formalism and to undermine the principle, reaffirmed just last Term in *Seminole Tribe,* that Eleventh Amendment immunity represents a real limitation on a federal court's federal-question jurisdiction. The real interests served by the Eleventh Amendment are not to be sacrificed to elementary mechanics of captions and pleading. Application of the *Young* exception must reflect a proper understanding of its role in our federal system and respect for state courts instead of a reflexive reliance on an obvious fiction. 521 U.S. at 270. For purposes of the instant exceptions, we address only two of those factors limiting application of the *Ex parte Young* doctrine. Discretionary versus Ministerial Activities Premier's appeal of the ALJ's decision is based in part upon the ALJ's analysis of the discretionary versus ministerial acts of the Respondents. The ALJ observes *Young's* distinction between “ministerial” actions, which are amenable to affirmative injunctive relief, and “discretionary” actions which are not. Premier argues that the ALJ misapplied *Young* by finding the actions under review were discretionary. Premier reasons that since state officials have no administrative discretion to violate the federal rights at issue, the actions of the state officials must, of necessity, be ministerial. In support of this argument, Premier notes that although the state's decision to lease lands may be discretionary, the state has no discretion regarding whether to comply with federal law, *i.e.* , the Shipping Act, and thus the actions of the state officials are ministerial in nature. We disagree. In establishing the doctrine, *Ex parte Young* reviewed the nature of the state official's actions, and whether such actions are discretionary or ministerial in nature. The *Young* court stated: There is no doubt that the court cannot control the exercise of the discretion of an officer [of the state]. It can only direct affirmative action where the officer having some duty to perform not involving discretion, but merely ministerial in its nature, refuses or neglects to take such an action. 209 U.S. at 158-59. *Ex parte Young* 's explicit distinction between discretionary and ministerial conduct of state officials is a critical limitation on the parameters of the doctrine. *Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma* v. *State of Oklahoma,* 37 F.3d 1422, 1436 (10th Cir, 1994) *aff'd on other grounds, State of Oklahoma* v. *Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma,* 116 S.Ct. 1410 (1996). Premier's action challenges whether the leasing practices of the Maryland Port Authority were reasonable under section 10(d) of the Shipping Act of 1984. Such claim merely begs the question whether negotiations of lease terms are a discretionary or ministerial act. 3 Leaving aside the nature of the negotiation process under review for the moment, it is self-evident, that what may be “reasonable” to MPA is not necessarily “reasonable” to Premier. Thus, without casting doubt upon the intent or motivations of either party, the Commission can easily envision a scenario where, after offering what seems like an eminently reasonable lease, MPA's offer is rejected by Premier nonetheless. 3 In the Seventh Circuit, a ministerial act has been defined as an act “in which a person performs in a given statement of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to, or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of acts being done.” *Adden* v. *Middlebrooks,* 688 F.2d 1147, (7th Cir 1982). Further, courts in the Ninth Circuit have defined a discretionary act as that “which requires the exercise of personal deliberation, decision and judgment.” *White* v. *Conlon,* 2006 WL 1663574 (D.Nev. 2006). A ministerial act is “an act performed by an individual in a prescribed legal manner in accordance with the law, without regard to, or the exercise of, the judgment of the individual.” *Id.* It was this dichotomy that appears to have most impressed both the ALJ and the District Court. As noted by Administrative Law Judge Krantz: In this case we have only the almost infinitely elastic term “commercially reasonable” to define what state officials are required to do. In seeking to require MPA to proffer a “commercially reasonable” lease, Premier has cited provisions it finds undesirable in the three rejected lease offers, and others that it finds desirable in the leases of six other tenants of the MPA. A decision for Premier would require the MPA to offer a new lease. If that proposal were unacceptable to Premier the Commission (or the Administrative Law Judge) would presumably need to determine whether that offer was commercially reasonable and, if it were not, to require MPA to make a new, more favorable lease offer. Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, at 5. Rather more tersely, the District Court concluded: In fact, the Court finds no evidence to undermine the conclusion that, in negotiating with Premier, MPA was acting in a reasonable manner to advance legitimate goals, consistent with its legislated purpose. Memorandum in Civil Action WMN-06-1733 (October 31, 2006), at 24, 25-26. In the instant case, the Commission concludes that negotiation of a leasehold interest is inherently a discretionary process. *See, Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma* v. *State of Oklahoma,* 37 F.3d at 1436 “[t]he act of negotiating * * * is the epitome of a discretionary act. How the state negotiates; what it perceives to be its interests that must be preserved; where, if anywhere, that it can compromise its interests—these all involve acts of discretion.”; *Seminole Tribe of Fla.* v. *State of Florida,* 11 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 1994) (rejecting application of *Ex parte Young* ); *Poarch Band of Creek Indians* v. *State of Alabama,* 784 F.Supp. 1549 (S.D. Ala. 1992) (rejecting *Ex parte Young* claim where relief would require ordering the governor to exercise his discretion in negotiating with the Plaintiff). *But see, Spokane Tribe of Indians* v. *State of Washington,* 790 F.Supp 1057 (E.D. Wash. 1991); *Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist.* v. *Dept of Interior,* 160 F.3d 602 (10th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the Commission finds that Premier's action falls outside the scope of *Ex parte Young* . Adequacy of Relief under the Shipping Act In any event, we believe that in enacting the Shipping Act of 1984, the Congress created a remedial scheme which provides adequately for relief to be extended to complainants, such as Premier, without resort to extraordinary procedures made available under *Ex parte Young* . *See Schweiker* v. *Chilicky,* 487 U.S. 412, 423
(1988)(“When the design of a Government program suggests that Congress has provided what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations that may occur in the course of its administration, we have not created additional * * * remedies.”) Under authority conferred through the Shipping Act, as amended, the Commission has long administered programs which directly regulate government-owned and operated ports as well as the practices and operations of government-controlled carriers. In *Federal Maritime Comm'n* v. *South Carolina State Ports Authority, supra,* the Court was called upon to determine whether state sovereign immunity would preclude the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint that a state-run port violated the Shipping Act of 1984. Although commenting favorably that the “FMC administrative proceedings bear a remarkably strong resemblance to civil litigation in federal courts,” 535 U.S. at 757, the Court stated: * * * we hold that state sovereign immunity bars the FMC from adjudicating complaints filed by a private party against a nonconsenting State. Simply put, if the Framers thought it an impermissible affront to a State's dignity to be required to answer the complaints of private parties in federal courts, we cannot imagine that they would have found it acceptable to compel a State to do exactly the same thing before the administrative tribunal of an agency, such as the FMC. 535 U.S. at 760. Responding to the argument that federal regulation of maritime commerce limits sovereign immunity, the Court replied: “[e]ven when the Constitution vests in the Congress complete lawmaking authority over a particular area, the Eleventh Amendment prevents congressional authorization of suits by private parties against nonconsenting States.” *Ibid.* Of course, the Federal Government retains ample means of ensuring that state-run ports comply with the Shipping Act and other valid federal rules governing ocean-borne commerce. The FMC, for example, remains free to investigate alleged violations of the Shipping Act, either upon its own initiative or upon information supplied by a private party, see, e.g. 46 CFR 502.282 (2001). Additionally, the Commission “may bring suit in a district court of the United States to enjoin conduct in violation of [the Act].” 46 U.S.C. App § 1710(h)(1). Indeed, the United States has advised us that the Court of Appeals' ruling below “should have little practical effect on the FMC's enforcement of the Shipping Act,” Brief for United States * * * 535 U.S. at 767-68, citing *Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra* (footnote omitted). Inasmuch as Congress has prescribed remedial measures to address violations of statutorily created rights, the courts should hesitate before casting aside such measures in favor of the judicially-prescribed protections of *Ex parte Young* . *Id.* at 74, citing *Schweiker* v. *Chilicky,* 487 U.S. 412, 423 (“where Congress had created a remedial scheme for the enforcement of a particular federal right, we have, in suits against federal officers, refused to supplement that scheme with one created by the judiciary.”). Accordingly, as the private parties herein remain free to complain to the Commission about unlawful state activity and the agency has authority adequate to the cause of investigating and taking action thereon, the fundamental justifications for the creation of *Ex parte Young* are not implicated. We see no sound reason to supplement the existing statutory remedies (Commission enforcement of the Shipping Act directly against state related entities) by extending *Ex parte Young* to privately-filed Shipping Act complaints. *Schweiker* v. *Chilicky, supra* ; *Seminole Tribe of Fla.* v. *Florida, supra,* 517 U.S. at 74. Interpreting *Ex parte Young* as applying in every case where injunctive relief is sought constitutes the sort of “empty formalism” that undermines sovereign immunity. *Coeur d'Alene, supra,* 521 U.S. at 270. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Commission *denies* the exceptions of Premier Automotive Services, Inc. from the Order dismissing the verified complaint; and *affirms* the Administrative Law Judge's initial decision to the extent consistent with this order. *Wherefore, it is ordered,* that the above captioned proceeding is dismissed. By the Commission. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13489 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 10, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland** (Douglas A. Banks, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566: *1. Lewis County Capital Corporation, Ladera Ranch, California;* to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First Community Bank, Lewis County, Vanceburg, Kentucky. **B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas** (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272: *1. Charter Bancshares, Inc., Corpus Christi, Texas, and Charter IBHC, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware;* to acquire 51 percent of the voting shares of Charter Alliance Bank, Corpus Christi, Texas, a de novo bank. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 11, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-13455 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-08-0572] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at
(404)639-5960 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov.* Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC or by fax to
(202)395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice. Proposed Project Health Message Testing System—Revision—National Center for Health Marketing (NCHM), Coordinating Center for Health Information and Service (CCHIS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC). Background and Brief Description The National Center for Health Marketing
(NCHM)was established as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Futures Initiative to help ensure that health information, interventions, and programs at CDC are based on sound science, objectivity, and continuous customer input. Before CDC disseminates a health message to the public, the message always undergoes scientific review. However, reflecting the current state of scientific knowledge accurately provides no guarantee that the public will understand a health message or that the message will move people to take recommended action. Communication theorists and researchers agree that for health messages to be as clear and influential as possible, target audience members or representatives must be involved in developing the messages and provisional versions of the messages must be tested with members of the target audience. However, increasingly there are circumstances when CDC must move swiftly to protect life, prevent disease, or calm public anxiety. Health message testing is even more important in these instances, because of the critical nature of the information need. Consider the following situations: CDC must communicate about a hazard, outbreak, or other emergency that presents an urgent threat to one or more segments of the public. The national crisis in which anthrax spores contaminated mail, postal facilities, and congressional buildings is a striking example. CDC receives a mandate from Congress with a tight deadline for communicating with the public about a specific topic. For example, in 1998 Congress gave CDC 120 days to develop and test messages for a public information campaign about *Helicobacter pylori,* a bacterium that can cause stomach ulcers and increase cancer risk if an infected individual is not treated with antibiotics. Emerging lifestyle or technological trends create an ephemeral opportunity to leverage the attention or behavior of the public to increase the reach and/or salience of prevention messages. For example, media monitoring reveals a partnership between Napster, a music-based Web site, and the Pennsylvania State University. This partnership creates an ample opportunity for CDC to join in the collaboration to reach students with a salient health promotion message. For instance, a ticker found on the top of the Napster homepage screen might contain an informational URL followed by a message encouraging students, especially those residing in dormitories, to receive the meningitis inoculation series at their campus health center. This message would be tailored prior to the beginning of each academic year and would need to be posted in a timely manner before the arrival of the incoming freshman class. Of equal importance, this communication mechanism can be effectively used in emergency “rapid response” situations such as the campus shooting incidents at Virginia Tech and North Illinois University. In the interest of timely health message dissemination, many programs forgo the important step of testing messages on dimensions such as clarity, salience, appeal, and persuasiveness (i.e., the ability to influence behavioral intention). Skipping this step avoids the delay involved in the standard OMB review process, but at a high potential cost. Untested messages can waste communication resources and opportunities because the messages can be perceived as unclear or irrelevant. Untested messages can also have unintended consequences, such as jeopardizing the credibility of Federal health officials. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,470. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Data collection method Number of respondents per method Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) Central Location Intercept Interviews 300 12 5/60 Telephone Interviews 300 12 4/60 Individual In-depth Interview (Cognitive Interviews) 200 10 6/60 Focus Group Screenings 900 10 3/60 Focus Groups 300 20 8/60 Online Surveys 400 12 6/60 Dated: June 9, 2008. Maryam I. Daneshvar, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-13485 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel: Cardiometabolic Risk Factors Among Women of Reproductive Age, Potential Extramural Project 2008-R-07 *Correction:* This notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2008, Volume 73, Number 74, page 20680. The aforementioned meeting has been rescheduled to the following: *Time and Date:* 1 p.m.-3 p.m., June 18, 2008 (Closed). *Contact Person for More Information:* Linda Shelton, Program Specialist, Coordinating Center for Health and Information Service, Office of the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E21, Atlanta, GA 30333. Telephone
(404)498-1194. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: June 9, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-13442 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel: Validation of a Policy and Environmental Assessment Tool for Child Care Programs, Potential Extramural Project 2008-R-05 *Correction:* This notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2008, Volume 73, Number 74, page 20679. The aforementioned meeting has been rescheduled to the following: *Time and Date:* 1 p.m.-3 p.m., June 18, 2008 (Closed). *Contact Person for More Information:* Linda Shelton, Program Specialist, Coordinating Center for Health and Information Service, Office of the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E21, Atlanta, GA 30333. Telephone
(404)498-1194. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: June 9, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-13443 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel: Feasibility Study of Using Cancer Registries and Other Data Sources To Track Measure of Care in Colorectal and Breast Cancer, Potential Extramural Project 2008-R-08 *Correction:* This notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2008, Volume 73, Number 74, pages 20678-20679. The aforementioned meeting has been rescheduled to the following: *Time and Date:* 1 p.m.-3 p.m., June 19, 2008 (Closed). *Contact Person for More Information:* Linda Shelton, Program Specialist, Coordinating Center for Health and Information Service, Office of the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E21, Atlanta, GA 30333. Telephone
(404)498-1194. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: June 9, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-13451 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel: Evaluation of Breastfeeding Promotion and Support Programs for African-American Women, Potential Extramural Project 2008-R-25 *Correction:* This notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 18, 2008, Volume 73, Number 76, page 21138. The aforementioned meeting has been rescheduled to the following: *Time and Date:* 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m., June 19, 2008 (Closed). *Contact Person for More Information:* Linda Shelton, Program Specialist, Coordinating Center for Health and Information Service, Office of the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E21, Atlanta, GA 30333. Telephone
(404)498-1194. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: June 9, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-13472 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel: Promoting Awareness of Birth Defects Prevention, Potential Extramural Project 2008-R-14 *Correction:* This notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2008, Volume 73, Number 74, page 20679. The aforementioned meeting has been rescheduled to the following: *Time and Date:* 1 p.m.-3 p.m., June 19, 2008 (Closed). *Contact Person for More Information:* Linda Shelton, Program Specialist, Coordinating Center for Health and Information Service, Office of the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E21, Atlanta, GA 30333. Telephone
(404)498-1194. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: June 9, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-13488 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Improving Postpartum Follow up in Women With a Gestational Diabetes-Affected Pregnancy, Potential Extramural Project
(PEP)2008-R-02 In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)announces the aforementioned meeting. *Time And Date:* 1 p.m.-3 p.m., June 18, 2008 (Closed). *Place:* Teleconference. *Status:* The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. This notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2008, Volume 73, Number 74, page 20677. Additional time is required to complete the review of all applications submitted for this PEP. Applications being reviewed at the June 18, 2008, meeting will be reviewed by the same members of the original panel. *Matters To Be Discussed:* The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of “Improving Postpartum Follow up in Women with a Gestational Diabetes-Affected Pregnancy, PEP 2008-R-02.” The National Center for Health Marketing determines that agency business requires its consideration of this matter on less than 15 days’ notice to the public and that no earlier notice of this meeting was possible. *Contact Person for More Information:* Linda Shelton, Program Specialist, Coordinating Center for Health and Information Service, Office of the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E21, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone
(404)498-1194. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: June 9, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-13491 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Type-2 Diabetes Prevention in Women with a Recent History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, Potential Extramural Project
(PEP)2008-R-04 In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)announces the aforementioned meeting. *Time and Date:* 1 p.m.-4 p.m., June 18, 2008 (Closed). *Place:* Teleconference. *Status:* The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. This notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 17, 2008, Volume 73, Number 75, page 20927. Additional time is required to complete the review of all applications submitted for this PEP. *Matters to be Discussed:* The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of “Type-2 Diabetes Prevention in Women with a Recent History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, PEP 2008-R-04.” The National Center for Health Marketing determines that agency business requires its consideration of this matter on less than 15 days notice to the public and that no earlier notice of the meeting was possible. *Contact Person for More Information:* Linda Shelton, Program Specialist, Coordinating Center for Health and Information Service, Office of the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E21, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone (404)498-1194. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: June 9, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-13493 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicaid Program; Notice of Single-Source Grant Award to the States of Louisiana and Mississippi for the Grant Entitled “Deficit Reduction Act-Hurricane Katrina Healthcare Related Provider Stabilization” AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). ACTION: Notice of Single-Source Non-Competitive Supplemental Awards. *Funding Amount:* $19,100,000. *Period of Performance:* June 9, 2008-September 30, 2009. *CFDA:* 93.776. Authority: Section 6201(a)(4) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(DRA)*Purpose:* The Secretary has authorized an additional $19.1 million in supplemental grant funds to be made available to the States of Louisiana and Mississippi. Based on the share of total Medicare inpatient payments made to each State's eligible general acute care hospitals and inpatient psychiatric facilities
(IPFs)located in the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)designated counties/parishes in calendar year 2006 (the latest and most complete year of Medicare billing data available to us), funding is being allocated in the following proportions: 53 percent to Louisiana ($10,143,671) and 47 percent to Mississippi ($8,956,329). Since its inception, the Provider Stabilization Grant
(PSG)program has been used to fund State payments to general acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, IPFs, and community mental health centers in impacted communities that may face financial pressures because of changing wage rates that are not yet reflected in Medicare prospective payment system
(PPS)payment methodologies. For this third round of PSG funding, CMS determined that these supplemental grant funds would be used by the States to make payments to only those Medicare participating inpatient PPS
(IPPS)hospitals and IPFs that are currently paid under a Medicare PPS and that are the most significantly, negatively impacted (financial or otherwise) related to Hurricane Katrina. Although the States had significant discretion in determining the payment distribution methodology, the methodology had to clearly reflect the basis upon which the State would determine “negative impact” and then how each provider would receive an appropriate share of the funds. Grant funds may not be distributed to IPPS hospitals and IPFs that are not in operation or that are outside of the FEMA Hurricane Katrina designated counties/parishes for individual and public assistance. The States' payment methodologies were to specify the relevant time periods and any other factors that would be considered in distributing available grant funds according to the principles specified above, and were subject to approval by CMS. The States were also allowed to choose to use a portion of the funds (not to exceed 20% of the grant) to address immediate, unmet, health care infrastructure needs that objective data indicate was caused as a direct result of Hurricane Katrina and or its subsequent flooding. This optional provision was also subject to CMS approval. Under the authority of section 6201(a)(4) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, has invoked his authority to restore health care in impacted communities affected by Hurricane Katrina by offering this unique funding opportunity to enable States to make payments to assist general acute care hospitals and IPFs that are paid under a Medicare PPS, with the financial pressures that may result from changing wage rates in those impacted communities. Louisiana and Mississippi are the only States with knowledge and ability to administer a grant designed to affect impacted communities in their own respective States. For the reasons cited above, the Secretary has directed CMS to offer supplemental single-source awards to the States of Louisiana and Mississippi. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy J. Alexander, Ph.D., Health Insurance Specialist, Finance Systems and Budget Group, Centers for Medicaid and State Operations, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Mail Stop S3-13-15, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244,
(410)786-5245. Authority: Section 6201(a)(4) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA). Dated: June 10, 2008. Kerry Weems, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. [FR Doc. E8-13525 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0132] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; State Petitions for Exemption From Preemption AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or e-mailed to *baguilar@omb.eop.gov* . All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0277. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. State Petitions for Exemption From Preemption—21 CFR 100.1(d) (OMB Control No. 0910-0277)—Extension Under section 403A(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 343-1(b)), States may petition FDA for exemption from Federal preemption of State food labeling and standard of identity requirements. Section 100.1(d) (21 CFR 100.1(d)) sets forth the information a State is required to submit in such a petition. The information required under § 100.1(d) enables FDA to determine whether the State food labeling or standard of identity requirement satisfies the criteria of section 403A(b) of the act for granting exemption from Federal preemption. In the **Federal Register** of March 4, 2008 (73 FR 11648), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection provisions. No comments were received. **Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** 1 21 CFR Section No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours per Response Total Hours 100.1(d) 1 1 1 40 40 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. The reporting burden for § 100.1(d) is minimal because petitions for exemption from preemption are seldom submitted by States. In the last 3 years, FDA has not received any new petitions for exemption from preemption; therefore, the agency estimates that one or fewer petitions will be submitted annually. Although FDA has not received any new petitions for exemption from preemption in the last 3 years, it believes these information collection provisions should be extended to provide for the potential future need of a State or local government to petition for an exemption from preemption under the provisions of section 403(A) of the act. Dated: June 10, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-13522 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Recruitment of Sites for Assignment of Corps Personnel AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS. ACTION: General notice. SUMMARY: The Health Resources and Services Administration
(HRSA)announces that the listing of entities, and their Health Professional Shortage Area
(HPSA)scores, that will receive priority for the assignment of National Health Service Corps
(NHSC)personnel (Corps Personnel, Corps members) for the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, is posted on the NHSC Web site at *http://nhsc.bhpr.hrsa.gov/jobs/index.asp.* This list specifies which entities are eligible to receive assignment of Corps members who are participating in the NHSC Scholarship Program, the NHSC Loan Repayment Program, and Corps members who have become Corps members other than pursuant to contractual obligations under the Scholarship or Loan Repayment Programs. Please note that not all vacancies associated with sites on this list will be for Corps members, but could be for individuals serving an obligation to the NHSC through the Private Practice Option. Eligible HPSAs and Entities To be eligible to receive assignment of Corps personnel, entities must:
(1)Have a current HPSA designation by the Office of Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration;
(2)not deny requested health care services, or discriminate in the provision of services to an individual because the individual is unable to pay for the services or because payment for the services would be made under Medicare, Medicaid, or the State Children's Health Insurance Program;
(3)enter into an agreement with the State agency that administers Medicaid, accept payment under Medicare and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, see all patients regardless of their ability to pay, and use and post a discounted fee plan; and
(4)be determined by the Secretary to have
(a)A need and demand for health manpower in the area;
(b)appropriately and efficiently used Corps members assigned to the entity in the past;
(c)general community support for the assignment of Corps members;
(d)made unsuccessful efforts to recruit; and
(e)a reasonable prospect for sound fiscal management by the entity with respect to Corps members assigned there. Priority in approving applications for assignment of Corps members goes to sites that
(1)Provide primary medical care, mental health, and/or oral health services to a primary medical care, mental health, or dental HPSA of greatest shortage, respectively;
(2)are part of a system of care that provides a continuum of services, including comprehensive primary health care and appropriate referrals or arrangements for secondary and tertiary care;
(3)have a documented record of sound fiscal management; and
(4)will experience a negative impact on its capacity to provide primary health services if a Corps members is not assigned to the entity. Entities that receive assignment of Corps personnel must assure that
(1)the position will permit the full scope of practice and that the clinician meets the credentialing requirements of the State and site; and
(2)the Corps member assigned to the entity is engaged in full-time clinical practice at the approved service location for a minimum of 40 hours per week with at least 32 hours per week in the ambulatory care setting. Obstetricians/gynecologists, certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and family practitioners who practice obstetrics on a regular basis, are required to engage in a minimum of 21 hours per week of outpatient clinical practice. The remaining hours, making up the minimum 40-hour per week total, include delivery and other clinical hospital-based duties. For all Corps personnel, time spent on-call does not count toward the 40 hours per week. In addition, sites receiving assignment of Corps personnel are expected to
(1)Report to the NHSC all absences, including those in excess of the authorized number of days (up to 35 work days or 280 hours per contract year);
(2)report to the NHSC any change in the status of an NHSC clinician at the site;
(3)provide the time and leave records, schedules, and any related personnel documents for NHSC assignees (including documentation, if applicable, of the reason(s) for the termination of an NHSC clinician's employment at the site prior to his or her obligated service end date); and
(4)submit a Uniform Data System
(UDS)report. The UDS allows the site to assess the age, sex, race/ethnicity of, and provider encounter records for, its user population. The UDS reports are site specific. Providers fulfilling NHSC commitments are assigned to a specific site or, in some cases, more than one site. The scope of activity to be reported in UDS includes all activity at the site(s) to which the Corps member is assigned. Evaluation and Selection Process In approving applications for the assignment of Corps members, the Secretary shall give priority to any such application that is made regarding the provision of primary health services to a HPSA with the greatest shortage. For the program year July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, HPSAs of greatest shortage for determination of priority for assignment of Corps personnel will be defined as follows:
(1)Primary medical care HPSAs with scores of 14 and above are authorized for the assignment of Corps members who are primary care physicians, family nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), or CNMs participating in the Scholarship Program;
(2)mental health HPSAs with scores of 19 and above are authorized for the assignment of Corps members who are psychiatrists participating in the Scholarship Program;
(3)dental HPSAs with scores of 17 and above are authorized for the assignment of Corps members who are dentists participating in the Scholarship Program; and
(4)HPSAs (appropriate to each discipline) with scores of 17 and above are authorized for priority assignment of Corps members who are participating in the Loan Repayment Program. HPSAs with scores below 17 will be eligible to receive assignment of Corps personnel participating in the Loan Repayment Program only after assignments are made of those Corps members matching to those HPSAs receiving priority for placement of Corps members through the Loan Repayment Program (i.e., HPSAs scoring 17 or above). Placements made through the Loan Repayment Program in HPSAs with scores 16 or below will be made by decreasing HPSA score, and only to the extent that funding remains available. All sites on the list are eligible sites for individuals wishing to serve in an underserved area but who are not contractually obligated under the Scholarship or Loan Repayment Program. Note, that in response to the low number of NPs, PAs and CNMs in this placement cycle of NHSC Scholars, the primary care physician HPSA score has been applied to the entire primary care category. A listing of HPSAs and their scores is posted at *http://hpsafind.hrsa.gov/.* Sites qualifying for automatic primary medical care and dental HPSA designations have been scored and may be authorized to receive assignment of Corps members if they meet the criteria outlined above and their HPSA scores are above the stated cutoffs. If there are any sites on the list with an unscored HPSA designation they are authorized for the assignment of Corps personnel participating in the Loan Repayment Program only, after assignments are made of those Corps members matching to scored HPSAs and only to the extent that funding remains available. When these HPSAs receive scores, these sites will then be authorized to receive assignment of Corps members if they meet the criteria outlined above and their newly assigned scores are above the stated cutoffs. The number of new NHSC placements through the Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs allowed at any one site are limited to the following:
(1)Primary Medical Care:
(a)Loan Repayment Program—no more than 2 allopathic
(MD)or osteopathic
(DO)physicians; and no more than a combined total of 2 NPs, PAs, or CNMs;
(b)Scholarship Program—no more than 2 physicians (MD or DO); and no more than a combined total of 2 NPs, PAs, or CNMs.
(2)Dental:
(a)Loan Repayment Program—no more than 2 dentists and 2 dental hygienists;
(b)Scholarship Program—no more than 1 dentist.
(3)Mental Health:
(a)Loan Repayment Program—no more than 2 psychiatrists (MD or DO); and no more than a combined total of 2 clinical or counseling psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, licensed professional counselors, marriage and family therapists, or psychiatric nurse specialists;
(b)Scholarship Program—no more than 1 psychiatrist. Application Requests, Dates and Address The list of HPSAs and entities that are eligible to receive priority for the placement of Corps personnel may be updated periodically. Entities that no longer meet eligibility criteria, including HPSA score, will be removed from the priority listing. Entities interested in being added to the high priority list must submit an NHSC Recruitment and Retention Assistance Application to: National Health Service Corps, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 8A-08, Rockville, MD 20857, fax 301-594-2721. These applications must be submitted on or before the deadline date of March 27, 2009. Applications submitted after this deadline date will be considered for placement on the priority placement list in the following program year. Any changes to this deadline will be posted on the NHSC Web site at *http://nhsc.bhpr.hrsa.gov.* Entities interested in receiving application materials may do so by calling the HRSA call center at 1-800-221-9393. They may also get information and download application materials from: *http://nhsc.bhpr.hrsa.gov/applications/rraa.asp.* Additional Information Entities wishing to provide additional data and information in support of their inclusion on the proposed list of HPSAs and entities that would receive priority in assignment of Corps members, must do so in writing no later than July 16, 2008. This information should be submitted to: Mark Pincus, Director, Division of Site and Clinician Recruitment, Bureau of Clinician Recruitment and Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 8A-55, Rockville, MD 20857. This information will be considered in preparing the final list of HPSAs and entities that are receiving priority for the assignment of Corps personnel. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* The Recruitment & Retention Assistance Application has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB clearance number is 0915-0230 and expires August 31, 2008. The program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (as implemented through 45 CFR Part 100). Dated: June 6, 2008. Elizabeth M. Duke, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-13454 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Institutes of Health Construction Grants—42 CFR Part 52b (Final Rule) *Summary:* In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes of Health
(NIH)will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. *Proposed Collection: Title:* National Institutes of Health Construction Grants—42 CFR Part 52b (Final Rule). *Type of Information Collection Request:* EXTENSION of No. 0925-0424, expiration date 8/31/2008. *Need and Use of the Information Collection:* This request is for OMB review and approval of an extension for the information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in the regulation codified at 42 CFR Part 52b. The purpose of the regulation is to govern the awarding and administration of grants awarded by NIH and its components for construction of new buildings and the alteration, renovation, remodeling, improvement, expansion, and repair of existing buildings, including the provision of equipment necessary to make the buildings (or applicable part of the buildings) suitable for the purpose for which it was constructed. In terms of reporting requirements: Section 52b.9(b) of the regulation requires the transferor of a facility which is sold or transferred, or owner of a facility, the use of which has changed, to provide written notice of the sale, transfer or change within 30 days. Section 52b.10(f) requires a grantee to submit an approved copy of the construction schedule prior to the start of construction. Section 52b.10(g) requires a grantee to provide daily construction logs and monthly status reports upon request at the job site. Section 52b.11(b) requires applicants for a project involving the acquisition of existing facilities to provide the estimated cost of the project, cost of the acquisition of existing facilities, and cost of remodeling, renovating, or altering facilities to serve the purposes for which they are acquired. In terms of recordkeeping requirements: Section 52b.10(g) requires grantees to maintain daily construction logs and monthly status reports at the job site. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* Non-profit organizations and Federal agencies. *Type of respondents:* Grantees. The estimated respondent burden is as follows: Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Number of respondents Frequency of response Average time per response Annual hour burden Reporting: Section 52b.9(b) 1 1 .50 .50 Section 2b.10(f) 60 1 1.0 60 Section 2b.10(g) 60 12 1.0 720 Section 2b.11(b) 100 1 1.0 100 Recordkeeping: Section 2b.10(g) 60 260 1.0 15,600 Totals 281 16,480.5 The annualized cost to the public, based on an average of 60 active grants in the construction phase, is estimated at: $576,818. There are no Capital Costs to report. There are no operating or Maintenance Costs to report. *Request for Comments:* Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following points:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information and recordkeeping are necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information and recordkeeping, including the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected and the recordkeeping information to be maintained; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection and recordkeeping techniques of other forms of information technology. *For Further Information Contact:* Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations Officer, Office of Management Assessment, Division of Management Support, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Room 601, MSC 7669, Rockville, Maryland 20852; call 301-496-4607 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail your request to *jm40z@nih.gov* . *Comments Due Date:* Comments regarding this information collection and recordkeeping are best assured of having full effect if received on or before August 15, 2008. Dated: June 10, 2008. Jerry Moore, Regulations Officer, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. E8-13388 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Review Committee; July 2008 AIDS Research Review Committee meeting. *Date:* July 9, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Doubletree Hotel and Executive Meeting Center, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. *Contact Person:* Roberta Binder, PhD., Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room 3130, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616,
(301)496-7966, *rb169n@nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 5, 2008. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-13168 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2008-0056] The National Infrastructure Advisory Council AGENCY: Directorate for National Protection and Programs, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Council Meeting. SUMMARY: The National Infrastructure Advisory Council will meet on July 8, 2008 in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public. DATES: The National Infrastructure Advisory Council will meet Tuesday, July 8, 2008 from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business. For additional information, please consult the NIAC Web site, *http://www.dhs.gov/niac* , or contact Tim McCabe by phone at 703-235-2888 or by e-mail at *timothy.mccabe@associates.dhs.gov* . *Location:* The meeting will be held in Washington, DC. The specific location has not yet been determined. The meeting location will be published in the **Federal Register** and posted on the NIAC Web site prior to the meeting. ADDRESSES: While we will be unable to accommodate oral comments from the public, written comments may be sent to Nancy Wong, Department of Homeland Security, Directorate for National Protection and Programs, Washington, DC 20528. Written comments should reach the contact person listed below by June 25, 2008. Comments must be identified by DHS-2008-0056 and may be submitted by *one* of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *timothy.mccabe@associates.dhs.gov* . Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 703-235-3055. • *Mail:* Nancy Wong, Department of Homeland Security, Directorate for National Protection and Programs, Washington, DC 20528. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received by the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Wong, NIAC Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528; telephone 703-235-2888. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The National Infrastructure Advisory Council shall provide the President through the Secretary of Homeland Security with advice on the security of the critical infrastructure sectors and their information systems. The National Infrastructure Advisory Council will meet to address issues relevant to the protection of critical infrastructure as directed by the President. The July 8, 2008 meeting will include status reports from its two Working Groups:
(1)The Frameworks for Dealing with Disasters and Related Interdependencies Working Group and
(2)The Critical Partnership Strategic Assessment Working Group. Procedural While this meeting is open to the public, participation in The National Infrastructure Advisory Council deliberations is limited to committee members, Department of Homeland Security officials, and persons invited to attend the meeting for special presentations. Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the NIAC Secretariat at 703-235-2888 as soon as possible. Dated: June 5, 2008. Nancy Wong, Designated Federal Officer for the NIAC. [FR Doc. E8-13523 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DHS-2007-0077] Privacy Act of 1974; the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT), Technical Reconciliation Analysis Classification System (TRACS) System of Records AGENCY: Privacy Office; Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of Privacy Act system of records. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program is giving notice that it proposes to add a new system of records, entitled the Technical Reconciliation Analysis Classification System. The Technical Reconciliation Analysis Classification System is an information management tool used to enhance the integrity of the United States immigration system by detecting, deterring, and pursuing immigration fraud, and identifying persons who pose a threat to national security and/or public safety. DATES: The established system of records will be effective July 16, 2008. Written comments must be submitted on or before July 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DHS-2007-0077, by one of the following methods: • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 1-866-466-5370. • *Mail:* Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. • *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. • *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions please contact: TRACS System Manager, US-VISIT Program, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528
(202)298-5200 or by facsimile
(202)298-5201. For privacy issues please contact: Hugo Teufel III (703-235-0780), Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), United States—Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program is establishing a Privacy Act system of records known as Technical Reconciliation Analysis Classification System (TRACS). This system of records is an information management tool used for management and analysis of US-VISIT records. TRACS will help enhance the integrity of the United States immigration system by detecting, deterring, and pursuing immigration fraud, and by identifying persons who pose a threat to national security and/or public safety. TRACS will consist of paper files and electronic databases. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has delegated to NPPD and US-VISIT the responsibility for enhancing the security of U.S. citizens and visitors; facilitating safe, efficient, and legitimate travel to the U.S.; promoting border security and the integrity of the immigration system; safeguarding the privacy of visitors to the U.S. NPPD and US-VISIT have also been delegated authority for assisting in the prevention of immigration identity fraud or theft; and serving law enforcement, border officials, and others who make decisions on immigration matters, including decisions on immigration benefits and status, by identifying aliens seeking permission to enter, entering, visiting, residing in, changing status within, or exiting the U.S. Finally, NPPD and US-VISIT have been delegated the responsibility for providing technical assistance and analytic services to other DHS functions and components and to other Federal agencies, as well as to State, local, tribal, and foreign governments, including multinational and international organizations, to better protect the Nation's physical and virtual borders. To discharge the above responsibilities, TRACS will be used to:
(1)Identify individuals who have remained in the United States beyond their authorized period of admission (overstays);
(2)maintain information on why individuals are promoted to or demoted from the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) list of subjects of interest;
(3)provide the means for additional research in regards to individuals whose biometrics are collected by DHS, and subsequently matched to the list of subjects of interest during a routine IDENT query. A query of this nature would take place following a background check or security screening relating to the individual's hiring or retention, performance of a job function, or the issuance of a license or credential, allowing them access to secured facilities to perform mission and non-mission related work. Examples of this include credentialing of Federal, non-Federal, and contractor employees who work within the secured areas of our nation's airports;
(4)to further analyze information about individuals who may be identified as a subject of interest following a routine query against IDENT while applying for visas or other benefits on behalf of domestic partners, such as the U.S. Department of State or foreign partners, as is the case with the United Kingdom Border Agency's
(UKBA)International Group Visa Services program, which supports the DHS mission; and
(5)to provide information in response to queries from law enforcement and intelligence agencies charged with national security, law enforcement, immigration, or other DHS mission-related functions. Specifically, TRACS will be used for the analysis of overstays, for changes to the IDENT subject of interest lists, law enforcement and intelligence research, and to assist in developing and fostering foreign partnerships that enhance the goals and mission of US-VISIT, such as the work being done in association with the UKBA's International Group Visa Services project. To identify possible overstays, US-VISIT reviews and analyzes information in the Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS), a US-VISIT system used for the storage and use of biographic, biometric indicator, and encounter data on aliens who have applied for entry, entered, or departed the United States. ADIS consolidates information from various systems in order to provide a repository of data held by DHS for pre-entry, entry, status management, and exit tracking of immigrants and non-immigrants. Its primary use is to facilitate the investigation of subjects of interest who may have violated their immigration status by remaining in the United States beyond their authorized stay. To assist in the resolution of overstays, information related to them may be copied to TRACS for review and further analysis against other US-VISIT programs and systems to better determine their status. Regarding changes to the IDENT Subject of Interest List, in order to maintain the integrity of the immigration and customs programs, DHS maintains records within IDENT to identify individuals who may present a terrorist threat to the United States as well as those individuals who may not be allowed to enter the country because of past violations of immigration or customs law. An individual is either promoted to or demoted from the list of subjects of interest within IDENT. As IDENT is not a case management system, it merely records the change, not the justification for the change. TRACS will have the ability to serve as a case management system and not only use the information regarding the changes to the list of subjects of interest that is recorded in IDENT but also to record and store the actual justification for any change. The user will also have the ability to enter data in pre-determined selectable categories or manually by either free text or by cutting and pasting information retrieved from other systems and placing it into a workspace in TRACS so that analysis can be performed. For assistance in background checks and security clearance processes for employment at DHS or receipt of a DHS license or credential, applicants may have their information searched against ADIS or IDENT records. Clearance, employment eligibility, or other license or credential applications that have a match against ADIS or IDENT may require additional research regarding the applicant. Such information would be maintained and tracked in TRACS. Regarding analyzing information on behalf of domestic or foreign partners, US-VISIT will assist its partners in analyzing information held by US-VISIT where such analysis supports the DHS mission. For example, for the UKBA visa services project, US-VISIT will receive biometric information from the UK for UK visa applicants and query their biometric information against the IDENT list of subjects of interest. US-VISIT will then provide the results from the query back to the UK for purposes of visa adjudication. Regarding law enforcement and intelligence research, US-VISIT may also receive requests from other law enforcement agencies, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as from other intelligence agencies, to provide further information regarding the immigration status for individuals of interest to those organizations. US-VISIT tracks these requests and the responses in TRACS. Information in TRACS comes primarily from ADIS and IDENT. TRACS may also contain information from other DHS component programs or systems, or publicly available source systems that are manually queried while researching a particular case. Data researched or identified through publicly available source systems, such as the internet, will be identified and referenced in the individual's record in TRACS. If it becomes routine for a specific public source system(s) to be used on a regular basis, the PIA will be updated to reflect this system(s) as a common source of information and data. For research conducted, based on an external request, information may also be provided from the requesting entity, as described below for the DHS/United Kingdom Border Agency's
(UKBA)International Group Visa Services program. The data contained in TRACS is primarily from the US-VISIT systems Arrival and Departure Information System
(ADIS)(72 FR 47057, Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS), System of Records Notice, August 22, 2007); the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) (72 FR 31080, Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), System of Records Notice, June 5, 2007); and a Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)system called the Treasury Enforcement Communications System
(TECS)(66 FR 53029, Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), System of Records Notice, October 18, 2001). TRACS also receives data from a Department of State
(DOS)system called the Consolidated Consular Database (CCD); the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) (70 FR 14477, Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), System of Records Notice, March 22, 2005); the Central Index System
(CIS)(72 FR 1755, Central Index System (CIS), System of Records Notice, January 16, 2007); the Computer-linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS 3 and 4) (64 FR 18052, Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS 3 and 4), System of Records Notice, April 13, 1999); the Refugees, Asylum & Parole System (RAPS); the Deportable Alien Control System
(DACS)(67 FR 64136, Deportable Alien Control System (DACS), System of Records Notice, October 17, 2002); and the Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE). TRACS also contains data from Web searches for addresses and phone numbers. II. Privacy Act The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency for which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass United States citizens and legal permanent residents (LPRs). As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals, including aliens who are not LPRs, on whom a system of records maintains information. Individuals may request access to their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DHS by complying with DHS Privacy Act regulations, 6 CFR Part 5. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the **Federal Register** a description denoting the type and character of each system of records that the agency maintains, and the routine uses that are contained in each system in order to make agency record keeping practices transparent, to notify individuals regarding the uses to which their records are put, and to assist individuals to more easily find such files within the agency. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this new system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress. System of Records DHS/NPPD/USVISIT-003 System name: The United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program; Technical Reconciliation Analysis Classification System (TRACS). Security classification: Unclassified. System location: Records are maintained at the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program Office Headquarters in Washington, DC and field offices. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Categories of individuals covered by this notice consist primarily of persons who are not United States citizens or legal permanent residents (LPRs). However, it will contain data on:
(1)U.S. citizens or LPRs who have a connection to the DHS mission (e.g., individuals who have submitted a visa application to the UK (based on the January 11, 2008 signed Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Homeland Security of the United States of America and the [UKBA International Group Visa Services program formerly known as] UKVISAS as the Authority Appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, regarding Information Vetting and Sharing), or have made requests for a license or credential as part of a background check or security screening in connection with their hiring or retention, performance of a job function or the issuance a license or credential for employment at DHS);
(2)U.S. citizens and LPRs who have an incidental connection to the DHS mission (e.g., individuals living at the same address as individuals who have remained in this country beyond their authorized stays); and
(3)individuals who have, over time, changed their status and became U.S. citizens or LPRs. Categories of records in the system: Categories of records in this system include:
(1)Biometric data (to include, but not limited to, photographs and fingerprints);
(2)biographic data held in Government system (to include, but not limited to, names, aliases, date of birth, nationality or other personal descriptive data such as address and phone number);
(3)biometric indicator data (to include, but not limited to, fingerprint identification numbers);
(4)encounter data (i.e. information that provides the context of the interaction with an individual, such as encounters concerning border entry screening, immigration enforcement, and submission of visa applications); and
(5)commercial or publicly available data such as name, address, and phone number as found in open source searches of internet phone directories. The records described in (1)-(5) above may also include related contextual and information management data and metadata, such as: encounter location, time of encounter, document types, document numbers, document issuance information, conveyance information, and address while in the U.S. Information management data is used to manage ongoing analyses or investigations and may include, but is not limited to, case resolution, status, comments and notes from interviewers or by the analysts assigned to the case(s). Authority for maintenance of the system: 6 U.S.C. 202, 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1187, 1201, 1225, 1324, 1357, 1360, 1365a, 1365b, 1379, and 1732. Specifically, the data is collected and maintained in TRACS under the authority provided by: The Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 (DMIA), Public Law 106-215; The Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act of 2000 (VWPPA), Public Law 106-396; The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (U.S.A. PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56; The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (Border Security Act), Public Law 107-173; The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), Public Law 108-458; The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110-53; and The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Title 8, United States Code, as delegated by the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security. Purpose(s): The purpose of this system is to serve as an information management tool used to enhance the integrity of the United States' immigration system by detecting, deterring, and pursuing immigration fraud, and identifying persons who pose a threat to national security and/or public safety, and to assist in supporting credentialing activities. TRACS is used to: identify individuals who have remained in the United States beyond their authorized period of admission (overstays); maintain information on why individuals are promoted to, or demoted from, the IDENT list of subjects of interest; assist in determining eligibility in connection with: Hiring or retention, issuance of a license or credential as part of a background check or security screening in connection with their hiring or retention, or performance of a job function or the issuance a license or credential for employment at DHS; and to analyze information regarding immigration status, including applications to enter and exit the United States, as well as the actual physical entries into and exits from the United States, in support of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In addition, TRACS will be used to analyze data quality, integrity, and utility; and analyze data to establish trends and patterns in the data for future enforcement actions. 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, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: A. To the United States Department of Justice (including United States Attorney offices) or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative or administrative body, or to the court or administrative body, when it is necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation: 1. DHS or any component thereof; 2. Any employee of DHS in his/her official capacity; 3. Any employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity where DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or 4. The United States or any agency thereof, is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and DHS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which DHS collected the records. B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains. C. To the National Archives and Records Administration or other Federal government agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. D. To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function. E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: 1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; 2. The Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity), or harm to the individual that rely upon the compromised information; and 3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS' efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. The individuals who provide information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees. G. To an appropriate Federal, State, tribal, local, foreign, multinational, or international law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, where a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure. H. To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, multinational, or international governmental agencies seeking information on the subjects of wants, warrants, or lookouts, or any other subject of interest, for purpose related to administering or enforcing the law, national security, immigration, or preparedness and critical infrastructure protection, where consistent with a DHS mission-related function as determined by DHS. I. To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, multinational, or international government agencies charged with national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, preparedness and critical infrastructure protection, or other DHS mission-related functions in connection with the hiring or retention by such an agency of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of such an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, loan, or other benefit by the requesting agency. J. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information or when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS' officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: None. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Records in this system are stored electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records are stored on magnetic disc, tape, digital media, and CD-ROM. Information may also be stored in secured case file folders, cabinets, safes, or a variety of secured electronic or computer databases and storage media to include data and materials introduced through legacy systems (e.g. spreadsheets). Retrievability: Records may be retrieved by a variety of data elements including, but not limited to, name, place and date of arrival or departure, document number, and other personal identifiers. Safeguards: Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions. The system maintains a real-time auditing function of individuals who access the system. Additional safeguards may vary by component and program. The system is protected through multi-layer security mechanisms. The protective strategies are physical, technical, administrative, and environmental in nature, and provide access control to sensitive data, physical access control to DHS facilities, confidentiality of communications, user authentication, and personnel screening to ensure that all personnel with access to data are screened through background investigations commensurate with the level of access required to perform their duties. Retention and disposal: The following proposal for retention and disposal is pending approval with National Archives and Records Administration (NARA): Data will be disposed of when the information regarding the potential subject of interest has either been adjudicated or when the 75 year retention schedule has been met. Seventy five years is the retention period of IDENT and ADIS, the primary source systems of TRACS. Because TRACS is frequently used to establish and track decisions that affect the list of subjects of interest and overstay status in IDENT and ADIS, it is necessary that a retention period correspond to these systems. System Manager and address: TRACS System Manager, US-VISIT Program, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the component's FOIA Officer, whose contact information can be found at *http://www.dhs.gov/foia* under “contacts”. If an individual believes more than one component maintains Privacy Act records concerning him or her the individual may submit the request to the Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Drive, SW., Building 410, STOP-0550, Washington, DC 20528. When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR Part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty or perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose form the Director, Disclosure and FOIA, *http://www.dhs.gov* or 1-866-431-0486. In addition you should provide the following: • An explanation of why you believe the Department would have information on you, • Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you, • Specify when you believe the records would have been created, • Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records, • If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records. Without this bulleted information the component(s) will not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations. Record access procedures: A portion of this system is exempted from this requirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), (k1), (k)(2), and (k)(5). An individual who is the subject of a record in this system may access those records that are not exempt from disclosure. A determination whether a record may be accessed will be made at the time a request is received. DHS will review and comply appropriately with information requests on a case by case basis. An individual desiring copies of records maintained in this system should direct his or her request to the FOIA Officer: See: “Notification procedure” above. Contesting record procedures: A portion of this system is exempted from this requirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5). An individual who is the subject of a record in this system may access those records that are not exempt from disclosure. A determination whether a record may be accessed will be made at the time a request is received. DHS will review and comply appropriately with information requests on a case by case basis. Requests for access or correction of records in this system may be made through the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program
(TRIP)at *http://www.dhs.gov/trip* or via mail, facsimile or e-mail in accordance with instructions available at *http://www.dhs.gov/trip* . See: “Notification procedure” above. Record source categories: Basic information contained in this system is supplied by individuals covered by this system, and other Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign government systems; private citizens; and public sources. Exemptions claimed for the system: The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5) and (e)(8); (f); and
(g)pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and
(f)pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5). These exemptions apply only to the extent that records in the system are subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5). Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-13383 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5188-N-08] Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request, Environmental Reviews AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* August 15, 2008 ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Pamela Williams, Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing Urban and Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 7234, Washington, DC 20410. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard H. Broun, Director, Office of Environment and Energy, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7244, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000. For telephone and e-mail communication, contact Walter Prybyla, Environmental Review Division,
(202)402-4466 or e-mail: *Walter_Prybyla@hud.gov* . This phone number is not toll-free. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as Amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* Environmental Review of Proposed Housing Development. *OMB Control Number, if applicable:* 2506-0177. *Description of the need for the information and proposed use:* The information collection applies to applicants seeking HUD financial assistance for their project proposals and is used by HUD for the performance of the Department's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and related federal environmental laws and authorities in accordance with HUD environmental regulations, 24 CFR Part 50: “Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality.” *Agency form numbers, if applicable:* None. The total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection is approximately eight hours. The number of respondents is approximately 2,600. The frequency of response is a one-time collection. The proposed information collection is for the extension of a currently approved collection. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. Dated: June 6, 2008. Nelson R. Bregón, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. [FR Doc. E8-13396 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5187-N-39] Household Outcomes Survey for FEMA's Alternative Housing Pilot Program AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. The proposed information collection will collect household outcome data from families who have received housing under FEMA's Alternative Housing Pilot Program (AHPP). HUD is conducting an evaluation of AHPP. Four States affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita received AHPP grants to test out alternative approaches to providing temporary housing after a disaster. HUD is charged with measuring what benefits and costs are associated with each of the alternatives being implemented by the States. Measuring the program impact on health, satisfaction, and general well-being of the occupants is a key part of the evaluation. This household outcomes survey will collect information that will be used to evaluate the impact of various housing alternatives on the quality of life of households who participate in the program. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* July 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2528-NEW) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Deitzer, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Lillian Deitzer at *Lillian_L_Deitzer@HUD.gov* or telephone
(202)402-8048. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Deitzer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice Also Lists the Following Information *Title of Proposal:* Household Outcomes Survey for FEMA's Alternative Housing Pilot Program. *OMB Approval Number:* 2528-NEW. *Form Numbers:* None. *Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use:* The proposed information collection will collect household outcome data from families who have received housing under FEMA's Alternative Housing Pilot Program (AHPP). HUD is conducting an evaluation of AHPP. Four States affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita received AHPP grants to test out alternative approaches to providing temporary housing after a disaster. HUD is charged with measuring what benefits and costs are associated with each of the alternatives being implemented by the States. Measuring the program impact on health, satisfaction, and general well-being of the occupants is a key part of the evaluation. This household outcomes survey will collection information that will be used to evaluate the impact of various housing alternatives on the quality of life of households who participate in the program. *Frequency of Submission:* On occasion. Number of respondents Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours Reporting Burden 747 1 0.749 560 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 560. *Status:* New Collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: June 5, 2008. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13397 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R6-R-2008-N0143; 60138-1265-6CCP-S3] Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability; request for comments. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announce that the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP)and Environmental Assessment
(EA)for the Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge is available. This draft CCP/EA describes how the Service intends to manage the refuge for the next 15 years. We request public comment. DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments on the draft CCP/EA by July 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please provide written comments to Toni Griffin, Planning Team Leader, Division of Refuge Planning, Branch of Comprehensive Conservation Planning, Mountain-Prairie Region, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0486; via facsimile at 303-236-4792; or electronically to *toni_griffin@fws.gov* . A copy of the CCP/EA may be obtained by writing to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Planning, 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, Colorado 80228; or by download from *http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Griffin, 303-236-4378 (phone) or John Esperance, 303-236-4369 (phone). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Located in central Wyoming in a high plains basin near the headwaters of the Platte-Kansas Ecosystem, Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR)lies approximately 47 miles southwest of Casper, Wyoming. The Pathfinder NWR is managed by Service staff headquartered at the Arapaho NWR near Walden, Colorado. Pathfinder NWR was established by Executive Order 7425, August 1, 1936, which designated the Pathfinder Wildlife Refuge “as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and other wildlife.” Pathfinder NWR was established as an overlay refuge on Bureau of Reclamation lands. As such, primary jurisdiction of these lands remains under the authority of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of Reclamation administers lands within the Pathfinder Project boundary for North Platte Project purposes including flood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation. A Memorandum of Agreement specifies the management responsibilities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service while preserving the autonomy of Bureau of Reclamation to manage Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir. This draft CCP/EA identifies and evaluates three alternatives for managing the refuge for the next 15 years. Alternative A, the No Action alternative, reflects the current management of the refuge. It provides the baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. Refuge habitats would continue to be minimally managed on an opportunistic schedule that may maintain, or most likely would result in further decline in, the diversity of vegetation and wildlife species. Only limited data collection and monitoring of refuge habitats and wildlife species would occur on the refuge. Outreach and partnerships would continue at present levels. Management activities under alternative B would be increased. Upland habitats would be evaluated and managed for the benefit of migratory bird species. Monitoring and management of invasive species on the refuge would be increased. With additional staffing, the Service would collect baseline biological information for wildlife and habitats. Wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities would be provided and enhanced where compatible with refuge purposes. Efforts would be increased in the operations and maintenance of natural resources on the refuge and to maintain and develop partnerships that promote wildlife and habitat research and management. Alternative C is the Service's proposed action and basis for the draft comprehensive conservation plan. Under Alternative C, the Memorandum of Agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Service would be modified to eliminate Service interest in lands (approximately 10,800 acres) that are difficult to manage and provide minimal opportunity to improve wildlife habitat. Remaining refuge areas would be managed similar to those actions described in Alternative B. This would enable the Service to focus efforts on manageable lands, thereby enhancing refuge management and efficiently directing refuge resources toward accomplishing the mission of the Refuge System. The proposed action (Alternative C) was selected because it best meets the purposes and goals of the refuge, as well as the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The proposed action will also benefit federally listed species, shore birds, migrating and nesting waterfowl and resident wildlife. Environmental education and partnerships will result in improved wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Cultural and historical resources as well as federally listed species will be protected. Opportunity for public input will be provided at a public meeting to be scheduled soon. The specific date and time for the public meeting is yet to be determined, but will be announced via local media and a planning update. All information provided voluntarily by mail, by phone, or at public meetings ( *e.g.,* names, addresses, letters of comment, input recorded during meetings) becomes part of the official public record. If requested under the Freedom of Information Act by a private citizen or organization, the Service may provide copies of such information. The environmental review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ); NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); other appropriate Federal laws and regulations; Executive Order 12996; the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; and Service policies and procedures for compliance with those laws and regulations. Dated: June 5, 2008. Sharon R. Rose, Acting Regional Director. [FR Doc. E8-13469 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-IA-2008-N0129; 96300-1671-0000-P5] Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for permit. SUMMARY: The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. DATES: Written data, comments or requests must be received by July 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703-358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703-358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Endangered Species The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Applicant: University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, PRT-182099 The applicant requests a permit to transport biological samples from the following species: Lowland gorilla *(Gorilla gorilla gorilla),* pygmy chimpanzee *(Pan paniscus),* chimpanzee *(Pan troglodytes),* Borneo orangutan *(Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus),* and Sumatran orangutan *(Pongo pygmaeus abelii)* from the Coriell Institute for Medical Research, Camden, New Jersey for the purpose of enhancement of the species through scientific research. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant for a five-year period. Applicant: Thomas E. Tate, Glendale, CA, PRT-182074 The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok *(Damaliscus pygargus pygargus)* culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Applicant: Patrick J. Mulligan, Dallas, TX, PRT-180778 The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok *(Damaliscus pygargus pygargus)* culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Dated: May 9, 2008. Lisa J. Lierheimer, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E8-13450 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ES-030-08-1320-EL; WVES-50560; WVES-50556] Notice of Availability of the East Lynn Lake Coal Lease Draft Land Use Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of Hearing, Wayne County, West Virginia AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)and its cooperating agencies have prepared a Draft Land Use Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DLUA/DEIS) to analyze the potential impacts of two Federal Coal Lease By Applications (LBAs), WVES-50556 and WVES-50560, totaling 13,089.55 acres at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) East Lynn Lake Project in Wayne County, West Virginia. By this notice, the BLM announces the beginning of a 90-day public review and comment period and notice of a public hearing for the DLUA/DEIS, Maximum Economic Recovery (MER), and Fair Market Value
(FMV)pursuant to the 43 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)3425.4. The public is invited to review and comment on the DLUA/DEIS, MER, and FMV. DATES: Comments will be accepted for 90 days following the date that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)publishes its Notice of Availability for this DLUA/DEIS in the **Federal Register** . The BLM will hold the public hearing at 7 p.m. EDT, on July 31, 2008, at the Town Hall, 1300 Norfolk Avenue, Wayne, West Virginia. The BLM will announce this public hearing as well as any future meetings or hearings and any other public involvement activities at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media news releases, and/or mailings. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: EastLynnLakeComments@blm.gov.* • *Mail:* BLM-ES Milwaukee Field Office, Attn: Chris Carusona, 626 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 200, Milwaukee, WI 53202. • *Facsimile:* 414-297-4409, Attn: Chris Carusona. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Carusona, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, at 414-297-4463, ( *Chris_Carusona@blm.gov* ), or at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM is considering issuing two coal leases as a result of applications made by Argus Energy WV, LLC (Argus) and Rockspring Development, Inc. (Rockspring) to lease the Federal coal in the East Lynn Lake Project area in Wayne County, West Virginia. Argus submitted a coal LBA (WVES-50556) to BLM for 7,639.63 acres bordering a portion of the southern shore of East Lynn Lake and Rockspring submitted a coal LBA (WVES-50560) for 5,449.92 acres that borders a portion of the north shore of the lake. East Lynn Lake is located approximately 25 miles south of Huntington, West Virginia, and is managed by the USACE for flood control, recreation, and wildlife. The DLUA/DEIS analyzes and discloses to the public direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of issuing Federal coal leases in the East Lynn Lake Project area. A copy of the DLUA/DEIS will be sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies; persons and entities identified as potentially being affected by a decision to lease the Federal coal in this area; and persons who indicated to the BLM that they wanted to receive a copy of the DLUA/DEIS. The purpose of the public hearing is to solicit comments on the DLUA/DEIS, on the proposed competitive lease sale and the MER and FMV of the Federal coal from the Federal coal tracts near East Lynn Lake. Argus and Rockspring applied for the tracts in accordance with 43 CFR 3425 in order to extend the life of their existing underground mines they operate on adjacent private land. Argus estimated that the tracts in their application include 55 million tons of in-place Federal coal and Rockspring estimated that the tracts they applied for include 40.98 million tons of in-place Federal coal. The coal seam proposed to be mined is the Coalburg/Winifrede seam. The State of West Virginia does not use the Public Land Rectangular Survey System to legally describe land tracts within the State, but instead utilizes metes and bounds property descriptions. Consequently, to avoid numerous pages of lengthy legal descriptions, the Federal coal reserves encompassed by the LBAs are described below by referencing the USACE mineral-tract numbers. It should be pointed out that referencing a mineral-tract number in the listing below does not necessarily mean the entire mineral tract is under application. More detailed property descriptions are available in the DLUA/DEIS. Argus, LBA WVES-50556 *Mineral Tract Numbers:* 177M-14; 177M-12; 177M-11; 177M-1; 745M; 746M; 808; 840M; 843M; 846M; 1140M; 1140; 1301; 1313M; 1330M; 1717M; 1718M; 1810M; 1811M; 1813M; 2020M; 2321M; 2430M; 2431M; and 2737. *Approximately 7,639.63 acres in Wayne County, West Virginia.* Rockspring, LBA WVES-50560 *Mineral Tract Numbers:* 174M; 177M-2; 177M-1; 184M; 376ME-2; 375M; 376ME-1; 377M; 378M; 380M; 381M; 382M; 384M; 386M; 390ME-1; 395M; 430M; 517A; 517B; 545M; 547M; 548M; 550M; 553M; 554M; 556M; 745M; 1450M; 1451M; 1452M; 1453M; 1717M; and 1718M. *Approximately 5,449.92 acres in Wayne County, West Virginia.* The Notice of Intent
(NOI)to prepare a LUA/EIS for Federal coal leasing administered by the BLM in Wayne County, West Virginia, was published in the **Federal Register** on July 14, 2005 (70 FR 40723-40725). The scope of the analysis was to include an assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental, cultural, social science, and economic impacts associated with commercial leasing of the Federal coal under a range of alternatives. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), the USACE, and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
(DNR)are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the DLUA/DEIS. Argus proposes to mine the Federal coal in the lease application area by underground methods extending from two of their existing underground mines located on private land to the south of the application area. Rockspring would similarly access their application area from their existing underground mine located on private lands north of their application area. No mining would occur beneath East Lynn Lake and no surface mining would take place. The existing mines for Argus and Rockspring have approved mining and reclamation plans from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ)and an approved air quality permit from the Air Quality Division of the West Virginia DEQ. It is reasonable to expect that Rockspring may wish to conduct exploratory drilling on their area of interest. Both companies may need to drill additional holes for mine plan purposes if leases were to be issued and mine plans approved. The BLM is authorized to lease Federal coal, under the Mineral Leasing Act (43 CFR 3480.0-5(a)(25)) and the Water Resource and Development Act of 1999, for Federally owned coal at East Lynn Lake. The OSM, in cooperation with the State of West Virginia, issues mine permits under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The DLUA/DEIS analyzes leasing the East Lynn Lake Federal coal tracts as the Proposed Action and is the agency's preferred action. Under the proposed action, a competitive sale would be held and two leases issued for Federal coal in the tracts under applications by Argus and Rockspring. The DLUA/DEIS also analyzes the alternative of rejecting the applications to lease Federal coal as the No Action Alternative. Requests to be included on the mailing list for this project and for copies of the DLUA/DEIS, paper copy or CD-ROM, or notification of the comment period or hearing date, or both, may be sent in writing, by facsimile, or electronically to the addresses previously stated at the beginning of this notice. The BLM asks that those submitting comments on the DLUA/DEIS make them as specific as possible with reference to page numbers and chapters of the document. Comments that contain only opinions or preferences will not receive a formal response; however, they will be considered and included as part of the BLM decision-making process. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Copies of the DLUA/DEIS are available for public inspection at the Milwaukee Field Office address listed above, during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m., CDT), Monday through Friday, with the exception of Federal holidays. The DLUA/DEIS is available on the following Web site: *http://www.es.blm.gov/EastLynnLake/index.php.* Dated: February 14, 2008. Juan Palma, State Director, Eastern States. Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the Federal Register on June 11, 2008. [FR Doc. E8-13457 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before May 31, 2008. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by July 1, 2008. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. CALIFORNIA Los Angeles County Apartments at 1342-1346 N. Hayworth Avenue, 1342-1346 N. Hayworth Ave., West Hollywood, 08000628 FLORIDA Miami-Dade County Seminole Cafe and Hotel, 55 S. Flagler Ave., Homestead, 08000641 Volusia County Airport Clear Zone Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna Beach, 08000639 Blanchette Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna, 08000640 First Presbyterian Church Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna Beach, 08000635 Grange Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna Beach, 08000631 Hawks Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, Edgewater, 08000636 Janet's Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna Beach, 08000630 Old Fort Park Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna Beach, 08000629 Old Stone Wharf Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna Beach, 08000638 Sleepy Hollow Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna Beach, 08000637 Turnbull Colonists' House Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna Beach, 08000632 Turnbull Colonists' House No. 2 Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna Beach, 08000633 White-Fox House Archeological Site, (Archeological Resources of the 18th-Century Smyrnea Settlement of Dr. Andrew Turnbull MPS), Address Restricted, New Smyrna Beach, 08000634 KANSAS Cheyenne County St. Francis City Park, (New Deal-Era Resources of Kansas MPS), 300 Block of E. Washington St., St. Francis, 08000645 Dickinson County Elms Hotel, 201 W. 1st St., Abilene, 08000644 Graham County Antelope Lake Park, (New Deal-Era Resources of Kansas MPS), 2.5 miles W and .5 miles N. of Jct. U.S. 24 and KS 85, Morland, 08000643 Miami County Jackson Hotel, 139 W. Peoria St., Paola, 08000646 KENTUCKY Campbell County Fort Thomas Commercial District, 1011-1123 S. Fort Thomas Ave., 9-11 River Rd., 12-28 Midway Ct., Ft. Thomas, 08000653 Clark County Woodford—Fishback—Venable Farm, 5696 Combs Ferry Rd., Winchester, 08000655 Fayette County Hollywood Terrace Historic District, (Historic Residential Suburbs in the United States, 1830-1960 MPS), Tates Creek Rd. and the rear property lines of the properties facing, Euclid, Tremont and Park Ave., Lexington, 08000652 Garrard County Dr. Edwards House, 572 Danville St., Lancaster, 08000650 Jefferson County Hadley, Mary Alica, House, 1638 Story Ave., Louisville, 08000649 Progress School, 200 Wood Rd., Louisville, 08000648 Logan County Rhea Stadium, NE. corner of Intersection of E. 9th and Summer St., Russellville, 08000647 Oldham County Ross-Hollenbach Farm, 4701 S. Hwy. 1694, Brownsboro, 08000651 TEXAS Dallas County Bromberg, Alfred and Juanita, House, 3201 Wendover Rd., Dallas, 08000658 Fayette County Fayetteville Historic District, Roughly bounded by E. Bell, N. Thompson, E. Fayette, E. Main, Post Oak Lane, Fayetteville, 08000657 WISCONSIN Milwaukee County Florida and Third Industrial Historic District, 234-500 (even side) W. Florida St., 222 W. Pittsburgh Ave., 212, 222, 305, 331 S. 3rd St., 400 S. 5th St., Milwaukee, 08000656 Request for MOVE has been made for the following resources: KANSAS Norton County North Fork Solomon River Lattice Truss Bridge, Prairie Dog Golf Course, Norton, 03000366 KANSAS Washington County Washington County Kingpost Bridge, SW corner of int. K-9 and Center St., Barnes, 89002184 [FR Doc. E8-13434 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-70-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-616] In the Matter of Certain Hard Disk Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review Initial Determination Granting Complainants' Motion To Terminate the Investigation Based on Withdrawal of the Complaint AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 17) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting complainants’ motion to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint in the above-captioned investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)205-1999. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on
(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 15, 2007, the Commission instituted the above-captioned investigation based upon a complaint filed on September 10, 2007, by Steven F. Reiber and Mary L. Reiber of Lincoln, CA. 72 FR 58335-36 (October 15, 2007). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain hard disk drives, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,354,479; 6,651,864; and 6,935,548. The complaint named five respondents: Western Digital Corporation of Lake Forest, CA; Seagate Technology of Scotts Valley, CA; Toshiba American Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, CA; Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, CA; and Dell Inc. of Round Rock, TX. The complaint further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. On April 30, 2008, Complainants filed a motion to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. The Commission Investigative Attorney filed a response in support of Complainants' motion on May 12, 2008. Also on May 12, 2008, Respondents filed a joint response to Complainants' motion in which they opposed termination of the investigation until pending motions regarding summary determination, attorneys fees, and sanctions, filed May 5, 2008, have been ruled upon. On May 13, 2008, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting Complainants' motion to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1). No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and sections 210.41(a) and 210.42(h)(3), of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.41(a), 210.42(h)(3)). By order of the Commission. Issued: June 11, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-13462 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1127 (Final)] Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper From China and Germany AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of countervailing duty and antidumping investigations. SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-451 (Final) under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and the final phase of antidumping investigation Nos. 731-TA-1126-1127 (Final) under section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of subsidized imports from China and less-than-fair-value imports from China and Germany of certain lightweight thermal paper, provided for in subheadings 4811.90.80 and 4811.90.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. 1 1 For purposes of these investigations, the Department of Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as “thermal paper with a basis weight of 70 grams per square meter (“g/m 2 ”) (with a tolerance of ± 4.0 g/m 2 ) or less; irrespective of dimensions; with or without a base coat on one or both sides; with thermal active coating(s) on one or both sides that is a mixture of the dye and the developer that react and form an image when heat is applied; with or without a top coat; and without an adhesive backing. Certain lightweight thermal paper is typically (but not exclusively) used in point-of-sale applications such as ATM receipts, credit card receipts, gas pump receipts, and retail store receipts. The merchandise subject to these investigations is provided for in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheadings 4811.90.8040, 4811.90.9090, 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00. Although HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.” For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cassise (202-708-5408), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background.* —The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China of certain lightweight thermal paper, and that such products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in a petition filed on September 19, 2007, by Appleton Papers, Inc., Appleton, WI. Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information
(BPI)under an administrative protective order
(APO)and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. *Staff report.* —The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on September 15, 2008, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission's rules. *Hearing.* —The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on October 2, 2008, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before September 19, 2008. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on September 23, 2008, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony *in camera* no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing. *Written submissions.* —Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is September 22, 2008. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is October 9, 2008; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before October 9, 2008. On October 23, 2008, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before October 27, 2008, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 Fed. Reg. 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II
(C)of the Commission's Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: June 11, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-13463 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on May 29, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in *United States* v. *City of New Orleans* , *et al.* , Civil Action No. 02-3618, Section “E”, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In this action the United States, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), sought to recover from certain parties response costs that it incurred in response to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Agriculture Street Landfill Superfund Site (the “Site”) located in New Orleans, Louisiana. The United States also sought to recover civil penalties from the City of New Orleans for violations of an access order and information request issued by EPA. The proposed Consent Decree resolves the liability of the City of New Orleans for past response costs and civil penalties, under Sections 104(e) and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9604(e) and 9607(a). Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the City will perform certain in-kind services, provide access, and assist in the placement of institutional controls on the Site. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty
(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, and either e-mailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, NW., Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to *United States* v. *City of New Orleans* , *et al.* , D.J. Ref. 90-11-3-1638/2. The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras Street, Suite 210, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, and at the offices of EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.
(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number
(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $12.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Maureen M. Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-13466 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Public Comment Period for Proposed Clean Water Act Consent Decree Notice is hereby given that, for a period of 30 days, the United States will receive public comments on a proposed Consent Decree in *United States* v. *Valero Refining-Texas,* L.P. (“Valero Consent Decree”) (Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-00190), which was lodged with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on June 10, 2008. This proposed Consent Decree was lodged simultaneously with the Complaint in this Clean Water Act case against Valero Refining-Texas, L.P. (“Valero”). The Complaint alleges that Valero is civilly liable for violation of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* , as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”), 33 U.S.C. 2701 *et seq.* The Complaint seeks civil penalties for the discharge of oil into navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines from the Valero Refinery West Plant in Corpus Christi, Texas. In particular, the Complaint alleges that at least 3,400 barrels of oil were discharged from a Valero containment berm located on the edge of the Ship Channel on June 1, 2006. Valero already has removed the containment berm and associated aboveground storage tank from the edge of the Ship Channel. Under the settlement, Valero will pay a civil penalty of $1,650,000. In addition, the settlement requires Valero to implement a Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”) estimated at $300,000. The SEP involves the design and construction of an emergency response boat ramp near Public Oil Dock 11 at Avery Point on the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The new boat ramp is intended to provide an access point for larger emergency response boats to the Ship Channel, which will enhance emergency response efforts to protect human health and the environment on and along the water body that was affected by the spill. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and may be submitted to: P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, or via e-mail to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov,* and should refer to *United States* v. *Valero Refining-Texas, L.P.,* D.J. Ref. 90-5-1-1-09245. The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Southern District of Texas, One Shoreline Plaza, South Tower, 800 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 500, Corpus Christi, Texas. During the public comment period the Valero Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the Valero Consent Decree also may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood *(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov),* fax no.
(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number
(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $7.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. Maureen M. Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-13467 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Notice is hereby given that on June 6, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in *United States et al.* v. *Albemarle Electric Membership Corp., et al.* , Civil Action No. 5:08-cv-00261-D (E.D.N.C.), was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. In this action the United States and the State of North Carolina sought cost recovery under Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, against 27 defendants for costs relating to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment at or from the Carolina Transformer Superfund Site in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina (“the Site”). The Consent Decree resolves the liability of the 27 named Defendants, 105 additional non-federal settling entities, and eight settling federal agencies. Under the proposed Consent Decree, the 132 non-federal settling parties (collectively termed “Settling Defendants”) would pay $9,286,461 to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and $614,109.75 to the State; and the United States, on behalf of the settling federal agencies, would pay $3,095,487 to EPA and $204,703.25 to the State. In the Decree, the United States would covenant not to sue or take administrative action against the Settling Defendants under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, relating to the Site, subject to certain standard reopeners for new information or unknown conditions. In the Decree, the United States EPA would covenant not to take administrative action against the settling federal agencies under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, relating to the Site, subject to certain standard reopeners for new information or unknown conditions. In the Decree, the State Plaintiff would release and agree not to sue or take administrative action against the Settling Defendants and the settling federal agencies pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, or state law for past or future costs incurred by the State relating to the Site, subject to specific reservations included in the Decree. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty
(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to *United States* *et al.* v. *Albemarle Electric Membership Corp., et al.* , D.J. Ref. 90-11-3-98/1. The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the United States Attorney's Office, 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800, Raleigh, NC 27601, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.
(202)514-0097, phone confirmation no.
(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) for a copy exclusive of signature pages and appendices, or $42.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) for a copy including signature pages and appendices payable to the “U.S. Treasury” or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Maureen M. Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-13473 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Proposed Information Collection Request of the ETA 581, Contribution Operations Report; Extension Without Change AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collection of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. A copy of the proposed information collection request
(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice or by accessing: *http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/OMBControlNumber.cfm.* DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before August 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Bill Whitt, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-4231, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number
(202)693-3219 (this is not a toll-free number) or by e-mail: *whitt.bill@dol.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *I. Background:* The Office of Workforce Security
(OWS)of the Employment and Training Administration
(ETA)has responsibility for the Tax Performance System (TPS), which evaluates the employer-related or tax functions of the UI program. The Contribution Operations report (Form ETA 581) is a comprehensive report of each state's UI tax operations and is essential in providing quarterly tax performance data to OWS. ETA 581 data are the basis for measuring the performance and effectiveness of the states' UI tax operations. Using ETA 581 data, the TPS program measures performance, accuracy, and promptness in employer registration (status determinations), report delinquency, collections (accounts receivable), and the audit function. *II. Desired Focus of Comments:* Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension collection of the ETA 581, Contribution Operations Report. Comments are requested to: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary to assess performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. *III. Current Actions:* It is important that approval of the ETA 581 report be extended because this report is the only vehicle for collection of information required under the TPS program. If ETA 581 data were not collected, there would be no basis for determining the adequacy of funding for states' UI tax operations, making projections and forecasts in the budgetary process, nor measuring program performance and effectiveness. The ETA 581 accounts receivable data are necessary in the preparation of complete and accurate financial statements for the Unemployment Trust Fund
(UTF)and the maintenance of a modified accrual system for UTF accounting. *Type of Review:* Extension without change. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration. *Title:* ETA 581, Report on Contribution Operations. *OMB Number:* 1205-0178. *Agency Number:* ETA 581. *Recordkeeping:* Respondent is expected to maintain data, which support the reported data for three years. *Affected Public:* State Government. *Cite/Reference/Form/etc:* ETA 581. *Total Respondents:* 53. *Frequency:* Quarterly. *Total Responses:* 212. *Average Time per Response:* 8.5 hours. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 1,802. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining):* $-0-. Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: Wednesday, June 4, 2008. Cheryl Atkinson, Administrator, Office of Workforce Security. [FR Doc. E8-13438 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,787] Hasbro, Inc., Hasbro Managerial Services, Inc., East Longmeadow, MA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on February 21, 2008, applicable to workers of Hasbro, Inc., East Longmeadow, Massachusetts. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12466). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of board games and puzzles. New information shows that workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under two separate unemployment insurance
(UI)tax accounts Hasbro, Inc. and Hasbro Managerial Services, Inc. Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to properly reflect this matter. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Hasbro, Inc., and Hasbro Managerial Services, Inc., who were adversely affected by increased imports of board games and puzzles following a shift in production to China. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,787 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Hasbro, Inc., and Hasbro Managerial Services, Inc., East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 30, 2007, through February 21, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 6th day of June, 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-13403 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the period of May 27 through May 30, 2008. In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3)Either—
(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B)A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. None. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. None. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. None. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. None. Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. TA-W-62,881; Ross and Roberts, Inc., Stratford, CT: February 19, 2007. TA-W-63,048; Copperfield, LLC, PRO Resources, Avilla, IN: March 11, 2007. TA-W-63,215; United Stars Industries, Inc., Beloit, WI: April 10, 2007. TA-W-63,246; I.H.S. Warehousing, Inc., Lease Workers Trillium Staffing Solutions, Midland, MI: April 18, 2007. TA-W-63,270; Beck Manufacturing, Division of Anvil International, Inc., Santa Fe Springs, CA: April 15, 2007. TA-W-63,345; Hix Corporation, Flock Department, Pittsburg, KS: May 2, 2007. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. TA-W-63,126; Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Northvale, NJ: March 5, 2007. TA-W-63,305; Dana Holding Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Division, Glasgow, KY: April 24, 2007. TA-W-63,396; Panasonic Electronic Devices Corporation of America, Automotive Speakers Division, Knoxville, TN: May 15, 2007. TA-W-63,208; Tyco Electronics, Circuit Protection, Manpower, Staffworks, QPS, Bel, Milwaukee, WI: April 14, 2007. TA-W-63,225; Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, GCA, Charlotte, NC: April 15, 2007. TA-W-63,407; Syngenta, Inc., Crop Protection Division, Bucks, AL: May 19, 2007. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. TA-W-63,255; Feldspar Corp. (The), Imerys Ceramics Div., Spruce Pine, NC: April 25, 2007. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. None. Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department has determined that criterion
(1)of Section 246 has not been met. The firm does not have a significant number of workers 50 years of age or older. None. The Department has determined that criterion
(2)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. None. The Department has determined that criterion
(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. None. Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. TA-W-63,374; Mount Vernon Mills, Trion Denim Mill, Trion, GA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. None. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. TA-W-62,853; Irving Forest Products, Nashville Plantation, ME. TA-W-62,860; Ullman, A Division of American Greetings Corporation, Burgaw, NC. TA-W-62,926; SDS Lumber Company, Lumber Division, Bingen, WA. TA-W-62,968; The Longaberger Company, Global Procurement, Newark, OH. TA-W-62,968A; The Longaberger Company, Basket Department, Frazeysburg, OH. TA-W-63,158; Silver City Lumber, Inc., Three Forks, MT. TA-W-63,190; Bay Valley Foods, LLC, Portland, OR. TA-W-63,235; Southprint, Inc., Reidsville Division, Reidsville, NC. The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. TA-W-63,197; Dan River, Inc., Danville Operations, Danville, VA. TA-W-63,226; Semperian, LLC, Div. of GMAC, LLC, Eugene, OR. TA-W-63,286; Brunswick Bowling and Billiards, Muskegon, MI. TA-W-63,297; Snider Transportation Services, Tyler, TX. TA-W-63,422; Springs Global U.S., Inc., Springs Direct Div., Springmaid Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, SC. The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. TA-W-63,241; Kataddin Precision Components, LLC, Bangor, ME. I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of May 27 through May 30, 2008. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: June 9, 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-13401 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221
(a)of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221
(a)of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 26, 2008. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 26, 2008. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of June 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 5/27/08 and 5/30/08] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 63432 Kongsberg Driveline Systems
(Wkrs)Van Wert, OH 05/27/08 05/08/08 63433 General Motors Metal Fabricating Division
(Wkrs)Parma, OH 05/27/08 05/20/08 63434 Plastech Engineered Products
(Comp)Byesville, OH 05/27/08 05/23/08 63435 Gold Shield (Fleetwood)
(Wkrs)Riverside, CA 05/27/08 05/05/08 63436 Ponderay Newsprint Company
(Wkrs)Usk, WA 05/28/08 05/20/08 63437 Tytex, Inc.
(Comp)Woonsocket, RI 05/28/08 05/17/08 63438 GMAC Insurance
(Wkrs)Maryland Heights, MO 05/28/08 05/23/08 63439 Watson Laboratories, Inc. (State) Carmel, NY 05/28/08 05/27/08 63440 Magline, Inc.
(Wkrs)Pinconning, MI 05/28/08 05/22/08 63441 Metaldyne Tubular Products (State) Hamburg, MI 05/28/08 05/27/08 63442 Corinthian, Inc.
(Wkrs)Corinth, MS 05/29/08 05/28/08 63443 DME Company
(Wkrs)Lewiston, PA 05/29/08 05/28/08 63444 Skyline McMinnville Nomad Division (State) McMinnville, OR 05/29/08 05/28/08 63445 Citation Corporation
(Comp)Grand Rapids, MI 05/29/08 05/28/08 63446 Comau, Inc./Plymouth Facility
(Wkrs)Plymouth, MI 05/30/08 05/29/08 63447 West Fraser, Inc. (State) Leola, AR 05/30/08 05/29/08 63448 Prestolite Wire LLC
(Comp)Tifton, GA 05/30/08 05/29/08 63449 Lear Corporation
(Comp)Troy, MI 05/30/08 05/29/08 63450 Port of Port Angeles
(Wkrs)Port Angeles, WA 05/30/08 05/27/08 63451 Columbia Falls Aluminum Company LLC
(Comp)Columbia Falls, MT 05/30/08 05/29/08 63452 Katahdin Paper Company LLC
(Comp)Millinocket, ME 05/30/08 05/29/08 63453 Dell, Inc.—Topfer Manufacturing Center (State) Round Rock, TX 05/30/08 05/29/08 [FR Doc. E8-13400 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,601] Intel Corporation Fab 23 Colorado Springs, CO; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand On March 24, 2008, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's request for voluntary remand to conduct further investigation in *Former Employees of Intel Corporation* v. *U.S. Secretary of Labor,* Court No. 07-00420. On May 30, 2007, an official of Intel Corporation, Fab 23, Colorado Springs, Colorado (subject firm) filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)on behalf of workers and former workers of the subject firm. The subject firm official stated that the subject firm produced “WiFi products” for Intel Corporation (Intel) and communication microprocessors for a company that replaced purchases from the subject firm with products manufactured by a Taiwanese company. The official further stated in the petition that “As a result of the production of these two product lines going overseas, Fab 23 no longer has product to build and will be ceasing production on August 4, 2007.” AR 2-3. The institution of the TAA petition was published in the **Federal Register** on June 14, 2007 (72 FR 32915). AR 10-11. In determining whether a petitioning worker group has met the statutory criteria, the Department refers to the applicable regulation, 29 CFR part 90, for guidance. During the initial investigation, the subject firm official stated that the subject firm produced “silicon wafers” and that the worker separations were due to the subject firm's customer shifting to another company. AR 12. The company official also stated that the subject firm made silicon wafers for wireless fidelity
(WiFi)chips and that the wafers were a component of the WiFi cards imported into the United States. The company official further stated that the subject firm shifted silicon wafer production to Taiwan. AR 13. Further, information provided during the initial investigation confirmed that the subject firm produced silicon wafers bearing WiFi chips and communications microprocessors, that the subject workers were not separately identifiable by product line, and that the subject firm would close on August 4, 2007 due to the shift of production to Taiwan during the second and third quarters of 2007 (April-September 2007). AR 14. The initial investigation further revealed that subject firm's production of silicon wafers increased in 2006 from 2005 levels and increased during January through April 2007 from January through April 2006 levels. AR 16. The Department's Notice of negative determination, issued on June 15, 2007, regarding the subject workers' eligibility to apply for TAA/ATAA stated that sales and production for silicon wafers increased in 2005, 2006, and year to date 2007, that the subject firm did not import silicon wafers, and that the subject firm did not shift production of silicon wafers to a foreign country during the relevant period. AR 23-25. The determination published in the **Federal Register** on June 28, 2007 (72 FR 35517). AR 26-30. In a letter dated July 14, 2007, a former worker, David Alexander, requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination. AR 39. The request for reconsideration alleged:
(1)That when Intel Corporation (Intel) sold the rights to the “Hermon” chip to another company, Intel became an agent of that principal company, and, subsequently, the subject workers became employees of the principal company;
(2)That the subject firm did not produce silicon wafers but “manufactures electronic circuits * * * on a silicon wafer”;
(3)That “(a) INTEL buys the bare silicon wafer from a supplier,
(b)Fab 23 then manufactures the electronic circuit on the wafer called a die and
(c)then die is tested and assembly. Item c can be done else where, I believe at this time (July 2007) Marvel chooses elsewhere”;
(4)That the subject workers are secondary/downstream employees to the so-called principal company; and
(5)That the principal company's shift of production to Taiwan is a basis for TAA certification of the subject workers. AR 40-43. In the request for reconsideration, Mr. Alexander stated that “packaged dies are called ‘chips.’ ” AR 41. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that a company, Marvel, purchased from Intel the rights to the Hermon chip, and that, under the agreement, the subject firm would produce silicon wafers bearing the Hermon chip until Marvel's Taiwanese supplier was fully operational. The subject firm ceased production in April 2007 and the last shipment of silicon wafers from the subject firm to Marvel was in the second quarter of 2007. AR 54-55. The Department also confirmed that the articles produced at the subject firm were silicon wafers bearing “WiFi semiconductor chips.” AR 57. The subject firm also provided information about Intel's semiconductor chip production process. The subject firm purchased bare silicon wafers from various vendors, AR 66, then used a photolithographic printing process to fabricate each chip onto the silicon wafer. AR 57, 65, 66. Each chip is called a die and is tested on the wafer before it was separated from the silicon wafer. AR 65, 74. The process of separating chips from the wafer is called “dicing” or “scribing.” AR 113. The silicon wafers bearing WiFi semiconductor chips were sent from the subject firm to other Intel facilities. At these facilities, the wafers were diced and the semiconductor chips were packaged. AR 65-66, 101. The packaging of the chip entails “mounting the chip on a stamped lead-wire harness in a process called die bonding, then encapsulating this assembly in the final package.” AR 113. Without this packaging process, the chip could not electrically communicate outside of itself, could not be placed into a motherboard, and had no customer application. AR 65-66. The dicing of silicon wafers and the packaging of dies used in WiFi products for Intel occur in Taiwan and the Philippines, with testing of the packaged dies occurring in Malaysia and the Philippines. AR 66, 101. The separation of Marvel's Hermon semiconductor chip from the silicon wafer and the packaging of Hermon chips occurs in Korea, with the testing occurring in the Philippines. AR 66. During the reconsideration, the Department contacted the subject firm and ascertained that the subject firm did not shift production to a country that is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States or named as a beneficiary under the Andean Trade Preferences Act, the African Growth and Opportunity Act or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, AR 55, 56, 70, 101. Through contact with the subject firm, the Department also confirmed that the articles imported by Intel are not silicon wafers bearing semiconductor chips, dies, or packaged dies but are WiFi cards. AR 101-102. The negative determination on reconsideration, issued on September 26, 2007, stated that the subject firm produced silicon wafers and explained that since Taiwan is not a country that is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States or named as a beneficiary under the Andean Trade Preferences Act, the African Growth and Opportunity Act or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, the subject workers cannot be certified for TAA based on a shift of production to that country absent evidence of increased imports (actual or likely) of like or directly competitive articles following the shift of production to another country. The determination also stated that the subject workers are not secondary workers because the subject firm neither supplied a component part to a buyer nor finished or assembled a final product for a buyer. AR 114-120. The Department's Notice determination was published in the **Federal Register** on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56387). AR 121-123. By letter dated November 5, 2007, former workers of the subject firm applied to the USCIT for review. The complaint alleged that “the Department of Labor decision is flawed by lack of technical knowledge and adherence to previous CIT decisions.” The USCIT granted the Department's request for voluntary remand, and directed the Department to determine whether, following the subject firm's shift of semiconductor wafer production to a foreign country, there were (actual or likely) increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with semiconductor wafers produced by the subject firm. Mr. Alexander stated in the request for reconsideration that packaged dies are referred to as chips. AR 41. However, the subject firm refers to semiconductor devices, on the silicon wafer or separated from the wafer, as chips. AR 57, 65, 66. In order to have consistent terminology during the course of the remand determination, the Department refers to a semiconductor device on the wafer as a chip, a chip separated from the wafer as a die, and a packaged die as an integrated circuit. The terminology is defined in a pamphlet titled “How to Make an Integrated Circuit.” AR 113-114. In their March 26, 2008 letter, Plaintiffs alleged that the Department misidentified the article produced at the subject firm during the relevant period, that semiconductor chips produced at the subject firm were like or directly competitive with imported semiconductor chips, and that it is possible that if “Intel retained production of the Hermon chips,” the subject firm would have stayed open. SAR 2-3. To apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, must be met. The group eligibility requirements can be satisfied in one of two ways: I. Section 222(a)(2)(A)— A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; *and* B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; *and* C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section 222(a)(2)(B)— A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; *and* B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; *and* C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; *or* 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; *or* 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Because the subject firm ceased production in April 2007, AR 54-55, the Department determines that section 222(a)(2)(A)(A) and
(B)have been met. Further, because the subject firm has shifted semiconductor wafer production to a foreign country, the Department determines that section 222(a)(2)(B)(A) and
(B)have been met. The only issues in the case at hand, therefore, are whether the subject worker group has satisfied section 222(a)(2)(A)(C)—increased imports of like or directly competitive products contributed importantly to subject firm sales and/or production declines and worker separations—or section 222(a)(2)(B)(C)—shift of production to a qualified country and/or increased imports following the shift of production to a foreign country. Article Produced by the Subject Firm During the Relevant Period Plaintiffs allege that the subject firm did not produce silicon wafers but produced semiconductor chips in wafer form and that the subject firm may have produced dies and/or packaged dies (integrated circuits) during the relevant period. SAR 2-3. In support of the allegation that the subject firm did not produce silicon wafers, Plaintiffs submitted a declaration by Mr. Alexander, dated May 1, 2008, SAR 55-57 and a supplemental declaration, dated May 7, 2008, by Mr. Alexander. SAR 61. In the May 1, 2008 declaration, Mr. Alexander stated that “I performed a variety of complex operations and routine technical duties in a wafer fabrication environment” and “Fab 23 manufactured semiconductor chips on silicon wafers.” Mr. Alexander also stated that the subject firm produced “silicon wafers, which * * * contain multiple semiconductor chips” and that a “wafer sort” was conducted to identify defective chips. Mr. Alexander further stated that “Following the wafer sort process, INTEL typically would cut semiconductor chips from each silicon wafer; however, these tasks could be undertaken outside of INTEL.” SAR 55. Exhibit 1 of the declaration identifies the activities that occur at the subject firm as “Preparing wafer for manufacturing,” “Manufacturing of dies/chips on wafer,” and “Wafer Sort.” SAR 57. In the May 7, 2008 declaration, Mr. Alexander stated that “My responsibilities included a variety of duties directly related to the preparation, manufacturing and testing of silicon wafers at Fab 23.” The supplemental declaration did not address the allegation that the subject firm may have produced dies and/or packaged dies (integrated circuits). SAR 61. The subject firm, in an earlier submission, explained that the bare silicon wafers were purchased from various vendors and that the articles produced at the subject firm were silicon wafers bearing semiconductor chips (these wafers are also referred to in the industry as semiconductor wafers). AR 57, 65, 66. During the remand investigation, the subject firm stated that the articles that left Intel, Fab 23 and were sent to its customer were semiconductor wafers, SAR 31, 32, 64-73, and that semiconductor wafers were sold uncut and unpackaged. SAR 32. A subject firm official sent pictures of the article produced at the subject firm, SAR 65-68, which show that the article is an eight-inch diameter wafer, SAR 66, with multiple chips on it. SAR 64-68. Based on previously-submitted information and additional information obtained during the remand investigation, the Department determines that, during the relevant period, the subject firm did not produce silicon wafers but produced semiconductor wafers. Subject Worker Were Not Adversely-Impacted by Increased Imports The Trade Act of 1974 provides for certification in cases in which production of an article was shifted to a country that is neither a party to a Free Trade Agreement nor a beneficiary of the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African Growth and Opportunity Act or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act only if the increased imports are of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the subject firm. The articles produced by the subject firm were eight-inch diameter semiconductor wafers. SAR 64-68. The articles imported by the subject firm are WiFi cards. AR 101-102. The applicable regulation, 29 CFR 90.2, defines “like” articles as “those which are substantially identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics (i.e., materials from which the articles are made, appearance, quality, texture, etc.)” The semiconductor wafers produced at the subject firm were made with a silicon base and measured eight inches in diameter. AR 57, 65, 66, SAR 64-68. A WiFi card is a portable, electronic device that consists of multiple parts. AR 108-111. Because these two articles are markedly different, they do not meet the definition of “like articles” in 29 CFR 90.2, and the Department determines that WiFi cards are not “like” semiconductor wafers. 29 CFR 90.2 defines “directly competitive” articles as those articles “which, although not substantially identical in their inherent or intrinsic characteristics, are substantially equivalent for commercial purposes (i.e., adapted to the same uses and essentially interchangeable therefore).” The semiconductor wafers produced at the subject firm cannot be used in any capacity, even though chips on them may be fully functional, because until the chip is cut away from the wafer (becomes a die) and is packaged, the chip cannot communicate outside of itself. AR 65-66. A WiFi card consists of an integrated circuit and can be inserted into a laptop computer for immediate use. AR 108-111. The integrated circuit is a mere component of the WiFi card, and the Department has consistently determined that components cannot be considered like or directly competitive with the finished product. Because these two articles do not meet the definition of “directly competitive articles” in 29 CFR 90.2, the Department determines that semiconductor wafers are not directly competitive with WiFi cards. Based on the afore-mentioned regulation and information, the Department determines that the alleged imports are not like or directly competitive with the semiconductor wafers that were produced at the subject firm, and, as such, the subject workers cannot be adversely impacted by the increased imports by the subject firm. During the remand investigation, the Department surveyed the subject firm's only declining customer to determine whether it had increased its imports (relatively or absolutely) of semiconductor wafers (and articles like or directly competitive with semiconductor wafers). SAR 37-40, 51-53. Because there were no such increased imports, SAR 53, the Department determines that the subject workers cannot be adversely impacted by increased imports by the subject firm's declining customer. Whether Subject Firm Would Have Stayed Open if Intel Retained Production of Hermon Chip Is Irrelevant Plaintiff further allege that it is possible that if “Intel retained production of the Hermon chips,” the subject firm would have stayed open. SAR 2-3. Because the statute requires the Department to consider events that occurred during the relevant period, the Department does not predict possible results based on events that did not occur. As such, the Department determines that this allegation is irrelevant. Subject Firm Did Not Shift Production to a Country With Whom the U.S. Has a Free Trade Agreement The U.S. does not have a free trade agreement with Taiwan. Therefore, a shift of production to Taiwan cannot be a basis for TAA certification for the subject worker group. Based on the information obtained during the initial investigation, the reconsideration investigation, and the remand investigation, the Department determines that, in the case at hand, neither section 222(a)(2)(A)(C) nor section 222(a)(2)(B)(C) have been met. Therefore, the Department determines that the group eligibility criteria set forth in the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, has not been met. In addition, in accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA. In order to apply the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be certified eligible to apply for TAA. Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot be certified eligible to apply for ATAA. Conclusion After careful review of the findings of the second remand investigation, I affirm the notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Intel Corporation, Fab 23, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of June, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-13402 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,832] GAF Materials Corporation, Quakertown, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated May 5, 2008, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 1 requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on March 26, 2008 and published in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2008 (73 FR 19900). Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2)If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3)If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination was based on the finding that imports of residential roofing materials did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject facility and there was no shift of production to a foreign country. The subject firm did not import residential roofing materials during the relevant period. The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's declining domestic customers. A survey conducted by the Department of Labor revealed that major customers did not purchase imported residential roofing materials during 2006, 2007 and during the January through February 2008 period. The petitioner indicates that “The workers produced asphaltic roofing materials and that the sales and employment at the firm declined during the relevant period.” Since the worker group was denied on the fact that imports did not contribute importantly to the layoffs at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred, the information provided by the petitioner in the request for reconsideration does not help to satisfy the criteria necessary for certification for TAA. The request for reconsideration also appears to address workers eligibility for ATAA. The petitioner states that “a significant number of employees at this location are 50 or older and do not possess skills that are easily transferable.” In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The Union did not supply facts not previously considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that there was either
(1)a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or
(2)a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination. After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed in Washington, DC, this 4th day of June, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-13405 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,254] Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Global Clinical Professional Resources Group, Horsham, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated May 26, 2008, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on May 9, 2008 and published in the **Federal Register** on May 22, 2008 (73 FR 29783). Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2)If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3)If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers of Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Global Clinical Professional Resources Group, Horsham, Pennsylvania, was based on the finding that the worker group does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The petitioner states that Global Clinical Professional Resource Group (GCPRG) “belonged to the Innovative Research and Development division, which had no involvement in the manufacturing process.” The petitioner also stated that GCPRG was strictly dealing with the clinical trials and with the clinical data collected from the American population. The petitioner further infers that employment at the subject firm was negatively impacted by the outsourcing of some functions from the subject facility to India. The initial investigation revealed that the workers of Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Global Clinical Professional Resources Group, Horsham, Pennsylvania, are engaged in operations in support of the conduct of clinical trials of pharmaceutical products manufactured abroad, including database management, clinical quality control, and administration. These functions, as described above, are not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The allegation of a shift to another country might be relevant if it was determined that workers of the subject firm produced an article. Since the investigation determined that workers of the subject firm do not produce an article, there can not be imports nor a shift in production of an “article” abroad within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974 in this instance. The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that there was either
(1)a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or
(2)a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination. After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed in Washington, DC, this 9th day of June 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-13406 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,809] Edwards Vacuum, Inc., Wilmington, MA; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration By application dated April 23, 2008, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on March 31, 2008 and published in the **Federal Register** on April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20954). In the request for reconsideration, the company official provided new information regarding production at the subject facility. The company official stated that workers of the subject facility produce remanufactured vacuum pumps for retail. Based on the information provided by the company official, the Department determined that workers of the subject firm were engaged in the production of remanufactured vacuum pumps. The investigation also revealed that the subject firm has begun shifting production of remanufactured vacuum pumps to Mexico and that this shift contributed to the layoffs at the subject firm. In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act, as amended, must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of Section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I determine that there was a shift in production from the workers' firm or subdivision to Mexico of articles that are like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Edwards Vacuum, Inc., Wilmington, Massachusetts who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 4, 2007 through two years from the date of certification are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC this 5th day of June, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-13404 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,349] Capelsie, Inc., Troy, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 9, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Capelsie, Incorporated, Troy, North Carolina. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of June 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-13408 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,339] Contact Systems, Inc. Danbury, CT; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 8, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed a company official on behalf of workers at Contact Systems, Inc., Danbury, Connecticut. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 4th day of June, 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-13407 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,450] Port of Port Angeles, Port Angeles, WA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 30, 2008 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Port of Port Angeles, Port Angeles, Washington. The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. The petition was signed by two dislocated workers. A petition filed by workers requires three signatures. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of June 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-13399 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Application To Amend a License To Export Major Components for Nuclear Reactors Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(1) “Public Notice of Receipt of an Application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has received the following request for an amendment to an export license. Copies of the request are available electronically through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room
(PERR)link *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html* at the NRC Homepage. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within thirty days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed with the NRC electronically in accordance with NRC's E-Filing rule promulgated in August 2007, 72 Fed. Reg 49139 (Aug. 28, 2007). Information about filing electronically is available on the NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* . To ensure timely electronic filing, at least five days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV* , or by calling
(301)415-1677, to request a digital ID certificate and allow for the creation of an electronic docket. In addition to a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene, written comments, in accordance with 10 CFR 110.81, should be submitted within thirty days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications. In its review of applications for licenses and license amendments involving exports of major components of a utilization facility as defined in 10 CFR Part 110 and noticed herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health, safety or environmental effects in the recipient nation of the facility or facilities to be exported. The information concerning the application follows: NRC Application To Amend a License To Export Major Components for Nuclear Reactors Name of applicant, date of application, date received, application No., Docket No. Total quantity/description of major components End use Country of destination Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical Corporation, April 16, 2008, May 5, 2008, XR170/01, 11005552 Seventeen
(17)complete primary reactor coolant pumps (RCPs), including motors, related equipment and spare parts as specified in 10 CFR Part 110, Appendix A Items
(4)and
(9)Approximate Dollar Value: Proprietary For construction, maintenance and operation of pressurized water reactors
(PWRs)of 1,000 MWe class. Amend to add: 1) twelve
(12)complete primary RCPs including motors, equipment, and spare parts; 2) new intermediate consignees to act as purchasing agents and/or to manufacture finished parts, components, sub-assemblies and assemblies for use in primary RCPs; and 3) new ultimate nuclear power plant consignees People's Republic of China. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 6th day of June 2008 at Rockville, Maryland. Scott W. Moore, Deputy Director, Office of International Programs. [FR Doc. E8-13477 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No Significant Impact for the Issuance of Grants to Eligible Institutions of Higher Education in the United States AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the issuance of grants to institutions of higher education in the United States, for scholarships, fellowships, faculty and curricula development in nuclear safety, nuclear security, nuclear environmental protection, and other fields that the Commission determines to be critical to the NRC's regulatory mission. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Morris, Deputy Associate Director, Professional Development Center, Office of Human Resources, Mail Stop W5-A6, Washington, DC 20555; Telephone number: 301-492-2303; FAX number: 301-492-2243; or by e-mail: *james.morris@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Section 243 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), authorizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) to create a scholarship and fellowship program to fund scholarships, fellowships, and stipends for the study of science, engineering, or another field of study that the NRC determines is a critical skill area related to its regulatory mission, to support faculty and curricular development in such fields, and to support other domestic educational, technical assistance, or training programs (including those of trade schools) in such fields. Section 31.b.(2) of the AEA authorizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) to provide grants, loans, cooperative agreements, contracts, and equipment to institutions of higher education to support courses, studies, training, curricula, and disciplines pertaining to nuclear safety, security, or environmental protection, or any other field that the Commission determines to be critical to the regulatory mission of the Commission. The NRC is proposing to award grants, using funds available in fiscal year 2008, to eligible institutions of higher education in the United States as authorized by sections 31.b.(2) and 243 of the AEA. The NRC has prepared an environmental assessment
(EA)as its evaluation of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate to the proposed action. II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The NRC is proposing to fund five competitive grant programs. The goal of the five grant programs is to promote and strengthen teaching programs in nuclear safety, nuclear security, nuclear environmental protection, and other fields that the Commission determines to be critical to the NRC's regulatory mission, by through the award of grants for scholarships and fellowships and to enhance curricula and increase faculty teaching competencies. Under the first program, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Education Grant Program, Fiscal Year 2008 (funding number HR-FN1207-EDU2), the NRC would make grant awards up to $4.7 million dollars in fiscal year 2008, to higher education institutions, accredited in the United States. The primary purpose of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Education Grant Program is to support the educational infrastructure necessary for the nation to safely move forward with its nuclear energy initiatives. The goal of the program is to promote and strengthen teaching programs in nuclear safety, nuclear security, nuclear environmental protection, and other fields that the Commission determines to be critical to the NRC's regulatory mission at higher education institutions, by enhancing curricula and increasing faculty teaching competencies. Projects awarded grants under the proposed program may develop, revise, implement, or improve teaching competencies, subject matter expertise, and skills in serving students in significant nuclear programs. Applicants would be expected to identify innovative instructional approaches or techniques to enhance student learning, including distance educational and experiential learning. Curriculum development projects may create teaching resources such as course material, including teaching guides on specific nuclear topics. Such materials may use print or electronic formats, but the preparation of traditional textbooks would be ineligible for funding. Under the proposed grant program, projects must have an academic focus within the areas of nuclear safety, nuclear security, nuclear environmental protection, or the other fields the Commission has determined to be critical to the NRC's regulatory mission. Under the remaining four grant programs, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Scholarship/Fellowship Program Announcement of Opportunity, Fiscal Year 2008 (not yet announced); the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Education Program Scholarship and Fellowship Announcement of Opportunity, Fiscal Year 2008 (funding number HR-FN208-NEDO1); the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Education Program Faculty Development Grants Announcement of Opportunity, Fiscal Year 2008 (funding number HR-FN208-NEDO2); and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Education Program Trade School Scholarship Announcement of Opportunity, Fiscal Year 2008 (funding number HR-FN208-NEDO3); the NRC would make grant awards up to $15.4 million dollars in fiscal year 2008 for undergraduate scholarships, graduate fellowships, trade school scholarships, and faculty development grants to support education in nuclear science and engineering, for the purpose of developing a workforce capable of supporting the design, construction, operation, and regulation of nuclear facilities and the safe handling of nuclear materials. Participation in the awards program would require recipients to serve in nuclear-related employment for each full or partial year of academic support. The employment may be with NRC, other Federal agencies, State agencies, Department of Energy laboratories, nuclear-related industry, or academia in the recipients' sponsored fields of study. A more detailed description of the fiscal year 2008 NRC grant programs is available at *http://www.grants.gov* (find grant opportunities/browse by agency/U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action implements the congressional intent of sections 31.b.(2) and 243 of the AEA, namely, to foster the study of science, engineering, or another field of study that the NRC determines is in a critical skill area related to its regulatory mission. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed action is specifically geared toward the development of teaching and educational programs in the nuclear field. As the proposed action is administrative in nature, it will have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The proposed action is not expected to result in: increased radiation doses to nuclear industry workers or members of the public; degradation of water quality or of the water supply; endangered or threatened species habitat destruction; increased effluents or changes in effluent pathways; increased noise; damage or reduced access to cultural resources; changes to local or regional socioeconomic conditions; increased traffic or other transportation effects; or increased competition for available resources. Moreover, the NRC will not issue awards to fund programs that include or involve activities directly affecting the environment, such as the construction of facilities; a major disturbance of the local environment brought about by blasting, drilling, excavating or other means; large-scale acquisitions of computer equipment; field work affecting the local environment (except field work which only involves noninvasive or non-harmful techniques such as taking water or soil samples or collecting non-protected species of flora and fauna); and the testing and release of radioactive material. Accordingly, the NRC finds that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small or nonexistent. Therefore, the only alternative NRC considered is the “no-action” alternative, namely, not issuing any grant awards. The no-action alternative runs counter to the congressional intent expressed in section 31.b.(2) of the AEA, which authorizes the NRC to provide grants to support courses, studies, training, curricula, and disciplines pertaining to nuclear safety, security, or environmental protection, and in section 243 of the AEA, which authorizes the NRC to issue scholarships and fellowships to higher education institutions for the purpose of enabling students to pursue education in science, engineering, or another field of study that the NRC determines is in a critical skill area related to its regulatory mission. The “no-action” alternative would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC has determined that the proposed action is administrative in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Final Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of this environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. IV. Further Information For further information regarding the NRC Education Grants program, please visit the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/grants.html* . The public may access this document by using ADAMS on the NRC public Web site by using the following accession number ML081570477. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of June, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James F. McDermott, Director, Office of Human Resources. [FR Doc. E8-13461 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 040-09067] Notice of License Application Request of Uranerz Energy Corporation Nichols Ranch In Situ Uranium Recovery Project, Casper, Wyoming, Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) for Contention Preparation AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of license application, and opportunity to request a hearing. DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by August 15, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron C. Linton, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Telephone:
(301)415-7777; fax number:
(301)415-5369; e-mail: *ron.linton@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction By letter dated November 30, 2007, Uranerz Energy Corporation (Uranerz) submitted a Source Materials License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)for the Nichols Ranch Uranium Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. The Nichols Ranch Uranium Project would involve the recovery of uranium by in situ leach
(ISL)extraction techniques. An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to Uranerz dated April 14, 2008, found the application acceptable to begin a technical and environmental review. Before approving the license application, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report
(SER)and a site-specific environmental review consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 51. II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a source materials license regarding Uranerz's proposal to construct and operate the Nichols Ranch Uranium Project ISL uranium extraction facility in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding, and who desires to participate as a party, must file a request for a hearing and a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing, in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139 (Aug. 28, 2007). The E-Filing rule requires participants to submit and serve documents over the Internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten
(10)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requester must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV* , or by calling
(301)415-1677, to request
(1)a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or
(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requester (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requester will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html* . Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html* . Once a petitioner/requester has obtained a digital ID certificate, has a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, the petitioner/requester can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* . A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* , or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is
(800)397-4209 or locally,
(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:
(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include social security numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submissions. The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(c)-(e) must be met. If the NRC grants an electronic document exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g)(3), then the requirements for paper documents, set forth in 10 CFR 2.304(b) must be met. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must be filed by August 15, 2008. In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must state: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester; 2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and technical report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief. In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such as the application, supporting technical (i.e., safety analysis) report, environmental report or other supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to the petitioner. On issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the requester/petitioner shall file contentions based on the applicant's environmental report. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC draft, or final environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer. Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. Technical—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Technical Report for the proposed action. 2. Environmental—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the proposed action. 3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the contention and supporting bases, in full, separately for each category into which the requester/petitioner asserts the contention belongs with a separate designation for that category. Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so, in accordance with the E-Filing rule, within ten
(10)days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310. III. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the November 30, 2007 license application and its supporting documentation (i.e., Technical Report and Environmental Report), are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the documents related to this Notice is ML080080594, Uranerz Energy Corporation, Submittal of Source Material License Application to Construct and Operate the Nichols Ranch ISR Project Located in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. The ADAMS accession number for the NRC staff's administrative review letter, dated April 14, 2008, is ML080730090. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) for Contention Preparation 1. This order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive unclassified information. A suggested schedule is provided as Attachment 1 to this order. 2. Within ten
(10)days after publication of this notice of opportunity for hearing any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4 who believes access to SUNSI is necessary for a response to the notice may request access to such information. A “potential party” is any person who intends or may intend to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and the filing of an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests submitted later than ten
(10)days will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier. 3. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail addresses for both offices is U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The e-mail addresses for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are *HearingDocket@nrc.gov* and *OGCmail@nrc.gov,* respectively. 1 The request must include the following information: 1 See footnote 4. While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's “E-Filing Rule,” the initial request to access SUNSI under these procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph. a. A description of the licensing action with a citation to this **Federal Register** notice of opportunity for hearing; b. The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed, if the licensing action is taken; c. The identity of the individual requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding, particularly why publicly available versions of the application would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention; 4. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under items 2 and 3.a through 3.c, above, the NRC staff will determine within ten
(10)days of receipt of the written access request whether
(1)there is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding, and
(2)there is a legitimate need for access to SUNSI. 5. A request for access to SUNSI will be granted if: a. The request has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis to believe that a potential party is likely to establish standing to intervene or to otherwise participate as a party in this proceeding; b. The proposed recipient of the information has demonstrated a need for SUNSI; c. The proposed recipient of the information has executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit and agrees to be bound by the terms of a Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI; and d. The presiding officer has issued a protective order concerning the information or documents requested. 2 Any protective order issued shall provide that the petitioner must file SUNSI contentions 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. 2 If a presiding officer has not yet been designated, the Chief Administrative Judge will issue such orders, or will appoint a presiding officer to do so. 6. If the request for access to SUNSI is granted, the terms and conditions for access to such information will be set forth in a draft protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure appended to a joint motion by the NRC staff, any other affected parties to this proceeding, 3 and the petitioner(s). If the diligent efforts by the relevant parties or petitioner(s) fail to result in an agreement on the terms and conditions for a draft protective order or non-disclosure affidavit, the relevant parties to the proceeding or the petitioner(s) should notify the presiding officer within five
(5)days, describing the obstacles to the agreement. 3 Parties/persons other than the requester and the NRC staff will be notified by the NRC staff of a favorable access determination (and may participate in the development of such a motion and protective order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/person's interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information (e.g., as with proprietary information). 7. If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing, the NRC staff shall briefly state the reasons for the denial. Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or explain information. The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect to standing, by filing a challenge within five
(5)days of receipt of that determination with
(a)the presiding officer designated in this proceeding;
(b)if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to § 2.318(a); or
(c)if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer. In the same manner, a party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within five
(5)days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of such a request. If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311. 4 4 As of October 15, 2007, the NRC's final “E-Filing Rule” became effective. See Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency Hearings (72 FR 49139; Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that the filing requirements of that rule apply to appeals of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI requests submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. 8. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. Attachment 1.—General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) IN Day Event 0 Publication of [ Federal Register notice/other notice of proposed action and opportunity for hearing], including order with instructions for access requests. 10 Deadline for submitting requests for access to SUNSI with information: Supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding; demonstrating that access should be granted. [20, 30 or 60] Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing:
(i)Demonstration of standing;
(ii)all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 20 NRC staff informs the requester of the staff's determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information. If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents.) 25 If NRC staff finds no “need,” “need to know,” or likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds “need” for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of access. 30 Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 40 (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI. 190 (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing and trustworthiness and reliability, deadline for NRC staff to file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-disclosure Affidavit. Note: Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or explain information. 205 Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a final adverse NRC staff determination either before the presiding officer or another designated officer. A If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. A+3 Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. A+28 Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. A+53 (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. A+60 (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. B Decision on contention admission. [FR Doc. E8-13471 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OMB Circular A-133 Information Collection under OMB Review AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget. ACTION: Notice of Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that an information collection request was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA)for processing under 5 CFR 1320.10. The first notice of this information collection request, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, was published in the **Federal Register** on December 5, 2007 [72 FR 68608]. The information collection request involves two proposed information collections from two types of entities:
(1)Reports from auditors to auditees concerning audit results, audit findings, and questioned costs; and
(2)reports from auditees to the Federal Government providing information about the auditees, the awards they administer, and the audit results. These collection efforts are required by the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.) and OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.” Circular A-133's information collection requirements apply to approximately 36,000 States, local governments, and non-profit organizations on an annual basis. DATES: Submit comments on or before July 16, 2008. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that comments mailed will be received before the comment closing date. Electronic mail comments may be submitted via the Internet to *ahunt@omb.eop.gov* . Please include “Form SF-SAC Comments” in the subject line and the full body of your comments in the text of the electronic message and not as an attachment. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number and E-mail address in the text of the message. You may also submit comments via Facsimile to (202-395-7285). Comments may be mailed to Alexander Hunt, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10236, Washington, DC 20503. Comments may also be sent to via *http://www.regulations.gov* —a Federal E-Government Web site that allows the public to find, review, and submit comments on documents that agencies have published in the **Federal Register** and that are open for comment. Simply type “Form SF-SAC Comments” (in quotes) in the Comment or Submission search box, click Go, and follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments received by the date specified above will be included as part of the official record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, 202-395-3052 and via e-mail: *Hai_M._Tran@omb.eop.gov* . The data collection form, SF-SAC, and its instructions can be obtained by contacting the Office of Federal Financial Management, as indicated above or by download from the OMB Grants Management home page on the Internet at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/grants_forms.html* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background *OMB Control No.:* 0348-0057. *Title:* Data Collection Form. *Form No:* SF-SAC. *Type of Review:* Reinstatement with change. *Respondents:* States, local governments, non-profit organizations (Non-Federal entities) and their auditors. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 72,000 (36, 000 from auditors and 36,000 from auditees). The respondents' information is collected by the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (Maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Census). *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 59 hours for each of 400 large respondents and 17 hours for each of 71,600 small respondents for estimated annual burden hours of 1,240,800. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Frequency of Response:* Annually. *Needs and Uses:* Reports from auditors to auditees and reports from auditees to the Federal government are used by non-Federal entities, pass-through entities, and Federal agencies to ensure that Federal awards are expended in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Federal Audit Clearinghouse
(FAC)(maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau) uses the information on the SF-SAC to ensure proper distribution of audit reports to Federal agencies and to identify non-Federal entities who have not filed the required reports. The FAC also uses the information on the SF-SAC to create a government-wide database which contains information on audit results. This database is publicly accessible on the Internet at *http://harvester.census.gov/fac/* . It is used by Federal agencies, pass-through entities, non-Federal entities, auditors, the General Accounting Office, OMB, and the general public for management and information about Federal awards and the results of audits. B. Public Comments and Responses Pursuant to the December 5, 2007, **Federal Register** notice, OMB received 44 comments from 7 commenters relating to the proposed revision to the information collection. Letters came from State governments (including State auditors), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, certified public accountants (CPAs), and Federal agencies. The comments received relating to the information collection and OMB's responses are summarized below. General *Comments:* All commenters, except one, supported the proposed revisions to both the Form and related instructions. The one commenter suggested a delayed implementation for electronic filing (see response in the “Electronic Filing” section). Some requested clarifications on the Form's instructions. Terminology Changes *Comments:* All commenters supported the terminology from “Reportable Conditions” to reflect “Significant Deficiencies” and the definition change for “Material Weaknesses” in line with changes in A-133 due to AICPA's Statement on Auditing Standard
(SAS)No. 112, “Communicating Internal Control Related Matters Identified in an Audit.” Electronic Filing *Comments:* All commenters, except one, supported the proposal to require all-electronic filing. The one commenter felt it is too early to put the requirement in place due to inadequate Internet access and computer savvy among many local government and non-profit auditees. *Response:* OMB feels the requirement will prompt most auditees and auditors to make the minor technological improvements needed to comply. Currently, 87% of the SF-SAC Forms are filled out on-line. Only 2% of those contained errors relating to signatures and dates. The proposed electronic submission will eliminate signature errors. Of the remaining 13% of the forms that were filled out manually, 25% of those contained errors that would not otherwise occur with Forms created on-line. The proposed electronic submission will eliminate form and signature errors. On-line submissions will include a mandatory checklist for all required audit components. This is expected to make a marked reduction in the nearly 11,000 submissions received each year missing audit components or data collection forms. *Comments:* One commenter requested more clarification regarding the electronic submission process. *Response:* Agreed. More details are added in the Form's instructions. OMB and the FAC are pursuing the best practices for implementing the technological changes and will implement improvements as needed. The FAC will use the mandatory e-mail address from the auditee and the auditor responsible for signing and certifying the Form SF-SAC as part of a form certification process. These e-mails will not be posted on the Web site unless they are also entered in the Part I, Item 6(f) and 7(f) of the form. When an auditee or auditor is ready to sign their on-line Form SF-SAC, they will initiate the certification process. Once the certification process has been initiated, the FAC Internet Data Entry System
(IDES)will send an email to the auditee's and auditor's certifying officials. Each certifying official will be given a unique number in the e-mail to serve as a signature code. Instead of signing the form SF-SAC, the certifying officials will enter their unique signature code instead of a signature. Size of PDF Files and Links to Audits *Comments:* In order to minimize the size of the attachments, one commenter offered an alternative proposal to allow for the submission of Web site location(s) of the required audit reports to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. The Federal Audit Clearinghouse processors would click the link and save the required files to their network. *Response:* The FAC estimates an average file size of 1.65 MB for an OMB Circular A-133 reporting package. Based on this average file size, the FAC does not believe a large amount of time will be needed to upload a reporting package to the FAC Internet Data Entry System. The size of PDF files is not an issue due to the significant advances in electronic file storage capacity and costs. The on-line electronic submission process requires the auditee to submit the reporting package in a consistent format over a secure server. Currently, the audits available on Web sites do not offer the required electronic file consistency or security needed for processing thousands of submissions. Most audits on Web sites do not include all of the required audit components in a single document as required. Form SF-SAC and Instructions *Comments:* Several commenters offered suggestions to improve formatting and wording of the Form SF-SC and Instructions. *Response:* Agreed. Most formatting suggestions were accepted and the problems were fixed. A few other suggestions were not needed, or were not feasible. *Comments:* One commenter recommended adding instructions to the Data Collection Form
(DCF)that outline the procedures for unlocking, revising and re-submitting a revised DCF. *Response:* Agreed. The FAC enhanced the written instructions to include instructions for on-line submissions and revisions. Detailed instructions will be available on the Web site. *Comments:* One commenter noted confusion regarding the previously proposed Form SF-SAC Instructions regarding including the HUD project number with the auditee name. *Response:* The HUD number is not a requirement, but may be included to supplement the project name in the Auditee name field. The Form SF-SAC instructions were revised to make this distinction clearer. *Comments:* There are instances where multiple auditors are engaged to conduct an audit, OMB should add continuation sheet similar to the Part I, Item 5 sheet to provide the ability to capture additional auditor information. *Response:* Agreed. OMB changed the proposed 2008 Form SF-SAC to allow for the inclusion of additional auditors contact information. One primary auditor is still required. The additional auditors will be considered secondary auditors for the purposes of the Single Audit. *Comments:* One commenter expressed concern about how indirect awards are required to be reported in the *Federal Awards Expended During Fiscal Year* table. The commenter recommends that OMB clarify whether the reporting for indirect awards must be at the same level of detail as the Scheduled of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA). If so, the OMB should consider how and whether this information is being used in practice and whether it should continue to be required in such detail. *Response:* No change. In order to manage the Federal programs, Federal Agencies continue to need the list of CFDAs on the Form SF-SAC in the same detail as shown on the SEFAS. The Federal agencies need to see the sources of separate programs even if they have the same CFDA number. *Comments:* In regards to Part III, Item 9 column (d)—Name of Federal Program, one commenter suggested clarification if column 9d of Part III needs to include pass through entity name and pass-through award number, particularly for the R&D Cluster. That information is required on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and can be looked up by any federal agency for which there is a finding listed for a pass-through award. Practice varies and enforcement by agencies is inconsistent. *Response:* Agreed. The Form instructions are revised to read that the pass-through entity name is not required. *Comments:* In regards to Part III, Item 9 column (e), one commenter suggested clarifying the instructions in relation to loan programs not receiving any new federal dollars, particularly Perkins, but are continuing to lend money from funds generated from repayments. The current instructions are not clear on how to report under these circumstances. *Response:* Agreed. The Form SF-SAC Instructions are revised to refer the question of Federal loans or loan guarantees as expenditures to the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement or the Federal oversight (or cognizant) agency for determination. *Comments:* One commenter suggested improving the Form SF-SAC Instructions by referencing the June 26, 2007, **Federal Register** notice that changed the number of copies of the reporting package to submit to the FAC (from several to one). *Response:* Electronic submissions make the number of copies of the reporting package unnecessary (i.e., submission of hard copy of the reporting package is no longer needed). The reference was removed from instructions. *Comments:* One commenter suggest considering if the addition of the additional data elements such as “Total Revenue” would be useful. *Response:* This data element is a major change/addition to the proposed form. Adding new Form elements such as “Total Revenue” as well as others will be considered further for possible inclusion into future versions of the Form SF-SAC. Danny Werfel, Deputy Controller. [FR Doc. E8-13385 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments *Summary:* In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)is forwarding an Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to request an extension of a currently approved collection of information: 3220-0154, Employee Non-Covered Service Pension Questionnaire. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens. The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine:
(1)The practical utility of the collection;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of publication date. Section 215(a)(7) of the Social Security Act provides for a reduction in social security benefits based on employment not covered under the Social Security Act or the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA). This provision applies a different social security benefit formula to most workers who are first eligible after 1985 to both a pension based in whole or in part on non-covered employment and a social security retirement or disability benefit. There is a guarantee provision that limits the reduction in the social security benefit to one-half of the portion of the pension based on non-covered employment after 1956. Section 8011 of Public Law 100-647 changed the effective date of the onset from the first month of eligibility to the first month of concurrent entitlement to the non-covered service benefit and the RRA benefit. Section 3(a)(1) of the RRA provides that the Tier I benefit of an employee annuity will be equal to the amount (before any reduction for age or deduction for work) the employee would receive if he or she would have been entitled to a like benefit under the Social Security Act. The reduction for a non-covered service pension also applies to a Tier I portion of employees under the RRA where the annuity or non-covered service pension begins after 1985. Since the amount of a spouse's Tier I benefit is one-half of the employee's Tier I, the spouse annuity is also affected by the employee's non-covered service pension reduction of his or her Tier I benefit. The RRB utilizes Form G-209, Employee Non-Covered Service Pension Questionnaire, to obtain needed information from railroad retirement employee applicants or annuitants about the receipt of a pension based on employment not covered under the Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act. It is used as both a supplement to the employee annuity application, and as an independent questionnaire to be completed when an individual who is already receiving an employee annuity, becomes entitled to a pension. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is required to obtain or retain benefits. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (73 FR 12475 on March 7, 2008) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments. Information Collection Request
(ICR)*Title:* Employee Non-Covered Service Pension Questionnaire. *OMB Control Number:* OMB 3220-0154. *Form(s) submitted:* G-209. *Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Individuals or Households. *Abstract:* Under Section 3 of the Railroad Retirement Act, the Tier I portion of an employee annuity may be subjected to a reduction for benefits received based on work not covered under the Social Security Act or Railroad Retirement Act. The questionnaire obtains the information needed to determine if the reduction applies and the amount of such reduction. *Changes Proposed:* The RRB proposes minor, non-burden impacting, clarification and editorial changes to G-209. *The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:* *Estimated Completion Time for Form(s):* Completion time for Form G-209 is estimated at 1 minute for a partial questionnaire and 8 minutes for a full questionnaire. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 150. *Total annual responses:* 150. *Total annual reporting hours:* 14. *Additional Information or Comments:* Copies of the form and supporting documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer at (312-751-3363) or *Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov* . Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or *Ronald.Hodapp@rrb.gov* and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13395 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)is forwarding an Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to request an extension of a currently approved collection of information: 3220-0086, Application for Reimbursement for Hospital Insurance Services in Canada. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens. The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine:
(1)The practical utility of the collection;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of publication date. Under section 7(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the RRB administers the Medicare program for persons covered by the railroad retirement system. Payments are provided under section 7(d)(4) of the RRA for medical services furnished in Canada to the same extent as for those furnished in the United States. However, payments for the services furnished in Canada are made from the Railroad Retirement Account rather than from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, with the payments limited to the amount by which insurance benefits under Medicare exceed the amounts payable under Canadian Provincial plans. Form AA-104, Application for Canadian Hospital Benefits Under Medicare—Part A, is provided by the RRB for use in claiming benefits for covered hospital services received in Canada. The form obtains information needed to determine eligibility for, and the amount of any reimbursement due the applicant. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is required to obtain a benefit. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (73 FR 10075 on February 25, 2008) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments. Information Collection Request
(ICR)*Title:* Application for Reimbursement for Hospital Insurance Services in Canada. *OMB Control Number:* OMB 3220-0086. *Form(s) submitted:* AA-104. *Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Individuals or Households. *Abstract:* The Railroad Retirement Board administers the Medicare program for persons covered by the Railroad Retirement system. The collection obtains the information needed to determine eligibility and for the amount due for covered hospital services received in Canada. *Changes Proposed:* The RRB proposes non-burden impacting formatting and editorial changes to Form AA-104. *The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:* *Estimated Completion Time for Form(s):* Completion time for Form AA-104 is estimated at 10 minutes. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 35. *Total annual responses:* 35. *Total annual reporting hours:* 6. *Additional Information or Comments:* Copies of the form and supporting documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer at (312-751-3363) or *Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov* . Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or *Ronald.Hodapp@rrb.gov* and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13398 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments *Summary:* In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)is forwarding an Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to request an extension of a currently approved collection of information: 3220-0164, Availability for Work. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens. The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine:
(1)The practical utility of the collection;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of publication date. Under Section 1(k) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, unemployment benefits are not payable for any day for which the claimant is not available for work. Under Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)regulation 20 CFR 327.5, “available for work” is defined as being willing and ready for work. This section further provides that a person is “willing” to work if that person is willing to accept and perform for hire such work as is reasonably appropriate to his or her employment circumstances. The section also provides that a claimant is “ready” for work if he or she;
(1)is in a position to receive notice of work and is willing to accept and perform such work, and
(2)is prepared to be present with the customary equipment at the location of such work within the time usually allotted. Under RRB regulation 20 CFR 327.15, a claimant may be requested at any time to show, as evidence of willingness to work, that he or she is making reasonable efforts to obtain work. In order to determine whether a claimant is;
(a)available for work, and
(b)willing to work, the RRB utilizes Forms UI-38 and UI-38s to obtain information from the claimant and Form ID-8k from his union representative. One response is completed by each respondent. The RRB proposes minor non-burden impacting editorial changes to Form(s) UI-38, UI-38s and ID-8k. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (73 FR 10074 and 10075 on February 25, 2008) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments. Information Collection Request
(ICR)*Title:* Availability for Work. *OMB Control Number:* OMB 3220-0164. *Form(s) submitted:* UI-38, UI-38s, ID-8k. *Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Individuals or Households, Non-profit institutions. *Abstract:* Under Section 1(k) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, unemployment benefits are not payable for any day in which the claimant is not available for work. The collection obtains information needed by the RRB to determine whether a claimant is willing and ready to work. *Changes Proposed:* The RRB proposes minor, non-burden impacting, editorial changes to Form(s) UI-38, UI-38s, and ID-8k. *The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:* *Estimated Completion Time for Form(s):* Form UI-38 is estimated at 11.5 minutes per response; Form UI-38s is estimated at 6 minutes per response in-person and 10 minutes per response by mail and Form ID-8k is estimated at 5 minutes per response. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 7,600. *Total annual responses:* 7,600. *Total annual reporting hours:* 1,085. *Additional Information or Comments:* Copies of the form and supporting documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer at (312-751-3363) or *Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov* . Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or *Ronald.Hodapp@rrb.gov* and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13431 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Upon Written Request, Copies Available From:* U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. *Extension:* Rule 609 and Form SIP; OMB Control No. 3235-0043; SEC File No. 270-23. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for approval of extension of the existing collection of information provided for the following rule: Rule 609 (17 CFR 249.609) (formerly Rule 11Ab2-1) and Form SIP (17 CFR 249.1001). On September 23, 1975, the Commission adopted Rule 11Ab2-1, 1 which under Regulation NMS has been redesignated as Rule 609 and Form SIP under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) (15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* ) to establish the procedures by which Securities Information Processor (“SIP”) files and amends their SIP registration statements. 2 The information filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 609 and Form SIP is designed to provide the Commission with the information necessary to make the required findings under the Act before granting the SIP's application for registration. In addition, the requirement that a SIP file an amendment to correct any inaccurate information is designed to assure that the Commission has current, accurate information with respect to the SIP. This information is also made available to members of the public. 1 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 11673 (September 23, 1975), 40 FR 45422 (October 2, 1975). 2 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005). Only exclusive SIPs are required to register with the Commission. An exclusive SIP is a SIP that engages on an exclusive basis on behalf of any national securities exchange or registered securities association, or any national securities exchange or registered securities association which engages on an exclusive basis on its own behalf, in collecting, processing, or preparing for distribution or publication, any information with respect to
(i)transactions or quotations on or effected or made by means of any facility of such exchange or
(ii)quotations distributed or published by means of any electronic quotation system operated by such association. The federal securities laws require that before the Commission may approve the registration of an exclusive SIP, it must make certain mandatory findings. It takes a SIP applicant approximately 400 hours to prepare documents which include sufficient information to enable the Commission to make those findings. Currently, there are only two exclusive SIPs registered with the Commission; The Securities Information Automation Corporation (“SIAC”) and The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”). SIAC and Nasdaq are required to keep the information on file with the Commission current, which entails filing a form SIP annually to update information. Accordingly, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for Rule 609 and Form SIP is 400 hours. This annual reporting and recordkeeping burden does not include the burden hours or cost of amending a Form SIP because the Commission has already overstated the compliance burdens by assuming that the Commission will receive one initial registration pursuant to Rule 609 on Form SIP a year. Rule 609 and Form SIP do not impose a retention period for any recordkeeping requirements. Completing and filing Form SIP is mandatory before an entity may become an exclusive SIP. Except in cases where confidential treatment is requested by an applicant and granted by the Commission pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the rules of the Commission thereunder, information provided in the Form SIP will be routinely available for public inspection. Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments should be directed to
(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to: *Alexander_T._Hunt@omb.eop.gov* ; and
(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this notice. Dated: June 9, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13427 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of Harbour Intermodal, Ltd.; Order of Suspension of Trading June 12, 2008. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Harbour Intermodal, Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2002. The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 12, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 25, 2008. By the Commission. Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1361 Filed 6-12-08; 12:18pm]
Connectionstraces to 93
Traces to 93 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
81 references not yet in our index
  • 28 CFR 0
  • Pub. L. 103-329
  • 108 Stat. 2425
  • 44 USC 3501-20
  • 28 CFR 549
  • 18 USC 4241-4247
  • Pub. L. 109-248
  • 28 CFR 500
  • 446 F. Supp. 2d 1099
  • 431 F.3d 431
  • 539 U.S. 166
  • 33 CFR 100
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • 33 USC 1233
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 41 USC 47(a)(2)
  • 41 CFR 51
  • 41 USC 46-48c
  • 20 USC 7221-7221j
  • 34 CFR 79
  • 34 CFR 86
  • 34 CFR 99
  • 16 USC 791a-825r
  • 18 CFR 34
  • 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 101-336
  • 104 Stat. 327
  • 209 U.S. 123
  • 492 F.3d 274
  • 521 U.S. 261
  • 535 U.S. 743
  • 123 U.S. 443
  • 411 U.S. 279
  • 131 F.3d 610
+ 41 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
U.S.C.§ 1921
U.S.C.§ 5545a
U.S.C.§ 605
U.S.C.§ 804
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 301
U.S.C.§ 509
F. Supp.446 F. Supp. 2d 1099
F. App'x431 F.3d 431
SCOTUS539 U.S. 166
Cites 174 · 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.