Proposed Rules. Final rule

97,107 words·~441 min read·/register/2008/06/24/08-1386

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

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS STOCKDALE (DDG 106) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship.

The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply. DATES: This rule is effective June 24, 2008 and is applicable beginning 13 June 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander M. Robb Hyde, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone: 202-685-5040. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR part 706. This amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS STOCKDALE (DDG 106) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship:

Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(ii), pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction.

The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements. Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. 2. Table Four, Paragraph 15 of § 706.2 is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS STOCKDALE (DDG 106): § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605.

Vessel Number Horizontal distance from the fore and aft centerline of the vessel in the athwartship direction * * * * * * USS STOCKDALE DDG 106 1.90 meters. * * * * * * 3. Table Four, Paragraph 16 of § 706.2 is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS STOCKDALE (DDG 106): § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Vessel Number Obstruction angle relative ship's headings (degrees) * * * * * * USS STOCKDALE DDG 106 107.08 thru 112.50. * * * * * * * 4.

Table Five of § 706.2 is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS STOCKDALE (DDG 106): § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Five Vessel No. Masthead lights not over all other lights and obstructions. Annex I, sec. 2(f) Forward masthead light not in forward quarter of ship. Annex I, sec. 3(a) After masthead light less than 1/2 ship's length aft of forward masthead light. Annex I, sec. 3(a) Percentage horizontal separation attained * * * * * * * USS STOCKDALE DDG 106 X X X 14.5 * * * * * * * Approved:

June 13, 2008. M. Robb Hyde, Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). [FR Doc. E8-14195 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS TRUXTUN (DDG 103) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship.

Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR part 706. This amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS TRUXTUN (DDG 103) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship:

The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements. Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. 2. Table Four, Paragraph 15 of § 706.2 is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS TRUXTUN (DDG 103): § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605.

Vessel Number Horizontal distance from the fore and aft centerline of the vessel in the athwartship direction * * * * * * * USS TRUXTUN DDG 103 1.86 meters. * * * * * * * 3. Table Four, Paragraph 16 of § 706.2 is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS TRUXTUN (DDG 103): § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Vessel Number Obstruction angle relative ship's headings * * * * * * * USS TRUXTUN DDG 103 110.02 thru 112.50 [degrees]. * * * * * * * 4.

Table Five of § 706.2 is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS TRUXTUN (DDG 103): § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Five Vessel Number Masthead lights not over all other lights and obstructions. Annex I, sec. 2(f) Forward masthead light not in forward quarter of ship. Annex I, sec. 3(a) After masthead light less than 1/2 ship's length aft of forward masthead light. Annex I, sec. 3(a) Percentage horizontal separation attained * * * * * * * USS TRUXTUN DDG 103 X X X 14.6 * * * * * * * Approved:

June 13, 2008. M. Robb Hyde, Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). [FR Doc. E8-14196 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0315] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Chesapeake City Anchorage Basin, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated navigation area

(RNA)in certain waters of the Chesapeake and Delaware (C & D) Canal, within the anchorage basin at Chesapeake City, Maryland, on June 28, 2008. This RNA is necessary to provide for the safety of life, property and the environment. This RNA restricts the movement of vessels throughout the anchorage basin during the Town of Chesapeake City's Canal Day 2008 event. DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on June 24, 2008 through 12 p.m. on June 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0315 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and U. S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have any questions on this temporary rule, call Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number

(410)576-2674 or

(410)576-2693. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone number

(202)366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)with respect to this rule because any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to prevent vessel traffic from transiting the specified waters to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters. Additionally, the RNA should have minimal impact on vessel transits due to the fact that vessels can safely transit through the RNA when authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative and that they are not precluded from using any portion of the waterway except the RNA itself. For the same reasons above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose On the last Saturday in June, thousands of people attend the Town of Chesapeake City's Canal Day outdoor waterfront festival, located adjacent to the C & D Canal anchorage basin at Chesapeake City, Maryland. The event began in 1975 as an arts festival to raise funds for local organizations. Due to the growing presence of visiting boaters in recent years, the event has become increasingly congested. The last Canal Day on June 30, 2007 brought an estimated 400 boats and 10,000 visitors to Chesapeake City, a town with a population of 800. An estimated 325 recreational boats were anchored or moored alongside other boats (rafted). These boats accounted for approximately 600 visitors. Persons on recreational vessels or other water craft began arriving on the Wednesday before the festival, and by that evening, large lines of rafted boats filled the anchorage basin, the size of which is approximately 420 yards in length and 170 yards in width. By Thursday afternoon, two days before Canal Day, the gathering of persons and vessels exceeded a safe limit. On a typical weekend, ten to fifteen boats anchor in the basin. Accidental drownings, personal injuries, boat fires, boat capsizings and sinkings, and boating collisions all are a safety concern during such overcrowded events. Access on the water for emergency response is critical. The Coast Guard has the authority to impose appropriate controls on activities that may pose a threat to persons, vessels and facilities under its jurisdiction. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary RNA that will be enforced during a waterfront festival held in the C & D Canal, within the anchorage basin at Chesapeake City, Maryland. This rule is needed to control movement within a waterway that is expected to be populated by persons and vessels seeking to attend the Canal Day 2008 festival. Discussion of Rule On June 28, 2008, the Town of Chesapeake City, Maryland will sponsor an outdoor festival located adjacent to the C & D Canal anchorage basin, at Chesapeake City, Maryland. The planned event is a one-day waterfront festival, held during daytime and nighttime hours. The Coast Guard anticipates a large recreational boating fleet during this event. Due to the need for vessel control before, during and after the scheduled event, vessel traffic will be restricted to provide for the safety of persons and vessels within the anchorage basin and transiting vessels within the C & D Canal. The purpose of this rule is to promote maritime safety, and to protect the environment and mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a large gathering of recreational vessels and other watercraft in a confined area with swimmers and others present. This rule proposes to establish a temporary RNA within the C & D Canal anchorage basin, located at Chesapeake City, Maryland. The rule will impact the movement of all persons and vessels in the C & D Canal anchorage basin, and will limit the density of vessels and other watercraft operating, remaining or anchoring within the C & D Canal anchorage basin at the discretion of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland, to ensure an open water route remains accessible to law enforcement and emergency personnel during the effective period. Public vessels, and vessels and other watercraft moored to piers or docks located within the anchorage basin, will not contribute to the density determination. Interference with normal port operations is unlikely; however, if required, interference with normal port operations will be kept to the minimum considered necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and after the scheduled event. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Though the RNA will be in effect for four days, commercial traffic in the C & D Canal anchorage basin is limited, and vessels transiting the C & D Canal may proceed safely around the Regulated Navigation Area. Additionally, the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate, remain or anchor within the C & D Canal anchorage basin, in Chesapeake City, Maryland, from 8 a.m. on June 24, 2008 through 12 p.m. on June 29, 2008. This temporary RNA will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Though this rule will be in effect for four days, commercial vessel traffic in this area is limited. Although the RNA applies to the entire anchorage basin, traffic would be allowed to pass within the RNA with the permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland. Vessels transiting the C & D Canal may proceed safely around the RNA. Also, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway before the effective period. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of the Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule 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 rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this determination will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T05-0315 to read as follows: § 165.T05-0315 Regulated Navigation Area; Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Chesapeake City Anchorage Basin, MD.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a regulated navigation area: All waters of the Chesapeake and Delaware (C & D) Canal, surface to bottom, within the anchorage basin at Chesapeake City, Maryland.

(b)*Definition.* The Captain of the Port Baltimore Maryland means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

(c)*Regulations.* The general regulations governing regulated navigation areas, found in Sec. 165.13, apply to the regulated navigation area described in paragraph

(a)of this section.

(1)Vessels and other watercraft operating, remaining or anchoring within the regulated navigation area are limited, at the discretion of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore Maryland, to a vessel density that ensures an open water route remains accessible to law enforcement and emergency personnel. Public vessels, and vessels and other watercraft moored directly alongside piers or docks located within the regulated navigation area, will be excluded from consideration in the density assessment.

(2)All vessels and persons are prohibited from entering this regulated navigation area, except as authorized by the Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland.

(3)Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage within the regulated navigation area must request authorization from the Captain of the Port, Baltimore Maryland by telephone at

(410)576-2693 or by marine band radio on VHF-FM Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) on the day of this event, June 28, 2008.

(4)All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated navigation area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM Channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

(5)The operator of any vessel located within or in the immediate vicinity of this regulated navigation area shall:

(i)Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and

(ii)Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.

(d)*Enforcement Period:* This section will be effective from 8 a.m. on June 24, 2008 through 12 p.m. on June 29, 2008. Dated: June 19, 2008. Fred M. Rosa Jr., Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-14387 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 89 Control of Emissions From New and In-Use Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines CFR Correction In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 87 to 99, revised as of July 1, 2007, on page 46, in § 89.6, paragraphs (b)(2) and

(3)are reinstated to read as follows; § 89.6 Reference materials.

(b)* * *

(2)*SAE material.* The following table sets forth material from the Society of Automotive Engineers which has been incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the section(s) of this part, other than § 89.6, in which the matter is referenced. The second column is presented for information only and may not be all inclusive. Copies of these materials may be obtained from Society of Automotive Engineers International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. Document number and name 40 CFR part 89 reference SAE J244 June 83: Recommended Practice for Measurement of Intake Air or Exhaust Gas Flow of Diesel Engines 89.416-96 SAE J1937 November 89: Recommended Practice for Engine Testing with Low Temperature Charge Air Cooler Systems in a Dynamometer Test Cell 89.327-96 SAE Paper 770141: Optimization of a Flame Ionization Detector for Determination of Hydrocarbon in Diluted Automotive Exhausts, Glenn D. Reschke 89.319-96

(3)*California Air Resources Board Test Procedure.* The following table sets forth material from the Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sections 2420-2427, as amended by California Air Resources Board Resolution 92-2 and published in California Air Resources Board mail out # 93-42, September 1, 1993) which has been incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the section(s) of this part, other than § 89.6, in which the matter is referenced. The second column is presented for information only and may not be all inclusive. Copies of these materials may be obtained from California Air Resources Board, Haagen-Smit Laboratory, 9528 Telstar Avenue, El Monte, CA 91731-2990. Document number and name 40 CFR part 89 reference California Regulations for New 1996 and Later Heavy-Duty Off-Road Diesel Cycle Engines 89.112-96 89.119-96 89.508-96 [FR Doc. E8-14279 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Parts 3000, 3100, 3150, 3200, 3500, 3580, 3600, 3730, 3810, and 3830 [WO-320-1990-PO-24 1A] RIN 1004-AC64 Oil and Gas Leasing; Geothermal Resources Leasing; Coal Management; Management of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal; Mineral Materials Disposal; and Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final regulations in 43 CFR parts 3000, 3100, 3150, 3200, 3500, 3580, 3600, 3730, 3810, 3830 Oil and Gas Leasing: Geothermal Resources Leasing; Coal Management; Management of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal; Mineral Materials Disposal; and Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws, which were published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 58853—58880) of October 7, 2005. DATES: The correcting amendment is effective June 24, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia L. Ellis, Division of Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 202-452-5012. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Need for Correction This correction is necessary because in the 2005 final regulation we inserted a new paragraph

(b)in section 3602.31, without changing a subsequent cross-reference to reflect the new paragraph. The current regulations, therefore, have an inaccurate cross-reference. Inserting new paragraph

(b)in the 2005 final rule without fixing the cross-reference in paragraph

(d)raised the question whether an exception stated in paragraph

(d)applies to volume limitations stated in paragraph (c), which was paragraph

(b)before the 2005 rule inserted the new paragraph (b). This correction remedies this uncertainty. List of Subjects 43 CFR Part 3000 Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 43 CFR Part 3100 Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. 43 CFR Part 3150 Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. 43 CFR Part 3200 Geothermal energy, Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. 43 CFR Part 3500 Government contracts, Hydrocarbons, Mineral royalties, Mines, Phosphate, Potassium, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sodium, Sulfur, Surety bonds. 43 CFR Part 3580 Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Mines, Public lands—mineral resources, Recreation and recreation areas, Surety bonds. 43 CFR Part 3600 Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 43 CFR Part 3730 Administrative practice and procedure, Mines, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. 43 CFR Part 3810 Mines, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 43 CFR Part 3830 Mineral royalties, Mines, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Ted R. Hudson, Acting Division Chief, Division of Regulatory Affairs. PART 3600—MINERAL MATERIALS DISPOSAL 1. The authority citation for part 3600 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 *et seq.;* 30 U.S.C. 181 *et seq.,* 301-306, 351-359, and 601 *et seq.;* 31 U.S.C. 9701; 40 U.S.C. 471 *et seq.;* 42 U.S.C. 6508; 43 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.;* and Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 357. 2. Revise paragraph 3602.31(d) to read as follows: § 3602.31 What volume limitations and fees generally apply to noncompetitive mineral materials sales?

(d)The volume limitations in paragraphs

(a)and

(c)of this section do not apply to sales in the State of Alaska that BLM determines are needed for construction, operation, maintenance, or termination of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System or the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System. [FR Doc. E8-14215 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P 73 122 Tuesday, June 24, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0669; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-350-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and -800 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center section for drill starts, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD results from drill starts being found on the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center section during a quality assurance inspection at the final assembly plant. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracks from propagating from drill starts in the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center section, which could cause a loss of structural integrity of the wing center section and may result in a fuel leak. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, telephone

(425)917-6440; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0669; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-350-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We received reports of drill starts being found on the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center during a quality assurance inspection at the final assembly plant. The drill starts were caused by a manufacturing error during wing assembly. Cracks could propagate from drill starts in the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center section. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of structural integrity of the wing center section and may result in a fuel leak. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1294, dated April 23, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a detailed inspection of the free flange of the upper and lower stringers of the wing center section for drill starts, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative actions include doing high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)open hole inspections for any cracks. The corrective actions include doing the zero-timing procedure at each drill start, oversizing the hole, installing new fasteners if the hole is within the service bulletin tolerance limits, and contacting Boeing for certain repair conditions, as applicable. Accomplishing certain actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Requirements of This Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of this same type design. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1294, dated April 23, 2007, specifies a detailed inspection and applicable related investigative and corrective actions of the free flange of the upper and lower stringers of the wing center section, this proposed AD would require those actions for only the lower stringers of the wing center section. The lower stringers are the tension surface of the wing box, and therefore are subject to cracking. We do not consider cracking of the upper surface a safety issue. The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 17 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 7 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $9,520, or $560 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0669; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-350-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by August 8, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1294, dated April 23, 2007. Unsafe Condition

(d)This proposed AD results from drill starts being found on the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center during a quality assurance inspection at the final assembly plant. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracks from propagating from drill starts in the free flange of the wing center section lower stringers, which could cause a loss of structural integrity of the wing center section and may result in a fuel leak. Compliance

(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Inspection and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

(f)Before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection of the free flange of the lower stringers of the wing center section for any drill start, and do any applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in paragraphs 3.B.2. and 3.B.4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1294, dated April 23, 2007; except as provided in paragraph

(g)of this AD. The applicable related investigative and corrective actions must be done before further flight.

(g)If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1294, dated April 23, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6440, fax

(425)917-6590 has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 12, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14185 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0672; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-032-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, and A340-300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(FR)12, left

(LH)and right

(RH)sides. It has been confirmed that a defect of the FR12 forming tool press is the root cause of the cracks. If undetected such damage could affect, after propagation, the structural integrity of the aircraft. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1138; fax

(FR)12, left

(LH)and right

(RH)sides. It has been confirmed that a defect of the FR12 forming tool press is the root cause of the cracks. If undetected such damage could affect, after propagation, the structural integrity of the aircraft. In order to permit an early detection and repair of cracks on FR12, LH and RH sides, this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)mandates a one time High Frequency Eddy Current

(HFEC)inspection of FR12. Corrective actions include, for certain findings, contacting Airbus for repair instructions and doing the repair; repairing cracking (i.e., installing a new splice); and applying new protective coatings and corrosion inhibitors. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A330-53-3174 and A340-53-4177, both dated October 10, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a **Note** within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 20 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,800, or $240 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0672; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-032-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by July 24, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, and A340-300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models, all manufacturing serial numbers

(MSN)from MSN 0489 through 0722 inclusive, and MSN 0725, 0726, 0728, 0730, 0732, and 0734. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 53: Fuselage. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: During manufacturing of A330/A340 aircraft framework, cracks have been found on Frame

(FR)12, left

(LH)and right

(RH)sides. It has been confirmed that a defect of the FR12 forming tool press is the root cause of the cracks. If undetected such damage could affect, after propagation, the structural integrity of the aircraft. In order to permit an early detection and repair of cracks on FR12, LH and RH sides, this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)mandates a one time High Frequency Eddy Current

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Prior to the accumulation of 19,500 total flight cycles or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Perform a HFEC inspection at the LH (left-hand) and RH (right-hand) sides of frame 12, in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3174 or A340-53-4177, both dated October 10, 2007, as applicable. If no cracking is found, no further action is required by this AD. Except as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, if any cracking is found, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3174 or A340-53-4177, as applicable.

(2)If any cracking is found that exceeds the limits specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3174 or A340-53-4177, both dated October 10, 2007, as applicable; or if any cracking is found during any HFEC inspection of the cut-out area; before further flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and do the repair. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No difference. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1138; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0302, dated December 14, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletins A330-53-3174 and A340-53-4177, both dated October 10, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 17, 2008. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14186 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0668; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-088-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 190 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During aircraft structure fatigue tests, cracks were found in the wing lower skin stringers between ribs 7 and 10 on both wings. In order to prevent fatigue cracks in the wing lower skin stringers, which could result in fuel leakage and reduced structural integrity of the wing, the referred stringers must be reworked. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2848; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0668; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-088-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-01-02, effective February 25, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: During aircraft structure fatigue tests, cracks were found in the wing lower skin stringers between ribs 7 and 10 on both wings. In order to prevent fatigue cracks in the wing lower skin stringers, which could result in fuel leakage and reduced structural integrity of the wing, the referred stringers must be reworked. The corrective actions include spot-facing the lower wing stringers between ribs 7 and 10, doing a dye-penetrant inspection of the reworked stringers, shot-peening if no cracking is found, contacting ANAC if any crack is found, and repairing. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a **Note** within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 18 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 110 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $158,400, or $8,800 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0668; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-088-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by July 24, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -100ECJ, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 19000004, 19000006 through 19000028 inclusive, and 19000030 through 19000039 inclusive. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 57: Wings. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: During aircraft structure fatigue tests, cracks were found in the wing lower skin stringers between ribs 7 and 10 on both wings. In order to prevent fatigue cracks in the wing lower skin stringers, which could result in fuel leakage and reduced structural integrity of the wing, the referred stringers must be reworked. The corrective actions include spot-facing the lower wing stringers between ribs 7 and 10, doing a dye-penetrant inspection of the reworked stringers, shot-peening if no cracking is found, contacting Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil

(ANAC)if any crack is found, and repairing. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done: Prior to the accumulation of 5,000 total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the following actions.

(1)Spot-face the lower wing stringers between ribs 7 and 10 on both wings by changing their run out in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006.

(2)Do a dye-penetrant inspection for cracking of the reworked stringers in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006.

(i)If no cracking is detected: Before further flight, shot-peen the stringer reworked area following the parameters indicated in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006.

(ii)If any cracking is detected: Before further flight, contact the ANAC for repair instructions and repair.

(3)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, dated October 10, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2848; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-01-02, effective February 25, 2008, and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-57-0005, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 9, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14187 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0671; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-017-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)inspections for cracking of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame and frame reinforcement, between stringers S-20 and S-21, on both the left and right sides of the airplane, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of cracking in the frame, or in the frame and frame reinforcement, common to the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole intended for wire routing. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage frames and frame reinforcements, which could reduce the structural capability of the frames to sustain limit loads, and result in cracking in the fuselage skin and subsequent rapid depressurization of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6447; fax

(STA)500B and STA 520 on Model 737-300 and -400 series airplanes and between STA 482 and STA 520 on Model 737-500 series airplanes. The cracks at the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole are due to the effect of operating loads in combination with the stress concentration at the 1.04-inch nominal hole. The cracking initiated at the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole and grew towards the inner chord. We have since received reports of more than fifty cracked frames at the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole on more than 20 airplanes, all either Model 737-300 or 737-500 series airplanes. The airplanes had accumulated between 35,832 and 66,694 total flight cycles. This type of cracking has occurred at three frame stations on Model 737-300 series airplanes, at one frame station on Model 737-400 series airplanes, and at four stations on Model 737-500 series airplanes. Sixteen airplanes had cracking at multiple frames, and 10 frames had cracking at adjacent frames. Forty-three frames had cracking only at the inboard side of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame inner chord or in the frames and frame reinforcement inner chord. Three of the frames had cracking in the outboard side of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame and the frame reinforcement. Two of the frames were severed. Some of the frames had additional cracking at either the standoff/tooling holes or at the 0.50-inch diameter hole positioned below the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole. Cracking in the fuselage frames at the wire penetration hole intended for wire routing will reduce the structural capability of the frames to sustain limit loads. Cracking in the frames could result in cracking in the fuselage skin and subsequent rapid depressurization of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1279, dated December 18, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing either a high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)surface inspection or HFEC hole/edge inspection for cracking of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame and frame reinforcement, between stringers S-20 and S-21, on both the left and right sides of the airplane. If cracking is found, the service bulletin also describes procedures for related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative action is doing an HFEC inspection for cracking in the 0.50-inch diameter hole and all standoff/tooling holes in the frame and frame reinforcement, between stringers S-19 and S-22. The corrective action is repairing any cracking found and repeating the HFEC inspections. If additional cracking is found, the service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions. The service bulletin further describes procedures for a preventative modification for frames on which either the initial or repetitive inspections have been done. The preventative modification terminates the repetitive inspections. The initial compliance time for the initial inspection is either within 3,000 or 6,000 (but not to exceed 53,000 total flight cycles) flight cycles after release of the service bulletin, depending on the number of total flight cycles on the airplane. The repetitive interval for the HFEC inspection is 14,000 flight cycles. Corrective actions must be done before further flight. FAA's Determination and Requirements of this Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se) same type design(s). This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to remove damage and repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require removing damage and repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 616 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per product Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection Between 6 and 8 (depending on airplane configuration), per inspection cycle $0 Between $480 and $640, per inspection cycle 616 Between $295,680 and $394,240, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0671; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-017-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by August 8, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1279, dated December 18, 2007. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of cracking in the frame, or in the frame and frame reinforcement, common to the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole intended for wire routing. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuselage frames and frame reinforcements, which could reduce the structural capability of the frames to sustain limit loads, and result in cracking in the fuselage skin and subsequent rapid depressurization of the airplane. Compliance

(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Service Bulletin Reference Paragraph

(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1279, dated December 18, 2007.

(1)Where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(2)Where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for instructions for removing damage and repairing cracking: Before further flight, remove the damage or repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD.

(3)Although the service bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to submit information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Inspections, Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

(g)At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin, except as specified by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)surface inspection or an HFEC hole/edge inspection for cracking of the 1.04-inch nominal diameter wire penetration hole in the frame and frame reinforcement, between stringer S-20 and S-21; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as specified by paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E. of the service bulletin. Terminating Action

(h)Doing the repair in Part 3 or the preventative modification in Part 4 of the service bulletin terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, *ATTN:* Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6447; fax

(425)917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14183 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0670; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-339-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Damage to the lower lateral fittings of the 80VU rack * * * [and] damage to the lower central support fitting * * *. In the worst case scenario a complete failure of the 80VU fittings in combination with a high load factor or strong vibration could lead to failure of the rack structure and/or computers or rupture/disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more computers located in the 80VU. This rack contains computers for Flight Controls, Communication and Radio-navigation. These functions are duplicated across other racks but during critical phases of flight the multiple system failures/re-configuration may constitute an unsafe condition. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2141; fax

(AD)mandates the repetitive inspection of the lower lateral 80VU fittings for damage and the inspection of the lower central 80VU support for damage and cracking, and the associated corrective actions as necessary with more restrictive actions than defined in Airbus Service Bulletin

(SB)A320-25A1555 at its original issue. The new requirements defined in this AD will be introduced in revision 1 of SB A320-25A1555. The associated corrective actions include repair or replacement of the lower lateral fittings and/or central support. Replacing the 80VU support fittings eliminates the need for the repetitive inspection of the lower lateral fittings, and extends the repetitive interval for the lower central support. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; and A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The compliance times for doing the corrective actions are either before further flight, or within 4,500 flight cycles with repetitive inspections at intervals not to exceed 750 flight cycles until the repair is accomplished. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a **Note** within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 678 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 82 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,592 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,205,056, or $9,152 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0670; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-339-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by July 24, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, A318-112, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-111, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes, certificated in any category, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 34804 has been embodied in production. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Damage to the lower lateral fittings of the 80VU rack, typically elongated holes, migrated bushes [bushings], and/or missing bolts have been reported in-service. In addition, damage to the lower central support fitting (including cracking) has been reported. In the worst case scenario a complete failure of the 80VU fittings in combination with a high load factor or strong vibration could lead to failure of the rack structure and/or computers or rupture/disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more computers located in the 80VU. This rack contains computers for Flight Controls, Communication and Radio-navigation. These functions are duplicated across other racks but during critical phases of flight the multiple system failures/re-configuration may constitute an unsafe condition. This Airworthiness Directive

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a special detailed inspection of the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings for damage (e.g., broken fitting, missing bolts, migrated bushings, material burr, or rack in contact with the fitting) of the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007. Except as provided by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at the interval specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable. Replacing the 80VU lower lateral fittings in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007, terminates the inspection requirements of this paragraph.

(i)If the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings have not been repaired in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles.

(ii)If the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings have been repaired in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24,000 flight cycles.

(2)If any damage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do all applicable corrective actions (inspection and/or repair) in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions and timeframes given in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007.

(3)Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a special detailed inspection of the 80VU rack lower central support for cracking in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007. Except as provided by paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, repeat the inspection thereafter at the interval specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or (f)(3)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.

(i)If the 80VU rack lower central support has not been repaired or replaced in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007; repeat the inspection thereafter at the interval specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i)(A) or (f)(3)(i)(B) of this AD, as applicable.

(A)For airplanes on which the lower central support has accumulated more than 30,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: At intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.

(B)For airplanes on which the lower central support has accumulated 30,000 total flight cycles or fewer as of the effective date of this AD: At intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles, without exceeding 30,750 total flight cycles for the first repetitive inspection.

(ii)If the 80VU rack lower central support has been repaired or replaced in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007; repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24,000 flight cycles.

(4)If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, do the action in paragraph (f)(4)(i) or (f)(4)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.

(i)If the crack length is more than 40 mm on the front or the rear sheet of the lower central support, as shown in Figure 3, Sheet 2 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007, or if any crack is found on the upper sheet of the lower central support as shown in Figure 3, Sheet 3 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007: Before further flight, repair or replace the lower central support in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007; as applicable.

(ii)If the crack length is 40 mm or less on the front or the rear sheet, as specified in Figure 3, Sheet 2 of Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007: Within 20 months or 4,500 flight cycles after the crack finding, whichever occurs first, repair or replace the lower central support in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; or A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007, as applicable. Until the repair or replacement of the lower central support is accomplished, repeat the inspection required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles. FAA AD Differences Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2141; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0276, dated October 26, 2007; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25A1555, dated June 14, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1557, dated June 14, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14184 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0667; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-009-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, and A340-300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During fatigue tests

(EF3)on the A340-600, damages were found in longitudinal doubler at VTP (vertical tail plane) attachment cutout between Frame

(FR)80 and FR86. This damage occurred between 58341 and 72891 simulated flight cycles (FC). Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g. doubler thickness) [of the] A330-200/-300 and A340-300 aircraft series, the damage assessment concluded [there was] potential impact on [the airplanes specified in the] applicability. The unsafe condition is crack propagation in the VTP attachment cutout, which could reduce airplane structural integrity in the tail section. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(425)227-1138; fax

(EF3)on the A340-600, damages were found in longitudinal doubler at VTP (vertical tail plane) attachment cutout between Frame

(FR)80 and FR86. This damage occurred between 58341 and 72891 simulated Flight Cycles (FC). Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g. doubler thickness) [of the] A330-200/-300 and A340-300 aircraft series, the damage assessment concluded [there was] potential impact on [the airplanes specified in the] applicability. [T]o allow early detection of cracks, which could [prevent] possible crack propagation and consequently maintain the structural integrity of the upper shell structure between FR80 and FR86, this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)mandates an inspection program [for cracking] of this area using a high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)method, and a modification to improve the upper shell structure. The unsafe condition is crack propagation in the VTP attachment cutout, which could reduce airplane structural integrity in the tail section. Corrective actions include doing eddy current inspections for cracking of certain fastener rows, and contacting Airbus for repair instructions and repairing. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued the service bulletins specified in the following table. The compliance times in paragraph 1.E.(2) of the service bulletins range from 14,200 total flight cycles through 27,900 total flight cycles (for the initial inspection); from 1,700 flight cycles or 11,900 flight hours, whichever occurs first, through 4,600 flight cycles or 14,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first (for the repetitive inspection intervals); and from 10,700 total flight cycles through 14,200 total flight cycles (for the modification); depending upon airplane model and weight variant. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. Airbus Service Information Service Bulletin Date A330-53-3159 September 19, 2007. A330-53-3160 July 9, 2007. A330-53-3168 September 19, 2007. A340-53-4165 September 19, 2007. A340-53-4172 July 10, 2007. A340-53-4174 September 19, 2007. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a **Note** within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 26 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 202 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $19,020 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $914,680, or $35,180 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. *For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:* 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0667; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-009-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by July 24, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, and A340-300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models, all serial numbers; on which Airbus modification 44205 has been embodied in production, except those on which Airbus modification 52974 or 53223 has been embodied in production. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 53: Fuselage. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: During fatigue tests

(EF3)on the A340-600, damages were found in longitudinal doubler at VTP (vertical tail plane) attachment cutout between Frame

(AD)mandates an inspection program [for cracking] of this area using a high frequency eddy current

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)For Airbus Model A330-300 and A340-300 series airplanes, except Model A340-300 weight variant

(WV)027 airplanes: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, perform a HFEC inspection of the upper shell structure between FR80 and FR86, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3168 or A340-53-4174, both dated September 19, 2007, as applicable.

(i)If no crack is detected, repeat the inspection thereafter within the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3168 or A340-53-4174, as applicable.

(ii)If any crack is detected during any inspection required by this AD: Before next flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and do applicable repairs.

(iii)Doing the modification of the upper shell structure in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3159 or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4165, both dated September 19, 2007, as applicable, ends the inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(2)Do the actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD at the later of the compliance times specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i)Within the compliance times specified in paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3168 or A340-53-4174, both dated September 19, 2007, as applicable.

(ii)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.

(3)At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), and (f)(3)(iii) of this AD or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, modify the upper shell structure between FR80 and FR86 (including doing eddy current inspections for cracking of certain fastener rows and applicable corrective actions) in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3160, dated July 9, 2007, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4172, dated July 10, 2007, as applicable. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

(i)For Model A330-200 airplanes, WV 020 through WV 027: Prior to the accumulation of 13,500 total flight cycles.

(ii)For Model A330-200 airplanes, WV 050 through WV 055: Prior to the accumulation of 10,700 total flight cycles or 59,300 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(iii)For Model A340-300 airplanes, WV 027: Prior to the accumulation of 14,200 total flight cycles. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: Although the MCAI allows further flight after cracks are found during compliance with the required action, this AD requires that you repair the crack(s) before further flight. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(425)227-1138; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0284, dated November 12, 2007, and the service bulletins specified in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Table 1.—Service Information Airbus Service Bulletin Date A330-53-3159 September 19, 2007. A330-53-3160 July 9, 2007. A330-53-3168 September 19, 2007. A340-53-4165 September 19, 2007. A340-53-4172 July 10, 2007. A340-53-4174 September 19, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 9, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14192 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-102122-08] RIN 1545-BH56 Guidance Under Section 956 for Determining the Basis of Property Acquired in Certain Nonrecognition Transactions AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS and the Treasury Department are issuing temporary regulations under section 956 of the Internal Revenue Code

(Code)relating to the determination of basis in property acquired by a controlled foreign corporation in certain nonrecognition transactions that are intended to avoid United States income tax. Those regulations affect United States shareholders of a controlled foreign corporation that acquires United States property in certain nonrecognition transactions. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by September 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102122-08), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102122-08), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-102122-08). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, John H. Seibert,

(202)622-3860; concerning submissions of comments and/or requests for a hearing, Regina Johnson,

(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** provide guidance regarding the determination of basis for property acquired in certain nonrecognition transactions that repatriate earnings and profits of a controlled foreign corporation but are structured with the intent to avoid an income inclusion by the United States shareholders of the controlled foreign corporation under section 951(a)(1)(B). This avoidance is achieved by the use of the basis rules under section 362(a) for the acquisition by the controlled foreign corporation of certain stock or obligations that constitute United States property within the meaning of section 956(c). The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations will affect primarily large multi-national United States corporations that own a significant interest in foreign corporations that acquire certain United States property in a transaction subject to the regulations. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small entities. Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight

(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department continue to consider, outside the context of section 956, the appropriate basis of stock or obligations issued by a transferor in the hands of the transferee as determined under section 362. The IRS and the Treasury Department are also considering whether any additional rules are necessary or appropriate to coordinate the section 956 basis determinations under these regulations with basis determinations under other provisions of the Code or regulations. Comments are requested in this regard. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested by any person who timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time and place for the hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is John H. Seibert, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.956-1 is amended by adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e)(1) and adding new paragraphs (e)(5), (e)(6) and

(f)to read as follows: § 1.956-1 Shareholder's pro rata share of a controlled foreign corporation's increase in earnings invested in United States property.

(e)* * *

(1)* * * See § 1.956-1T(e)(6) for a special rule for determining amounts attributable to United States property acquired as the result of certain nonrecognition transactions. * * * (e)(5) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.956-1(e)(5) is the same as the text for § 1.956-1T(e)(5) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (e)(6) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.956-1(e)(6) is the same as the text for § 1.956-1T(e)(6) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ].

(f)[The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.956-1(f) is the same as the text for § 1.956-1T(f) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Steven T. Miller, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-14170 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 944 [SATS No. UT-045-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2008-0011] Utah Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; opening of public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment. SUMMARY: We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Utah regulatory program (hereinafter, the “Utah program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (“SMCRA” or “the Act”). Utah proposes additions and revisions to its rules regarding Division of Oil Gas and Mining (“DOGM” or “Division”) requests for additional information required to complete the review of a coal mining permit application, change, or renewal; the casing and sealing of underground openings; the definition of “intermittent stream” and related performance standards. Utah intends to revise its program to clarify Division responsibilities and improve operational efficiency. DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., m.d.t. July 24, 2008. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on July 21, 2008. We will accept requests to speak until 4 p.m., m.d.t. on July 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov* . The proposed rule has been assigned Docket ID: OSM-2008-0011. If you would like to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to *www.regulations.gov* and do the following. Click on the “Advanced Docket Search” button on the right side of the screen. Type in the Docket ID “OSM-2008-0011” and click the “Submit” button at the bottom of the page. The next screen will display the Docket Search Results for the rulemaking. If you click on OSM-2008-0011, you can view the proposed rule and submit a comment. You can also view supporting material and any comments submitted by others. • *Mail:* James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field Division Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, P.O. Box 46667, Denver, CO 80201-6667. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field Division Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320, Denver, CO 80202-5733. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name

(OSM)and either the Docket ID “OSM-2008-0011” or SATS No. “UT-045-FOR”. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “III. Public Comment Procedures” heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* In addition to viewing the docket and obtaining copies of documents at *www.regulations.gov* , you may review copies of the Utah program, this amendment, a listing of any public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may also receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Denver Field Division. James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field Division, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1999 Broadway, suite 3320, Denver, CO 80202-5733, *Telephone:*

(303)293-5015, *E-mail: jfulton@osmre.gov* . John R. Baza, Director, Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, 1594 West North Temple, suite 1210, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5801, *Telephone:*

(801)538-5340, *Internet: http://www.ogm.utah.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Fulton, *Telephone:*

(303)293-5015, *Internet: jfulton@osmre.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Utah Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Utah Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Utah program on January 21, 1981. You can find background information on the Utah program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Utah program in the January 21, 1981, **Federal Register** (46 FR 5899). You can also find later actions concerning Utah's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 944.15 and 944.30. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated May 28, 2008, Utah sent us a proposed amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). Utah sent the amendment at its own initiative. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES . The provisions of the Utah Administrative Rules proposed for revision and addition are:

(1)Requests for Additional Information, R645-300-131.300 (addition of new section);

(2)Sealing of Underground Openings, R645-301-551, R645-301-631, and R645-301-765; and

(3)Intermittent Streams, R645-100-200, R645-301-535.210, R645-301-535.223, R645-301-731.610, R645-301-742.320 through R645-301-742.324 R645-301-742.330 through R645-301-742.333, and R645-301-742.412. Specifically, Utah proposes to add a provision requiring the Division to issue a written decision and justification if additional information is required to complete the review of a coal mining permit application, change, or renewal. Utah also proposes to expand its rules pertaining to the sealing of underground openings to include additional specifications for sealing drill holes and to reference other regulations which contain more specific guidance. Additionally, Utah proposes to adopt a more hydrologically accurate definition of “intermittent stream”. In order to remain no less effective than Federal regulations, numerous performance standards are proposed for revision due to this proposed definition change. III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Utah program. Written Comments If you submit written comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent Tribal or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications. We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or sent to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in the electronic docket for this rulemaking at *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. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., m.d.t. on July 9, 2008. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodation to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold the hearing. If there is only limited interest in participating at a public hearing, a public meeting or teleconference rather than a hearing may be held. If we hold a public meeting or teleconference, a notice of the event will be posted to the docket for this rulemaking at *www.regulations.gov* , and a summary of the event will be included in the docket for this rulemaking. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections

(a)and

(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. The rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is

(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million. b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded Mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: June 5, 2008. Allen D. Klein, Regional Director, Western Region. [FR Doc. E8-14267 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Part 3500 [WO-320-1330-02-24-1A] RIN 1004 ** AD91 Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)is proposing to amend its regulations in 43 CFR part 3500 for leasing of solid minerals other than coal and oil shale to distinguish fringe acreage lease requirements from lease modification requirements, and to describe acceptable justifications for a lease modification. The proposed rule would also identify changes in the associated procedural requirements and update the filing fees. The proposed changes are based on statutory authorities, which authorize the BLM to issue regulations for leasing of minerals and to charge for administrative processing costs, and on policy guidance from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and the Department of the Interior

(DOI)requiring the BLM to charge these fees. DATES: Send your comments on this proposed rule to the BLM on or before August 25, 2008. The BLM will not necessarily consider any comments received after the above date in making its decision on the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may mail written comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, *ATTN:* 1004-AD91; or hand-deliver written comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. Comments will be available for public review at the L Street address from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Brown, Geologist, Solid Minerals Division (WO-320), Bureau of Land Management, Mail Stop-501LS, 1849 “C” Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; or by telephone at

(202)452-7765. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Comment Procedures II. Background III. Discussion of Proposed Rule IV. Procedural Matters I. Public Comment Procedures Please submit e-mail comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “ *Attn:* 1004-AD91” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. You may examine documents pertinent to this proposed rulemaking at the L Street address. A. How Do I Comment on the Notice? If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods: • You may mail comments to Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401 LS, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, *Attn:* 1004-AD91. • You may deliver comments to Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. • You may access and comment on the notice at the Federal eRulemaking Portal by following the instructions at that site (see ADDRESSES ). Please make your comments as specific as possible by confining them to issues for which comments are sought in this notice, and explain the bases for your comments. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: 1. Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and 2. Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. The BLM may not necessarily consider or include in the Administrative Record for the notice comments that we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ). B. May I Review Comments Submitted by Others? Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES: Personal or messenger delivery” during regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. C. Can My Name and Address Be Kept Confidential? Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. II. Background At the time of leasing, the BLM proposes lease boundaries that conform as nearly as possible to the orientation of known mineral deposits. Due to lack of detailed information about the deposit when a lease is issued, a lease boundary may need refinement. Following leasing, for example, additional exploration by the lessee may identify extensions of the deposit onto adjoining land. In addition, new engineering information may determine that lease boundaries are not situated for optimal development and recovery of the mineral deposit within the lease. In some cases, this has required placing overburden onto lands containing mineral deposits, precluding maximum recovery of the minerals and shortening the operating life of some mines. The BLM uses lease modifications to adjust lease boundaries and make corrections to accommodate new information. These changes are infrequent and typically involve relatively small areas. Current regulations treat fringe acreage leases and lease modifications in the same way, in that in both cases there must be a mineral deposit under the proposed additional acreage to be added to the primary leasehold. It is appropriate that a fringe acreage lease, as a new lease, should be required to show the presence of a mineral deposit within the proposed lease boundaries. By contrast, since a modification is an adjustment to an existing lease that already contains a known mineral deposit, the requirement in the existing regulations for the presence of a mineral deposit in the modification area should not be applicable to adjustment of the existing lease boundary. Therefore, the proposed rule would amend this provision with regard to lease modifications. The proposed rule also incorporates an update to the filing fee for lease modification and fringe acreage lease applications based on cost recovery rules published in the **Federal Register** on October 7, 2005 (70 FR 58857). III. Discussion of Proposed Rule The BLM is proposing to amend the regulation that requires that the acreage proposed to be added to an existing lease in a lease modification application contain an extension of the mineral deposit. The amendment acknowledges that an existing lease already contains a known deposit, and provides for modification where the configuration of the lease boundary has been found to be inadequate for recovery of the previously leased mineral deposit. Under circumstances where there is no known deposit of the same mineral on the additional acreage, the proposed rule would require that the acreage to be added is necessary to achieve recovery of the mineral deposit on the pre-existing Federal lease and, had the acreage been included in the Federal lease at the time of the Federal lease's issuance, such inclusion would have produced a reasonably compact lease. This is in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, which requires such compactness. In substance, the proposed rule recognizes that, since the additional acreage could have been included at the time of lease issuance even though it did not contain a known mineral deposit, it may now be included as a modification to the pre-existing lease. This change provides for making adjustments to reconfigure lease boundaries for better accommodation of development based on new information on the location and orientation of deposits and extraction areas. This approach provides potential cost savings to lessees and increased returns to the United States from maximum recovery of leased mineral deposits. This is a minor change in the regulations that would apply in limited circumstances. The BLM consulted with the Forest Service in the development of the proposed rule. The principal reason for this amendment is to facilitate the process of allowing a modification to add acreage to a lease. Under the proposed rule, the BLM would allow a lease modification:

(1)To recognize new information about the extent of the deposit to avoid bypassing reserves that could not be independently developed;

(2)To provide space for placement of overburden and other waste rock materials to facilitate maximum recovery of the mineral deposit; and/or

(3)To provide space for other facilities needed to recover the deposit, including ore stockpiles, topsoil stockpiles, haul and/or access roads, and support facilities such as warehouse and storage areas, shops, fuel and lubricant storage, equipment staging areas, electrical substations, repair shops, and restrooms. All leases necessarily include some nonmineral acreage. Lease boundaries are based on the location of deposits that may not be fully identified at the time of lease issuance. Items

(2)and

(3)already take place on existing leases but can be constrained because the lease orientation and lease boundaries may not be optimally oriented to the deposits to provide space for these activities. For example, due to the space limitations caused by orientation of the deposit relative to the lease boundary, it may be necessary to temporarily stockpile ore on an unmined portion of a deposit. This interferes with mining efficiency and increases costs. It blocks access to the deposit, reduces recovery, and requires handling and hauling the stockpile multiple times as the deposit is mined. Readjustment of the lease boundary to better conform to the deposit orientation could provide for better utilization of the lease acreage for the overall mine operation. Subpart 3516 provides for use permits for ancillary operations for phosphate leases (up to 80 acres) and sodium leases (up to 40 acres). Use permits are not appropriate for several reasons. Lease boundary readjustment provides for more efficient utilization of leased acreage and more space in the area of the greatest need immediately adjacent to the operations. Readjustment can provide more space for operations in a compact configuration than a use permit by making more effective use of the acres that are leased and minimizing the additional acres needed. Use permits may not provide enough acreage for all lease operations. Also, BLM use permit provisions are limited to public lands and do not apply to national forest lands. IV. Procedural Matters 1. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) This document is not a significant rule and the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. We have made the assessments required by E.O. 12866 and the results appear below. • The rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. Mining companies rarely seek lease modifications. From FY2001 through FY2006, there were only 9 lease modifications out of 522 active leases. This regulation change is not expected to result in a substantial increase in the number of modifications. Although the BLM expects few modifications, the likely economic impacts from an individual lease modification can be illustrated in the following example. In one recent lease modification, one company employed about 210 workers with annual wages of about $18.7 million. The modification extended the mine's life by 2 to 3 years, thereby extending the wage earnings for those 210 workers, and producing an additional $4 to 6 million in royalties for the Federal Government. • The rule will not create a serious inconsistency with an action taken or planned by another agency. It will be consistent with the current practices of the BLM and the Forest Service for operations on leases, which provide for consultation between the agencies before the BLM authorizes a lease modification, and will extend those practices to the additional lands in modified leases. It will not change the relationships of the BLM to other agencies and their actions. The proposed rule will allow a lease modification to increase the size or shape of the lease, providing more acreage for lease operations. Procedures for review and approval of all lease operations, including mining and reclamation plans, development of mitigation measures, and the associated reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, will remain the same. Potential activities on the leases will remain the same. The effect of this rule is merely to provide more acreage to perform those operations on existing leases. • The rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. The rule does not address any of these programs. • The rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) Although a substantial number of lessees meet the criteria for small entities, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the proposed rule would only affect a small number of entities and the annual effect on the economy of the regulatory changes will be less than $100 million. When it is applied, the proposed rule will have a beneficial impact because it allows the lessee to develop the lease more fully, and do so with greater efficiency and potentially at lower cost. A threshold analysis was performed, which determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. The threshold analysis is available at the address specified under ADDRESSES . A Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. For the purposes of this section a “small entity” is an individual, limited partnership, or small company, at “arm's length” from the control of any parent companies, with fewer than 500 employees. This definition accords with Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. 3. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. • This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. As explained above, lease modifications constitute a small part of solid non-energy mineral leasing activity and most of those are accomplished under existing regulations. The proposed rule is only expected to involve boundary adjustments at a few leases, and the associated economic effects: • Will be less than $100 million annually; • Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and • Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. • The rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. The rule does not address any of these programs. 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule will not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The changes proposed in this rule would not require anything of any non-federal governmental entity. The rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. *1501 et seq.* ). 5. Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) (E.O. 12630) Under the criteria in E.O.12630, this rule does not have takings implications. This rule does not substantially change BLM policy. Nothing in this rule has any effect on private property interests, and therefore nothing in the rule constitutes a taking. A takings implication assessment is not required. 6. Federalism (E.O. 13132) Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have significant Federalism effects to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. This rule does not change the role of or responsibilities among Federal, state, and local governmental entities, nor does it relate to the structure and role of states or have direct, substantive, or significant effects on states. 7. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

(1)Does not unduly burden the judicial system, and

(2)Meets the criteria of sections 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(3)Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards. 8. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175) Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we have evaluated this rule and determined that it has no potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. Because this rule does not make significant substantive changes in the regulations and does not specifically involve Indian reservation lands, we believe that relations with Indians, Indian tribes, and tribal governments will be unaffected and no consultation is needed for this rule. Consultation would take place for any lease modifications that may be proposed. Lands within Indian Reservations, except the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, Hillcreek Extension, State of Utah, are closed to the operation of the Mineral Leasing Act. Under Public Law 440 (Hill Creek Extension), the boundaries of the Uintah-Ouray Reservation were extended to include the surface of some public domain lands, but those lands do not contain any known mineral resources or leasing operations that are subject to these regulations and are unaffected by this change. 9. Paperwork Reduction Act The BLM has determined that this proposed rule does not contain any new information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The OMB has approved the information collection requirements in the regulations under OMB control number 1004-0073, which expires March 31, 2010. 10. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), is not required. The BLM has determined that any environmental effects that this proposed rule may have are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and any actions authorized by the rule would be subject to the NEPA process on a case-by-case basis. See 516 DM2, Appendix I, Item 1.10. In limited circumstances, this regulation will provide a limited amount of acreage within the lease boundary for operations to take place. The factual situation at each lease area is different. Specific proposals for modifications will be reviewed under NEPA and evaluated to identify the potential impacts associated with the proposed modifications and any appropriate mitigation, and the decisions about what operations will be allowed will be made on the basis of those analyses. Therefore, the proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual

(DM)2.3A and 516 DM 2, Appendix I, Item 1.10, and does not meet any of the 10 criteria for exceptions to categorical exclusion listed in 516 DM 2, Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department of the Interior, the term “categorical exclusion” means a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an environmental assessment

(EA)nor an environmental impact statement

(EIS)is required. Because the proposed promulgation of this rule would not itself approve any lease modification, it would have no significant impacts on the environment and would not have a significant impact on any of the following critical elements of the human environment as defined in Appendix 5 of the BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H-1790-1): air quality, areas of critical environmental concern, cultural resources, Native American religious concerns, threatened or endangered species, hazardous or solid waste, water quality, prime and unique farmlands, wetlands, riparian zones, wild and scenic rivers, environmental justice, and wilderness. The lease modifications that are authorized would be analyzed in EAs or EISs, and, if approved, they would incorporate site specific mitigation measures in both the modification approval and the mining/reclamation plan. This proposed rule does not change this, but makes it clear that, in certain circumstances, proponents of lease modifications do not bear the burden of showing that the land contains deposits of the minerals subject to the lease. 11. Data Quality Act In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554). 12. Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211) This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required. It will not have an adverse effect on energy supplies. The proposed rule would reduce energy requirements somewhat by facilitating efforts by lessees to keep operations compact. Thus, transportation required for materials within the mining operation may be reduced, given that operations would be conducted on adjacently located properties. Accordingly, we anticipate that this may reduce fuel consumption from haulage during operations. By facilitating maximum recovery of mineral deposits from leases, the proposed rule would extend mine life, allowing the existing infrastructure to be used for a longer time. Postponing development of the new infrastructure required for new mines would also reduce overall energy requirements. 13. Clarity of the Regulations We are required by E.O. 12866 and E.O. 12988, and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(a)Be logically organized;

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

(c)Use clear language rather than jargon;

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

(e)Use lists and tables wherever possible. If you believe that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods specified in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us amend the regulations, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you believe lists or tables would be useful, etc. 14. Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation (E.O. 13352) In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule: • Would not impede facilitating cooperative conservation; • Would take appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; • Would properly accommodate local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and • Would provide that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety. Author The principal author of this rule is George Brown, Geologist, Division of Solid Minerals, assisted by Ted Hudson, Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Affairs, Washington Office, BLM. List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3500 Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Mineral royalties, Mines, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. Dated: March 25, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities stated below, the BLM proposes to amend 43 CFR part 3500 as set forth below. PART 3500—LEASING OF SOLID MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL AND OIL SHALE 1. The authority citation for part 3500 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 30 U.S.C. 189 and 192c; 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740; and sec. 402, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C. Appendix). Subpart 3501—Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale—General 2. Amend § 3501.10 by revising paragraph

(f)to read as follows: § 3501.10 What types of mineral use authorizations can I get under these rules?

(f)“Lease modifications” add adjacent acreage to a Federal lease. The acreage to be added:

(1)Contains known deposits of the same mineral that can be mined only as part of the mining operation on the original Federal lease; or

(2)Has the following characteristics-

(i)Does not contain known deposits of the same mineral; and

(ii)Will be used for surface activities that are necessary in furtherance of recovery of the mineral deposit on the original Federal lease; and

(iii)Had the acreage been included in the original Federal lease at the time of the Federal lease's issuance, the original Federal lease would have been reasonably compact. 3. Amend § 3510.12 by revising paragraphs

(b)and (c), and by adding paragraph (d), to read as follows: § 3510.12 What must I do to obtain a lease modification or fringe acreage lease?

(b)Include a non-refundable filing fee as provided in § 3000.12, Table 1, of this chapter (the fee may be found under “Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale (Part 3500)”). You must also make an advance rental payment in accordance with the rental rate for the mineral commodity you are seeking. If you want to modify an existing lease, the BLM will base the rental payment on the rate in effect for the lease being modified in accordance with § 3504.15.

(c)Your fringe acreage lease application must:

(1)Show the serial number of the lease if the lands specified in your application adjoin an existing Federal lease;

(2)Contain a complete and accurate description of the lands desired;

(3)Show that the mineral deposit specified in your application extends from your adjoining lease or from adjoining private lands you own or control; and

(4)Include proof that you own or control the mineral deposit in the adjoining lands if they are not under a Federal lease.

(d)Your lease modification application must:

(1)Show the serial number of your Federal lease that you seek to modify;

(2)Contain a complete and accurate description of the lands desired that adjoin the Federal lease you seek to modify; and

(3)Show that—

(i)The adjoining acreage to be added contains known deposits of the same mineral deposit that can be mined only as part of the mining operations on the original Federal lease; or

(ii)As an alternative, show that—

(A)The acreage to be added does not contain known deposits of the same mineral deposit; and

(B)The adjoining acreage will be used for surface activities that are necessary for the recovery of the mineral deposit on the original Federal lease, and

(C)Had the acreage been included in the original Federal lease at the time of that lease's issuance, the original Federal lease would have been reasonably compact. 4. Amend § 3510.15 by revising paragraph (e), redesignating paragraphs

(f)and

(g)as paragraphs

(g)and (h), respectively, by adding new paragraph (f), and by revising redesignated paragraph (h), to read as follows: § 3510.15 What will the BLM do with my application?

(e)The lands for which you applied for a fringe acreage lease lack sufficient reserves of the mineral resource to warrant independent development; (f)(1) The lands for which you applied for a lease modification contain known deposits of the same mineral deposit that can be mined only as part of the mining operations on the original Federal lease; or (2)(i) The acreage to be added does not contain known deposits of the same mineral; and

(ii)The acreage to be added will be used for surface activities that are necessary for the recovery of the mineral deposit on the original Federal lease; and

(iii)Had the acreage added by the modification been included in the original Federal lease at the time of that lease's issuance, the original Federal lease would have been reasonably compact

(h)You meet the qualification requirements for holding a lease described in subpart 3502 of this chapter and the new or modified lease will not cause you to exceed the acreage limitations described in § 3503.37. [FR Doc. E8-14214 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 542 and 552 [GSAR Case 2008-G512; Docket 2008-0007; Sequence 8] RIN 3090-AI59 General Services Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Case 2008-G512; Rewrite of GSAR Part 542; Contract Administration and Audit Services AGENCY: Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The General Services Administration

(GSA)is proposing to amend the General Services Acquisition Regulation

(GSAR)to revise language pertaining to requirements for contract administration and audit services. DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before August 25, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2008-G512 by any of the following methods: • Regulations.gov: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “GSAR Case 2008-G512” under the heading “Comment or Submission”. Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with GSAR Case 2008-G512. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form”. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “GSAR Case 2008-G512” on your attached document. • Fax: 202-501-4067. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. *Instructions* : Please submit comments only and cite GSAR Case 2008-G512 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact Ms. Jeritta Parnell at

(202)501-4082, or by e-mail at *Jeritta.Parnell@gsa.gov* . For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Room 4041, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405,

(202)501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2008-G512. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The General Services Administration

(GSA)is amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation

(GSAR)to update the text addressing GSAR 542.1107, Production Surveillance and Reporting, Subpart 542.15, Contractor Performance Information, and the GSAR clause at 552.242-70, Status Report of Orders and Shipments. This proposed rule is a result of the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual

(GSAM)rewrite initiative. The initiative was undertaken by GSA to revise the GSAM so as to maintain consistency with the FAR and implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can use when entering into and administering contractual relationships. The GSAM incorporates the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation

(GSAR)as well as internal agency acquisition policy. GSA will rewrite each part of the GSAR and GSAM, and as each GSAR part is rewritten, GSA will publish it in the **Federal Register** . This proposed rule covers the rewrite of GSAR Part 542. The proposed rule revises GSAM Part 542 to update the text addressing GSAR Subpart 542.1107, Production Surveillance and Reporting, Subpart 542.15, Contractor Performance Information, and the GSAR clause at 552.242-70, Status Report of Orders and Shipments. The language in the contract clause at 542.1107, is revised to add emphasis to the contracting officer’s responsibilities. The GSAR clause at 552.242-70, Status Report of Orders and Shipments, is revised to update information about the cited GSA office. The language in GSAR Subpart 542.15, Contractor Performance Information, is reorganized and removed from inclusion in the GSAR. This is guidance to contracting officers, and not requirements for contractors. Discussion of Comments There were two public comments received in response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. One commenter requested that specific GSA guidelines be applied to the timeframe for novation and name changes by the contracting officer. The Agency did not agree. This suggestion is not necessary. The Agency believes that the FAR coverage is detailed enough to cover all aspects of novation and name changes. The language provided in the GSAM is guidance for contracting officers, and not requirements for contractors. The second commenter stated that the FAR is substantially more specific than the GSAM. The Agency agrees. The GSAM only supplements the FAR. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The General Services Administration does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the revisions are not considered substantive. The revisions only update and reorganize existing coverage. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. GSA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected GSAR Parts 542 and 552 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* (GSAR case 2008-G512), in correspondence. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) applies because the proposed rule contains information collection requirements. However, the proposed changes to the GSAR do not impose additional information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 3090-0027. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 542 and 552 Government procurement. Dated: June 18, 2008. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 542 and 552 as set forth below: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 542 and 552 revised to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c). PART 542—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES 2. Revise section 542.1107 to read as follows: 542.1107 Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert 552.242-70, Status Report of Orders and Shipments, in solicitations and indefinite quantity and requirements contracts for Stock or Special Order Program items. The clause may be used in indefinite delivery definite quantity contracts for Stock or Special Order Program items when close monitoring is necessary because numerous shipments are involved. 542.1503-71 [Removed] 3. Remove section 542.1503-71. PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 4. Amend section 552.242-70 by— a. Revising the date of the clause; b. Removing from paragraph

(a)“FQC” and adding “QVOC” in its place, respectively; and c. Revising paragraph (b). The revised text reads as follows: 552.242-70 Status Report of Orders and Shipments. STATUS REPORT OF ORDERS AND SHIPMENTS

(b)A copy of GSA Form 1678 will be forwarded to the Contractor with the contract. Additional copies of the form, if needed, may be reproduced by the Contractor. (End of clause) [FR Doc. E8-14224 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-S GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 543 and 552 [GSAR Case 2008-G513; Docket 2008-0007; Sequence 10] RIN 3090-AI55 General Services Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Case 2008-G513;Rewrite of Part 543, Contract Modifications AGENCY: Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The General Services Administration

(GSA)is proposing to amend the General Services Acquisition Regulation

(GSAR)to revise GSAM language pertaining to requirements for contract modifications. DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before August 25, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2008-G513 by any of the following methods: • Regulations.gov: *http://www.regulations.gov* .Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “GSAR Case 2008-G513” under the heading “Comment or Submission.” Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with GSAR Case 2008-G513. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form.” Please include your name, company name (if any), and “GSAR Case 2008-G513” on your attached document. • Fax: 202-501-4067. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. *Instructions* : Please submit comments only and cite GSAR Case 2008-G513 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification regarding content, please contact Ms. Jeritta Parnell at

(202)501-4082. For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, please contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division (VPR), Room 4041, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405,

(202)501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2008-G513. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The GSA is amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation

(GSAR)to revise the prescriptions for clauses included in 543.205, Contract clauses. The associated clauses located in 552.243 are amended to delete the clause at 552.243-70, Pricing of Adjustments, to revise the clause at 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustments, and to relocate the clause at 552.243-72, Modifications (Multiple Award Schedule) to GSAR 552.238. This proposed rule is a result of the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual

(GSAM)rewrite initiative. The initiative was undertaken by GSA to revise the GSAM so as to maintain consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)and implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can use when entering into and administering contractual relationships. The GSAM incorporates the GSAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. The GSA will rewrite each part of the GSAR and GSAM, and as each GSAR part is rewritten, GSA will publish it in the **Federal Register** . This proposed rule revises GSAR 543.205, Contract clauses, and associated clauses in GSAR 552.243. The information in GSAR 543.205, Contract clauses, is revised to remove 543.205(a)(1) and 543.205(b) and re-numbered accordingly. The information in 543.205(a)(1) is deleted. This clause prescription is no longer necessary. The information in 543.205(b) is relocated to Part 538. The prescription for the clause at 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustment, is revised to include the clause title for FAR 52.243-4, Changes. The clause at 552.243-70, Pricing of Adjustments, is deleted. Information formerly contained in this clause is now contained in the revised clause at 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustments. The clause at 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustments, is revised to clarify costs, overhead, profit, and proposal preparation costs. The clause at 552.243-72, Modifications, (Multiple Award Schedule) is relocated to GSAR Part 538. Discussion of Comments There were three public comments received in response to the “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” One commenter requested that the “Overhead, Profit, and Commission” section needed to be “reworded to be clearer about the breakdown and distinctions between Subcontractor and Prime Commission, and Overhead and Profit, and the maximum allowable amounts for each.” The Agency agreed and the clause at 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustments, was revised to reflect this suggested change. The second commenter recommended that the “Changes” clause should be applicable to orders. The GSAM was never intended to be a stand-alone document: it merely supplements the FAR. The term “order” is defined in FAR 2.101, and therefore, should not be repeated in the GSAM. The third commenter recommended that GSA reconsider the timing of solicitation refreshes and associated modifications to existing contract terms and conditions. This issue will be addressed in the rewrite of GSAR Part 538. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The GSA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the revisions are not considered substantive. The revisions only update, clarify, and reorganize existing coverage. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The GSA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected GSAR Part 543 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* (GSAR case 2008-G513), in all correspondence. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the GSAM do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 543 and 552 Government procurement. Dated: June 13, 2008 Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 543 and 552 as set forth below: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 543 and 552 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c). PART 543—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS 2. Revise section 543.205 to read as follows: 543.205 Contract clauses. The contracting officer shall insert 552.243-71, Equitable Adjustments, in solicitations and contracts containing FAR 52.243-4, Changes. PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 552.243-70 [Removed] 3. Remove section 552.243-70. 4. Revise section 552.243-71 to read as follows: 552.243-71 Equitable Adjustments. As prescribed in 543.205, insert the following clause: EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS

(a)This clause governs the determination of equitable adjustments to which the Contractor may be entitled under the “Changes” clause prescribed by FAR 52.243-4, the “Differing Site Conditions” clause prescribed by FAR 52.236-2, and any other provision of this contract allowing entitlement to an equitable adjustment. This clause does not govern determination of the Contractor’s relief allowable under the “Suspension of Work” clause prescribed by FAR 52.242-14.

(b)At the written request of the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall submit a proposal, in accordance with the requirements set forth herein, for an equitable adjustment to the contract for changes or other conditions that may entitle a Contractor to an equitable adjustment. If the Contractor deems an oral or written order to be a change to the contract, it shall promptly submit to the Contracting Officer a proposal for equitable adjustment attributable to such deemed change. The change shall also conform to the requirements set forth herein.

(c)The proposal shall be submitted within the time specified in the “Changes” clause, or such other time as may reasonably be required by the Contracting Officer. In the case of a proposal submitted based on the “Differing Site Conditions” clause, the notice requirement of that clause shall be met.

(d)Proposals for equitable adjustments, including no costs requests for adjustment of the contract’s required completion date, shall include a detailed breakdown of the following elements, as applicable:

(1)Direct Costs.

(2)Markups.

(3)Change to the time for completion specified in the contract.

(e)*Direct Costs* . The Contractor shall separately identify each item of deleted and added work associated with the change or other condition giving rise to entitlement to an equitable adjustment, including increases or decreases to unchanged work. For each item of work so identified, the Contractor shall propose for itself and, if applicable, its first two tiers of subcontractors, the following direct costs:

(1)Material cost broken down by trade, supplier, material description, quantity of material units, and unit cost (including all manufacturing burden associated with material fabrication and cost of delivery to site, unless separately itemized).

(2)Labor cost broken down by trade, employer, occupation, quantity of labor hours, and burdened hourly labor rate, together with itemization of applied labor burdens (exclusive of employer’s overhead, profit, and any labor cost burdens carried in employer’s overhead rate).

(3)Cost of equipment required to perform the work, identified with material to be placed or operation to be performed.

(4)Cost of preparation and/or revision to shop drawings and other submittals with detail set forth in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this clause.

(5)Delivery costs, if not included in material unit costs.

(6)Time-related costs not separately identified as direct costs, and not included in the Contractor’s or subcontractors’ overhead rates, as specified in paragraph (g).

(7)Other direct costs.

(f)Marked-up costs of subcontractors below the second tier may be treated as other direct costs of a second tier subcontractor, unless the Contracting Officer requires a detailed breakdown under paragraph

(i)of this clause.

(g)*Extensions of time and time-related costs* . The Contractor shall propose a daily rate for each firm's time-related costs during the affected period, and, for each firm, the increase or decrease in the number of work days of performance attributable to the change or other condition giving rise to entitlement to an equitable adjustment, with supporting analysis. Entitlement to time and time-related costs shall be determined as follows:

(1)Increases or decreases to a firm’s time-related costs shall be allowed only if such increase or decrease necessarily and exclusively results from the change or other condition giving rise to entitlement to an equitable adjustment.

(2)The Contractor shall not be entitled to an extension of time or recovery of its own time-related costs except to the extent that such change or other condition necessarily and exclusively causes its duration of performance to extend beyond the completion date specified in the contract.

(3)Costs may be characterized as time-related costs only if they are incurred solely to support performance of this contract and the increase or decrease in such costs is solely dependent upon the duration of a firm’s performance of work.

(4)Costs may not be characterized as time-related costs if they are included in the calculation of a firm’s overhead rate.

(5)Equitable adjustment of time and time-related costs shall not be allowed unless the analysis supporting the proposal complies with provisions specified elsewhere in this contract regarding the Contractor’s project schedule.

(h)*Markups* . For each firm whose direct costs are separately identified in the proposal, the Contractor shall propose an overhead rate, profit rate, and where applicable, a bond rate and insurance rate. Markups shall be determined and applied as follows:

(1)Overhead rates shall be negotiated, and may be subject to audit and adjustment.

(2)Profit rates shall be negotiated, but shall not exceed ten percent, unless entitlement to a higher rate of profit may be demonstrated.

(3)The Contractor and its subcontractors shall not be allowed overhead or profit on the overhead or profit received by a subcontractor, except to the extent that the subcontractor’s costs are properly included in other direct costs as specified in paragraph

(f)of this clause.

(4)Overhead rates shall be applied to the direct costs of work performed by a firm, and shall not be allowed on the direct costs of work performed by a subcontractor to that firm at any tier except as set forth in paragraphs (h)(6) and (h)(7) of this clause.

(5)Profit rates shall be applied to the sum of a firm’s direct costs and the overhead allowed on the direct costs of work performed by that firm.

(6)Overhead and profit shall be allowed on the direct costs of work performed by a subcontractor within two tiers of a firm at rates equal to only fifty percent of the overhead and profit rates negotiated pursuant to paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this clause for that firm, but not in excess of ten percent when combined.

(7)Overhead and profit shall not be allowed on the direct costs of a subcontractor more than two tiers below the firm claiming overhead and profit for subcontractor direct costs.

(8)If changes to a Contractor’s or subcontractor’s bond or insurance premiums are computed as a percentage of the gross change in contract value, markups for bond and insurance shall be applied after all overhead and profit is applied. Bond and insurance rates shall not be applied if the associated costs are included in the calculation of a firm’s overhead rate.

(9)No markup shall be applied to a firm’s costs other than those specified herein.

(i)At the request of the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall provide such other information as may be reasonably necessary to allow evaluation of the proposal. If the proposal includes significant costs incurred by a subcontractor below the second tier, the Contracting Officer may require the same detail for those costs as required for the first two tiers of subcontractors, and markups shall be applied to these subcontractor costs in accordance with paragraph

(h)of this clause.

(j)*Proposal preparation costs* . If performed by the firm claiming them, proposal preparations costs shall be included in the labor hours proposed as direct costs. If performed by an outside consultant or law firm, proposal preparation costs shall be treated as other direct costs to the firm incurring them. Requests for proposal preparation costs shall include the following:

(1)A copy of the contract or other documentation identifying the consultant or firm, the scope of the services performed, the manner in which the consultant or firm was to be compensated, and if compensation was paid on an hourly basis, the fully burdened and marked-up hourly rates for the services provided.

(2)If compensation were paid on an hourly basis, documentation of the quantity of hours worked, including descriptions of the activities for which the hours were billed, and applicable rates.

(3)Written proof of payment of the costs requested. The sufficiency of the proof shall be determined by the Contracting Officer.

(k)Proposal preparation costs shall be allowed only if—

(1)The nature and complexity of the change or other condition giving rise to entitlement to an equitable adjustment warrants estimating, scheduling, or other effort not reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract award;

(2)Proposed costs are not included in a firm’s time-related costs or overhead rate; and

(3)Proposed costs were incurred prior to a Contracting Officer’s unilateral determination of an equitable adjustment under the conditions set forth in paragraph

(o)of this clause, or were incurred prior to the time the request for equitable adjustment otherwise became a matter in dispute.

(l)Proposed direct costs, markups, and proposal preparation costs shall be allowable in the determination of an equitable adjustment only if they are reasonable and otherwise consistent with the contract cost principles and procedures set forth in Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR part 31) in effect on the date of this contract. Characterization of costs as direct costs, time-related costs, or overhead costs must be consistent with the requesting firm’s accounting practices on other work under this contract and other contracts.

(m)If the Contracting Officer determines that it is in the Government’s interest that the Contractor proceed with a change before negotiation of an equitable adjustment is completed, the Contracting Officer may order the Contractor to proceed on the basis of a unilateral modification to the contract increasing or decreasing the contract price by an amount to be determined later. Such increase or decrease shall not exceed the increase or decrease proposed by the Contractor.

(n)If the parties cannot agree to an equitable adjustment, the Contracting Officer may determine the equitable adjustment unilaterally.

(o)The Contractor shall not be entitled to any proposal preparation costs incurred subsequent to the date of a unilateral determination or denial of the request if the Contracting Officer issues a unilateral determination or denial under any of the following circumstances:

(1)The Contractor fails to submit a proposal within the time required by this contract or such time as may reasonably be required by the Contracting Officer.

(2)The Contractor fails to submit additional information requested by the Contracting Officer within the time reasonably required.

(3)Agreement to an equitable adjustment cannot be reached within 60 days of submission of the Contractor’s proposal or receipt of additional requested information, despite the Contracting Officer’s diligent efforts to negotiate the equitable adjustment. (End of clause) 552.243-72 [Removed] 5. Remove section 552.243-72. [FR Doc. E8-14253 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 580 [Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0116; Notice 1] Petition for Approval of Alternate Odometer Disclosure Requirements AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of initial determination. SUMMARY: The Commonwealth of Virginia has petitioned for approval of alternate requirements governing certain aspects of the Federal odometer law. NHTSA has initially determined that Virginia's proposed alternate requirements are generally consistent with the purposes of the applicable portion of the federal odometer disclosure law. Accordingly, NHTSA preliminarily grants Virginia's petition. This is not a final agency action. DATES: Comments are due no later than July 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket ID Number NHTSA-2008-0116] by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. *Instructions:* For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.* *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew DiMarsico, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-5263) (Fax: 202-366-3820). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory Background A. The Cost Savings Act In 1972, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act), among other things, to protect purchasers of motor vehicles from odometer fraud. *See* Public Law 92-513, 86 Stat. 947, 961-63 (1972). To assist purchasers to know the true mileage of a motor vehicle, Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act required the transferor of a motor vehicle to provide written disclosure to the transferee in connection with the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. *See* Public Law 92-513, § 408, 86 Stat. 947 (1972). Section 408 required the Secretary to issue rules requiring the transferor to give a written disclosure to the transferee in connection with the transfer of the vehicle. 86 Stat. 962-63. The written disclosure was to include the cumulative mileage on the odometer and, as the case may be that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is known to be different from the number of miles the vehicle actually traveled. Section 408 stated that the Secretary was to prescribe rules requiring any transferor to provide written disclosures to the transferee in connection with the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. *Id.* The disclosures were to include the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer, or disclose that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is known to the transferor to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually traveled. The rules were to prescribe the manner in which information shall be disclosed under this section and in which such information shall be retained. *Id.* Section 408 further stated that it shall be a violation for any transferor to violate any rules under this section or to knowingly give a false statement to a transferee in making any disclosure required by such rules. *Id.* *Id.* The Cost Savings Act also prohibited disconnecting, resetting, or altering motor vehicle odometers. *Id.* The statute subjected violators to civil and criminal penalties and provided for Federal injunctive relief, State enforcement, and a private right of action. 1 1 In 1976, Congress amended the odometer disclosure provisions in the Cost Savings Act to provide further protections to purchasers from unscrupulous car dealers. *See* Public Law 94-364, 90 Stat. 981 (1976). It amended section 408(b) and added new subsection 408(c) requiring that no transferor shall violate any rule prescribed under this section or give a false statement to a transferee in making any disclosure required by such rule and no transferee who, for purposes of resale, acquires ownership of a motor vehicle shall accept any written disclosure required by any rule under this section if such disclosure is incomplete. There were shortcomings in the odometer provisions of the Cost Savings Act. Among others, in some states, the odometer disclosure statement was not on the title; it was a separate document that could easily be altered or discarded and did not travel with the title. Consequently, it did not effectively provide information to purchasers about the vehicle's mileage or substantially curb odometer fraud. In some states, the title was not on tamper-proof paper. The problems were compounded by title washing thought states with ineffective controls. In addition, there were considerable misstatements of mileage on vehicles that had formerly been leased vehicles, as well as on used vehicles sold at wholesale auctions. B. The Truth in Mileage Act In 1986, Congress enacted the Truth in Mileage Act (TIMA), which added provisions to the Cost Savings Act. *See* Public Law 99-579, 100 Stat. 3309 (1986). The TIMA amendments expanded and strengthened Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act. Among other requirements, TIMA precluded the licensing of vehicles, the ownership of which was transferred, for use in any State unless the several requirements were met by the transferee and transferor. The transferee, in submitting an application for a title, is required to provide the transferor's (seller's) title, and if that title contains a space for the transferor to disclose the vehicle's mileage, that information must be included and the statement must be signed and dated by the transferor. TIMA also precluded the licensing of vehicles, the ownership of which was transferred, for use in any State unless the several titling requirements were met. Titles must be printed by a secure printing process or other secure process. They must indicate the mileage and contain space for the transferee to disclose the mileage in a subsequent transfer. As to leased vehicles, the Secretary was required to publish rules requiring the lessor of vehicles with leases to advise its lessee that the lessee is required by law to disclose the vehicle's mileage to the lessor upon the lessor's transfer of ownership. In addition, TIMA required that auction companies establish and maintain records on vehicles sold at the auction, including the name of the most recent owner of the vehicle, the name of the buyer, the vehicle identification number and the odometer reading on the date the auction took possession of the vehicle. TIMA further provided that its provisions on mileage statements for licensing of vehicles (and rules involving leased vehicles) apply in a State, unless the State has in effect alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements approved by the Secretary. 2 In particular, Section 408(f)(2) provided that the Secretary shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the Secretary determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection

(d)or

(e)of Section 408, as the case may be. 2 In particular, section 408 of the Cost Savings Act was amended by TIMA to add the following relevant part at the end of section 408. Cost Savings Act Section 408(d) (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(b)) requires the disclosure on the vehicle title. Cost Savings Act Section 408(e) (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(c)) addresses leased vehicles. Cost Savings Act subsection

(g)(now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(e)) addresses wholesale auctions. C. Amendments Following the Truth in Mileage Act and the 1994 Recodification of the Law In 1988, Congress amended section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act to permit the use of a secure power of attorney in circumstances where the title was held by a lienholder. The Secretary was required to publish a rule, consistent with the purposes of the Act and the need to facilitate enforcement thereof, providing for the mileage disclosure, the transferor to keep a copy of the power of attorney, and for the original power of attorney to be submitted to the State. *See* Public Law 100-561 § 401 (adding Section 408(d)(2)(C)), 102 Stat. 2805 (1988). In 1990, Congress amended section 408(d)(2)(C) of the Cost Savings Act, which had been adopted in 1988. The amendment addressed retention of powers of attorneys by states and provided that the rule adopted by the Secretary shall not require that a vehicle be titled in the State in which the power of attorney was issued. *See* Public Law 101-641 § 7(a), 104 Stat. 4654 (1990). 3 3 NHTSA previously reviewed this legislative history in 1991 when adopting the current regulations governing powers of attorney. *See* Odometer Disclosure Requirements, Final Rule, 56 Fed. Reg. 47681 (Sept. 20, 1991). In 1994, in the course of the 1994 recodification of various laws pertaining to the Department of Transportation, the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA, was repealed. It was reenacted and recodified without substantive change. *See* Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 745, 1048-1056, 1379, 1387 (1994). The statute is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32705 *et seq.* In particular, Section 408(a) of the Cost Savings Act was recodified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(a). Sections 408(d) and (e), which were added by TIMA (and later amended), were recodified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(b) and (c). The provisions pertaining to approval of State alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements were recodified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(d). II. Statutory Purposes As discussed above, the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA in 1986, contains a specific provision on approval of State programs. NHTSA “shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the [NHTSA] determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection

(d)or

(e)as the case may be.” (Subsections 408(d),

(e)of the Costs Savings Act were recodified to 49 U.S.C. 32705(b) and (c)). Subsection 408(f)(2) of the Costs Savings Act, recodified to 49 U.S.C. 32705(d). In light of this provision, we now turn to our interpretation of the purposes of these subsections, as germane to Virginia's petition. 4 4 Virginia's petition does not address disclosures in leases or disclosures by power of attorney. In view of the scope of Virginia's petition, Virginia will continue to be subject to current federal requirements as to leases and disclosures by power of attorney, and we do not address the purposes of the related provisions. A purpose of TIMA was to assure that the form of the odometer disclosure precluded odometer fraud. To prevent odometer fraud, which was facilitated in some States by disclosure statements that were separate from titles, under TIMA the disclosure must be contained on the title provided to the transferee and not on a separate document. Related to this, the title was required to contain space for the disclosures. The Senate Report associated with TIMA noted that Federal law had not specified the form in which the odometer reading disclosure must be made. *See* S. Rep. No. 99-47, at 3 (1985), *reprinted in* 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5620. In some States, where the disclosure statement was on a separate piece of paper from the vehicle's title, the transferor could easily alter it or provide a new statement with a different mileage. The vehicle could be titled with a lower mileage than in the transferor's disclosure in a State that does not require an odometer reading on the title. *Id.* In this regard, in some States there was no place for recording the odometer reading on the title when the vehicle was sold. *Id.* at 2. A consequence of these practices was that the new title contained no odometer reading and the purchaser/wholesaler could then disclose whatever odometer reading it chose. *Id.* Another purpose of TIMA was to prevent odometer fraud by processes and mechanisms making the disclosure of an odometer's mileage on the title a condition of the application for a title and a requirement for the title issued by the State. Prior to TIMA, odometer fraud was facilitated by the ability of transferees to apply for titles without presenting the transferor's title with the disclosure. To eliminate or significantly reduce abuses associated with this lack of controls, TIMA required that any vehicle, the ownership of which is transferred, may not be licensed unless the application for the title is accompanied by the title of such vehicle. Thus, “in the case of an application for a new motor vehicle certificate of title, if the prior owner's title certificate contains a space for the disclosure of the mileage, when the title certificate is submitted to the State * * *, it shall contain a statement, signed and dated by the prior owner, of the mileage required to be disclosed by the prior owner.” *See* S. Rep. No. 99-47, at 2-3 (1985), *reprinted in* 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5620, 5625-26. *See also* Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA, § 408(d), 49 U.S.C. 32705(b). TIMA also sought to prevent alterations of disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes. In furtherance of these purposes, in the context of paper titles, under TIMA the title must be set forth by means of a secure printing process. It could also be set forth by other secure process that might evolve in the future. As noted in the legislative history, because the title could be printed through a non-secure process, persons could alter it or launder it. *See* S. Rep. No. 99-47, at 3 (1985), *reprinted in* 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5620. The House Report noted that “‘other secure process’ is intended to describe means other than printing which could securely provide for the storage and transmittal of title and mileage information.” H.R. Rep. No. 99-833, at 33 (1986). “In adopting this language, the Committee intends to encourage new technologies which will provide increased levels of security for titles.” *Id. See also* Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA, § 408(d), 49 U.S.C. 32705(b). Another purpose was to create a record of the mileage on vehicles and a paper trail. The underlying purposes of this record and trail was to enable consumers to be better informed and provide a mechanism through which odometer tampering can be traced and violators prosecuted. The creation of a paper trail would improve the enforcement process by providing evidence of fraudulent transfers, including by consumers and the individuals engaged in such practices. More specifically, the paper trail would document transfers and create evidence showing the incidence of rollbacks. Under TIMA, as part of the paper trail, the title must include a space for the mileage of the vehicle. New applications for titles must include a mileage disclosure statement signed by the prior owner of the vehicle. There would be a permanent record on the vehicle's title at the place where the vehicle is titled, usually the State motor vehicle administration. This record could be checked by subsequent owners or law enforcement officials, who would have a critical snapshot of the vehicle's mileage at every transfer, which is the fundamental link in the paper trail for enforcement. These provisions were aimed at providing purchasers and law enforcement with the much-needed tools to combat odometer fraud. The House Report associated with TIMA focused on the lack of evidence or “paper trail” showing the incidence of rollbacks as one of the major barriers to decreasing odometer fraud. H.R. Rep. No. 99-833, at 18 (1986). The House Report noted that a purpose of Section 408(d), which required the seller to disclose the mileage on the title and titles to include the mileage disclosure and a space for recording mileage on the next transfer, is to create a permanent record or paper trail for car owners and law enforcement and other State officials to track odometer fraud. *Id.* A permanent record on the vehicle's title would be maintained at the place where it is titled. *Id.* Thus, the underlying purpose of this record and trail was to enable consumers to be better informed and provide a mechanism through which odometer tampering can be traced and violators prosecuted. *See* Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA, § 408(d), 49 U.S.C. 32705(b). Moreover, the general purpose of TIMA was to protect consumers by assuring that they received valid representations of the vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer based on odometer disclosures. The TIMA amendments were directed at resolving shortcomings in the Cost Savings Act. III. Virginia's Petition Virginia proposes to allow parties to transfer title through the Internet by electronic means and to maintain an electronic record of the title in the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (VADMV) system. The proposal permits the transferee to request a hard copy of the title, printed by a secure printed process. While it is not entirely clear from Virginia's petition, it appears that the “title” will reside as an electronic record with the VADMV, but that a hard copy of the title will be generated for the transferee, if requested. The Virginia petition states that its proposal would permit “the transferor to disclose the odometer mileage to the transferee and the transferee to view and acknowledge receipt of the transferor's disclosure in connection with the sale of a motor vehicle, as part of a secure on-line transaction with the VADMV.” Under Virginia's proposal, to complete a sale of the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle (transferor) and the purchaser of the vehicle (transferee) would be required to perform several steps after they agree upon the sale. Included in this process is the creation and use of electronic signatures. 5 5 The term “electronic signature” means an electronic sound, symbol or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record. 15 U.S.C. 7006(5) (2004). Under Virginia's petition, an electronic signature would be created during the process of transferring the title. According to VADMV, the customer number, unique personal identification number

(PIN)and date of birth

(DOB)of the customer will be used in combination to create the electronic signature for each transferor and transferee. Thus, as a threshold matter, the process for transferring title would require both the transferor and the transferee to obtain a PIN from the VADMV. 6 6 According to Virginia, the process whereby a customer obtains a PIN is currently in place, as a PIN already provides a secure and confidential Internet access to VADMV services and is required in order to conduct a number of on-line transactions. In order to obtain a PIN, a customer must provide his or her unique customer number and date of birth and certify, under penalty of perjury, that the customer number and DOB submitted in the PIN request belong to the customer requesting the PIN. Within three

(3)business days of the customer's request, the VADMV mails a randomly generated 4-digit PIN to the customer by first class mail, and the assigned PIN is encrypted on the customer's VADMV record. In order to conduct a transaction on VADMV's Internet Web site, the customer is prompted to enter the VADMV assigned PIN and the Web site will prompt the customer to personalize his/her PIN for added security. The online transaction begins when the transferor logs on to the VADMV's Web site using his/her customer number, date of birth and PIN to verify the transferor's identity. These also would be used to create the electronic signature of the transferor. The transferor would then select the “vehicle transfer of ownership” transaction and either choose the vehicle from a displayed list of eligible vehicles or enter the vehicle's VIN. The transfer would then enter the vehicle sales price, the odometer reading and brand (Actual, Not Actual or Exceeds). After entering this data, the VADMV system will provide the transferor with a unique transaction number. The transferor must provide the unique transaction number to the transferee to complete the transaction. The VADMV system will also prompt the transferor to mail the existing vehicle title to the VADMV for destruction. 7 7 According to the Virginia petition, if the transferor fails to return the existing vehicle title to the VADMV, the title is invalidated in the VADMV system and would be unable to transfer title in Virginia. The transaction would remain in “pending” status with VADMV until the transferee logs on to complete the transfer of ownership transaction. Meanwhile, the VADMV system would automatically check the odometer reading entered by the transferor against the odometer reading on the VADMV system. If the odometer reading entered by the transferor is lower, the transaction will be immediately rejected and referred to the VADMV Law Enforcement Services Division for an investigation. The transferee would then log on to VADMV's Web site, using his/her customer number, DOB and PIN (this would be the transferee's electronic signature). The transferee would select the pending vehicle transfer of ownership transaction, and he/she would enter the unique transaction number that was provided by the transferor. The transferee would be required to enter the correct transaction number in order to obtain access to the pending transaction. Once such access is obtained, the transferee would verify the sales price, odometer reading and brand that were entered by the transferor. The transaction would process if all the data entered by the transferor is verified and acknowledged as correct by the transferee. Ownership of the vehicle would transfer to the transferee and an electronic title record would be established by VADMV. The VADMV would then maintain the electronic title and would issue a paper title upon the request of the transferee. If the transferee does not agree with the information entered by the transferor, then the VADMV system will reject the transaction. The transferor will have the opportunity to correct the sales price, odometer reading and brand for the rejected transaction. The transferee would then re-verify the information to ensure the accuracy. A second discrepancy would result in cancellation of the electronic transaction. Virginia's petition asserts that its proposed alternate odometer disclosure is consistent with federal odometer law, but it did not address the purposes of TIMA. As advanced by VADMV, Virginia's alternative ensures that a fraudulent odometer disclosure can readily be detected and reliably traced to a particular individual by providing a means for the VADMV to validate and authenticate the electronic signatures of both parties. This verification is done through the generation of the customer number and unique PIN that are provided to customers of the VADMV. Virginia states that this unique electronic signature can be quickly and reliably traced to a particular individual. Second, Virginia states that the electronic odometer disclosure provided by the transferor will be available to the transferee at the time ownership of the vehicle is transferred. During the transfer-of-ownership transaction, the transferee would view the odometer reading and brand information that was supplied by the transferor, thereby ensuring that the transferee is aware of the vehicle's mileage as well as any problem with the odometer that was disclosed by the transferor. Third, VADVM asserts that its proposal provides a level of security equivalent to that of a disclosure on a secure title document. According to Virginia, the unique electronic signatures (customer number, PIN and DOB) utilized by each party to the transaction in addition to the unique transaction number generated by the VADMV ensure secure access to the on-line transaction and a reliable means of verifying the identities and electronic signatures of each individual. In addition, Virginia notes added security in its proposal because the information from the transferor and transferee must match exactly. If a discrepancy exists that is not corrected, the transaction would automatically be rejected and transfer of ownership would not take place. Virginia states that the same process would be used in dealer transactions with additional safeguards. 8 The additional safeguards will include a requirement that a dealership notify the VADMV of employees authorized to do titling activities for the dealership. This authorization will be stored by the VADMV on-line system. When the employee logs onto the VADMV on-line system, he or she will also be requested to enter the dealer number that is assigned by the VADMV and the employee's logon information. If the VADMV does not show an authorization by the dealership, the employee will not be eligible to continue with the transaction for that dealership. 8 Dealers will continue to be subject to the dealer retention requirements as set forth in 49 CFR § 580.8(a), which requires dealers and distributors to retain a copy of odometer disclosure statements that they issue and receive for five years. These requirements are not based upon the TIMA amendments that added Section 408(d) to the Cost Savings Act. Virginia refers to an April 25, 2003 letter by former NHTSA Chief Counsel, Jacqueline Glassman, stating that an electronic signature in the lessee-to-lessor context satisfies the requirement for a written disclosure under 49 CFR 580.7(b). 9 Virginia contends that the written disclosure requirements under 49 CFR 580.7(b) are no different than those under 49 CFR 580.5(c). It also maintains that the electronic record and signature aspects of its proposal comport with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign), 15 U.S.C. 7001 *et seq.* , and Virginia's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), Va. Code 46.2-629. Last, Virginia notes that it does not have regulations in effect that address odometer mileage disclosure requirements. Current state law permits the creation of electronic certificates of title, but requires a paper certificate of title for all transfers of vehicle ownership. Va. Code 46.2-603. If its proposal were approved, VADMV would seek legislation to amend Section 46.2-603 to implement the alternate odometer disclosure requirements. 9 49 CFR 580.7, *Disclosure of odometer information for leased motor vehicles,* governs lessee-to-lessor disclosures. IV. Analysis As discussed above, the standard is that NHTSA “shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the [NHTSA] determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection

(d)or

(e)as the case may be.” The purposes are discussed above, as is the Virginia program. We now provide our initial assessment whether Virginia's proposal satisfies TIMA's purposes as relevant to its petition. 10 10 This initial determination does not address odometer requirements that are not based on Section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act, as codified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(b). Virginia will continue to be subject to all federal requirements that are not based on Section 408(d). A purpose is to assure that the form of the odometer disclosure precludes odometer fraud. In this regard, NHTSA has initially determined that Virginia's proposed alternate disclosure requirements satisfy this purpose. Under Virginia's proposal, it appears that the “title” will reside as an electronic record with the VADMV, but that a hard copy of the title will be generated for the transferee, if requested. Virginia's proposed system will, therefore, continue to have the odometer disclosure on the virtual “title” itself, as required by TIMA, and not as a separate document. As to TIMA's requirement that the title contain a space for the transferor to disclose the vehicle's mileage, NHTSA does not believe the electronic transaction Virginia has outlined implicates the space requirement. NHTSA, however, assumes that if a hard copy of the title is requested, Virginia will continue to provide a separate space on the hard copy title, in keeping with TIMA and current practice. Another purpose of TIMA was to prevent odometer fraud by processes and mechanisms making the disclosure of an odometer's mileage on the title a condition of the application for a title and a requirement for the title issued by the State. In this regard, NHTSA has initially determined that Virginia's proposed process satisfies this purpose. During the proposed on-line process for retitling, the disclosure of odometer information occurs during the transfer of ownership and a title is required by Virginia's proposal to complete the transaction. During the on-line transaction, the transferor is instructed to mail the existing title to the VADMV for destruction. 11 If the transaction is successful, the VADMV will retain an electronic title, which includes a record of the transaction and the odometer disclosure information. 11 If the transferor does not return the existing title to VADMV, the existing title will be invalid once the vehicle transfers to the transferee. Another purpose of TIMA is to prevent alterations to disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles, through secure processes. NHTSA has initially determined in this matter that Virginia's alternate disclosure requirements appear to provide equivalent security against alterations, tampering or counterfeit titles to a paper title printed through a secure process, if not even more security. Electronic recordation of the odometer reading decreases the likelihood of any subsequent odometer disclosure being altered by erasures or other methods. As we understand Virginia's proposal, once the transaction is completed, VADMV stores an electronic version of the title until the transferee requests it. The transferee may never request the title, even if there is a subsequent transfer. Under this system, all subsequent transfers may be performed through the on-line process. Each time an on-line transfer occurs, the VADMV stores the electronic version of the title, and issues a paper title only upon request. If the title remains in electronic form, the likelihood of an individual altering, tampering or counterfeiting the title is decreased significantly. Moreover, the electronic recordation can detect an attempted alteration or fraudulent disclosure almost immediately. If a transferee requests a paper title, the VADMV will issue a paper title, printed through a secure process, with the requisite odometer information on the title. Another purpose of TIMA is to create a record of the mileage on vehicles and a paper trail. NHTSA has initially determined in this matter that Virginia's alternate disclosure requirements provides for a system that creates an equivalent to a “paper trail” that assists law enforcement in identifying and prosecuting odometer fraud. The paper trail starts with the establishment of the electronic signatures of the parties. The electronic signatures of the transferor and transferee are readily detectable and can be reliably traced to the particular individual due to the system's means for validating and authenticating the electronic signature of each individual. VADMV can validate and authenticate an individual electronic signature because the electronic signature consists of the individual's unique customer number, DOB and PIN. In order to obtain a unique customer number, VADMV must have an individual's address on file. In order to obtain a PIN, the individual must also certify, under penalty of perjury, that the customer number and DOB submitted in the PIN request belong to the customer requesting the PIN. The customer number and PIN are required to log on to the VADMV system. Based upon the information provided by each individual to the transaction, the VADMV can trace the PIN to the assigned individual. The ability to identify the individuals to the transaction through the electronic signature 12 maintains the purposes behind the creation of a paper trail since the VADMV will have a history of each transfer of the vehicle and can discover incidences of rollbacks. After the transaction is completed, the title is electronically recorded and stored by the VADMV. It includes the mileage of the vehicle at the transfer. These electronic records will create the electronic equivalent to a paper based system and are accessible to law enforcement officials. 12 Electronic signatures are generally valid under applicable law. Congress recognized the growing importance of electronic signatures in interstate commerce when it enacted the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign). *See* Public Law 106-229, 114 Stat. 464 (2000). E-Sign established a general rule of validity for electronic records and electronic signatures. 15 U.S.C. 7001. It also encourages the use of electronic signatures in commerce, both in private transactions and transactions involving the Federal government. 15 U.S.C. 7031(a). Moreover, the overall purpose of TIMA is to protect consumers by assuring that they received valid representations of the vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer based on odometer disclosures. Here, Virginia's alternate disclosure requirements include several prerequisites that make it unlikely that the representations of a vehicle's actual mileage by the transferor to the transferee would be of lesser validity than representations made through a vehicle transfer by paper title and potentially deter odometer fraud better than a paper title. These prerequisites include the verification of the individuals to the transfer transaction through the issuance of a PIN number from VADMV. Virginia's alternate disclosure requirements also include procedures to assure that a transferee verifies the odometer disclosure made by the transferor. In addition, the verification of the odometer reading provides indication of potential fraud to the transferee should the transferor attempt to enter a different mileage into the system than the mileage the transferee observed on the vehicle when the agreement to purchase was made. 13 13 Further protection is provided by the VADMV system itself. The system automatically cross references the odometer reading entered by the transferor against the odometer reading on the VADMV system. If the odometer reading entered by the transferor is lower than the mileage recorded in the VADMV system, the VADMV system will immediately reject the transaction and refer the individual to the VADMV Law Enforcement Services Division for investigation. V. NHTSA'S Initial Determination For the foregoing reasons, NHTSA preliminarily grants Virginia's proposed alternate disclosure requirements. This is not a final agency action. NHTSA invites public comments within the scope of this notice. Should NHTSA decide to issue a final grant of this petition, it will likely reserve the right to rescind that grant in the event that information acquired after that grant were to indicate that, in operation, Virginia's alternate requirements do not satisfy applicable standards. Request for Comments How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments? Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long ( *see* 49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given under ADDRESSES . You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System Webbsite at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Click on “Help & Information,” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically. How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received? If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512). Will the Agency Consider Late Comments? We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we also will consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in developing the final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People? You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given under ADDRESSES . The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location. You also may see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to * http:// www.regulations.gov * , and follow the instructions for accessing the Docket. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. Issued on: June 11, 2008. Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Safety, Standards and Harmonization. [FR Doc. E8-13592 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 229 [Docket No. 070717352-8511-0] RIN 0648-AV65 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability of draft take reduction plan; request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)announces the initial determination that the pelagic longline fishery has a high level of mortality and serious injury across a number of marine mammal stocks, and proposes regulations to implement the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan (PLTRP) to reduce serious injuries and mortalities of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The PLTRP is based on consensus recommendations submitted by the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Team (PLTRT). This action is necessary because current serious injury and mortality rates of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins incidental to the Atlantic pelagic longline component of a Category I fishery are above insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate (zero mortality rate goal, or ZMRG), and therefore, inconsistent with the long-term goal of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The PLTRP is intended to meet the statutory mandates and requirements of the MMPA through both regulatory and non-regulatory measures, including a special research area, gear modifications, outreach material, observer coverage, and captains' communications. DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern time on September 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)0648-AV65, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Facsimile (fax): 727 824-5309, Attn: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources. • Mail: Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. This proposed rule, references, and background documents for the PLTRP can be downloaded from the Take Reduction web site at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/teams.htm#pl-trt.htm* and the NMFS Southeast Regional Office website at *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pr.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Engleby or Jennifer Lee, NMFS, Southeast Region, 727-824-5312, or Kristy Long, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322. Individuals who use telecommunications devices for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bycatch Reduction Requirements in the MMPA Section 118(f)(1) of the MMPA requires NMFS to develop and implement take reduction plans to assist in the recovery or prevent the depletion of each strategic marine mammal stock that interacts with Category I and II fisheries. It also provides NMFS discretion to develop and implement a take reduction plan for any other marine mammal stocks that interact with a Category I fishery, which the agency determines, after notice and opportunity for public comment, has a high level of mortality and serious injury across a number of such marine mammal stocks. The MMPA defines a strategic stock as a marine mammal stock:

(1)for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal

(PBR)level;

(2)which is declining and is likely to be listed under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)in the foreseeable future; or

(3)which is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or as a depleted species under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(2)). PBR is the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that can be removed annually from a stock, while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population level. Category I or II fisheries are fisheries that, respectively, have frequent or occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. The immediate goal of a take reduction plan for a strategic stock is to reduce, within six months of its implementation, the incidental serious injury or mortality of marine mammals from commercial fishing to levels less than PBR. The long-term goal is to reduce, within five years of its implementation, the incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals from commercial fishing operations to insignificant levels approaching a zero serious injury and mortality rate, taking into account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing state or regional fishery management plans. The insignificance threshold, or upper limit of annual incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammal stocks by commercial fisheries that can be considered insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate, has been defined at 50 CFR 229.2 as 10 percent of the PBR for a stock of marine mammals. Impetus and Scope of the Plan The impetus for this plan was a 2003 settlement agreement between NMFS and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), that required the convening of a Take Reduction Team (the PLTRT) under the MMPA by June 30, 2005, to address serious injury and mortality of short- and long-finned pilot whales and common dolphins in the Atlantic portion of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Large Pelagics Longline Fishery, then, and currently, listed as a Category I fishery. At the time of the settlement agreement, the western North Atlantic stocks of these three species were identified as strategic stocks. Based on updated information, the 2005 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments report

(SAR)reclassified long- and short-finned pilot whales as non-strategic. The SAR indicated that serious injuries and mortalities in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery were primarily limited to the Mid-Atlantic Bight

(MAB)(Waring *et al.* , 2006). Although the 2006 SAR lists the status of long- and short-finned pilot whales as unknown, the draft 2007 SAR again reports that the estimated average annual human-related mortality and serious injury for the last five years does not exceed PBR and the stocks are not strategic (Waring *et al.* , 2007a; Waring *et al.* , 2007b). The 2005 SAR also reported that within the previous five years, there were no observed serious injuries or mortalities of common dolphins in the pelagic longline fishery; therefore, this stock was reclassified as non-strategic in the 2005 SAR, based on estimates of serious injuries and mortalities in both the pelagic longline fishery as well as other observed fisheries. Risso's dolphins, although not included in the settlement agreement, also sustain serious injuries and mortalities incidental to the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. For Risso's dolphins and long-finned and short-finned pilot whales, estimated serious injury and mortality levels in the pelagic longline fishery exceed the insignificance threshold but do not exceed the PBR level for the stocks. Because these species are below PBR and considered non-strategic stocks but interact with a Category I fishery, NMFS directed the PLTRT to develop and submit a draft Take Reduction Plan to the agency within 11 months, in accordance with the long-term goal of MMPA section 118, focusing on reducing incidental mortalities and serious injuries of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins to a level approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate within five years of implementation of the plan. History of the PLTRT In accordance with the MMPA and the settlement agreement, NMFS convened the PLTRT in June 2005. NMFS announced the establishment of the PLTRT on June 22, 2005, in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 36120). NMFS selected team members according to guidance provided in MMPA section 118(f)(6)(C). NMFS strove to select an experienced and committed team with a balanced representation of stakeholders. Members of the PLTRT included fishermen and representatives of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishing industry, environmental groups, marine mammal biologists, fisheries biologists, and representatives of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Marine Mammal Commission, and NMFS. Four professionally facilitated meetings and two full-team conference calls were held between June 2005 and May 2006. During these meetings, NMFS presented abundance estimates, serious injury and mortality estimates of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins, characterization and regulatory structure of the pelagic longline fishery, and analyses of observer, logbook, and other fisheries data to the PLTRT. In addition, NMFS developed a predictive model that analyzed a number of variables (e.g., environmental factors, gear types, etc.) to determine which variables may be useful in predicting and/or minimizing interactions between marine mammals and longline gear as well as possible impacts on target species catch and bycatch of other protected species (e.g., sea turtles). Each meeting included facilitated discussions to draft and revise various components of the PLTRP, with an emphasis on management and research recommendations. The PLTRT reached consensus at the May 2006 meeting, and on June 8, 2006, submitted to NMFS a Draft PLTRP including recommendations for bycatch reduction measures, as well as research needs and other non-regulatory measures (PLTRT, 2006). Distribution, Stock Structure, and Abundance of Pilot Whales In the MAB, the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery interacts with two species of pilot whales that occur in that area. Long-finned pilot whales are distributed worldwide in cold temperate waters in both the Northern (North Atlantic) and Southern Hemispheres. In the North Atlantic, the species is broadly distributed and thought to occur from 40° to 75° N. lat. in the eastern North Atlantic and from 35° to 65° N. lat. in the western North Atlantic (Abend and Smith, 1999). Short-finned pilot whales are also distributed worldwide in warm temperate and tropical waters. In U.S. Atlantic waters, this species is found in the Gulf of Mexico

(GOM)and in the western North Atlantic as far north as the central MAB. Both species tend to favor the continental shelf break and slope, as well as other areas of high relief, but are also present offshore in the pelagic environment. In the western North Atlantic, they may be associated with the north wall of the Gulf Stream and with thermal fronts (Waring *et al.* , 1992). The two species are difficult to distinguish during visual abundance surveys, and therefore, in many cases, reference is made to the combined species, *Globicephala spp* . Due to this difficulty in species identification, the species' boundaries for short-finned and long-finned pilot whales in the western North Atlantic have not been clearly defined. However, their distributions are thought to overlap along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast between 35° and 39° N. lat. (Payne and Heinemann, 1993; Bernard and Reilly, 1999). The greatest area of overlap in distribution of the two species seems confined to an area along the shelf edge between 38° and 40° N. lat. in the MAB, where long-finned pilot whales are present in winter and summer and short-finned pilot whales are present at least in summer (Waring *et al.* , 2007a). Stock structure is not well known for long-finned or short-finned pilot whales in the North Atlantic. Indirect and direct studies on long-finned pilot whales indicate that there is some degree of stock differentiation within the North Atlantic (Mercer, 1975; Bloch and Lastein, 1993; Abend and Smith, 1995; Abend and Smith, 1999; Fullard *et al.* , 2000). For short-finned pilot whales, there is no available information on whether the North Atlantic stock is subdivided into smaller stocks. The total number of pilot whales off the eastern U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast is unknown, although estimates from particular regions of their habitat (e.g., continental slope) exist for select time periods (see Waring *et al.* , 2006 for a complete summary). Observers at sea cannot reliably distinguish long- and short-finned pilot whales visually. As a result, sightings of pilot whales are not identified to species and resulting survey estimates are considered joint estimates for both species. The best available estimate for *Globicephala spp.* in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)is the sum of the estimates from the summer 2004 U.S. Atlantic surveys, 31,139 (Coefficient of Variation, or CV=0.27), where the estimate from the northern U.S. Atlantic is 15,728 (CV=0.34), and from the southern U.S. Atlantic is 15,411 (CV=0.43) (Waring *et al.* , 2006). This joint estimate is the most recent available, and these surveys include the most complete coverage of the species' habitats (although the PLTRT recognized that this estimate was limited to the U.S. EEZ). For *Globicephala spp.* , the minimum population estimate, which accounts for uncertainty in the best estimate (Wade and Angliss, 1997), is 24,866. Distribution, Stock Structure, and Abundance of Risso's Dolphins Risso's dolphins occur worldwide in warm temperate and tropical waters roughly between 60° N. and 60° S. lat., and records of the species in the western North Atlantic range from Greenland south, including the Gulf of Mexico (Kruse *et al.* , 1999). In the U.S. Atlantic EEZ, the species is most commonly seen in the MAB shelf edge year round and is rarely seen in the Gulf of Maine (Waring *et al.* , 2004). Risso's dolphins are pelagic, preferring waters along the continental shelf edge and deeper, as well as areas of submerged relief such as seamounts and canyons (Kruse *et al.* , 1999). There is no information available on population structure for this species. Abundance estimates for Risso's dolphins off the U.S. or Canadian Atlantic coast are unknown, although eight estimates from particular regions of their habitat exist for select time periods (Waring *et al.* , 2006). Sightings of Risso's dolphins are almost exclusively in the continental shelf edge and continental slope areas. The best available abundance estimate for Risso's dolphins in the U.S. EEZ is the sum of the estimates from the summer 2004 U.S. Atlantic surveys, 20,479 (CV=0.59), where the estimate from the northern U.S. Atlantic is 15,053 (CV=0.78), and from the southern U.S. Atlantic is 5,426 (CV=0.540) (Waring *et al.* , 2006). This joint estimate is the most recent available, and the surveys have the most complete coverage of the species' habitat (although the PLTRT recognized that this estimate was limited to the U.S. EEZ). The minimum population estimate for the western North Atlantic Risso's dolphin, which accounts for uncertainty in the best estimate (Wade and Angliss, 1997), is 12,920. Potential Biological Removal and Serious Injury and Mortality Estimates PBR is defined as the product of minimum population size (in this case, of the portion of the stock surveyed within the U.S. EEZ), one-half the maximum productivity rate, and a recovery factor (MMPA Sec. 3(20), 16 U.S.C. 1362). The maximum productivity rate for both pilot whales and Risso's dolphin is 0.04, the default value for cetaceans (Barlow *et al.* , 1995). The recovery factor, which provides greater protection for endangered, depleted, or threatened stocks, or stocks of unknown status relative to optimum sustainable population (OSP), is 0.48 for both species because the CV of the average mortality estimate is between 0.3 and 0.6 (Wade and Angliss, 1997), and because both stocks are of unknown status. The PBR for both species of western North Atlantic pilot whales combined (i.e., *Globicephala spp.* ) is 249, and the PBR for the western North Atlantic stock of Risso's dolphin is 129 (Waring *et al.* , 2007b). The 2007 draft SAR reported an average combined annual serious injury and mortality incidental to pelagic longline fishing of 86 pilot whales (CV=0.16) and 34 Risso's dolphins (CV=0.32), based on the years 2001-2005 (Waring *et al.* , 2007b). However, more recent estimates (Fairfield-Walsh and Garrison, 2007; Garrison, 2007) bring the 5-year average combined serious injury and mortality for pilot whales to 109 animals (CV=0.194, years 2002-2006) and for Risso's dolphins to 20 animals (CV=0.381, years 2002-2006). Based on this information, serious injury and mortality of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is below PBR, but exceed the insignificance threshold. NMFS believes there is a high level of serious injury and mortality in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery across a number of marine mammal stocks, warranting the development and implementation of a take reduction plan for both pilot whale and Risso's dolphin stocks. Components of the Proposed PLTRP The proposed PLTRP takes a stepwise, adaptive management approach to achieve the long-term goal of reducing serious injuries and mortality of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate within five years of implementation. A series of management measures are designed to make an initial significant contribution to reducing serious injury and mortality. The proposed PLTRP also includes research recommendations for better understanding how pilot whales and Risso's dolphins interact with longline gear, as well as assessing current and potential new management measures. The PLTRT agreed to evaluate the success of the final PLTRP at periodic intervals over the next five years and to consider amending the PLTRP based on the results of ongoing monitoring, research, and evaluation. The proposed PLTRP reflects the results of a predictive model, which analyzed a number of variables (e.g., environmental factors, gear characteristics, etc.) to determine which variables may be useful in predicting and/or minimizing interactions between marine mammals and longline gear, and possible impacts on target species catch and bycatch of other protected species (e.g., sea turtles). A total of 39 variables were developed and considered as potential explanatory factors in the predictive model. These variables are classified into five major categories: environment, space and time, gear type, effort, and catch. These analyses employed Pelagic Observer Program

(POP)data collected from 1992 to 2004 and modeled the effects of gear and environmental factors on the probability of interacting with pilot whales or Risso's dolphins. The predictive model proved to be an invaluable tool for the PLTRT to develop management strategies, since multiple variables could be tested and evaluated. For pilot whales, variables found to have significant correlations included fishing area (81 percent of interactions occur along the MAB), distance from the 200 m (109 fathoms) isobath (all interactions were observed within 40 km (21.6 nautical miles, nm) of the 200 m (109 fathoms) isobath), water temperature (peak interactions occur between 70-80° F (21-27° C)), mainline length (interactions were twice as high in sets with mainline lengths greater than 20 nm (37.02 km)) and swordfish damage (interaction rates were three times higher in sets with damage to swordfish catch). Further analysis of the mainline length effect indicated that fishing with mainlines less than 20 nm (37.02 km) in length resulted in an approximately 50 percent reduction in the probability of interacting with a pilot whale relative to longer mainline lengths. For Risso's dolphins, similar results were found, although correlations were not as strong. Interactions with Risso's dolphins were also significantly correlated with the Northeast Coastal area and with sets that used squid as bait. After considering the results of the predictive model, the PLTRT recommended a suite of management strategies to reduce mortality and serious injury of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. This proposed rule addresses both the regulatory and non-regulatory measures recommended by the PLTRT. NMFS proposes to incorporate nearly all of the PLTRT's consensus recommendations in the Draft PLTRP into the proposed PLTRP, with only minor modifications. Changes from the PLTRT's consensus recommendations are noted, along with the rationale for any proposed change. One consensus recommendation will not be implemented through this proposed rule, but will be implemented under different authority. Specifically, the PLTRT recommended NMFS develop and implement a mandatory certification program to educate owners and operators of pelagic longline vessels about ways to reduce serious injury and mortality of marine mammal bycatch. On August 19, 2005, NMFS published a proposed rule to consolidate the management of all Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

(HMS)under one Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)(70 FR 48804). The proposed rule included a certification program to educate vessel owners and operators on using required equipment to handle and release sea turtles and other protected species (with recertification every three years). The PLTRT recommended that the certification program proposed in the August 2005 Draft Consolidated HMS FMP and associated proposed rule (70 FR 48804) be expanded to incorporate information regarding marine mammal interactions, including: • Safe handling and release techniques for marine mammals; • Current regulations and guidelines that apply to the fishery, especially those related to marine mammal bycatch, and an explanation of the purpose and justification of those regulations and guidelines; • Information from logbooks and auxiliary forms associated with particular research projects; • Guidelines for captain's communications; • Updates on NMFS' observer program, including relevant recent findings; • Description of research and monitoring projects aimed at reducing marine mammal bycatch, including an explanation of the purpose of this research and a description of key research results to date; and • Information on marine mammal species identification. NMFS is proposing to implement the PLTRT's recommendation using NMFS' existing regulatory authority at 50 CFR 635.8, Workshops. On October 2, 2006, NMFS published the Consolidated HMS FMP and the associated final rule (71 FR 58058), which requires all HMS longline fishermen to attend a NMFS workshop and earn certification in mitigation, handling, and release techniques for sea turtles, sea birds, and other protected species. This rule provides NMFS with the authority necessary to implement the PLTRT's recommendation without additional regulation. Since 2007, NFMS has incorporated education on careful handling and release techniques for marine mammals, current regulations and guidelines that apply to the fishery related to marine mammal bycatch, and an explanation of the purpose and justification of those regulations and guidelines into these workshops. NMFS proposes to expand the content of the workshops as appropriate to meet the needs of the PLTRP. The PLTRT also discussed other mitigation and conservation measures that they did not include in their consensus recommendations because they were either economically or technologically infeasible or did not meet the goals of the MMPA. Information on these can be reviewed in the Draft PLTRP (PLTRT, 2006). Proposed Regulatory Measures NMFS proposes the following three regulatory measures:

(1)Establish a Cape Hatteras Special Research Area (CHSRA), with specific observer and research participation requirements for fishermen operating in that area;

(2)set a 20-nm (37.02-km) upper limit on mainline length for all pelagic longline sets within the MAB; and

(3)develop and publish an informational placard that must be displayed in the wheelhouse and the working deck of all active pelagic longline vessels in the Atlantic fishery. Cape Hatteras Special Research Area The PLTRT recommended NMFS designate a special research area offshore of Cape Hatteras (hereafter referred to as the CHSRA) with specific observer and research participation requirements for fishermen operating in that area. The proposed CHSRA includes all waters inside and including the rectangular boundary described by the following lines: 35° N. lat., 75° W. long., 36° 25′ N. lat., and 74° 35′ W. long. In order to use pelagic longline gear within this area, the PLTRT recommended NMFS implement through regulations the following requirements:

(1)The owner and operator of the vessel must accept, facilitate, and be capable of taking scientific observers;

(2)the owner and operator of the vessel must be both willing and able to participate in government-sponsored research targeting marine mammal bycatch reduction; pilot whale behavior, biology, ecology; or other related topics; and

(3)the operator of the vessel must maintain daily communications with other local vessel operators regarding marine mammal interactions with the goal of identifying and exchanging information relevant to avoiding bycatch of marine mammals and other protected species. The proposed CHSRA encompasses a 5,927 sq km (2,288 sq mile) region that over the past five years has exhibited both high fishing effort and high pilot whale bycatch rates. NMFS delineated the area to encompass the vast majority of the observed interactions and to exclude the area where inshore longline vessels target yellowfin tuna and coastal sharks, since the inshore area had low observed interaction rates. Vessels in the proposed CHSRA would be required to carry observers when requested. In the proposed regulations, vessels deploying or fishing with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or transiting through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard must call the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) at least 48 hours prior to embarking on the trip. This requirement would be in addition to any existing selection and notification requirement for observer coverage by the POP. If a vessel is assigned an observer, the vessel must take the observer during that trip; if the vessel refuses to take the observer, the vessel is prohibited from deploying or fishing with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or transiting through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard. NMFS also proposes that no waivers be granted to vessels fishing in the CHSRA that do not meet observer safety requirements. The collection of observer data representing all vessels in an area is critical not only for obtaining accurate (i.e., unbiased) estimates of bycatch, but also for collecting information about factors that may be important for mitigating bycatch (NMFS 2004). For this reason, NMFS believes full compliance with observer requirements in the CHSRA is essential. As noted earlier, vessels that fish primarily in the MAB have higher observed marine mammal take rates than those in other areas. However, 58 percent of pelagic longline vessels reporting effort in the MAB between 2001 and 2005 have never been observed in the MAB. This is because certain vessels are routinely exempted from observer coverage because they do not meet the observer safety or accommodations requirements, which may bias observer data (i.e., data would not be representative of actual fishing effort). In order forNMFSto accurately monitor levels of serious injury and mortality of marine mammals incidental to the pelagic longline fishery, and thereby, monitor the effectiveness of the final PLTRP, data collected by observers must be representative of both fishing effort and bycatch. By not allowing exemptions for observer coverage within the CHSRA, NMFS will be able to improve observer data and bycatch estimates within the CHSRA. In addition to the proposed requirement for carrying observers, NMFS proposes requirements for vessels in the CHSRA to participate in research. The establishment of the CHSRA and the research participation requirement form an essential component of the proposed PLTRP, enabling focused research on pilot whale interactions with the pelagic longline fishery, thus contributing to achieving the objectives of the PLTRP. Obtaining better data for characterizing fishery interactions is a high priority. The PLTRT was limited in its ability to develop management strategies to reduce the frequency of interactions between pilot whales and longline fishing gear due to a lack of information regarding the nature, timing, and causes of these interactions. The proposed CHSRA would enableNMFSto assess current and potential new management measures and would be fundamental in formulating effective bycatch reduction strategies. To implement the research participation requirement, NMFS proposes that in addition to observing normal fishing activities, observers also conduct additional scientific investigations aboard pelagic longline vessels in the CHSRA, as authorized by MMPA section 118(d)(2)(C). These investigations would be designed to support the goals of the PLTRP. The observers will inform vessel operators of the specific additional investigations that may be conducted during the trip. An observer may direct vessel operators to modify their fishing behavior, gear, or both. Instead of or in addition to carrying an observer, vessels may be required to carry and deploy gear provided by NMFS or an observer or modify their fishing practices. By calling the NMFS SEFSC, per the observer requirement described above, vessels would be agreeing to take an observer and acknowledging they are both willing and able to participate in research in the CHSRA without any compensation. If vessels are assigned any special research requirements, they must participate in the research for the duration of the assignment. If they do not participate in the research, they are prohibited from deploying or fishing with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or transiting through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard. Although NMFS strongly supports the PLTRT's goal of identifying and exchanging information among vessel operators relevant to avoiding bycatch of marine mammals and other protected species, NMFS is not proposing regulations to require the operator of the vessel to maintain daily communications with other local vessel operators regarding marine mammal interactions within the CHSRA. Implementation of this recommendation via regulation would require NMFS to conduct extensive surveillance for monitoring and enforcement. Even then, NMFS would rarely have information on an individual vessel's fishing conditions, catch, and bycatch. Thus, enforcement of such a regulatory requirement would be impractical. Available information from three case studies of voluntary captains' communication programs supports the inference that voluntary communication programs have substantially reduced fisheries bycatch and provided large economic benefits that outweigh the relatively nominal operating costs (Martin *et al.* , 2005). For this communication strategy to be effective, the exchange of information must be timely, the entire fleet in a region must cooperate, and it must result in an action being taken to either avoid or reduce bycatch (e.g., captains need to describe the nature of their protected species interactions, discuss the results of any mitigation or safe handling/release measures used, and share best practices). Atlantic pelagic longline fishermen are already motivated to avoid interactions with marine mammals, as these interactions can result in significant economic loss due to loss of both target catch and gear from depredation and entanglements, respectively. Marine mammal interactions also represent a safety risk to vessel operators and crew, as pilot whales caught in gear can be very dangerous due to their size and strength. For these reasons, NMFS believes outreach would be more effective in this fishery. Therefore, NMFS will work instead with CHSRA researchers and fishermen to encourage captains' communications in the CHSRA through voluntary cooperation and as part of ongoing research. Mainlength Line NMFS proposes, in accordance with the PLTRT recommendation, to set a 20-nm (37.02-km) upper limit on mainline length for all pelagic longline sets within the MAB, including the CHSRA. Operators of individual fishing vessels would be allowed to fish multiple sets at one time, if they so desired, but the mainline length for each set could not exceed 20 nm (37.02 km). The predictive model developed for pilot whales was used to explore the potential effects of a mandated reduction in mainline length to less than or equal to 20 nm (37.02 km). Of the potential changes to fishing gear discussed by the PLTRT, this management measure was the only one to have a significant effect on pilot whale interactions. The predictive model estimates a reduction in pilot whale interactions of approximately 26 percent when longlines in the MAB are limited to less than 20 nm (37.02 km) in length. This reduction assumes that fishermen will sometimes fish additional sets to compensate for hooks lost by limiting mainline length to 20 nm (37.02 km). The PLTRT considered a 50 percent compensation in fishing effort for lost hooks a reasonable scenario. At NMFS' discretion, per the PLTRT's recommendation, NMFS may waive this restriction in the CHSRA in specific cases to support research for reducing bycatch of marine mammals in the pelagic longline fishery. In cases where NMFS intends to waive this restriction, NMFS will consult with the PLTRT and publish a notice of the decision in the **Federal Register** . Careful Handling and Release Guidelines Posting Requirement The PLTRT recommended NMFS develop and publish an informational placard that must be displayed in the wheelhouse and on the working deck of all active pelagic longline vessels in the Atlantic fishery. The placard would be based on the existing marine mammal careful handling and release guidelines for pelagic longline gear. The PLTRT specified the placard should draw on information presented in a mandatory certification program and reference filling out a Marine Mammal Injury and Mortality Reporting Form for every marine mammal interaction as required by MMPA section 118(e) and 50 CFR 229.6. NMFS proposes to implement this PLTRT recommendation. NMFS believes this proposed action would facilitate the careful handling and release of any pilot whale, Risso's dolphin, or other small cetacean caught incidentally during pelagic longline fishing. The posting requirement would ensure NMFS' guidelines are readily available for reference during a capture or entanglement event. Proposed Non-regulatory Measures The PLTRT recommended implementing the following non-regulatory measures:

(1)Provide for 12 to 15 percent observer coverage throughout all Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries that interact with pilot whales or Risso's dolphins;

(2)encourage vessel operators (i.e., captains) throughout the fishery to maintain daily communications with other local vessel captains regarding protected species interactions, with the goal of identifying and exchanging information relevant to avoiding protected species bycatch;

(3)update careful handling/release guidelines, equipment, and methods; and

(4)provide quarterly reports of marine mammal interactions in the pelagic longline fishery to the PLTRT. Increased Observer Coverage The PLTRT recommended NMFS increase observer coverage to 12 to 15 percent throughout all Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries that interact with pilot whales and Risso's dolphins to ensure representative sampling of fishing effort. They specified sampling should be designed to achieve statistical reliability of marine mammal bycatch estimates and should also take into account the objectives of marine mammal bycatch reduction. If resources are not available to provide such observer coverage for all fisheries, regions, and seasons, the PLTRT recommended NMFS allocate observer coverage to fisheries, regions, and seasons with the highest observed or reported bycatch rates of pilot whales. The PLTRT recommended additional coverage be achieved by either increasing the number of NMFS observers who have been specially trained to collect additional information supporting marine mammal research, or by allowing designated and specially-trained “marine mammal observers” (deployed by either NMFS or cooperating researchers) who would supplement the traditional observer coverage. NMFS proposes to implement this recommendation within the constraints of available funding. A simulation analysis evaluating the effects of increased observer coverage on the precision of bycatch estimates indicated:

(1)12 to 15 percent observer coverage would result in the most significant gains in precision,

(2)setting a higher target in this range would “guard” against unforeseen problems placing observers on vessels, and

(3)further increases in coverage would yield relatively little additional precision despite significantly higher costs. Pilot whales are primarily observed to interact with the longline fishery in the MAB and Northeast Coastal areas; Risso's dolphins interact with the fishery in these areas as well as the Northeast Distant area. Based on these observations, NMFS proposes to, within the constraints of available funding, increase observer coverage to 12 to 15 percent, in order of priority, in the

(1)CHSRA,

(2)MAB, and

(3)other areas, such as Northeast Coastal. While this measure is geared towards improving the precision of serious injury and mortality estimates, additional coverage would also better characterize fishing operations and marine mammal behavior, facilitate collection of data needed for research, and increase opportunities to collect biopsy samples from hooked or entangled marine mammals. Captains' Communications The PLTRT recommended NMFS encourage vessel operators (i.e., captains) to maintain daily communication with other local vessel operators regarding protected species interactions throughout the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery with the goal of identifying and exchanging information relevant to avoiding protected species bycatch. Captains' communication were considered as both a strategy for avoiding marine mammals' exposure to vessels and gear and as a strategy for reducing the probability of an interaction once marine mammals are in the vicinity of the gear. NMFS is proposing to implement this non-regulatory recommendation. The basis for NMFS' support of a voluntary captains' communications program is provided in the discussion of the CHSRA. Careful Handling and Release Guidelines The PLTRT recommended NMFS update the guidelines for careful handling and release of entangled or hooked marine mammals. They recommended NMFS' guidelines include descriptions of appropriate equipment and methods. They also encouraged both NMFS and the pelagic longline industry to develop new technologies, equipment, and methods for safer and more effective handling and release of entangled or hooked marine mammals. They recommended developments be evaluated carefully and incorporated into revised guidelines for careful handling and release of marine mammals when appropriate. In the winter of 2006, in preparation for the workshops for HMS fishermen, NMFS worked with the PLTRT and other NMFS staff in updating a preexisting placard to reflect the best available information on careful handling and release of marine mammals. This version of the placard has been distributed at the training workshops in 2007 and 2008. NMFS proposes to periodically update the guidelines per the PLTRT's recommendation, based on any new technologies, equipment, and methods for safer and more effective handling and release of entangled or hooked marine mammals. Additional Research and Data Collection The PLTRT also recommended short-, medium-, and long-duration research and data collection goals designed to enhance the success of the PLTRP. While the predictive model provided tremendous guidance to the PLTRT, there is a significant lack of information concerning how pilot whales and Risso's dolphins interact with the pelagic longline fishery. Thus, many of the research recommendations are general in scope and applicable to both pilot whales and Risso's dolphins unless specified otherwise. The complete list of these recommendations can be found in Section IX of the Draft PLTRP (PLTRT, 2006). The PLTRT recommended that priority be given to:

(1)research on species that are closest to or exceed PBR levels;

(2)research to evaluate the effects of implemented management measures, and

(3)research on species specific abundance, mortality, and post-hooking survivorship. The PLTRT also recommended that, as funds become available for pelagic longline take reduction-related research, a subgroup of the PLTRT be convened to advise on selection of research projects based on priorities and the amount of funds available. NMFS proposes to pursue the additional research and data collection goals outlined by the PLTRT, within the constraints of available funding. Further, NMFS proposes to consider the PLTRT's recommendations for additional research and data collection when establishing NMFS' funding priorities. NMFS would follow the recommendations to the extent that good scientific practice and resources allow. As feasible and appropriate, NMFS would consult with PLTRT members during this process. Adaptive Management and Monitoring The proposed PLTRP takes a stepwise, adaptive management approach to achieving the long-term goal of reducing, within five years of its implementation, serious injuries and mortalities of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate. A series of monitoring and evaluation steps are built into the five-year implementation phase of the proposed PLTRP. Under the proposed PLTRP, the PLTRT will periodically:

(1)analyze the status of scientific information on pilot whales and Risso's dolphins,

(2)evaluate the effectiveness of the PLTRP, and

(3)adjust the PLTRP's management measures and research program, as appropriate, to ensure that the goal of the PLTRP will be met within 5 years of its implementation. Per the PLTRT's request, NMFS will provide any updates available on the following types of information to inform these periodic assessments:

(1)Status of PLTRP implementation,

(2)SARs;

(3)habitat analyses;

(4)data collection and research findings;

(5)voluntary efforts carried out by the pelagic longline industry;

(6)status of observer coverage; and

(7)predictive model results for pilot whales and Risso's dolphins, based on updated data. The timing of these assessments would be tied to both the availability of data and the time needed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of management measures or the results of the research program. As requested by the PLTRT, NMFS will provide them with quarterly reports of bycatch of marine mammals in the pelagic longline fishery. The quarterly reports will help determine when it will be timely and useful for the PLTRT to reconvene. In conjunction with the receipt of quarterly bycatch reports, the PLTRT agreed to assess the merits of convening future PLTRT meetings, either in-person or by teleconference. Public Comments Solicited NMFS is soliciting comments on any aspect of this proposed rule, including the development and implementation of the PLTRP pursuant to MMPA section 118(f)(1) and the specific regulatory and non-regulatory measures proposed. NMFS is particularly interested in comments concerning

(1)NMFS' view that the level of bycatch signifies a high level of bycatch in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery across a number of marine mammal stocks, warranting the development and implementation of a take reduction plan for pilot whale and Risso's dolphin stocks,

(2)NMFS' decision to implement the PLTRT's recommendation for a mandatory certification program using NMFS'existing authority at 50 CFR 635.8, Workshops,

(3)the research recommendations and priorities for better understanding how pilot whales and Risso's dolphins interact with longline gear, as well as for assessing current and potential management measures,

(4)the CHSRA requirements,

(5)expected fishing effort compensation under the proposed mainline length restriction, and

(6)information on careful handling and release of marine mammals. Classification NMFS determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management programs of North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. This determination has been submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866. NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), pursuant to section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and its legal basis are included in the preamble of this proposed rule. A summary of the analysis follows. For a copy of this analysis, see the ADDRESSES section. NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they either had average annual receipts less than $4.0 million for fish-harvesting, average annual receipts less than $6.5 million for charter/party boats, 100 or fewer employees for wholesale dealers, or 500 or fewer employees for seafood processors. These are the Small Business Administration

(SBA)size standards for defining a small versus large business entity in this industry. An “active” pelagic longline vessel is considered to be a vessel that reported pelagic longline activity in the HMS logbook. The number of active HMS pelagic longline vessels has been precipitously decreasing since 1994. In the MAB, only 85 unique pelagic longline vessels reported effort between 2001 and 2006. The number of vessels fishing in the MAB has declined in recent years, and between 2003 and 2006, the number of vessels reporting effort in the MAB ranged between 38 and 41. The alternatives considered and analyzed include four options. Alternative 1 (the no action alternative) would maintain the status quo management for the pelagic longline fishery under the HMS FMP. Alternative 2 would implement only the non-regulatory components recommended in the Draft PLTRP, while allowing time for collecting additional scientific data prior to implementing regulatory measures. Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, would limit the mainline length to 20 nm or less within the MAB, designate the CHSRA with associated observer and research participation requirements, and require all pelagic longline vessels to post an informational placard on careful handling and release of marine mammals. Alternative 4 would include a six-month closure (July-December) of the southern MAB sub-regional area and a year-round mainline length reduction throughout the MAB, inclusive of that sub-regional area. Under the status quo alternative, it is estimated that the Atlantic pelagic longline fleet generates an estimated $24.6 million in revenues. Applying average species weights reported to dealers in 2004 and the average 2006 ex-vessel prices reported by dealers in the MAB region, NMFS estimated the potential change in fishery revenues from the mainline length restriction, depending on the level of compensation in fishing effort, to range from an increase of $777,747 (full compensation in the number of hooks fished) to a loss of $819,523 (no compensation in the number of hooks fished), with an estimated loss of $239,383 with 50 percent compensation in the number of hooks fished. This change in revenues would impact 41 or fewer vessels per year based on current trends in the number of active pelagic longline vessels and the number of vessels that operated in the MAB in 2006. If one assumes that 41 vessels are affected by this restriction, then the estimated annual impact per vessel ranges from an increase of $18,969 per vessel to a decrease of $19,988 per vessel, with an estimated decrease of $5,838 under the most likely scenarios (50 percent compensation in fishing effort). The economic costs of Alternative 4 were evaluated based upon historical observed catch rates and reported effort in the MAB fishing area only for the period 2002 to 2004. The impact of the closure of the southern region of the MAB from July-December was estimated by assuming no catch in that area, resulting in a total estimated cost of $770,000. The combined effect of the 6-month closure and the mainline length restriction through the MAB resulted in an estimated cost of $1.64 million, reflecting only lost catch and assuming no compensation or redistribution of effort. The reduction in revenues would impact 41 or fewer vessels per year based on the current trends in the number of active pelagic longline vessels and the number of vessels that operated in the MAB in 2006. If one assumes that 41 vessels would be affected by this restriction, then per vessel impacts are estimated to be $40,000. Alternative 1 (the no action alternative) and Alternative 2 were not selected because they were not expected to meet the conservation objectives of the proposed rule or the goals in MMPA section 118. Both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would meet the objectives of the proposed rule. Alternative 4 was not selected because, although it would meet objectives of the proposed rule, it would likely result in larger economic impacts to small entities than the preferred alternative. References Cited A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule can be found on the PLTRT website at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/teams.htm#pl-trt.htm* and the NMFS Southeast Regional Office website at *http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pr.htm* , and is available upon request from the NMFS Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg, FL (see ADDRESSES ). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 229 Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 18, 2008. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 229 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 229—AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERIES UNDER THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972 1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* 2. In subpart A, § 229.3, paragraphs

(t)and

(u)are added to read as follows: § 229.3 Prohibitions.

(t)It is prohibited to deploy or fish with pelagic longline gear in the Mid-Atlantic Bight unless the vessel:

(1)Complies with the placard posting requirement specified in § 229.36(c); and

(2)Complies with the gear restrictions specified in § 229.36(e).

(u)It is prohibited to deploy or fish with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or to transit through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard unless the vessel is in compliance with the observer and research requirements specified in § 229.36(d). 3. In subpart C, § 229.36 is added to read as follows: § 229.36 Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan (PLTRP).

(a)*Purpose and scope.* The purpose of this section is to implement the PLTRP to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of long-finned and short-finned pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery off the U.S. east coast, a component of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline fishery, as delineated on the MMPA List of Fisheries.

(1)*Persons subject to this section.* The regulations in this section apply to the owner and operator of any vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued an Atlantic HMS tunas, swordfish, or shark permit under § 635.4 or § 635.32 and that has pelagic longline gear onboard as defined under § 635.21(c).

(2)*Geographic scope.* The geographic scope of the PLTRP is the Atlantic federal EEZ off the U.S. East Coast. The regulations specified in paragraphs

(b)through

(e)of this section apply to all U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline vessels operating in the EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Bight.

(b)*Definitions.* In addition to the definitions contained in the MMPA and §§ 216.3 and 229.2 of this chapter, the following definitions apply.

(1)*CHSRA (Cape Hatteras Special Research Area)* means all waters inside and including the rectangular boundary described by the following lines: 35° N. lat., 75° W. long., 36° 25′ N. lat., and 74° 35′ W. long.

(2)*Mid-Atlantic Bight* means the area bounded by straight lines connecting the mid-Atlantic states' internal waters and extending to 71° W. long. between 35° N. lat. and 43° N. lat.

(3)*Observer* means an individual authorized by NMFS, or a designated contractor, placed aboard a commercial fishing vessel, to record information on marine mammal interactions, fishing operations, marine mammal life history information, and other scientific data; to collect biological specimens; and to perform other scientific investigations.

(4)*Pelagic longline* has the same meaning as in § 635.2 of this title.

(c)*Marine Mammal Handling and Release Placard.* The placard, “Marine Mammal Handling/Release Guidelines: A Quick Reference for Atlantic Pelagic Longline Gear,” must be kept posted inside the wheelhouse and on the working deck. You may contact the NMFS Southeast Regional Office at

(727)824-5312 to request additional copies of the placard.

(d)*CHSRA* —(1) *Special observer requirements.* If you deploy or fish with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or transit through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard, or intend to do so, you must call NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 1-800-858-0624, at least 48 hours prior to embarking on your trip. This requirement is in addition to any existing selection and notification requirement for observer coverage by the Pelagic Observer Program. If you are assigned an observer, you must take the observer during that trip. If you do not take the observer, you are prohibited from deploying or fishing with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or transiting through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard. You must comply with all provisions of § 229.7, Monitoring of incidental mortalities and serious injuries. In addition, all provisions of § 600.746, Observers, apply. No waivers will be granted under § 229.7(c)(3) or § 600.746(f). A vessel that would otherwise be required to carry an observer, but is inadequate or unsafe for purposes of carrying an observer and for allowing operation of normal observer functions, is prohibited from deploying or fishing with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or transiting through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard.

(2)*Special research requirements.* In addition to observing normal fishing activities, observers may conduct additional scientific investigations aboard your vessel designed to support the goals of the PLTRP. The observer will inform you of the specific additional investigations that may be conducted during your trip. An observer may direct you to modify your fishing behavior, gear, or both. Instead of carrying an observer, you may be required to carry and deploy gear provided by NMFS or an observer or modify your fishing practices. By calling in per § 229.36(d)(1), you are agreeing to take an observer. You are also acknowledging you are both willing and able to participate in research, as per this paragraph, in the CHSRA consistent with the PLTRP without any compensation. If you are assigned any special research requirements, you must participate in the research for the duration of the assignment. If you do not participate in the research, you are prohibited from deploying or fishing with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA or transiting through the CHSRA with pelagic longline gear onboard.

(e)*Gear restrictions.* No person may deploy a pelagic longline that exceeds 20 nautical miles

(nm)(37.04 km) in length in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, including in the CHSRA, unless they have a written letter of authorization from the Director, NMFS Southeast Fishery Science Center to use a pelagic longline exceeding 20 nm in the CHSRA in support research for reducing bycatch of marine mammals in the pelagic longline fishery. [FR Doc. E8-14274 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 122 Tuesday, June 24, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Public Meetings of Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: We are issuing this notice to advise the public that meetings of the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers (Committee) will be held to discuss various beginning farmer and rancher issues. DATES: The public meetings will be held July 9-10, 2008. The first meeting, on July 9, 2008, will begin at 8 a.m. and end by 5:30 p.m. The second meeting, on July 10, 2008, will begin at 8 a.m. and end by 4 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Standard Time (EST). See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for oral presentation submission date. ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at the Sofitel Hotel, 806 15th Street, Washington, DC,

(202)730-8800. Written requests to make oral presentations must be sent to: Mark Falcone, Designated Federal Official for the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0522, Washington, DC 20250-0522; telephone

(202)720-1632; FAX

(202)690-1117; *e-mail: mark.falcone@wdc.usda.gov* . Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Falcone at

(202)720-1632. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 5 of the Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-554) required the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to establish the Committee for the purpose of advising the Secretary on the following:

(1)The development of a program of coordinated financial assistance to qualified beginning farmers and ranchers, required by section 309(i) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1929) (under the program, Federal and State beginning farmer programs provide financial assistance to beginning farmers and ranchers);

(2)Methods of maximizing the number of new farming and ranching opportunities created through the program;

(3)Methods of encouraging States to participate in the program;

(4)The administration of the program; and

(5)Other methods of creating new farming or ranching opportunities. The Committee meets annually and all meetings are open to the public. The duration of the Committee is indefinite. Earlier meetings of the Committee, beginning in 1999, provided an opportunity for members to exchange ideas on ways to increase opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers. Members discussed various issues and drafted numerous recommendations, which were provided to the Secretary. Agenda items for the July 2008 meetings include:

(1)Discussions concerning provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234, May 22, 2008) (also referred to commonly as the 2008 Farm Bill);

(2)USDA's response to the recommendations made in the September 2007 Government Accountability Office report entitled: “BEGINNING FARMERS: Additional Steps Needed to Demonstrate the Effectiveness of USDA Assistance”;

(3)A presentation of a national project focused on farmland access, tenure, and succession funded by USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;

(4)Brief presentations by several Advisory Committee members on: The Wisconsin School for Beginning Dairy and Livestock Farmers; innovative opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers in Nebraska; and new immigrant farming initiatives; and

(5)Status of previous committee recommendations and drafting new recommendations. Attendance is open to all interested persons, but limited to space available. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing (letter, fax, or e-mail) to Mark Falcone at the above address. Statements should be received no later than July 3, 2008. Requests should include the name and affiliation of the individual who will make the presentation and an outline of the issues to be addressed. The floor will be open to oral presentations beginning at 1:15 p.m. EST on July 9, 2008. Oral Statements will be limited to 5 minutes, and presenters will be approved on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons with disabilities who require special accommodations to attend or participate in the meetings should contact Mark Falcone by July 3, 2008. Signed in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2008. Thomas B. Hofeller, Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14229 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Revision of Land Management Plan for the George Washington National Forest, Virginia and West Virginia AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of adjustment for resuming the land management plan revision process SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service is resuming preparation of the George Washington National Forest revised land management plan as directed by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Preparation of the revised plan was halted when the 2005 Forest Service planning rule was enjoined. A new planning rule (36 CFR Part 219 was adopted on April 21, 2008 allowing the planning process to be resumed. This notice resumes the plan revision process under the new 2008 planning rule. This notice also provides: 1. An estimated schedule for the planning process; 2. Request for additional public comments on the agency's draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report, and how the public can comment; 3. A list of documents available and how to get them; 4. Who to contact for more information. DATES: This notice is effective on June 24, 2008. Comments on the draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report are requested to be postmarked or received by August 8, 2008. A series of public meetings will resume beginning in July 2008. The dates, times and locations of these meetings will be posted at our Internet Web site: *http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/.* This information can also be obtained from the contact information below. More detailed information on the proposed schedule is in the Supplementary Information Section. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the need for change are being accepted. Send written comments to George Washington Plan Revision, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia 24019-3050. Electronic comments should include “GW Plan Revision” in the subject line and be sent to: *comments-southern-georgewashington-jefferson@fs.fed.us.* Additional information on the GWNF Forest Plan is available at: *http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Landgraf, Planning Staff Officer, or JoBeth Brown, Public Affairs Officer, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests,

(540)265-5100. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notification of initiation of plan revision process for the George Washington National Forest revised land management plan was provided in the **Federal Register** on February 15, 2007 [72 FR 7390]. The plan revision was initiated under the planning procedures contained in the 2005 Forest Service planning rule (36 CFR 219 (2005)). On March 30, 2007, the federal district court for the Northern District of California enjoined the Forest Service from implementing and using the 2005 planning rule until the agency provided notice and comment and conducted an assessment of the rule's effects on the environment and completed consultation under the Endangered Species Act. Revision of the George Washington National Forest revised land management plan under the (36 CFR 219 (2005)) rule was suspended in response to the injunction. On April 21, 2008 the Forest Service adopted a new planning rule. This rule (36 CFR 219 (2008)) was adopted following completion of an environmental impact statement and consultation under the Endangered Species Act. This new planning rule explicitly allows the resumption of plan revisions started under the previous rule (36 CFR 219 (2005)) based on a finding that the revision process conforms to the new planning rule (36 CFR 219.14(b)(3)(ii)). Prior to injunction of the 2005 planning rule the George Washington National Forest had developed a draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report on the need for change. The Forest had just begun to engage the American public in a dialogue on what they thought needed to be changed from the 1993 revised Forest Plan. Only one series of public meetings had occurred during March 2007 prior to the injunction. Based primarily on the discussion above, I find that the planning actions taken prior to April 21, 2008 conform to the planning process of the 2008 planning rule and for that reason the plan revision process does not need to be restarted. The Need for Change The GWNF Forest Plan was last revised in 1993. Planning regulations require that plans be revised at least every 15 years. The 1993 revision was a major effort that involved the participation of many stakeholders. The purpose of the current revision is to examine management direction that needs to change and determine how best to make those changes. Based upon new information acquired in the past year, the Forest Service has appended its initial Comprehensive Evaluation Report of February 2007 with social and economic conditions and trends. The George Washington National Forest is resuming its plan revision process by seeking additional public comments on the need to change the 1993 plan. Planning Schedule After resumption of the planning process, the Forest Service will hold a series of public meetings. The Forest Supervisor will then determine which issues will be carried forward for further analysis in the revision process. Additional public meetings will then be held throughout the summer and fall of 2008 to discuss development of the Forest Plan components in response to the issues that will be carried forward for further analysis. In early spring of 2009 the Forest Service expects to release a Proposed Forest Plan for formal public review and comment. A notice will be published in the **Federal Register** that will begin an official 90-day comment period on the Proposed Forest Plan. The Forest Service will review the comments, hold additional public meeting(s), and then make any appropriate changes to the Proposed Forest Plan. Another notice will then be published in the **Federal Register** to begin a 30-day objection period. This is anticipated to be published in the summer or early fall of 2009. After any objections are resolved, the Forest Plan will be approved by the Forest Supervisor. Documents Available for Review A number of documents are available for review. These are available at the Web site *http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/_* . Additional documents will be added to this site throughout the planning process. How the Public Can Participate in the Planning Process A series of public meetings will be held beginning in July 2008. The planning process will emphasize those things that need to change from the 1993 Forest Plan. The focus of the current planning regulations is on establishing a collaborative approach to planning. Therefore, the best opportunity for dialogue is to participate in the discussions at the various public meetings to be held throughout the process. These meetings will all be announced on the GWNF Web site. A formal comment opportunity will be provided when the Proposed Forest Plan is completed. Only parties that participate in the planning process through the submission of written comments can submit an objection pursuant to 36 CFR 219.13(a). Responsible Official The Forest Supervisor, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, is the Responsible Official (36 CFR 219.2(b)(1)). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614; 36 CFR 219.14; 73 FR 21468, April 21, 2008. Dated: June 16, 2008. Maureen Hyzer, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-14292 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service TE-34 Penchant Basin Natural Resources Plan; Terrebonne Parish, LA AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture. ACTION: Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102

(C)of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Penchant Basin Natural Resources Plan (TE-34), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin D. Norton, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 3737 Government Street, Alexandria, Louisiana 71302; telephone

(318)473-7751. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of the federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Kevin D. Norton, State Conservationist, has determined that preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project. The project is expected to creation, protect, and/or restore 675 net acres of emergent marsh over 20 years. The proposed project consists of installing approximately 6,520 feet of foreshore rock dike along the southern bank of Bayou Chene at its intersection with Bayou Penchant, creating 35 acres of marsh along the southern bank of Bayou Chene at its intersection with Bayou Penchant, installing 10-48″corrugated metal pipe with flap gates in Superior Canal at the Mauvais Bois ridge, installing one steel sheetpile weir with a 10 ft. wide boat bay and six flap gated openings at Brady Canal, installing approximately 12,000 feet of bankline maintenance on the north bank of Bayou Decade from Lake Decade to Turtle Bayou, installing approximately 14,000 feet of earthen embankment on the north bank of Bayou Decade from Voss Canal to Lost Lake, and two sheetpile weirs with 10 ft. wide boat bays along the north bank of Bayou Decade. The Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various federal, state, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data collected during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Kevin D. Norton. No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . Kevin D. Norton, State Conservationist. [FR Doc. E8-14232 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION Meetings Notice is hereby given that the U.S Arctic Research Commission will hold its 87th meeting in Fairbanks, AK from June 29 to July 3, 2008. The business session, open to the public, will commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 30 and continue throughout the week in conjunction with the Ninth International Permafrost Conference. The Commission will undertake a series of field trips to research facilities in and around Fairbanks. *The Agenda items include:*

(1)Call to order and approval of the agenda.

(2)Approval of the minutes of the 86th meeting.

(3)Reports from Commissioners.

(4)Internal Commission business and administration. The focus of the meeting will be reports and updates on programs and research projects affecting the Arctic. Any person planning to attend this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Contact person for more information: John Farrell, Executive Director, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 703-306-0090. John Farrell, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E8-14048 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(BRD)evaluation, condition and fate, and length frequency forms and trip report/cover sheet; 1 minute; independent BRD test, 5 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* Persons seeking to obtain certification for bycatch reduction devices to be used on shrimp vessels in the Gulf of Mexico or South Atlantic must apply for authorization to conduct tests and submit the test results. The information is needed for NOAA Fisheries Service to determine if the equipment meets the standard that would allow its use in commercial fisheries. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* On occasion. *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 19, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14242 Filed 6-23-08; 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:* Northwest Region Gear Identification Requirements. *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0352. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 1,782. *Number of Respondents:* 548. *Average Hours per Response:* 15 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The regulations implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan at 50 CFR 660.382 and 660.383 specify that vessels participating in this fishery are required to mark their fixed gear with an identifying number. This number is used by NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other agencies for fishery enforcement activities. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *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)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: June 19, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14243 Filed 6-23-08; 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

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: June 19, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14244 Filed 6-23-08; 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:* Foreign Fishing Vessel and Gear Identification Requirements. *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0356. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 6. *Number of Respondents:* 8. *Average Hours per Response:* 45 minutes for vessel identification and a one-hour placeholder for gear marking. *Needs and Uses:* Under provisions of Section 204 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, foreign fishing vessels may be authorized to conduct fishing activities in United States waters. The authorized vessels are required to display vessel identification and to mark any fishing gear not physically and continuously attached to the vessel. This requirement allows enforcement personnel to monitor fishing, at-sea processing, and other related activities to ascertain whether a vessel's observed activities are in accordance with those authorized for that vessel. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *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)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: June 19, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14245 Filed 6-23-08; 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:* Southeast Region Gear Identification Requirements. *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0359. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 1,806. *Number of Respondents:* 961. *Average Hours per Response:* Traps,7 minutes; coral rocks, 10 seconds; Spanish mackerel gillnet floats, 20 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The participants in certain federally-regulated fisheries in the Southeast Region must mark their fishing gear with the vessel's official identification number or permit number (depending on the fishery) and color code. Harvesters of aquaculture live rock must mark or tag the material deposited. The marking may include the use of geologically distinguishable materials. These requirements aid fishery enforcement activities and gear identification of lost or damaged gear and related civil proceedings. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *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)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: June 19, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14246 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2008 Company Organization Survey AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce. 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Cynthia M. Wrenn-Yorker, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8K319, Washington, DC 20233-6100; telephone

(301)763-1383. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Census Bureau conducts the annual Company Organization Survey

(COS)to update and maintain a central, multipurpose Business Register (BR). In particular, the COS supplies critical information on the composition, organizational structure, and operating characteristics of multi-location companies. The BR Serves Two Fundamental Purposes —First and most importantly, it provides sampling populations and enumeration lists for the Census Bureau's economic surveys and censuses, and it serves as an integral part of the statistical foundation underlying those programs. Essential for this purpose is the BR's ability to identify all known United States business establishments and their parent companies. Further, the BR must accurately record basic business attributes needed to control sampling and enumeration. These attributes include industrial and geographic classifications, and name and address information. —Second, it provides establishment data that serve as the basis for the annual County Business Patterns

(CBP)statistical series. The CBP reports present data on number of establishments, first quarter payroll, annual payroll, and mid-March employment summarized by industry and employment size class for the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, counties, and county-equivalents. No other annual or more frequent series of industry statistics provides comparable detail, particularly for small geographic areas. II. Method of Collection The Census Bureau will conduct the 2008 COS in a similar manner as the 2006 COS. (In 2007 the COS was conducted in conjunction with the 2007 Economic Census to minimize response burden). These collections will direct inquiries to approximately 43,000 multi-establishment companies, which operate over 1.2 million establishments. This panel will be drawn from the BR universe of nearly 200,000 multi-establishment companies, which operate 1.6 million establishments. Additionally, the panel will include approximately 5,000 large single-establishment companies that may have added locations during the year. The mailing list for the 2008 COS will include a certainty component, consisting of all multi-establishment companies with 250 or more employees, and those multi-establishment companies with administrative record values that indicate organizational changes. A non-certainty component will be drawn from the remaining multi-establishment companies based on employment size. The mailing list also will include entities that are most likely to have added establishments at other locations. The primary collection medium for the COS is a paper questionnaire; however, many enterprises will submit automated/electronic COS reports. For 2008, electronic reporting will be available to all COS respondents. Companies will receive and return responses by secure Internet transmission. Companies that cannot use the Internet will receive a CD-ROM containing their electronic data. All respondents will be allowed to mail the data via diskette or CD-ROM or submit their response data via the Internet. COS data is identical for all of the reporting modes. The instrument will include inquiries on ownership or control by domestic or foreign parents, ownership of foreign affiliates, and leased employment. Further, the instrument will list an inventory of establishments belonging to the company and its subsidiaries, and request updates to these inventories, including additions, deletions, and changes to information on Employer Identification Number, name and address, and industrial classification, end-of-year operating status, mid-March employment, first quarter payroll, and annual payroll. Additionally, the Census Bureau will ask certain questions in the 2008 COS in order to enhance content. We will include questions on leased employees working in the company, questions on research and development activities performed by the company, and questions on new or significantly improved methods of manufacturing, producing, delivering or distributing goods or services within the company. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0607-0444. *Form Number:* NC-99001 and NC-99007 (for single-location companies). *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 48,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1.59 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 127,517. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $3,497,791. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 of U.S.C. Sections 182, 195, 224, and 225. 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 19, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14241 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review, Application No. 08-00004. SUMMARY: On June 19, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to Sirius Chemical Group, Inc. (“SCG”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification has been granted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey C. Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at

(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number), or by E-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (2006). Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR section 325.6(b), which requires the U.S. Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the **Federal Register** . Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR section 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous. Description of Certified Conduct Export Trade 1. Products All products. 2. Services All services. 3. Technology Rights Technology rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets that relate to Products and Services. 4. Export Trade Facilitation Services (as They Relate to the Export of Products, Services, and Technology Rights) Export Trade Facilitation Services, including, but not limited to, professional services in the areas of government relations and assistance with state and federal programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; marketing; negotiations; joint ventures; shipping; export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; transfer of technology; transportation services; and facilitating the formation of shippers' associations. Export Markets The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands). Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation 1. With respect to the sale of Products and Services, licensing of Technology Rights, and provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services, SCG may: a. Provide and/or arrange for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services; b. Engage in promotional and marketing activities and collect information on trade opportunities in the Export Markets and distribute such information to clients; c. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive licensing and/or sales agreements with Suppliers for the export of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights to Export Markets; d. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive agreements with distributors and/or sales representatives in Export Markets; e. Allocate export sales or divide Export Markets among Suppliers for the sale and/or licensing of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights; f. Allocate export orders among Suppliers; g. Establish the price of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights for sales and/or licensing in Export Markets; h. Negotiate, enter into, and/or manage licensing agreements for the export of Technology Rights; and i. Enter into contracts for shipping of Products to Export Markets. 2. SCG may exchange information on a one-to-one basis with individual Suppliers regarding that Supplier's inventories and near-term production schedules for the purpose of determining the availability of Products for export and coordinating export with distributors. Terms and Conditions of Certificate 1. In engaging in Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations, SCG will not intentionally disclose, directly or indirectly, to any Supplier any information about any other Supplier's costs, production, capacity, inventories, domestic prices, domestic sales, or U.S. business plans, strategies, or methods that is not already generally available to the trade or public. 2. SCG will comply with requests made by the Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General for information or documents relevant to conduct under the Certificate. The Secretary of Commerce will request such information or documents when either the Attorney General or the Secretary of Commerce believes that the information or documents are required to determine that the Export Trade, Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation of a person protected by this Certificate of Review continue to comply with the standard of Section 303(a) of the Act. Definition “Supplier” means a person who produces, provides, or sells Products, Services and/or Technology Rights. Protection Provided by Certificate This Certificate protects SCG and its directors, officers, and employees acting on its behalf, from private treble damage actions and government criminal and civil suits under U.S. federal and state antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out during its effective period in compliance with its terms and conditions. Effective Period of Certificate This Certificate continues in effect from the effective date indicated below until it is relinquished, modified, or revoked as provided in the Act and the Regulations. Other Conduct Nothing in this Certificate prohibits SCG from engaging in conduct not specified in this Certificate, but such conduct is subject to the normal application of the antitrust laws. Disclaimer The issuance of this Certificate of Review to SCG by the Secretary of Commerce with the concurrence of the Attorney General under the provisions of the Act does not constitute, explicitly or implicitly, an endorsement or opinion of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General concerning either

(a)the viability or quality of the business plans of SCG or

(b)the legality of such business plans of SCG under the laws of the United States (other than as provided in the Act) or under the laws of any foreign country. The application of this Certificate to conduct in Export Trade where the United States Government is the buyer or where the United States Government bears more than half the cost of the transaction is subject to the limitations set forth in Section V.(D.) of the “Guidelines for the Issuance of Export Trade Certificates of Review (Second Edition),” 50 FR 1786 (January 11, 1985). A copy of the certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Dated: June 19, 2008. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-14210 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Application to Amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review Issued to Northwest Fruit Exporters. SUMMARY: Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration,

(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct. Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a non-confidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be non-confidential. An original and five

(5)copies, plus two

(2)copies of the non-confidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021-B H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, non-confidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 84-19A12.” A summary of the application for an amendment follows. Summary of the Application *Applicant:* Northwest Fruit Exporters (“NFE”), 105 South 18th Street, Suite 227, Yakima, Washington 98901. *Contact:* James R. Archer, Manager to NFE, Telephone:

(509)576-8004. *Application No.:* 84-19A12. *Date Deemed Submitted:* June 19, 2008. The original NFE Certificate was issued on June 11, 1984 (49 FR 24581, June 14, 1984) and last amended on September 17, 2007 (72 FR 54000, September 21, 2007). *Proposed Amendment:* NFE seeks to amend its Certificate to: 1. Add each of the following companies as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): Lotus Fruit Packing, Inc., Brewster, Washington; Obert Cold Storage, Zillah, Washington; and Tree To You, LLC, Chelan, Washington; and 2. Delete the following companies as “Members” of the Certificate: Fox Orchards, Mattawa, Washington; Inland—Joseph Fruit Company, Wapato, Washington; K-K Packing & Storage, L.L.C., Zillah, Washington; Manzaneros Mexicanos De Washington, Yakima, Washington; Orchard View Farms, The Dalles, Oregon; and Peshastin Hi-Up Growers, Peshastin, Washington. Dated: June 19, 2008. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-14233 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-810] Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 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 February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (“SSB”) from India. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan* , 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On March 28, 2007, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** initiating an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India for three companies for the period of review (“POR”) February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. * See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 14516 (February 28, 2007). On March 7, 2008, the Department published its preliminary results of the 2006-2007 antidumping duty administrative review. *See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 12382 (March 7, 2008); as corrected, *Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 15049 (March 20, 2008). The final results for this review are currently due no later than July 7, 2008. Extension of Time Limit of Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time period to a maximum of 180 days. Completion of the final results of the administrative review within the 120-day period in this case is not practicable because, following the preliminary results, the Department issued a comprehensive supplemental questionnaire concerning Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.'s (“Sunflag”) affiliations. In addition, the Department has received multiple deficiency comments from domestic interested parties. The Department requires additional time to analyze the Sunflag's supplemental questionnaire response and the comments from the domestic interested parties. Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time specified under the Act, we are fully extending the time period for issuing the final results of the administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Therefore, the final results are now due no later than September 3, 2008. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 18, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-14271 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-917] Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination, in Part, of Critical Circumstances AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has reached a final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of laminated woven sacks

(LWS)from the People's Republic of China (PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey, Gene Calvert, or Paul Matino, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3964,

(202)482-3586, or

(202)482-4146, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The following events have occurred since the publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** on December 3, 2007. *See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part; and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination* , 72 FR 67893 (December 3, 2007) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). On December 13, 2007, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. (Aifudi) and Shandong Shouguang Jianyuanchun Co., Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliate Shandong Longxing Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (SSJ/SLP). 1 We issued a supplemental questionnaire to the Government of the People's Republic of China

(GOC)on December 14, 2007. We received responses to these questionnaires from SSJ/SLP on January 2, 2008, and from the GOC and Aifudi on January 3, 2008. We issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to SSJ/SLP on January 11, 2008, and received a response on January 17, 2008. On December 27, 2007, the Department received requests for a hearing from the Laminated Woven Sacks Committee and its individual members, Bancroft Bag, Inc., Coating Excellence International, LLC, Hood Packaging Corporation, Mid-America Packaging, LLC, and Polytex Fibers Corporation (collectively, petitioners), and from the GOC. 1 SSJ was one of the four mandatory company respondents selected by the Department. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Respondent Selection” (July 31, 2007). This memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Commerce building. Subsequently, we determined that SSJ was cross-owned with SLP ( *see Preliminary Determination* , 72 FR at 67900) (December 3, 2007), and for purposes of this final determination, we are referring to these mandatory respondents as SSJ/SLP. The other three mandatory company respondents are: Han Shing Chemical Co., Ltd. (Han Shing Chemical), Ningbo Yong Feng Packaging Co., Ltd. (Ningbo), Shangdong Qilu Plastic Fabric Group, Ltd. (Qilu). On October 24, 2007, the Department accepted Aifudi as a voluntary respondent for the investigation pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(d)(2). *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Voluntary Respondent Selection” (October 24, 2007). This memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU. Parties submitted timely comments on the Department's analysis of land-use rights as requested in the *Preliminary Determination* . Subsequent to the *Preliminary Determination* , parties also submitted factual information, comments, or clarifying information at several points prior to this final determination based on deadlines for submissions of factual information and/or arguments established by the Department or in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(a)(1). On January 22, 2008, the Department decided not to verify SSJ/SLP. *See* Letter to SSJ/SLP, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China* (January 22, 2008) (on file in the Department's CRU). From January 16 through January 25, 2008, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC, including the national, provincial, and local governments, and Aifudi. The Department issued verification reports on February 28, 2008 and March, 4, 2008. *See* Memoranda to the File, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: Laminated Woven Sacks

(LWS)from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by the Government of the People's Republic of China

(GOC)- Central Government; Countervailing Duty Investigation: Laminated Woven Sacks

(LWS)from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by the Government of the People' Republic Of China

(GOC)- Provincial and Local Government* ; and *Countervailing Duty Investigation: Laminated Woven Sacks

(LWS)from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd* . On April 22, 2008, we issued our post-preliminary determination regarding the new subsidy allegations, which we had decided to investigate on November 2, 2007. *See* Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Countervailing Duty Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China; Post-Preliminary Analysis of New Subsidy Allegations* (April 22, 2008) ( *Post-Preliminary Analysis* ), on file in the Department's CRU. We received case briefs from the GOC, Aifudi, and petitioners on May 2, 2008. The same parties submitted rebuttal briefs on May 7, 2008. On May 8, 2008, the GOC's case brief was returned because the Department determined that it contained untimely new factual information, as well as timely filed new factual information related to the Department's *Post-Preliminary Analysis* . The GOC resubmitted its case brief on May 12, 2008 without the untimely filed new factual information. On May 8, 2008 we informed all parties that they had an opportunity to rebut the new factual information submitted by the GOC pertaining to the Department's *Post-Preliminary Analysis* . On May 12, 2008, petitioners submitted factual information to rebut information provided by the GOC. We held a public hearing for this investigation on May 14, 2008. Period of Investigation The period of investigation

(POI)for which we are measuring subsidies is calendar year 2006. Scope of the Investigation In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had received scope comments from petitioners, and that such comments would be addressed in the preliminary determination of the companion antidumping investigation. See Preliminary Determination, 72 FR at 67894. Based on those comments, the Department determined to amend the scope of the investigation and afforded interested parties the opportunity to comment on those changes. See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 5801 (January 31, 2008). No parties provided comments, and as such, we are making no changes to the scope as set forth in the preliminary determination in the companion antidumping investigation. See id. The merchandise covered by this investigation is laminated woven sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene (“BOPP”) or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high quality print graphics; 2 printed with three colors or more in register; with or without lining; whether or not closed on one end; whether or not in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves); with or without handles; with or without special closing features; not exceeding one kilogram in weight. Laminated woven sacks are typically used for retail packaging of consumer goods such as pet foods and bird seed. 2 “Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,“ as used herein, means paper having an ISO brightness of 82 or higher and a Sheffield Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an example of a paper suitable for high quality print graphics. Effective July 1, 2007, laminated woven sacks are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. Laminated woven sacks were previously classifiable under HTSUS subheading 6305.33.0020. If entered with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Injury Test Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the International Trade Commission

(ITC)must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry, or whether such imports materially retard the establishment of an industry in the United States. On August 14, 2007, the ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially retarded by reason of imports from the PRC of Laminated Woven Sacks. *See Laminated Woven Sacks from China* , USITC Pub. 3942, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-450 and 731- TA- 1122 (Preliminary) (August 2007). Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised by interested parties in their case briefs and rebuttal briefs on the *Preliminary Determination* and the *Post-Preliminary Analysis* , are discussed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Determination of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China* ( *Decision Memorandum* ). A list of the subsidy programs and of the issues that parties have raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all of the subsidy programs and issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's CRU. A complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* is available at http://www.trade.gov/ia under the heading “ **Federal Register** Notices.” The paper copy and the electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Application of Facts Available, Including the Application of Adverse Inferences For purposes of this final determination, we have relied on facts available and have used adverse inferences to determine the countervailable subsidy rates for the four mandatory company respondents: Han Shing Chemical, Ningbo, Qilu, and SSJ/SLP, in accordance with sections 776(a) and

(b)of the Act. In addition, we are also applying facts available with an adverse inference, in part, with respect to our determination of the countervailability of two programs: Government Policy Lending and Government Provision of Inputs for Less Than Adequate Remuneration. A full discussion of our decision to apply adverse facts available is presented in the *Decision Memorandum* in the sections “Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inferences” and in “Analysis of Comments” (Comments 3, 4, 5, 13 and 19). Critical Circumstances Pursuant to section 705(a)(2) of the Act, in order to find critical circumstances, the Department must find that there are countervailable subsidies that are inconsistent with the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the Subsidies Agreement), and that there have been massive imports over a relatively short period ( *i.e.* , whether there was a surge in imports). For purposes of this final determination, we are making an affirmative determination of critical circumstances with respect to all four mandatory respondents (Han Shing Chemical, Ningbo, Qilu, and SSJ/SLP). For the voluntary respondent, Aifudi, we are making a negative final determination of critical circumstances because we verified that it has not received any subsidies that are inconsistent with the Subsidies Agreement. For “all others,” we have made a negative determination of critical circumstances in accordance with section 705(a)(2) of the Act. For a complete discussion of our critical circumstances determination, see the “Critical Circumstances” section in the *Decision Memorandum* . Final Determination In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we determine the total countervailable subsidy rates to be: Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate Han Shing Chemical Co., Ltd. (Han Shing Chemical) 223.74%% Ningbo Yong Feng packaging Co., Ltd. (Ningbo) 223.74%% Shandong Qilu Plastic Fabric Group, Ltd.

(Qilu)304.40%% Shandong Shouguang Jianyuan Chun Co., Ltd.

(SSJ)/ Shandong Longxing Plastic Products Company Ltd.

(SLP)352.82%% Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. (Aifudi) 29.54%% All Others 226.85%% In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have determined that the most reasonable method for determining the all others rate is a simple average of the four mandatory respondents' AFA rates and the calculated rate for Aifudi. *See Decision Memorandum* at Comment 21 for a more detailed discussion of the all others rate determination. Suspension of Liquidation Because we preliminarily determined that critical circumstances existed for entries of LWS produced/exported by Han Shing Chemical and Ningbo, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and

(2)and 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, to suspend liquidation of entries of LWS produced/exported by Han Shing Chemical and Ningbo which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 3, 2007, and to apply the suspension of liquidation to any unliquidated entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 4, 2007 (90 days before the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* ). For all other producers/exporters, we ordered CBP to suspend liquidation for all entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after December 3, 2007. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty purposes for subject merchandise entered on or after April 1, 2008, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries made from Han Shing Chemical and Ningbo from September 4, 2007 through April 1, 2008 and, for all other entries, to continue the suspension of liquidation from December 3, 2007 through April 1, 2008. Now that the Department has reached a final affirmative determination of critical circumstances for Qilu and SSJ/SLP, pursuant to section 705(c)(4)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to apply the previously ordered suspension of liquidation for Qilu and SSJ/SLP retroactively to any unliquidated entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 4, 2007 (90 days before the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* ) and on or before April 1, 2008. If the ITC issues a final affirmative determination of injury, we will issue a countervailing duty order, reinstate suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act for all entries, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise at the rates indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, threat of material injury to, or material retardation of, the domestic industry does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 16, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I: Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inferences A. Application of Facts Available, Including the Application of Adverse Inferences B. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available IV. Critical Circumstances V. Subsidies Valuation Information A. Attribution of Subsidies and Cross-Ownership B. Loan Benchmarks and Discount Rate VI. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Determined to Be Countervailable B. Program Determined to Be Not Countervailable C. Programs Determined to Be Not Used by Aifudi D. Programs Determined to Be Terminated VII. Analysis of Comments *Comment 1:* Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Non-Market Economy Countries *Comment 2:* Whether the Department Can Measure Subsidies that have been Alleged to Occur Prior to the Department's Determination to Apply CVD Law to China *Comment 3:* Whether the Department Should Apply Adverse Facts Available to All Mandatory Respondents *Comment 4:* Whether the Department Can Find that a Program Has Been Used and Is Countervailable for Non-Cooperating Respondents *Comment 5:* Whether the Calculated Rates for Aifudi Should be Applied as Adverse Facts Available to the Mandatory Respondents *Comment 6:* Whether the Department Should Apply Partial Adverse Facts Available to Aifudi *Comment 7:* Whether the Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration Is Countervailable *Comment 8:* Whether the GOC Provision of Land Can Be Countervailed *Comment 9:* Whether the GOC's Sale of Land-Use Rights is Specific *Comment 10:* Whether the Department Should Select Either a First-Tier or Third-Tier Benchmark for the Provision of Land-Use Rights for Less Than Adequate Remuneration *Comment 11:* Whether the Department Can Lawfully Apply an External Benchmark for the Provision of Land-Use Rights for Less than Adequate Remuneration *Comment 12:* Whether the Provision of Petrochemical Inputs for Less Than Adequate Remuneration by SOEs is Countervailable *Comment 13:* Whether SOEs Distort the Market in the PRC *Comment 14:* Alternative Benchmark for the Provision of Petrochemical Inputs for Less Than Adequate Remuneration *Comment 15:* Whether the Department Can Use Data from the World Trade Atlas to Determine a Benchmark for Petrochemical Inputs *Comment 16:* Whether the Sale of Petrochemical Inputs is Consistent with Market Principles *Comment 17:* Whether the Department Should Make an Adjustment for Freight in the Benchmark for Petrochemical Inputs *Comment 18:* Whether the GOC Provides Government Policy Lending to the LWS Industry *Comment 19:* Whether the Department May Countervail the Policy Lending Program as Adverse Facts Available *Comment 20:* The Appropriate Benchmark to Use for the Policy Lending Program *Comment 21:* The Determination of the All Others Rate VIII. Recommendation [FR Doc. E8-14256 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-915] Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Investigation Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has made a final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (“LWR”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). For information on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section, below. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 2008./P> FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler, or Damian Felton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0189, or

(202)482-0133 respectively. Petitioner The Petitioners in this investigation are the Allied Tube & Conduit, Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube, California Tube and Steel, EXLTUBE, Hannibal Industries, Leavitt Tube, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Southland Tube, Vest, Inc. Welded Tube and Western Tube (collectively, “Petitioners”). Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Case History The following events have occurred since the announcement of the preliminary determination published in the **Federal Register** on November 30, 2007. * See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination * , 72 FR 67703 (Nov. 30, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). On December 5, 2007, supplemental questionnaires were issued to the Government of the People's Republic of China (“GOC”); Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Lets Win”); and Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-making Co., Ltd. and its affiliates, Jiangsu Zhongjia Steel Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiagang Zhongxin Steel Product Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiagang Baoshuiqu Jiaqi International Business Co.; and Jiangsu Qiyuan Group Co., Ltd. (“collectively ZZ Pipe”). We received responses to these questionnaires from Lets Win on December 18, 2007, from ZZ Pipe on December 26, 2007, and from the GOC on December 28 and December 31, 2007. On December 27, 2007, the Department published an *Amended Affirmative Preliminary Determination* to correct a significant ministerial error in the *Preliminary Determination* . *See Light-walled Rectangular Tube and Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Affirmative Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 73322 (Dec. 27, 2007) (“ *Amended Preliminary Determination* ”). The GOC and ZZ Pipe submitted factual information regarding the GOC's provision of land within various deadlines set by the Department subsequent to the *Preliminary Determination* for submissions of factual information and/or arguments. From January 7 through January 18, 2008, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC, Lets Win, and ZZ Pipe. On April 21, 2008, we issued our post-preliminary determination regarding the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration. *See* Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled *Post-Preliminary Analysis for the Provision of Land For Less Than Adequate Remuneration* , dated April 21, 2008, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”). We received case briefs from the GOC and Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. (“GWSP”) and Petitioners on April 30, 2008. Rebuttal briefs were submitted by the GOC, GWSP and Petitioners on May 5, 2008, and by Lets Win on May 6, 2008. A hearing for this investigation was held on May 9, 2008. Scope of the Investigation The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section (LWR), having a wall thickness of less than 4mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which 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 vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Injury Test Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”), section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to a U.S. industry. On August 28, 2007, the ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China of LWR. *See ITC Affirmative Preliminary Determination* , 72 FR 49310 (August 28, 2007). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the *Decision Memorandum* , which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an Appendix is a list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Use of Adverse Facts Available Sections 776(a)(1) and

(2)of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person:

(A)withholds information that has been requested;

(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding; or

(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (“AFA”) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See Statement of Administrative Action* (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, attached to H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. I at 870 (1994), *reprinted in* 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3773, 4163 (“SAA”). Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869. The Department has concluded that it is appropriate to base the final determination for Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao”) on adverse facts available. Qingdao did not respond to the Department's requests on August 7 and October 24, 2007, to respond to the CVD questionnaire. By failing to submit a response to the Department's CVD questionnaire, Qingdao did not cooperate to the best of its ability in this investigation. Consequently, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act to ensure that Qingdao will not obtain a more favorable result than had it fully complied with our request in this investigation. Thus, our final determination for Qingdao is based on total AFA. We have also concluded that it is appropriate to apply adverse facts available to determine the percentage of hot-rolled steel production accounted for by state-owned enterprises. Specifically, the GOC reported that the China Iron and Steel Association (“CISA”) determined the ownership structure of certain hot-rolled steel producers. Subsequently, we learned that the reported ownership structures were developed by the GOC's legal counsel, not by CISA as the GOC claimed. Therefore, the GOC misrepresented the source of the reported ownership structure of hot-rolled steel producers. Consequently, we find that the GOC did not act to the best of its ability because they failed to properly disclose how the reported ownership structures of CISA members were obtained. In misrepresenting how the information was obtained, the GOC did not provide the Department with “full and complete answers.” *See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Instead, the GOC purposefully made a decision to conceal how the information on ownership structure was derived. Accordingly, in selecting from among the facts available, we are drawing an adverse inference with respect to the ownership of HRS producers in the PRC. In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from

(1)the petition,

(2)a final determination in the investigation,

(3)any previous review or determination, or

(4)any information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the proceeding. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Analysis of Programs” and Comment 1. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, with respect to Qingdao, for every program based on the provision of goods for less than adequate remuneration, the Department has used ZZ Pipe's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. For grant programs we are relying on the rate applied to ZZ Pipe in the form of revenue forgone in relation to its purchase of land-use rights. For value added tax (“VAT”) programs, we are unable to utilize company-specific rates from this proceeding because neither respondent received any countervailable subsidies from these subsidy programs. Therefore, for VAT programs, we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is ZZ Pipe's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. Similarly, neither respondent received any countervailable subsidies from loan programs; hence, we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is ZZ Pipe's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate remuneration. Since we do not have information regarding the location of Qingdao, we are attributing all three loan programs to Qingdao, in the calculation of their AFA rate. In the instant investigation, there is no record evidence indicating that Qingdao did not operate within the provinces at issue in this investigation ( *i.e.* , Zhejiang, Liaoning). Consequently, we are including provincial-specific programs in Qingdao's AFA rate. Finally, for the six alleged income tax programs pertaining to either the reduction of the income tax rates or the reduction or exemption from income tax, we continue to apply an adverse inference that Qingdao paid no income tax during the period of investigation ( *i.e.* , calendar year 2006). The standard income tax rate for corporations in the PRC is 30 percent, plus a 3 percent provincial income tax rate. Therefore, the highest possible benefit for these six income tax rate programs is 33 percent. We are applying the 33 percent AFA rate on a combined basis ( *i.e.* , the six programs combined provided a 33 percent benefit). This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to income tax deduction or credit programs. For income tax deduction or credit programs, we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is ZZ Pipe's rate for the provision of hot-rolled-steel at less than adequate remuneration. For income tax deduction or credit programs, we are applying the highest subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance is ZZ Pipe's rate for the provision of hot-rolled-steel for less than adequate remuneration. We do not need to corroborate these rates because they are not considered secondary information as they are based on information obtained in the course of this investigation, pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. *See also* SAA at 870. Regarding the application of adverse facts available to the GOC, we have treated companies as state-owned where the GOC did not provide information regarding the companies' ownership. *See Decision Memorandum* at “Analysis of Programs” and Comment 5. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for each of the companies investigated, Lets Win, ZZ Pipe and for Qingdao. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for companies not investigated, we will determine an all-others rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and *de minimis* countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. As Qingdao's rate was calculated under section 776 of the Act, it is not included in the all-others rate. In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(d)(3), we have excluded Lets Win's rate because it is a voluntary respondent. Consequently, we have assigned ZZ Pipe's rate as the all-others rate. Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd. 2.17%% Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-making Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Qiyuan Group Co., Ltd. 15.28 %% Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 200.58%% All-Others 15.28%% As a result of our *Preliminary Determination* and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of LWR from the PRC which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 30, 2007, the date of the publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** , except for entries from Lets Win, which had a *de minimis* rate. On December 27, 2007, the Department issued its *Amended Affirmative Preliminary Determination* in this countervailing duty investigation. In that determination, ZZ Pipe's rate fell below the *de minimis* level. Consequently, we instructed CBP to release any suspended entries and to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for ZZ Pipe. *See Amended Affirmative Preliminary Determination* , 72 FR 73322. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty purposes on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after March 29, 2008, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries made from November 30, 2007 through March 28, 2008. This did not apply to Lets Win and ZZ Pipe as their entries were not being suspended. We will issue a countervailing duty order and suspend liquidation for Lets Win and ZZ Pipe as well as reinstate the suspension of liquidation for Qingdao and all other companies under section 706(a) of the Act if the ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 13, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Application of CVD Law to Non-Market Economies *Comment 2:* Double Counting/Overlapping Remedies *Comment 3:* Requirement to Provide Evidence of Lower Prices *Comment 4:* Proposed Cutoff Date for Identifying Subsidies *Comment 5:* Purchases of Hot-rolled Steel by Respondents *Comment 6:* Whether State-owned Hot-rolled Steel Suppliers are “Authorities“ *Comment 7:* Hot-rolled Steel Benchmark Issues *Comment 8:* Use of Hot-Rolled Steel to Produce Subject merchandise Shipped to the United States *Comment 9:* One Supplier Treated as State-owned is Private and the Volume of Hot-Rolled Steel Supplied by Baosteel *Comment 10:* Land/Financial Contribution *Comment 11:* Land/Benchmark *Comment 12:* Discount Rate *Comment 13:* Provision of Water *Comment 14:* Government Policy Lending *Comment 15:* All-Others Rate [FR Doc. E8-14250 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-916] Laminated Woven Sacks 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 24, 2008. SUMMARY: On January 31, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) in the antidumping investigation of laminated woven sacks (“LWS”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination 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 LWS from the PRC are being, or are 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: Javier Barrientos, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2243. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on January 31, 2008. *See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination* , 73 FR 5801 (January 31, 2008) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). We issued Aifudi 1 and SSJ 2 additional supplemental questionnaires on January 28, 2008, and January 31, 2008, respectively. We received Aifudi's's response on February 29, 2008. On February 15, 2008, SSJ submitted a letter stating that it was not responding to the questionnaire. 1 Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. (“Aifudi”). 2 Shouguang Jianyuanchun Co., Ltd. (“SSJ”). Between March 31 and April 11, 2008, the Department conducted verifications of Aifudi and its constructed export price

(CEP)entities. *See* the “Verification” section below for additional information. We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* . On May 14, 2008, Petitioners and Aifudi filed case briefs. On May 19, 2008, Petitioners 3 and Aifudi submitted rebuttal briefs. 3 The Laminated Woven Sacks Committee and its individual members, Bancroft Bags, Inc., Coating Excellence International, LLC, Hood Packaging Corporation, Mid America Packaging, LLC, and Polytex Fibers Corporation. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum,” dated June 16, 2008 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. 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 1217, 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 Aifudi. For SSJ, see Use of Facts Available section below. For Aifudi, we have determined that printing cylinders are not a factor of production, and should be treated as factory overhead. For further details, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. We have also revalued several of the surrogate values used in the *Preliminary Determination* . The values that were modified for this final determination are the surrogate financial ratios and the wage rate. For further details, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 2 and 4, and Memorandum to the File from Javier Barrientos, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Final Determination, dated June 16, 2008 (“Final Surrogate Value Memo”). In addition, we have incorporated, where applicable, post-preliminary clarifications based on verification and made certain clerical error corrections for Aifudi. For further details on these company-specific changes, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 8 and 9; *see also* Memorandum to the File from Javier Barrientos, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of Zibo Aifudi Plastic packaging Co., Ltd., for the Final Determination, dated June 16, 2008 (“Aifudi Final Analysis Memo”). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is laminated woven sacks. Laminated woven sacks are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene (“BOPP”) or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high quality print graphics; 4 printed with three colors or more in register; with or without lining; whether or not closed on one end; whether or not in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves); with or without handles; with or without special closing features; not exceeding one kilogram in weight. Laminated woven sacks are typically used for retail packaging of consumer goods such as pet foods and bird seed. 4 “Paper suitable for high quality print graphics,” as used herein, means paper having an ISO brightness of 82 or higher and a Sheffield Smoothness of 250 or less. Coated free sheet is an example of a paper suitable for high quality print graphics. Effective July 1, 2007, laminated woven sacks are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 6305.33.0050 and 6305.33.0080. Laminated woven sacks were previously classifiable under HTSUS subheading 6305.33.0020. If entered with plastic coating on both sides of the fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3923.21.0080, 3923.21.0095, and 3923.29.0000. If entered not closed on one end or in roll form (including sheets, lay-flat tubing, and sleeves), laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 3917.39.0050, 3921.90.1100, 3921.90.1500, and 5903.90.2500. If the polypropylene strips and/or polyethylene strips making up the fabric measure more than 5 millimeters in width, laminated woven sacks may be classifiable under other HTSUS subheadings including 4601.99.0500, 4601.99.9000, and 4602.90.000. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. 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). For this final determination, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) through

(D)of the Act, we have determined that the use of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is warranted for SSJ because of its refusal to answer the Department's supplemental questionnaire. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. As total AFA, we are applying the petition rate to SSJ. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by Aifudi for use in our final determination. *See* Aifudi Verification Report. 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 Aifudi, SSJ, and the separate rate applicants who received a separate rate (“Separate Rate Applicants”) demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status. For all the same reasons, in the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Aifudi 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. With respect to SSJ, because SSJ refused to answer our supplemental questionnaires and stopped participating in the investigation, its responses, including its eligibility for separate status, were incomplete and could not be verified. Accordingly, we now consider SSJ part of the PRC-wide entity. Moreover, the Department's application of facts available to SSJ contributes to the application of facts available applied against the PRC-wide entity, as described herein. 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, including SSJ for this final determination, has not provided the Department with the requested information; therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) through

(D)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 requests 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 Aifudi and the Separate Rate Applicants 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 Aifudi and the Separate Rate Applicants. In addition, we found that there had not been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period for SSJ and the PRC-wide entity. In the Preliminary Determination, we relied on a comparison period of four months, which was the maximum duration for the information we had available at that time, for determining whether imports of the subject merchandise were massive. For the final determination, however, we collected an additional three months of data from Aifudi. After analyzing the additional data, we continue to find that Aifudi and the Separate Rate Applicants had massive imports of LWS over a relatively short period of time. *See* Memorandum to the File from Javier Barrientos, Senior Case Analyst: Critical Circumstances Data for the Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China, dated June 16, 2008, at Attachment I (“CC MTF”). In reviewing the data, we find no reason to believe that the HTS categories used in this case are overly broad for this purpose. Additionally, we find that the PRC-wide entity (including SSJ) did not have massive imports of LWS over a relatively short period of time. *Id* . Corroboration Pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the petition rate of 91.73 percent by comparing the petition margin to the individual CONNUM margins for Aifudi. See Aifudi Final Analysis Memorandum at Attachment I. We found that since the petition margin of 91.73 percent was within the range of CONNUM margins, we find that the margin of 91.73 percent has probative value. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 91.73 percent is corroborated to the extent practicable 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: Exporter Producer Weight_Average Margin ZIBO AIFUDI PLASTIC PACKAGING CO., LTD. ZIBO AIFUDI PLASTIC PACKAGING CO., LTD. 64.28% POLYWELL INDUSTRIAL CO., a.k.a. FIRST WAY (H.K.) LIMITED POLYWELL PLASTIC PRODUCT FACTORY 64.28% ZIBO LINZI WORUN PACKING PRODUCT CO., LTD. ZIBO LINZI WORUN PACKING PRODUCT CO., LTD. 64.28% SHANDONG QIKAI PLASTICS PRODUCT CO., LTD. SHANDONG QIKAI PLASTICS PRODUCT CO., LTD. 64.28% CHANGLE BAODU PLASTIC CO. LTD. CHANGLE BAODU PLASTIC CO. LTD. 64.28% ZIBO LINZI SHUAIQIANG PLASTICS CO. LTD. ZIBO LINZI SHUAIQIANG PLASTICS CO. LTD. 64.28% ZIBO LINZI QITIANLI PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD. ZIBO LINZI QITIANLI PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD. 64.28% SHANDONG YOULIAN CO. LTD SHANDONG YOULIAN CO. LTD 64.28% ZIBO LINZI LUITONG PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD. ZIBO LINZI LUITONG PLASTIC FABRIC CO. LTD. 64.28% WENZHOU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD WENZHOU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD 64.28% JIANGSU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD. JIANGSU HOTSON PLASTICS CO. LTD. 64.28% CANGNAN COLOR MAKE THE BAG CANGNAN COLOR MAKE THE BAG 64.28% ZIBO QIGAO PLASTIC CEMENT CO. LTD ZIBO QIGAO PLASTIC CEMENT CO. LTD 64.28% PRC-WIDE RATE 91.73% 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 PRC-wide entity entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 31, 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 Aifudi and the Separate Rate Applicants and therefore we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Aifudi and the Separate Rate Applicants entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 2, 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 for Aifudi, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after November 2, 2007, which is 90 days prior to January 31, 2008, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the **Federal Register** . Because we do not find critical circumstances for the PRC-wide entity, including SSJ, for this final determination, we will instruct CBP to terminate suspension of liquidation, and release any cash deposits or bonds, on imports with respect to SSJ during the 90 day period prior to the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* . 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 16, 2008. Stephen Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I *Comment 1:* Printing Cylinders *Comment 2:* Ink Surrogate Value *Comment 3:* BOPP Surrogate Value *Comment 4:* Labor Surrogate Value *Comment 5:* Boxes Surrogate Value *Comment 6:* Surrogate Financial Ratios *Comment 7:* Total AFA for SSJ *Comment 8:* Billing Adjustments *Comment 9:* Conversion Factor for Certain Inputs [FR Doc. E8-14266 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-836] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: (June 24, 2008. SUMMARY: On January 30, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary determination in the investigation of sales at less than fair value in the antidumping duty investigation of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube

(LWR)from Mexico. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico* , 73 FR 5515 (January 30, 2008) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). The Department has determined that LWR from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final margins of sales at less than fair value are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination of Investigation.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards or Judy Lao, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-8029 or

(202)482-7924, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The preliminary determination in this investigation was published on January 30, 2008. *See Preliminary Determination* . Since then, we have requested that the respondents in this proceeding, Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero) and Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V. (PROLAMSA) (collectively, respondents), provide the downstream sales data, regarding their affiliates' sales to the first unaffiliated customer in the comparison market ( *i.e.* , Mexico). *See* Letter from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, to Maquilacero S.A. de C.V., entitled “Request for Downstream Sales Data,” dated January 24, 2008; *see also* , letter from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, to Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V., entitled “Request for Downstream Sales Data,” dated January 24, 2008. Maquilacero filed the downstream sales response on behalf of its affiliate on February 6, 2008. PROLAMSA filed the downstream sales response on behalf of its affiliate on February 6, 2008. We conducted sales and cost verifications of the responses (including the downstream sales responses) submitted by Maquilacero and PROLAMSA. *See* Memorandum to the File from Patrick Edwards and Judy Lao, Case Analysts, through Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, entitled “Verification of the Sales Responses of Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico,” dated April 11, 2008 (Maquilacero Verification Report); *see also* Memorandum to the File from Patrick Edwards and Dena Crossland, Case Analysts, through Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, entitled “Verification of the Sales Responses of Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico,” dated April 24, 2008 (PROLAMSA Verification Report), and Memorandum to the File from Patrick Edwards, Case Analyst, through Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, entitled “Verification of Sales Responses of Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V. and Prolamsa, Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico,” dated April 24, 2008 (PROLAMSA CEP Verification Report); *see also* Memorandum to the File through Neal M. Halper, from Gina K. Lee, entitled “Verification of the Cost Response of Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico,” dated April 15, 2008 (PROLAMSA Cost Verification Report), and Memorandum to the File through Neal M. Halper, from Robert B. Gregor, entitled “Verification of the Cost Response of Maquilacero, S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico,” dated April 15, 2008 (Maquilacero Cost Verification Report). All verification reports are on file and available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117, of the main Department of Commerce building. Based on the Department's findings at verification, as well as the minor corrections presented by Maquilacero and PROLAMSA at the start of their respective verifications, we requested respondents to submit revised sales databases. *See* Letter from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, to Maquilacero S.A. de C.V., dated April 18, 2008; *see also* Letter from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, to Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V., dated April 30, 2008. As requested, Maquilacero submitted its revised sales databases on April 28, 2007, and PROLAMSA submitted its revised databases on May 7, 2008. We have also determined that an allegation of targeted dumping submitted by petitioners on December 26, 2007, and supplemented on January 25, 2008, was inadequate. *See* Memorandum from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, to Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, regarding “Final Analysis on Targeting Dumping,” dated April 30, 2008 (Targeted Dumping Memo). Furthermore, with regard to PROLAMSA, we released an additional memorandum in which we explained the Department's intention to revise certain aspects of the programs used to calculate PROLAMSA's margin at the *Preliminary Determination* , based on the Department's finding of inadvertent errors in the programming language. *See* Memorandum to the File from Patrick Edwards, Case Analyst, entitled “Intended Changes to the Comparison Market and U.S. Margin Calculation Programs for Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V. and Revision to Briefing Schedule,” dated May 1, 2008 (CM Program Changes Memo). We invited parties to comment on these proposed changes. Due to the release of the Targeted Dumping Memo and the CM Program Changes Memo subsequent to the release of the verification reports in this investigation, the Department extended the briefing schedule for parties to file case and rebuttal briefs by two days. As such, we received a case brief from petitioners, PROLAMSA, and Maquilacero on May 7, 2008; the same parties filed rebuttal briefs on May 12, 2008. On May 23, 2008, the Department requested that PROLAMSA submit an electronic version of its revised cost database, reflecting the adjustments made to the database for certain minor corrections presented during its cost verification, and which was also filed in hard-copy on the official record on February 27, 2008. *See* Memorandum to the File from Patrick Edwards, Senior Case Analyst, through Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, titled “Request for Cost Database with Post-Cost Verification Corrections - Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. (PROLAMSA,” dated May 27, 2008. PROLAMSA filed the electronic version of its revised cost database on May 27, 2008. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico (2006-2007)” (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 13, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, 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 the Decision Memorandum which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Targeted Dumping We determined that Petitioners' allegations of targeted dumping failed to provide a reasonable basis to find a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers or regions. We determined further that Petitioners had not demonstrated that any such differences could not be taken into account using the average-to-average methodology, pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. We concluded that, for the final determination, we should continue to utilize the average-to-average methodology in calculating the final margins for respondents. For this final determination, we continue to utilize the average-to-average methodology in calculating the final margins for Maquilacero and PROLAMSA for the reasons set forth in the Decision Memorandum. Scope of Investigation The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon quality light walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The term carbon quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon quality includes products in which 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 vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon quality is intended to identify carbon quality products within the scope. The welded carbon quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Period of Investigation The period of investigation is from April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondents for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents. 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 both Maquilacero and PROLAMSA. For a discussion of these changes, *see* memoranda from Patrick Edwards to The File entitled “Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico - Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Analysis Memorandum for Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.,” dated June 13, 2008 (Maquilacero Analysis Memo), and “Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico - Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Analysis Memorandum for Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V.,” dated June 13, 2008 (PROLAMSA Analysis Memo); *see also* , the memorandum from Robert B. Gregor to Neal M. Halper entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Determination: Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.,” dated June 13, 2008 (Maquilacero Cost Memo), and the memorandum from Gina K. Lee to Neal M. Halper entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Determination: Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V.,” dated June 13, 2008 (PROLAMSA Cost Memo). Adverse Facts Available For the final determination, we continue to find that, by failing to provide information we requested, certain producers and/or exporters of LWR from Mexico did not act to the best of their ability in responding to our requests for information. 1 Thus, the Department continues to find that the use of adverse facts available

(AFA)is warranted for these companies under sections 776(a)(2) and

(b)of the Act. *See Preliminary Determination* , 72 FR 5518 through 5520. As we explained in the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department assigned to these producers and/or exporters the rate of 11.50 percent, which the Department selected as the AFA rate as it was the highest estimated margin alleged in the petition. Further, as discussed in the *Preliminary Determination* , we corroborated the AFA rate pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. No party to this investigation provided comments regarding the AFA rate. The Department considers the AFA rate to be a fully-corroborated rate and continues to find that 11.50 percent is the appropriate rate to be applied as the AFA rate for purposes of this final determination. 1 These certain producers/exporters are Industrias Monterrey S.A. de C.V., Nacional de Acero S.A. de C.V., PEASA-Productos Especializados de Acero, Tuberias Aspe, and Tuberias y Derivados S.A. de C.V. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and *de minimis* margins and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. For this final determination, we have calculated a margin for Maquilacero and PROLAMSA that is above *de minimis* . Therefore, for purposes of determining the all-others rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, because other respondents are receiving margins based on adverse facts available, we are using the weighted-average of the dumping margins which we have calculated for Maquilacero and PROLAMSA, *i.e.* , 4.33 percent, as indicated in the “Final Determination of Investigation” section below. Final Determination of Investigation We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007: Manufacturer or Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage) Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. 2.92 Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. (PROLAMSA) 5.73 Arco Metal S.A. de C.V. 4.33 Hylsa S.A. de C.V. 4.33 Industrias Monterrey S.A. de C.V. 11.50 Internacional de Aceros, S.A. de C.V. 4.33 Nacional de Acero S.A. de C.V. 11.50 PEASA-Productos Especializados de Acero 11.50 Perfiles y Herrajes LM, S.A. de C.V. 4.33 Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos 4.33 Talleres Acero Rey S.A. de C.V. 4.33 Tuberias Aspe 11.50 Tuberia Laguna, S.A. de C.V. 4.33 Tuberias y Derivados S.A. de C.V. 11.50 All-Others 4.33 Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b)(1), we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 30, 2008, the date of the publication of *Preliminary Determination* , for all producers/exporters, except PROLAMSA. Because we found PROLAMSA to have a *de minimis* margin in the *Preliminary Determination* , we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Mexico from PROLAMSA and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this final determination. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average margin, as indicated in the chart above, as follows:

(1)the rate for the respondents will be the rates we have determined in this final determination;

(2)if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise;

(3)the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 4.33 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission

(ITC)of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, 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 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/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 13, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix General Issues *Comment 1:* Whether to Deny Home Market Price Adjustments *Comment 2:* Whether to Accept Petitioners' Targeted Dumping Allegation *Comment 3:* Whether to Subtract Negative Margins from Positive Margins (“Zeroing”) Maquilacero S.A de C.V. *Comment 4:* Whether to Treat Export Rebates as an Adjustment to Sales or Cost of Production *Comment 5:* Whether to Use Affiliated Party Downstream Sales in the Department's Analysis Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. *Comment 6:* Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available to PROLAMSA's Affilated Party Downstream Sales *Comment 7:* Whether to Make Changes to the Department's Programming for Currency Conversions used in its *Preliminary Determination* *Comment 8:* Whether to Adjust Reported Costs of Manufacturing *Comment 9:* Whether to Use Corrected Variance Allocation Presented at Verification *Comment 10:* Whether to Calculate Cost of Manufacturing using Historical Depreciation Costs [FR Doc. E8-14249 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-914] Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 2008. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube

(LWR)from the People's Republic of China

(PRC)is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value

(LTFV)as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below. The period covered by the investigation is October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007 (the POI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen or Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2769 and 482-4406, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on January 30, 2008. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China* , 73 FR 5500 (January 30, 2008) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). Between February 18, 2008, and February 29, 2008, the Department conducted verifications of Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd.

(ZZPC)and Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co. Ltd. (Lets Win). *See* the “Verification” section below for additional information. In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* , on April 2, 2008, the petitioners, 1 ZZPC, and Lets Win filed case briefs. The petitioners and ZZPC filed rebuttal briefs on April 7, 2008. 1 The petitioners in this investigation are Allied Tube and Conduit, Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube Company, California Steel and Tube, EXLTUBE, Hannibal Industries, Leavitt Tube Company, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Southland Tube, Vest Inc., Welded Tube, and Western Tube and Conduit. Analysis of Comments Received All of the issues that were raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted in this investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 13, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). Appendix I to this notice contains a list of the issues that are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), at the Main Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have revised ZZPC's and Lets Win's dumping margins to reflect the following changes: 1. We based ZZPC's dumping margin on total adverse facts available. 2. We used different surrogates to value certain steel inputs and packing materials. 3. We averaged one additional surrogate company's data with those surrogate companies' data used in the *Preliminary Determination* to calculate the surrogate financial ratios. 4. Since the release of the preliminary determination, more recent labor data for the PRC has become available, which we have used in calculating Lets Win's final margin. For a detailed analysis of the margin calculation for Lets Win, *see* “Final Determination in the Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co. Ltd.,” dated June 13, 2008. We assigned the separate rates applicants the dumping margin that we calculated for Lets Win. Scope of Investigation The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which 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 vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. Critical Circumstances In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that there was reason to believe or suspect that critical circumstances existed for imports of subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity, and that these imports were massive during a relatively short period. *See* sections 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) and

(B)of the Act. However, the Department did not preliminarily find that there was reason to believe or suspect that critical circumstances existed for imports of subject merchandise from Lets Win, ZZPC, or the separate-rate companies. *See Preliminary Determination* . No parties commented on the Department's preliminary critical circumstances determination and we find no reason to reconsider this determination. Therefore, we determine that critical circumstances exist for the PRC-wide entity, but that critical circumstances do not exist for Lets Win, ZZPC, or the separate-rate companies. Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act provides that, if an interested party provides information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and

(e)of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Additionally, section 776(b) of the Act permits the Department to use an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available if it makes the additional finding that “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” The Department was not able to verify the steel consumption quantities reported or the type of steel used by ZZPC. Furthermore, we have determined that the use of adverse inferences is warranted because ZZPC did not act to the best of its ability in reporting the quantity of steel consumed and the type of steel used. Given the importance of the steel input, we have based ZZPC's dumping margin on total adverse facts available. Specifically, we based ZZPC's dumping margin on the highest rate calculated in this investigation, 264.64%%. *See* the accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum at Comment 1 for details. We do not need to corroborate this rate because it is based on information obtained during the course of this investigation rather than secondary information. 2 2 Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate secondary information, which the SAA describes as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See SAA* at 870. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verifications of the respondents' information. *See* the Department's verification reports for ZZPC and Lets Win on file in the CRU. In conducting the verifications, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by the respondents. Surrogate Country In the *Preliminary Determination* , we selected India as the appropriate surrogate country noting that India was on the Department's list of countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC and that:

(1)India is a significant producer of merchandise comparable to subject merchandise; and,

(2)reliable Indian data for valuing factors of production are readily available. *See Preliminary Determination* . While parties commented on this issue ( *see* Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2), for the final determination, we continue to find India to be the appropriate 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* ); *see also* section 351.107(d) of the Department's regulations. In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department granted separate-rate status to ZZPC, Lets Win, and the separate rate applicants, Wuxi Baishun Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Baishun), Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. (Walsall), Wuxi Worldunion Trading Co., Ltd. (Worldunion), Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Weifang), and Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. (Jiangyin). However, the Department did not grant separate-rate status to Suns International Trading Limited, Liaoning Cold Forming Sectional Company Limited, or Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd. No parties commented on the Department's separate rate determinations. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by ZZPC, Lets Win, Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, and Jiangyin 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 they are eligible for separate rate status. The PRC-Wide Rate In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department considered certain non-responsive PRC producers/exporters to be part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not respond to our requests for information and did not demonstrate that they operated free of government control over their export activities. No additional information regarding these entities has been placed on the record after the *Preliminary Determination* . Since the PRC-wide entity did not provide the Department with requested information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act (which covers situations where an interested party withholds requested information), we continue to find it appropriate to base the PRC-wide rate on facts available. Moreover, given that the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, we continue to find that it failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Thus, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have continued to use an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. *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) (a case in which the Department applied an adverse inference in determining the Russia-wide rate); *see also “Statement of Administrative Action* ” accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870

(1994)( *SAA* ). Specifically, we have assigned the highest margin calculated in this proceeding to the PRC-wide entity (as we have done for ZZPC). We do not need to corroborate this rate because it is based on information obtained during the course of this investigation rather than secondary information. Since we begin with the presumption that all companies within a NME country are subject to government control and only the exporters listed under the “Final Determination Margins” section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate ( *i.e.* , the PRC-wide rate) to all exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, other than the exporters listed in the “Final Determination Margins” sections. *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) (applying the PRC-wide rate to all exporters of subject merchandise in the PRC based on the presumption that the export activities of the companies that failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire were controlled by the PRC government). Thus, the PRC-wide rate will apply to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries of subject merchandise from the exporters that are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below (except as noted). Combination Rates In *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Republic of Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 40274 (July 24, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ), the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. *See Initiation Notice* . This change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. *Policy Bulletin 05.1* , states: {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. *See Policy Bulletin 05.1* , “Separate Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries.” Final Determination Margins We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007: Exporter / Producer Weighted-Average Margin Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd./ Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd. 264.64%% Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd./ Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd. 249.12%% Wuxi Baishun Steel Pipe Co., Ltd./ Wuxi Baishun Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 249.12%% Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd./ Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. 249.12%% Wuxi Worldunion Trading Co., Ltd./ Wuxi Hongcheng Bicycle Material Co., Ltd. 249.12%% Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd./ Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 249.12%% Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd./ Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. 249.12%% PRC-Wide Rate 264.64%% Disclosure We will disclose to parties the calculations performed within five days of the date of public announcement of this determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the following dates:

(1)for ZZPC, Lets Win, and the separate rate companies, on or after January 30, 2008, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** ,

(2)for the PRC-wide entity, on or after November 1, 2007, which is 90 days prior to the publication of the preliminary determination (consistent with our finding that critical circumstances exist for the PRC-wide entity). We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. 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, 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 within 45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess upon further instruction by the Department antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 13, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Parties' Comments *Comment 1:* Whether ZZPC's Dumping Margin Should be Based on Adverse Facts Available *Comment 2:* The Appropriate Surrogate Country *Comment 3:* The Appropriate Surrogate Financial Ratios *Comment 4:* The Appropriate Surrogate Values for Steel Inputs Used by Lets Win *Comment 5:* The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Hot-Rolled Steel *Comment 6:* The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Certain Packing Materials [FR Doc. E8-14252 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-859] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 31, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) published a preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the Republic of Korea. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the Republic of Korea* , 73 FR 5794 (January 31, 2008) (Preliminary Determination). We continue to find that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the Republic of Korea is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation.” EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6312 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 31, 2008, the Department published the preliminary determination and invited interested parties to comment. *See Preliminary Determination* . The petitioners in this investigation are Allied Tube and Conduit, Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube Company, California Steel and Tube, EXLTUBE, Hannibal Industries, Leavitt Tube Company, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Southland Tube, Vest Inc., Welded Tube, and Western Tube and Conduit (Petitioners). The respondents are Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., Han Gyu Rae Steel, Co., Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Kukje Steel Co., Ltd., Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Nexteel Co., Ltd. (Nexteel), SeAH Steel Corporation, Ltd., and Yujin Steel Industry Co. Only Nexteel responded fully to the Section A, B, C, and D questionnaires. (For a complete background concerning the involvement of companies other than Nexteel, *see Preliminary Determination* .) We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary determination. We received a case brief from Petitioners on May 9, 2008, and a rebuttal brief from Nexteel on May 16, 2008. We did not receive a request for a public hearing. Based upon the results of verification, we have made no changes to the dumping calculations; a revision of Nexteel’s databases was, however, required. On December 26, 2007, Petitioners timely filed with the Department an allegation of targeted dumping with respect to Nexteel. Nexteel filed comments regarding Petitioners’ allegation on January 3, 2008. Upon review of Petitioners’ allegation, the Department determined that further information was needed in order to adequately analyze Petitioners’ allegation. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Petitioners on January 14, 2008, requesting that they address deficiencies identified by the Department. See Letter from Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, to Petitioners, dated January 14, 2008. Because there was a need for supplemental information regarding the allegation, we did not have sufficient bases for making a finding regarding Petitioners’ allegations of targeted dumping prior to the preliminary determination. On January 25, 2008, Petitioners submitted a response to the Department’s supplemental targeted dumping questionnaire. We conducted a verification of Nexteel’s cost of production responses on March 6-12, 2008. *See* memorandum from Christopher J. Zimpo, Accountant, to the File, entitled “Verification of the Cost Response of Nexteel Co., Ltd. Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the Republic of Korea,” dated April 25, 2008 ( *Cost Verification Report* ). We conducted a verification of Nexteel’s sales responses on March 13-18, 2008. *See* memorandum from Mark Flessner to the file entitled “Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea: Verification of Nexteel Co., Ltd.,” dated May 1, 2008 (Sales Verification Report). On May 2, 2008, we placed on the record the memorandum from Mark Flessner, Case Analyst, to Richard O. Weible, Office Director, entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Korea: Final Analysis on Targeting Dumping” ( *Targeted Dumping Memorandum* ). For a discussion of our findings, *see* the section below entitled “Targeted Dumping.” We received a case brief from Petitioners on May 9, 2008. We received a rebuttal brief from Nexteel on May 16, 2008. We received no request for a public hearing, so no hearing was held. Period of Investigation The period of investigation

(POI)is April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. Scope of Investigation The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which 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 vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons We calculated export price and normal value based on the same methodologies used in the *Preliminary Determination* . We used the home market and U.S. sales databases submitted by Nexteel after verification, which included minor corrections presented at the beginning of verification and findings from verification. *See Sales Verification Report* . Cost of Production and Constructed Value We calculated the cost of production and constructed value for Nexteel based on the same methodologies used in the *Preliminary Determination* . Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Tariff Act, we verified the information submitted by respondents during the periods March 6-12, 2008

(cost)and March 13-18, 2008 (sales) ( *see Cost Verification Report* and *Sales Verification Report* ). We used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by the respondents. Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea” ( *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* ), dated June 13, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 of the Department of Commerce main building and can be accessed directly at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* are identical in content. A list of the issues addressed in the *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* is appended to this notice. Targeted Dumping We determine that Petitioners’ allegations of targeted dumping failed to provide a reasonable basis to find a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers or regions. We determine further that Petitioners had not demonstrated that any such differences could not be taken into account using the average-to-average methodology, pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. We conclude that, for the final determination, we should continue to utilize the average-to-average methodology in calculating the final margins for Nexteel for the reasons set forth in the *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* . Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from Korea that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 31, 2008, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Producer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage) Nexteel Co., Ltd. 1.30 (de minimis) Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. 30.66 HiSteel Co. Ltd. 30.66 Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd. 30.66 Joong Won 30.66 Miju Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd. 30.66 Yujin Steel Industry Co. 30.66 Ahshin Pipe & Tube 30.66 Han Gyu Rae Steel Co., Ltd. 30.66 Kukje Steel Co., Ltd. 30.66 SeAH Steel Corporation, Ltd. 15.98 All others 15.98 ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Tariff Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission

(ITC)of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the United States industry. 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. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(202)482-3853. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 21, 1995, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (“SSB”) from India. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India and Japan* , 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On February 11, 2008, the Department received a timely request from Ambica Steels Limited (“Ambica”) for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India. Also, on February 29, 2008, we received a timely request from domestic interested parties Carpenter Technology Corp.; Crucible Specialty Metals, a division of Crucible Materials Corp.; Electralloy Co., a G.O. Carlson, Inc. company; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., for a review of Venus Wire Industries, Pvt. Ltd. (“Venus”). On March 31, 2008, the Department initiated an administrative review of Ambica and Venus. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative Review* , 73 FR 16837 (March 31, 2008). On May 16, 2008, Ambica withdrew its request for an administrative review. The administrative review of Venus continues. Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections. The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this order. *See* Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, “Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final Scope Ruling,” dated May 23, 2005, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. *See also Notice of Scope Rulings* , 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005). Partial Rescission of Review Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provide 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. Ambica withdrew its request for an administrative review on May 16, 2008, which is within the 90-day deadline. No other party had requested a review of Ambica. Therefore, the Department rescinds this administrative review of Ambica, covering the period February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008 (“2007-2008 AR”). However, we note that the 2007-2008 AR still continues with respect to Venus Wire Industries, Pvt. Ltd. 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 18, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-14268 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-930] Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3518 or

(202)482-5193, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Postponement of Preliminary Determination On February 19, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) initiated the antidumping duty investigation of circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe from the People's Republic of China. *See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation* , 73 FR 10221 (February 26, 2008) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). The *Initiation Notice* stated that, unless postponed, the Department would make its preliminary determination for this antidumping duty investigation no later than 140 days after the date of initiation. Id. at 10224. On June 10, 2008, the petitioners 1 made a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation. The petitioners requested postponement of the preliminary determination because of the “number of input factors, the complexity of the transactions to be investigated, and the difficulty in obtaining certain surrogate values.” There are no compelling reasons to deny the petitioners' request. Therefore, the Department is postponing this preliminary determination under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”) by 50 days from July 8, 2008 to August 27, 2008. The deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless extended. 1 The petitioners in this investigation are Bristol Metals, L.P., Felker Brothers Corp., Marcegaglia USA, Inc., Outokumpu Stainless Pipe Inc., and the United Steel Workers of America. This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(c)(2) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). Dated: June 18, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-14254 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI48 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Applications for one new scientific research permit and one permit modification. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received two scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)and to help guide management and conservation efforts. DATES: Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on July 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by e-mail to *resapps.nwr@NOAA.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane Bellerud, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2338, Fax: 503-231-2318, e-mail: *Blane.Bellerud@noaa.gov* ). Permit application instructions are available from the address above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Species Covered in This Notice The following listed species are covered in this notice: Chinook salmon ( *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* ): threatened lower Columbia River (LCR), threatened upper Willamette River (UWR), endangered upper Columbia River (UCR), threatened Snake River

(SR)spring/summer (spr/sum), threatened SR fall. Chum salmon ( *O. keta* ): threatened Columbia River (CR. Steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ): threatened LCR, threatened UWR, threatened middle Columbia River (MCR), threatened SR, endangered UCR, threatened PS. Coho salmon ( *O. kisutch* ): threatened LCR, threatened Oregon Coast (OC). Sockeye salmon ( *O. nerka* ): endangered SR. Authority Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits:

(1)are applied for in good faith;

(2)if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and

(3)are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS. Applications Received Permit 1318 - Modification 1 Permit 1318 currently authorizes the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW)to take juvenile UCR Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, SR steelhead, SR fall-run Chinook salmon, SR spr/sum Chinook salmon, SR sockeye salmon, MCR steelhead, UWR Chinook salmon, UWR steelhead, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, and CR chum salmon in the Willamette and Columbia River basins. They are asking to modify the permit so they may be allowed to take OC coho salmon; they also wish to add a seventh project to the permit. The Permit currently contains the following projects:

(1)Warm Water Fish Management Surveys;

(2)Investigations of Natural Production of Spring Chinook Salmon in the Mohawk System;

(3)Genetic Characterization of Rainbow Trout in the Upper Willamette System;

(4)Fish Abundance, Population Status, Genetics and Disease Surveys in the Upper Willamette Basin;

(5)Native Rainbow and Cutthroat Trout Surveys for Abundance, Size Composition, and Migration Patterns in the Mainstem McKenzie River;

(6)Resident Redband Population Estimates in the Deschutes River. The ODFW wishes to add

(7)Resident Redband Population Estimates in the Crooked River. The purpose of the research is to gather information on fish population structure, abundance, genetics, disease occurrences, and species interactions throughout many anadromous fish-bearing basins in Oregon. That information would be used to direct management actions to benefit listed species. Juvenile salmonids would be collected during boat electrofishing operations in the subbasins listed in the project titles above. Some fish would be anesthetized, sampled for length and weight, allowed to recover from the anesthesia, and released; most would only be shocked and allowed to swim away, or be netted and immediately released. The ODFW does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities. Permit 13494 The Bonneville Power Administration

(BPA)is requesting a 5-year research permit to take LCR Chinook salmon, CR coho salmon, and LCR steelhead during fish collection and transport activities on the Cowlitz River, Washington. The purpose of the research is to determine the fishes' response to being collected and transported around two dams that currently have no downstream fish passage. The activities will take place at a facility that is co-located with the Cowlitz Falls Hydroelectric dam on the upper Cowlitz River in southeastern Washington State. The fish collection facility is a key component of ongoing efforts to re-establish self-supporting populations of anadromous salmonids in the upper Cowlitz river basin. The proposed research seeks to

(1)improve fish collection efficiency by modifying the operation and physical structure of the fish collection facility, and

(2)develop an ongoing transportation program to maintain fish populations. The research would benefit the fish by helping them get access to (and egress from) new habitat that was previously cut off by impassible barriers. Fish collected at the facility would be transported by truck and released in the free-flowing section of the Cowlitz River downstream of the hydropower projects. Scales and other biological samples would be taken from some of the fish. The BPA does not intend to kill any of the fish being studied, but a small percentage of them may be killed as an unintended result of the research. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the **Federal Register** . Dated: June 17, 2008. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-14259 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH52 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Prohibited Species Donation Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; selection of an authorized distributor. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the renewal of permits to SeaShare (formerly Northwest Food Strategies) authorizing this organization to distribute Pacific salmon and Pacific halibut to economically disadvantaged individuals under the prohibited species donation

(PSD)program. Salmon and halibut are caught incidentally during directed fishing for groundfish with trawl gear off Alaska. This action is necessary to comply with provisions of the PSD program and is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. DATES: The permits are effective from August 15, 2008, through August 15, 2011. ADDRESSES: Copies of the PSD permits for salmon and halibut may be obtained by mail from NMFS, Alaska Region, P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, Alaska; or via the Internet at the NMFS Alaska Region website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Carls, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area

(BSAI)and Gulf of Alaska

(GOA)is managed by NMFS in accordance with the Fishery Management Plan for groundfish of the BSAI and the Fishery Management Plan for groundfish of the GOA (FMPs). These FMPs were prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Regulations governing the Alaska groundfish fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. Fishing for halibut in waters in and off Alaska is governed by the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. The International Pacific Halibut Commission

(IPHC)promulgates regulations pursuant to the Convention. The IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). After approval by the Secretary of State and the Secretary, the IPHC regulations are published in the **Federal Register** as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. Amendments 26 and 29 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs, respectively, authorize a salmon donation program and were approved by NMFS on July 10, 1996; a final rule implementing this program was published in the **Federal Register** on July 24, 1996 (61 FR 38358). The salmon donation program was expanded to include halibut as part of the PSD program under Amendments 50 and 50 to the FMPs that were approved by NMFS on May 6, 1998. A final rule implementing Amendments 50 and 50 was published in the **Federal Register** on June 12, 1998 (63 FR 32144). Although that final rule contained a sunset provision for the halibut PSD program of December 31, 2000, the halibut PSD program was permanently extended under a final rule published in the **Federal Register** on December 14, 2000 (65 FR 78119). A full description of, and background information on, the PSD program may be found in the preambles to the proposed rules for Amendments 26 and 29, and Amendments 50 and 50 (May 16, 1996, 61 FR 24750, and March 4, 1998, 63 FR 10583, respectively). Regulations at § 679.26 authorize the voluntary distribution of salmon and halibut taken incidentally in the groundfish trawl fisheries off Alaska, to economically disadvantaged individuals by tax-exempt organizations through an authorized distributor. The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), may select one or more tax-exempt organizations to be authorized distributors, as defined by § 679.2, based on the information submitted by applicants under § 679.26. After review of qualified applicants, NMFS must announce the selection of authorized distributor(s) in the **Federal Register** and issue PSD permits to the selected distributor(s). On March 24, 2008, the Acting Regional Administrator received two applications from SeaShare to renew both its salmon and halibut PSD permits that were issued August 15, 2005 (70 FR 40987, July 15, 2005). Revisions to the applications were received on May 6, 2008. The current salmon and halibut PSD permits issued to SeaShare authorize SeaShare to participate in the PSD program through August 15, 2008. The Acting Regional Administrator reviewed the applications and determined that they are complete and that SeaShare continues to meet the requirements for a PSD program authorized distributor. As required by § 679.26(b)(2), the Acting Regional Administrator based his selection on the following criteria: 1. *The number and qualifications of applicants for PSD permits.* Seashare is the only applicant for PSD permits at this time. NMFS has previously approved applications submitted by SeaShare. As of the date of this notice, no other applications have been approved by NMFS. SeaShare has been coordinating the distribution of salmon taken incidentally in trawl fisheries since 1993, and of halibut taken incidentally in trawl fisheries since 1998, under exempted fishing permits from 1993 to 1996, and under the PSD program since 1996. SeaShare employs independent seafood quality control experts to ensure product quality is maintained by cold storage facilities and common carriers servicing the areas where salmon and halibut donations will take place. 2. *The number of harvesters and the quantity of fish that applicants can effectively administer.* For salmon, 3 shoreside processors, 17 catcher/processor vessels, and 36 catcher vessels currently participate in the PSD program administered by SeaShare. Three shoreside processors and 36 catcher vessels participate in the halibut donation program. SeaShare has the capacity to receive and distribute salmon and halibut from up to 40 processors and the associated catcher vessels. Therefore, it is anticipated that SeaShare has more than adequate capacity for any foreseeable expansion of donations. In 2005, 2006, and 2007, SeaShare received 483,359 pounds, 171,628 pounds, and 87,330 pounds, respectively, of salmon for distribution to food bank organizations. During these same years, SeaShare received 20,960 pounds, 8,757 pounds, and 16,026 pounds, respectively, of halibut for distribution to food bank organizations. NMFS does not have information to convert accurately the net weights of salmon and halibut to numbers of salmon and numbers of halibut. 3. *The anticipated level of salmon and halibut incidental catch based on salmon and halibut incidental catch from previous years.* The incidental catch of salmon and incidental catch mortality of halibut in the GOA and BSAI trawl fisheries are shown in the following table: Area Fishery 2006 2007 BSAI Trawl Chinook Incidental Catch 85,914 fish 124,260 fish BSAI Trawl Other Salmon Incidental Catch 324,601 fish 90,731 fish GOA Trawl Chinook Incidental Catch 19,158 fish 40,182 fish GOA Trawl Other Salmon Incidental Catch 4,216 fish 3,368 fish BSAI Trawl Halibut Mortality 3,436 mt 3,356 mt GOA Trawl Halibut Mortality 1,996 mt 1,944 mt Halibut incidental catch amounts are constrained by an annual prohibited species catch limit in the BSAI and GOA. Future halibut incidental catch levels likely will be similar to those experienced in 2006 and 2007. Salmon prohibited species incidental catch limits are established for the BSAI pollock fisheries that when attained, result in the closure of specified fishing grounds for a specified period of time. An exemption to these closures is provided to participants in an intercooperative agreement to reduce salmon bycatch rates under Amendment 84 to the BSAI FMP (72 FR 61070, October 29, 2007). Salmon incidental catch limits are not established for the GOA. In general, salmon incidental catch amounts tend to be variable between years, making accurate prediction of future incidental take amounts difficult. 4. *The potential number of vessels and processors participating in the groundfish trawl fisheries.* In 2007, 18 shoreside processors, out of a total of 112 permitted, processed catch from trawl vessels. Also, in 2007, 146 trawl catcher vessels out of 205, 40 trawl catcher/processors out of 53, and 9 motherships and stationary floating processors out of 45 participated in the Alaska groundfish trawl fisheries. The PSD permits are issued to SeaShare for a 3-year period unless suspended or revoked. They may not be transferred; however, they may be renewed following the application procedures in § 679.26. If the authorized distributor modifies any information on the PSD permit application submitted under § 679.26(b)(1)(xi) or (b)(1)(xiii), the authorized distributor must submit a modified list of participants or a modified list of delivery locations to the Regional Administrator. These permits may be suspended, modified, or revoked under 15 CFR part 904 for noncompliance with terms and conditions specified in the permit or for a violation of this section or other regulations in 50 CFR part 679. Classification This action is taken under § 679.26. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* ; 1801 *et seq.* ; 3631 *et seq.* ; Pub. L. 108-447. Dated: June 17, 2008. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-14275 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service RIN 0648-XI44 Marine Mammals and Endangered Species; National Marine Fisheries Service File No. 10074; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service File No. PRT-165304 AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Michael Etnier, Ph.D., Box 353100, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98227 has been issued a permit to import marine mammal specimens for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203 (1-800-358-2104). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 25, 2008, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 4540) that a request for a scientific research permit to take marine mammals had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 *et seq.* ). The permit authorizes Dr. Etnier to possess and import/export marine mammal and endangered and threatened species parts (hard and soft) from the orders of Cetacea, Pinnipedia, and Carnivora (sea otter, *Enhydra lutris* ). Specimens (teeth, bone, and whiskers) will be obtained from museums and private collections or collected from carcasses of beach stranded animals or federally sponsored subsistence harvests. No animals will be taken or killed for the purposes of this research. The objectives are to combine osteometric, chemical, and genetic analyses to test hypotheses regarding the stability of ecological adaptations among marine mammals in the eastern north Pacific Ocean throughout the Late Holocene. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit:

(1)was applied for in good faith;

(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: June 18, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Dated: June 18, 2008. Timothy J. Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Permits Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-14260 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODES 3510-22-S, 4310-55-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Patent Prosecution Highway

(PPH)Program (Formerly Patent Prosecution Highway

(PPH)Pilot Program) ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov* . Include “0651-0058 comment” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Fawcett. • *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. • *Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Robert A. Clarke, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7735; or by e-mail at *Robert.Clarke@uspto.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Patent Prosecution Highway

(PPH)pilot program was originally established between the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Japan Patent Office

(JPO)on July 3, 2006. The PPH program allows applicants whose claims are determined to be patentable in the office of first filing to have the corresponding application that is filed in the office of second filing be advanced out of turn for examination. At the same time, the PPH program allows the office of second filing to exploit the search and examination results of the office of first filing, which increases examination efficiency and improves patent quality. The USPTO and the JPO agreed at the November 2007 Trilateral Conference to fully implement the PPH program on a permanent basis starting on January 4, 2008. The USPTO entered into a PPH pilot program with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) on September 4, 2007. Additional PPH pilot programs have also recently been established between the USPTO and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), and the Intellectual Property Office of Australia (IPAU). In addition to the PPH program, the USPTO and the JPO also participate in a work-sharing pilot project called the “New Route.” Under the New Route framework, a filing in one member office of this arrangement would be deemed a filing in all member offices. The first office and applicant would be given a 30-month processing time frame in which to make available a first office action and any necessary translations to the second office(s), and the second office(s) would exploit the search and examination results in conducting their own examination. The New Route proposal permits the search and examination results of the first office to be transmitted to the second office(s) according to an internationally coordinated time frame. By allowing the second office to exploit the search and examination results of the first office, the primary benefits of the New Route program would be to reduce overall office workload, minimize duplication of search efforts, and increase examination quality. Because the New Route, as envisioned, would require changes in law in the USPTO and the JPO, the USPTO and the JPO agreed to commence a pilot project to test the New Route concept based on filing scenarios currently available under existing law in both offices. The New Route pilot project began on January 28, 2008, and will end when the number of requests reaches 50 or at the expiration of one year, whichever occurs first. This information collection previously included two forms, Request for Participation in the New Route Pilot Program Between the JPO and the USPTO (PTO/SB/10) and Request for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway

(PPH)Pilot Program Between the

(1)JPO or

(2)UKIPO and the USPTO (PTO/SB/20), which may be used by applicants to request participation in the programs and to ensure that they meet the program requirements. Since the PPH program with the JPO has been fully implemented, Form PTO/SB/20 has been revised as Form PTO/SB/20JP for use with the JPO and a separate Form PTO/SB/20UK has been created for the ongoing pilot program with the UKIPO. Similar forms have been created for the PPH pilot programs with the CIPO, the KIPO, and the IPAU. These additional PPH pilot program forms are being added to this collection. II. Method of Collection Requests to participate in the New Route pilot program must be submitted by fax to the Office of the Commissioner for Patents (571-273-0125) to ensure that the request is processed in a timely manner. Requests to participate in the PPH programs must be submitted online using EFS-Web, the USPTO's web-based electronic filing system. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-0058. *Form Number(s):* PTO/SB/10, PTO/SB/20AU, PTO/SB/20CA, PTO/SB/20JP, PTO/SB/20KR, PTO/SB/20UK. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,250 responses per year. *Estimated Time per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 1.5 to 2 hours to gather the necessary information, prepare the form, and submit a completed request to participate in the New Route or PPH program. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 2,475 hours per year. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $767,250 per year. The USPTO expects that the information in this collection will be prepared by attorneys. Using the professional rate of $310 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the total annual respondent cost burden for this collection will be approximately $767,250 per year. Item Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Request for Participation in the New Route Pilot Program Between the JPO and the USPTO (PTO/SB/10) 1.5 50 75 Request for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway

(PPH)Program Between the JPO and the USPTO (PTO/SB/20JP) 2 500 1,000 Request for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway

(PPH)Pilot Program Between the UKIPO and the USPTO (PTO/SB/20UK) 2 250 500 Request for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway

(PPH)Pilot Program Between the CIPO and the USPTO (PTO/SB/20CA) 2 100 200 Request for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway

(PPH)Pilot Program Between the KIPO and the USPTO (PTO/SB/20KR) 2 250 500 Request for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway

(PPH)Pilot Program Between the IPAU and the USPTO (PTO/SB/20AU) 2 100 200 Totals 1,250 2,475 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $162,590 per year. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, or postage costs associated with this collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of filing fees and recordkeeping costs. The filing fee for requests to participate in the New Route or PPH programs is $130 under 37 CFR 1.17(h). Using the $130 fee, the USPTO estimates that the total filing fees for this collection would be $162,500 per year. There are also recordkeeping costs associated with submitting the PPH forms in this collection online through EFS-Web. When submitting forms through EFS-Web, the USPTO recommends that customers print and retain a copy of the acknowledgment receipt as evidence of the successful submission. The USPTO estimates that it will take 5 seconds (0.001 hours) to print a copy of the acknowledgment receipt and that approximately 1,200 submissions in this collection will be filed online, for a total of approximately 1 hour per year. The USPTO expects that these receipts will be printed by paraprofessionals at an estimated rate of $90 per hour, for a total recordkeeping cost of $90 per year. The total (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of filing fees and recordkeeping costs is estimated to be $162,590 per year. 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, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 17, 2008. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E8-14193 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Representative and Address Provisions ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 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 the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov* . Include “0651-0035 comment” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Fawcett. • *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. • *Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Robert A. Clarke, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7735; or by e-mail to *Robert.Clarke@uspto.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Under 35 U.S.C. 2 and 37 CFR 1.31-1.36, a patent applicant or assignee of record may grant power of attorney to a person who is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to act for them in a patent or application. A power of attorney may also be revoked, and a registered practitioner may also withdraw as attorney or agent of record under 37 CFR 1.36. The rules of practice (37 CFR 1.33) also provide for the applicant, assignee, or practitioner of record to supply a correspondence address and daytime telephone number for receiving notices, official letters, and other communications from the USPTO. Maintaining a correct and updated correspondence address is necessary so that official correspondence from the USPTO related to a patent or application will be properly received by the applicant, assignee, or practitioner. The USPTO's Customer Number practice permits applicants, assignees, and practitioners of record to change the correspondence address or representatives of record for a number of patents or applications with one change request instead of filing separate requests for each patent or application. Customers may request a Customer Number from the USPTO and associate this Customer Number with a correspondence address or a list of registered practitioners. Any changes to the address or practitioner information associated with a Customer Number will be applied to all patents and applications associated with that Customer Number. The Customer Number practice is optional, in that changes of correspondence address or power of attorney may be filed separately for each patent or application without using a Customer Number. However, a Customer Number associated with the correspondence address for a patent application is required in order to access private information about the application using the Patent Application Information Retrieval

(PAIR)system, which is available through the USPTO Web site. The PAIR system allows authorized individuals secure online access to application status information, but only for patent applications that are linked to a Customer Number. Customer Numbers may be associated with U.S. patent applications as well as international Patent Cooperation Treaty

(PCT)applications. The use of a Customer Number is also required in order to grant power of attorney to more than ten practitioners or to establish a separate “fee address” for maintenance fee purposes that is different from the correspondence address for a patent or application. In addition to the forms offered by the USPTO to assist customers with providing the information in this collection, customers may also format requests using a Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet to designate or change the correspondence address or fee address for a list of patents or applications by associating them with a Customer Number. The Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet must be submitted to the USPTO on a computer-readable diskette or compact disc (CD), accompanied by a signed cover letter requesting entry of the address changes for the listed patents and applications. The spreadsheet and cover letter must be mailed to the USPTO and cannot be filed electronically. Customers may download a Microsoft Excel template with instructions from the USPTO Web site to assist them in preparing the spreadsheet in the proper format. The Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet may not be used to change the power of attorney for patents or applications. This information collection includes the information necessary to submit a request to grant or revoke power of attorney for a patent application and for a registered practitioner to withdraw as attorney or agent of record for a patent application. This collection also includes the information necessary to request a Customer Number and associate a correspondence address or list of practitioners with this Customer Number, to change the correspondence address or practitioners associated with a Customer Number, and to designate or change the correspondence address or fee address for one or more patents or applications by using a Customer Number. The USPTO is revising a form in this collection, Request for Withdrawal as Attorney or Agent and Change of Correspondence Address (PTO/SB/83), to allow the practitioner requesting withdrawal to certify that proper notice has been given to the client and that all papers and property to which the client is entitled have been delivered. The USPTO is also deleting two items from this collection. The Electronic Power of Attorney Forms

(EFS)that were previously included in this collection are being deleted due to the retirement of the USPTO's previous electronic filing system

(EFS)software in favor of a new Web-based online submission system (EFS-Web). Instead of having to install and use the separate EFS software, forms and other documents may be uploaded and submitted online directly through the USPTO Web site. In addition, the Customer Upload Spreadsheet for PCT Applications is being deleted from this collection because it is no longer in use. Applicants must instead submit a Request to Update a PCT Application With a Customer Number (PTO-2248) for each PCT application to be associated with a Customer Number. II. Method of Collection By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-0035. *Form Number(s):* PTO/SB/80/81/82/83/84/122/123/124/125 and PTO-2248. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 568,902 responses per year. *Estimated Time per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 3 minutes (0.05 hours) to 1.5 hours to submit the information in this collection, including the time to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or document, and submit the completed request. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 33,357 hours per year. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $3,040,630 per year. The USPTO expects that Requests for Withdrawal as Attorney or Agent and the petitions in this collection will be prepared by attorneys, while the other items in this collection will be prepared by paraprofessionals. Using the professional rate of $310 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for submitting the withdrawal requests and the petitions will be $54,250 per year. Using the paraprofessional rate of $90 per hour, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for submitting the other items in this collection will be $2,986,380 per year. The estimated total respondent cost burden for this collection is $3,040,630 per year. Item Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO (PTO/SB/80) 3 minutes 3,500 175 Power of Attorney and Correspondence Address Indication Form (PTO/SB/81) 3 minutes 426,450 21,323 Revocation of Power of Attorney with New Power of Attorney and Change of Correspondence Address (PTO/SB/82) 3 minutes 1,100 55 Request for Withdrawal as Attorney or Agent and Change of Correspondence Address (PTO/SB/83) 12 minutes 750 150 Authorization to Act in a Representative Capacity (PTO/SB/84) 3 minutes 1,350 68 Petition Under 37 CFR 1.36(a) to Revoke Power of Attorney by Fewer than All the Applicants 1 hour 15 15 Petition to Waive 37 CFR 1.32(b)(4) and Grant Power of Attorney by Fewer than All the Applicants 1 hour 10 10 Change of Correspondence Address for Application or Patent (PTO/SB/122/123) 3 minutes 121,727 6,086 Request for Customer Number Data Change (PTO/SB/124) 12 minutes 2,000 400 Request for Customer Number (PTO/SB/125) 12 minutes 8,500 1,700 Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet 1 hour and 30 minutes 2,000 3,000 Request to Update a PCT Application with a Customer Number (PTO-2248) 15 minutes 1,500 375 Total 568,902 33,357 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $257,178. There are no maintenance costs associated with this information collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) cost burden in the form of filing fees, recordkeeping costs, capital start-up costs, and postage costs. The two petitions in this collection have associated filing fees. The filing fee for both the Petition Under 37 CFR 1.36(a) to Revoke Power of Attorney by Fewer than All the Applicants and the Petition to Waive 37 CFR 1.32(b)(4) and Grant Power of Attorney by Fewer than All the Applicants is currently $400 (37 CFR 1.17(f)). Using the $400 fee for these petitions, the USPTO estimates that the total filing fees for this collection would be $10,000 per year. There are recordkeeping costs associated with submitting forms in this collection electronically through EFS-Web, the USPTO's online filing system. When submitting forms through EFS-Web, the USPTO recommends that customers print and retain a copy of the acknowledgment receipt as evidence of the successful submission. The USPTO estimates that it will take 5 seconds (0.001 hours) to print a copy of the acknowledgment receipt and that approximately 311,796 of the submissions in this collection will be filed online, for a total of approximately 312 hours per year. The USPTO expects that these receipts will be printed by paraprofessionals at an estimated rate of $90 per hour, for a total recordkeeping cost of $28,080 per year. This collection has capital start-up costs associated with the Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet, which must be submitted to the USPTO on a diskette or CD. This process requires additional supplies, including blank diskettes or recordable CD media and padded envelopes for shipping. The USPTO estimates that the cost of these supplies will be approximately $2 per submission, for a total capital start-up cost of $4,000 per year. The public may incur postage costs when submitting the information in this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO estimates that the first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 83 cents for all items except for the Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet and that approximately 255,106 of the non-spreadsheet items will be submitted to the USPTO by mail. Due to the additional materials required for Customer Number Upload Spreadsheet submissions, including the diskette or CD and cover letter, the USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a spreadsheet submission will be $1.68. The total estimated postage cost for this collection is $215,098 per year. The total (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of filing fees, recordkeeping costs, capital start-up costs, and postage costs is estimated to be $257,178 per year. 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

(703)601-3740 The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-42 with attached transmittal, and policy justification. June 16, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN24JN08.007 EN24JN08.008 EN24JN08.009 [FR Doc. E8-14007 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Base Closure and Realignment AGENCY: Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice is provided pursuant to section 2905(b)(7)(B)(ii) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. It provides a partial list of military installations closing or realigning pursuant to the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment

(BRAC)Report. It also provides a corresponding listing of the Local Redevelopment Authorities

(LRAs)recognized by the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), as well as the points of contact, addresses, and telephone numbers for the LRAs for those installations. Representatives of state and local governments, homeless providers, and other parties interested in the redevelopment of an installation should contact the person or organization listed. The following information will also be published simultaneously in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of each installation. There will be additional Notices providing this same information about LRAs for other closing or realigning installations where surplus government property is available as those LRAs are recognized by the OEA. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 24, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Office of Economic Adjustment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 400 Army Navy Drive, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22202-4704,

(703)604-6020. Local Redevelopment Authorities

(LRAs)for Closing and Realigning Military Installations Tennessee *Installation Name:* Chattanooga Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant

(VAAP)USARC (Building 228). *LRA Name:* Chattanooga Local Redevelopment Authority. *Point of Contact:* Paul Parker, Manager, Hamilton County Real Property Office. *Address:* 123 East 7th Street, Chattanooga, TN 37402. *Phone:*

(423)209-6453. Dated: June 17, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-14208 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [DoD-2008-OS-0001] Higher Initial Maximum Uniform Allowance Rate; Uniform Allowance AGENCY: Department of Defense; Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is the final notice that the Department of Defense (DoD or “the Department”), is establishing a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for DoD firefighter personnel. This action is pursuant to the authority granted to DoD by Section 591.104 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Olson,

(703)901-6840. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD is implementing a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for firefighter personnel. This is in accordance with 5 CFR 591.104, which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103. The current $400.00 limit has become inadequate to maintain the uniform standards and professional image expected of DoD firefighters. The uniform items for uniformed firefighter personnel include the following items or similar items such as: Work shirts, work pants, work t-shirts, work coat, work cap, belt, dress shirts, dress pants, dress coat, dress shoes, dress hat, dress tie, weather gear, tie clips, tie bars, rank insignia, badges, patches, and name tags. The itemized total uniform cost for the listed items is $1604.14. Based on these current costs, the Department is increasing the initial maximum uniform allowance for uniformed firefighter personnel to $1,600.00. A notice of this planned action was published in the **Federal Register** on March 10, 2008 (73 FR 12711). Since no comments were received by the due date of May 9, 2008, DoD is proceeding with the establishment of the higher initial maximum uniform allowance rate for uniformed firefighter personnel. The effective date of this higher initial maximum uniform allowance rate is June 23, 2008. Dated: June 17, 2008. Patricia Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-14197 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2008-OS-0074] Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records AGENCY: Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD. ACTION: Notice to Add a New System of Records. SUMMARY: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service

(DFAS)is proposing to add a system of records notice to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: This action will be effective without further notice on July 24, 2008 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FOIA/PA Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Krabbenhoft at

(303)676-6045. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on June 13, 2008, to the House Committee on Government on Oversight and Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A- 130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated December 12, 2000, 65 FR 239. Dated: June 18, 2008. Patricia Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. T-7206 System name: Non-appropriated Funds Central Payroll System (NAFCPS). System location: Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Enterprise Computing Center, Ogden, 7879 Wardleigh Road, Hill Air Force Base, Utah 84058-5997. Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DFAS-Texarkana, PO BOX 611, Texarkana, Texas 75505-6111. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Department of Defense

(DoD)Non-appropriated fund civilian employees in the following agencies: Department of the Army, National Security Agency (NSA), the Defense Logistics Agency

(DLA)and Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Texarkana. Categories of records in the system: Individual's name, Social Security Number

(SSN)and information concerning individual records of appointment or assignment; official authenticated time and attendance records, individual leave records, information on employee's federal, state and local tax withholding and allotments. Authority for maintenance of the system: 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DoDFMR) 7000.14-R Vol. 4; 5 U.S.C. Sections 2105c, 5531, and 5533; and E.O. 9397 (SSN). Purpose(s): A system for maintaining and tracking pay of U.S. Army, Department of Defense and National Security Agency non-appropriated funds civilian employees. The system will calculate the net pay due each employee; provide a history of pay transaction, entitlements and deductions; maintain a record of leave accrued and taken; keep a schedule of bonds due and issued; record taxes paid; and respond to inquiries or claims. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a

(b)of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DOD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the DoD compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Electronic storage media. Retrievability: Individual's name and Social Security Number (SSN). Safeguards: Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and is accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to records is limited to person(s) responsible for servicing the record in performance of their official duties and who are properly screened and cleared for a need-to-know. Access to computerized data is restricted by passwords, which are changed according to agency security policy. Retention and disposal: Records may be temporary in nature and deleted when actions are completed, superseded, obsolete, or no longer needed. Other records may be cut off at the end of the payroll year, and then destroyed after 56 years. Records are destroyed by degaussing the electronic media and recycling hardcopy records. The recycled hardcopies are destroyed by shredding, burning, or pulping. System manager(s) and address: Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Indianapolis, Systems Management Directorate, 8899 E 56th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46249-1056. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. Individuals should furnish full name, Social Security Number (SSN), current address, telephone number, and provide a reasonable description of what they are seeking. Record access procedures: Individuals seeking access to information about them contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. Individuals should furnish full name, Social Security Number (SSN), current address, telephone number and provide a reasonable description of what they are seeking. Contesting record procedures: The DFAS rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DFAS Regulation 5400.11-R; 32 CFR part 324; or may be obtained from Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Program Manager, Corporate Communications and Legislative Liaison, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000. Record source categories: From the individual concerned, DoD Components, National Security Agency and other Federal agencies. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. [FR Doc. E8-14206 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Availability of Non-Exclusive, Exclusive License or Partially Exclusive Licensing of U.S. Patent Concerning “Stove Apparatus” AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR part 404.6, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 7,380,548 entitled “Stove Apparatus” issued June 3, 2008. This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeffrey DiTullio at U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760, Phone:

(508)233-4184 or E-mail: *Jeffrey.Ditullio@natick.army.mil* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404. Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14236 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Spring Bayou, Louisiana, Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, in conjunction with the Avoyelles Parish Police Jury, the non-Federal sponsor, is undertaking studies to investigate the feasibility of restoring the Spring Bayou area ecosystem. DATES: Initiate EIS, June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Correspondence may be sent to Mr. Larry Marcy, U.S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg, CEMVK-PP-PQ, 4155 Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39183-3435. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry Marcy at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, telephone

(601)631-5965, fax

(601)631-5115, or e-mail at *larry.e.marcy@usace.army.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Proposed Action.* A feasibility level study will identify and evaluate alternatives to restore the Spring Bayou area ecosystem, Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. The ecosystem is being degraded by water pollution, sedimentation, and growth of nuisance aquatic weeds. An opportunity exists to restore previously existing hydrology by diverting freshwater from the Red River into the Spring Bayou area to improve water quality, fishery production, and wetland habitat. *Alternatives.* Alternative locations for water diversion from the Red River will be identified and evaluated, as well as investigating alternatives to control sediment entering the Spring Bayou area from Chatlin Lake Canal. Combinations of alternatives involving water diversion, sediment control or removal, modification or replacement of existing water control structures, and nuisance aquatic weed control will be developed and evaluated in cooperation with state and Federal agencies, local government, Native American tribes, and the public. *Scoping.* Scoping is the process for determining the range of the alternatives and significant issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For this analysis, a letter will be sent to all parties believed to have an interest in the analysis, requesting their input on alternatives and issues to be evaluated. The letter will also notify interested parties of the public scoping meeting that will be held in the local area. A notice will be sent to the local news media. All interested parties are invited to comment at this time, and anyone interested in the study should request to be included on the mailing list. A public scoping meeting will be held July 29, 2008, beginning at 7 p.m. at the Marksville Fire Department, 512 North Main Street, Marksville, Louisiana. *Significant Issues.* The tentative list of resources and issues to be evaluated in the EIS includes aquatic resources, recreational fisheries, wildlife resources, water quality, air quality, threatened or endangered species, recreation resources, and cultural resources. Tentative socioeconomic items to be evaluated in the EIS include business and industrial activity, tax revenues, community and regional growth, community cohesion, and navigation. *Environmental Consultation and Review.* The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS)will be asked to assist in the documentation of existing conditions, impact analysis of alternatives, and overall study review through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

(FWCA)consultation procedures. The FWS would provide an FWCA report to be incorporated into the EIS. The draft EIS or a Notice of Availability will be distributed to all interested agencies, organizations, and individuals. *Estimated Date of Availability.* The earliest that the draft EIS is expected to be available is May 2010. Dated: June 10, 2008. Douglas J. Kamien, Chief, Planning, Programs, and Project Management Division. [FR Doc. E8-14240 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-PU-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Clear Creek General Reevaluation Study, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston and Harris Counties, TX AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The Clear Creek watershed drains portions of Fort Bend, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria counties, Texas, including portions of Houston and the smaller towns of League City, Friendswood and Pearland, among others. The watershed also forms part of the boundary between Harris County to the north and Galveston and Brazoria counties to the south. Clear Creek flows into the west side of upper Galveston Bay through Clear Lake. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)will evaluate several flood detention and conveyance features to reduce flooding of homes and businesses in the Clear Creek Watershed. The study will focus on environmental and social conditions currently present and those likely to be affected by the proposed changes in the watershed. The flood-control project includes construction of several miles of high flow channel adjacent to the existing channel, while preserving the existing channel and floodplain forest. Detention of flood waters would also be provided in some areas where the high flow channel diverges from the low flow channel and in off-line detention areas adjacent to the creek. All flood control measures on Clear Creek occur upstream of the Dixie Farm Road crossing. The proposed project also includes widening three tributaries to Clear Creek, Mud Gully, Turkey Creek, and Mary's Creek, for improved conveyance of flood flows, with detention basins constructed adjacent to Mary's Creek and between Clear Creek and Mud Gully. ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District, P.O. Box 1229, Galveston, TX 77553-1229. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Heinly,

(409)766-3992, Planning Lead, Planning Section, Planning, Environmental and Regulatory Division; or Ms. Andrea Catanzaro,

(409)766-6346, Environmental Lead, Environmental Section, Planning, Environmental and Regulatory Division. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(1)*Background* . Flooding along Clear Creek has caused problems for over 30 years. Floodwaters in 1973, 1976, 1979, 1989, and 1994 substantially damaged residences along the creek. Heavy rains from Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 resulted in severe flooding along Clear Creek and prompted the buyout of approximately 300 flood-prone homes. However, flooding is not only a problem associated severe rain events, but has become increasingly more frequent along Clear Creek, even with moderate amounts of rainfall. Local authorities have made limited channel improvements to address specific flood concerns, but those efforts have contributed little to resolving the current large-scale flooding problem. The Clear Creek Federal flood control project was authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 91-611, Section 221). The authorized project extended 31 miles from Clear Lake to the Fort Bend County line. Plans included deepening, widening, and realigning the creek channel. The congressional authorization for this project only allows the consideration of reducing flood damage caused by rainfall runoff along the main channel of Clear Creek and not coastal flooding caused by tropical storm systems. In 1982 the Phase I General Design Memorandum, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement, was signed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Southwest Division Engineer, thus authorizing the detailed design. Due to concerns regarding its design, the project's non-Federal sponsors, Galveston County and Harris County Flood Control District, with input from the public and governmental entities, requested reevaluation of the design. In 1997, the sponsors requested the USACE adopt changes to the plans. The changes requested by the non-Federal sponsors were beyond the discretionary authority of the USACE Southwest Division Commander to approve. As a result, in February 1999, the USACE decided a general reevaluation study would be needed. In April 1999, the non-Federal sponsors agreed to accept the USACE recommendation to conduct the general reevaluation study. The general reevaluation study reconsidered the previously authorized project as well as non-Federal sponsor-proposed alternatives and other alternatives that were deemed reasonable. Brazoria County Drainage District #4 joined the non-Federal sponsors in this effort by June 1999.

(2)*Alternatives* . The construction alternatives that will be evaluated are:

(1)Constructing 15.2 miles of 130 ft to 240 ft wide high flow channel in two separate sections of Clear Creek.

(2)Detention of 485 acre feet of flood water in the high flow channel of Clear Creek where it diverges from the low flow channel.

(3)Detention of 1,750 acre feet of flood water in a 160 acre basin adjacent to Clear Creek.

(4)Construction of a grass-lined channel on 2.4 miles of Turkey Creek to its confluence with Clear Creek.

(5)Construction of a concrete-lined channel for 0.8 mile of Mud Gully in the reach which is located between the northbound and southbound lanes of Beamer Rd.

(6)Detention of 1,515 acre feet of flood water in a 120 acre basin between Clear Creek and Mud Gully.

(7)Construction of a 2.1 mile grass-lined channel on Mary's Creek.

(8)Detention of 857 acre feet of flood water in two detention basins totaling 120 acres along Mary's Creek.

(3)*Scoping* . Scoping meetings were held on March 15, 2001 at the Friendswood High School in Friendswood, TX, on March 15, 2001 in Friendswood, TX, on May 3, 2001 in League City, TX, and on May 9, 2001 in Pearland, TX. The scoping process involved Federal, State and local agencies, and other interested persons and organizations. Comments were received for 30 days following each scoping meeting. Comments will be considered during preparation of the EIS. At this time, there are no plans for an additional scoping effort.

(4)*Coordination* . Further coordination with environmental agencies will be conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat), and the Coastal Zone Management Act under the Texas Coastal Management Program.

(5)*DEIS Preparation* . It is estimated that the DEIS will be available to the public for review and comment in March 2009. Richard Medina, Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch. [FR Doc. E8-14239 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-52-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 25, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:

(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;

(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;

(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;

(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: June 18, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Federal Family Education Loan, Direct Loan, and Perkins Loan Discharge Applications. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 29,543. *Burden Hours:* 14,774. *Abstract:* These forms serve as the means by which eligible borrowers in the FFEL, Direct Loan, and Perkins Loan programs apply for discharge of their loans based on school closure (FFEL, Direct Loan, and Perkins Loan program loans), or false certification of student eligibility (FFEL, and Direct Loan program loans only). The holders of FFEL, Direct Loan, and Perkins Loan program loans use the information collected on these forms to determine whether a borrower meets the eligibility requirements for a closed school or false certification loan discharge. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3743. 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. E8-14173 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Overview Information; Personnel Development To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—National Center To Improve the Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children With Disabilities; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year

(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number: 84.325C. *DATES:* *Applications Available:* June 24, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* July 24, 2008. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* September 22, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purposes of this program are to

(1)help address State-identified needs for highly qualified personnel—in special education, related services, early intervention, and regular education—to work with infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities; and

(2)ensure that those personnel have the necessary skills and knowledge, derived from practices that have been determined through scientifically based research and experience, to be successful in serving those children. *Priority:* In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute, or otherwise authorized in the statute (see sections 662 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)). 20 U.S.C. 1462 and 1481(d). *Absolute Priority:* For FY 2008 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority. This priority is: *National Center to Improve the Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children With Disabilities (84.325C)* . Background Under Part B of IDEA, section 612(a)(14) requires States to ensure that special education teachers and related services personnel providing services are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained. In implementing this requirement, States must ensure that local educational agencies

(LEAs)take measurable steps to recruit, hire, train, and retain highly qualified special education teachers and related services personnel to serve children with disabilities. Likewise, under Part C of IDEA, section 635(a)(8) and

(9)requires States to maintain comprehensive systems of personnel development that include strategies to prepare, recruit, and retain early intervention service providers who are fully and appropriately qualified to provide early intervention services. States and LEAs report challenges in recruiting and retaining highly qualified special education teachers, which could affect their ability to meet the Federal personnel requirements under IDEA. Throughout the United States, there is a chronic and pervasive shortage of special education teachers and this shortage is expected to increase over time (McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004). In addition, there is a severe shortage of special educators from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds that reflects the lack of diversity in the teacher population as a whole (McLeskey *et al.* , 2004; NCES, 2003). Nationwide, there is a growing shortage of qualified school-based related services personnel, including audiologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists (Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, 2004). Part C early intervention and Part B preschool programs also report significant personnel shortages across disciplines serving infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities and their families (Center to Inform Personnel Preparation Policy and Practice in Early Intervention and Preschool Education, 2007). The current personnel shortage has multiple causes, including increases in

(a)the number of positions created to meet the growing population of infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities, and

(b)the number of special education personnel moving out of direct service roles to other positions in the field, switching to regular education, or leaving the profession altogether (McLeskey *et al.* , 2004). Uncertified or inadequately prepared personnel, as well as younger and inexperienced personnel, are more likely to leave their positions than their certified and more experienced colleagues (Billingsley, 2004; McLeskey *et al.* , 2004). To address these on-going challenges effectively, States must adopt evidence-based and comprehensive strategies to recruit new special education teachers, related services personnel, and early intervention personnel, retain the current workforce, and improve the skills of uncertified and inadequately prepared personnel. In 2003, the Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP)funded the National Center for Special Education Personnel and Related Services Providers (Personnel Center) to help States develop and implement strategies to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of highly or fully qualified personnel. (Information on the work of the Personnel Center is available at *http://www.personnelcenter.org* ) To further enhance the capacity of States and LEAs to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of highly or fully qualified personnel, the Secretary is proposing to establish a National Center to Improve the Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children With Disabilities. Priority The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to support the establishment and operation of a National Center to Improve the Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children With Disabilities (Center). This Center will identify, disseminate, and assist States in implementing evidence-based recruitment and retention practices in order to help meet States' needs for highly or fully qualified special education, early intervention, and related services personnel, including paraprofessionals (qualified personnel). To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this priority. The project funded under this absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority. *Application Requirements* . An applicant must include in its application—

(a)A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project; Note: For more information on logic models, the following Web site lists multiple online resources: *http://www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm.*

(b)A plan to implement the activities described in the *Project Activities* section of this priority;

(c)A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;

(d)A budget for attendance at the following:

(1)A one and one half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC within four weeks after receipt of the award, and an annual one-day planning meeting held in Washington, DC with the OSEP Project Officer during each subsequent year of the project period.

(2)A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.

(3)A four-day Technical Assistance and Dissemination meeting in Washington, DC during each year of the project period; and

(e)A line item in the proposed budget for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are identified in consultation with OSEP. Note: With approval from the OSEP Project Officer, the Center must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period. *Project Activities* . To meet the requirements of this priority, the Center, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities: Knowledge Development Activities

(a)During the first year of the project period, examine existing literature reviews and conduct literature reviews to identify evidence-based practices (e.g., mentoring programs) that have been shown to be effective in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel to serve infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities. To the extent possible, the Center must use the standards established by the What Works Clearinghouse, ( *http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/overview/review.asp?ag=pi* ) in identifying evidence-based practices. The Center must also identify (in existing literature reviews and reviews conducted by the Center) current findings on innovative recruitment and retention strategies (e.g., peer collaboration programs) that show promise in the field, but for which the research base is less well developed.

(b)Review available State information related to shortages in personnel to meet the needs of children served through Part B and Part C programs from sources such as IDEA State Performance Plans (SPPs), IDEA Annual Performance Reports (APRs), and any other relevant sources to gain an understanding of States' personnel needs. Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities

(a)Assist a minimum of four different States during each year of the project period in building their capacity to recruit and retain early intervention service personnel for lead agencies and special education and related services personnel for State educational agencies

(SEAs)and LEAs. Factors for consideration in selecting these States could include the demographic and geographic characteristics of each State, each State's recruitment and retention needs, and the previous initiatives focused on recruitment and retention that have taken place in the State. The Center must obtain approval from the OSEP Project Officer on the final selection of States. Note: To fulfill the requirements of paragraph

(b)of the *Application Requirements* of this priority, applicants must describe the methods and criteria for recruiting and selecting States for this activity in their application. To assist these States, the Center must—

(1)Provide technical assistance

(TA)to the SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to increase their capacity, as appropriate, to—

(i)Create or improve data systems that can be used to identify State personnel needs and disaggregate highly qualified special education teacher

(HQT)(as defined in § 300.18) data by student disability category (as defined in § 300.8), and use those data to inform decision-making on recruitment and retention efforts.

(ii)Develop and implement a plan to recruit individuals from communities within the State, particularly individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, to pursue careers in early intervention, special education, and related services and evaluate the effectiveness of strategies used; and

(iii)Develop and implement a plan to support and increase the likelihood of retaining personnel in early intervention, special education, and related services positions within the State and evaluate the effectiveness of strategies used.

(2)Develop and coordinate a national TA network comprised of a cadre of experts that the Center will use to provide TA to States to assist them in addressing recruitment and retention issues; and

(3)Synthesize and analyze State personnel data and disseminate this information to SEAs, LEAs, and lead agencies so that they can use these data to predict hiring needs and work with organizations, such as institutions of higher education (IHEs), including community colleges, to recruit and train personnel in high need areas.

(b)Conduct nationwide outreach activities to encourage individuals, including individuals with disabilities, individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and individuals who have changed or may change careers, to pursue careers in early intervention, special education, and related services. These outreach activities must also encourage individuals to pursue careers as paraprofessionals. In developing, implementing, and maintaining a comprehensive and coordinated recruitment campaign, the Center must incorporate findings on effective recruitment strategies from its literature reviews and from the research conducted by the OSEP-funded Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education ( *http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/* ) into its activities. The Center also must utilize a wide range of communication strategies and media outlets in its outreach activities.

(c)Provide information to individuals who have expressed interest in pursuing a career in early intervention, special education, or related services. To address this requirement, the Center must—

(1)Compile and regularly update information on ongoing and emerging areas of personnel need, as identified by SEAs, LEAs, lead agencies, and other relevant entities;

(2)Develop and maintain a comprehensive, up-to-date, searchable, and easily accessible database of accredited early intervention, special education, and related services personnel preparation programs available across the country. This database must reflect the full range of training opportunities, including both traditional and alternative programs; and

(3)Develop and maintain a comprehensive, up-to-date, searchable, and easily accessible database of information on available student financial assistance, including financial assistance provided by the Department, other Federal agencies, State agencies, and public and private sources to support training opportunities for individuals pursuing careers in early intervention, special education and related services.

(d)Maintain a Web site that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility and that links to the Web site operated by the Technical Assistance Coordination Center (TACC), which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008. The Web site must contain information on early intervention, special education, and related services careers, including careers for paraprofessionals; current research on recruiting, developing, and retaining a diverse, qualified workforce; and other relevant resources on recruitment and retention.

(e)Prepare and disseminate reports, documents, and other materials on trends, emerging research, and compelling issues relating to the recruitment and retention of early intervention, special education, and related services personnel, and related topics, as requested by OSEP for specific audiences, including SEAs, LEAs, lead agencies, and IHEs, including community colleges. In consultation with the OSEP Project Officer and the advisory committee established in accordance with paragraph

(b)in the *Leadership and Coordination Activities* section of this priority, make selected reports, documents, and other materials available for SEAs, LEAs, lead agencies, and IHEs, including community colleges in both English and Spanish. Leadership and Coordination Activities

(a)Provide information to OSEP at least twice during the project period on the capacity of States to use their personnel data systems to disaggregate HQT data by student disability category.

(b)Establish and maintain an advisory committee to review the activities and outcomes of the Center and provide programmatic support and advice throughout the project period. At a minimum, the advisory committee must meet on an annual basis in Washington, DC, and consist of SEA, LEA, lead agency, IHE, and community college representatives, and a parent of an infant, toddler, or child with a disability. The Center must submit the names of proposed members of the advisory committee to OSEP for approval within eight weeks after receipt of the award.

(c)Communicate and collaborate, on an ongoing basis, with OSEP-funded projects, including the National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality, the Center for Improving Teacher Quality, the National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional Development, the National Outreach and Technical Assistance Center on Discretionary Awards for Minority Institutions, CONNECT: The Center to Mobilize Early Childhood Knowledge, the National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, the Parent Information Centers, the Regional Resource Centers, and the Center on the Statewide Improvement of Teacher Preparation Programs, which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008. This collaboration could include the joint development of products, the coordination of TA services, and planning and implementing TA meetings and events.

(d)Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, OSEP communities of practice ( *http://www.tacommunities.org/* ) that are aligned with the Center's objectives as a way to support discussions and collaboration among key stakeholders.

(e)Prior to developing any new product, whether paper or electronic, submit to the OSEP Project Officer and the Proposed Product Advisory Board at OSEP's TACC for approval, a proposal describing the content and purpose of the product.

(f)Coordinate with the National Dissemination Center for Individuals with Disabilities, which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008, to develop an efficient and high-quality dissemination strategy that reaches broad audiences. The Center must report to the OSEP Project Officer the outcomes of these coordination efforts.

(g)Contribute, on an ongoing basis, updated information on the Center's services to OSEP's Technical Assistance and Dissemination Matrix ( *http://matrix.rrfcnetwork.org/* ), which provides current information on Department-funded TA services to a range of stakeholders.

(h)Conduct a summative evaluation of the Center in collaboration with the OSEP-funded Center to Improve Project Performance

(CIPP)as described in the following paragraphs. This summative evaluation must examine the outcomes or impact of the Center's activities in order to assess the effectiveness of those activities in improving the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel for children with disabilities. Note: The major tasks of CIPP would be to guide, coordinate, and oversee the summative evaluations conducted by selected Technical Assistance, Personnel Development, Parent Training and Information Center, and Technology projects that individually receive $500,000 or more funding from OSEP annually. The efforts of CIPP are expected to enhance individual project evaluations by providing expert and unbiased assistance in designing evaluations, conducting analyses, and interpreting data. To fulfill the requirements of the summative evaluation to be conducted under the guidance of CIPP, the Center must—

(1)Hire or designate, with the approval of the OSEP Project Officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, evaluation experience and knowledge of the Center to work with CIPP on the following tasks:

(i)Planning for the Center's summative evaluation (e.g., selecting evaluation questions, developing a timeline for the evaluation, locating sources of relevant data, and refining the logic model used for the evaluation),

(ii)developing the summative evaluation design and instrumentation (e.g., determining quantitative or qualitative data collection strategies, selecting respondent samples, and pilot testing instruments),

(iii)coordinating the evaluation timeline with the implementation of the Center's activities,

(iv)collecting summative data, and SE

(v)writing reports of summative evaluation findings;

(2)Cooperate with CIPP staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph

(1)of this section; and

(3)Dedicate $30,000 of the annual budget request for this project to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs

(1)and

(2)of this section, implementing the Center's formative evaluation, and traveling to Washington, DC in the second year of the project period for the Center's review for continued funding.

(i)Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer through monthly phone conversations and e-mail communication. Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project In deciding whether to continue funding the Center for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and in addition—

(a)The recommendation of a review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting in Washington, DC that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(b)The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the Center; and

(c)The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the Center's activities and products and the degree to which the Center's activities and products have contributed to changed practice and improved recruitment and retention of personnel for children with disabilities. References Billingsley, B. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. *The Journal of Special Education* , 38(1), 39-55. Center to Inform Personnel Preparation Policy and Practice in Early Intervention and Preschool Education. (2007, October). *At a Glance* * * * (Volume 1, Nos. 1 & 2). Retrieved January 21, 2008 from *http://www.uconnucedd.org/per_prep_center/PDFs/at%20a%20glance%20finals/At%20a%20Glance%20Vol.%207,%20No.%1201%2010.25.07.pdf* . Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. (2004, February.) An insufficient supply and a growing demand for qualified related service personnel. *Special Education Workforce Watch: Insights from Research* . Retrieved January 21, 2008 from *http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/docs/PB-21/1/PB-21.pdf* . McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Flippin, S.S. (2004). The supply and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers. *The Journal of Special Education* , 38(1), 5-21. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). *Assessment of Diversity in America's Teaching Force: A Call to Action* . Retrieved January 21, 2008 from *http://www.nea.org/teacherquality/images/diversityreport.pdf* . *Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:* Under the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1462 and 1481. *Applicable Regulations:*

(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 304. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative agreement. *Estimated Available Funds:* $500,000. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $500,000. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $500,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . *Number of Awards:* 1. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* SEAs; LEAs; public charter schools that are LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies (including lead agencies under Part C of IDEA); private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; and Indian tribes or tribal organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This competition does not require cost sharing or matching. 3. *Other: General Requirements* —(a) The projects funded under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

(b)Applicants and grant recipients funded under this competition must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA). IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. *FAX:*

(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov.* If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.325C. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under *Alternative Format* in section VIII of this notice. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. *Page Limit:* The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 70 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the two-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the references, or the letters of support. The page limit, however, does apply to the application narrative (Part III). We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit; or if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* June 24, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* July 24, 2008. Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* June 24, 2008. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications.* To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. The National Center to Improve the Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children With Disabilities competition, CFDA Number 84.325C, is included in this project. We request your participation in Grants.gov. If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov* . Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. You may access the electronic grant application for the National Center to Improve the Recruitment and Retention of Qualified Personnel for Children With Disabilities competition at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.325, not 84.325C). *Please note the following:* • Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary. • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You also can find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to *Grants.gov* at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp)* These steps include

(1)registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);

(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and

(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf).* You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format. • If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center *Attention:* (CFDA Number 84.325C), 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 84.325C), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

(1)A private metered postmark.

(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, *Attention:* (CFDA Number 84.325C), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. *Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:* If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at

(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Peer Review:* In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions, because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The Standing Panel requirements under IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that, for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers, by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications. However, if the Department decides to select an equal number of applications in each group for funding, this may result in different cut-off points for fundable applications in each group. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notice (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary also may require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* 4. *Performance Measures:* Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the technical assistance and dissemination activities currently being supported under Part D of IDEA. These measures, which will be used for the competition announced in this notice, focus on: The percentage of products and services deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified experts or individuals with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services; the percentage of products and services deemed to be of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice by an independent review panel of qualified members of the target audiences of the technical assistance and disseminations; and the percentage of all products and services deemed to be of high usefulness by target audiences to improve educational or early intervention policy or practice. Grantees may be asked to participate in assessing and providing information on these aspects of program quality. VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* Maryann McDermott, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4153, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2550. *Telephone:*

(202)245-7439. If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. *Telephone:*

(202)245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: June 18, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-14273 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE) AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of an Open Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (the Council) and is intended to notify the general public of the meeting. This notice also describes the functions of the Council. Notice of the Council's meetings is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and by the Council's charter. *Agenda:* The purpose of the meeting will be for the Council to receive a briefing on three reports: Parts I and II of the National Indian Education Study and The Status and Trends of Indian Education Report, and to receive informational updates on State initiatives by selected State Indian Education Directors. *Date and Time:* July 7, 2008; 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Mountain Daylight Savings Time. This notice is appearing in the **Federal Register** less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to scheduling difficulties within the agency and with the Council. *Location:* Holiday Inn, Rapid City, South Dakota. *Public Comment:* Time is scheduled on the agenda to receive public comment at approximately 4:45 p.m. Mountain Daylight Savings Time. Oral comments will be limited to not more than 10 minutes per individual or group. Written comments will also be accepted at the meeting or may be submitted until the time of the meeting via e-mail to: *Cathie.Carothers@ed.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathie Carothers, Director, Office of Indian Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202. *Telephone:* 202-260-1683. *Fax:* 202-260-7779. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Advisory Council on Indian Education is authorized by Section 7141 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Committee is established within the Department of Education to advise the Secretary of Education on the funding and administration (including the development of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any program over which the Secretary has jurisdiction and includes Indian children or adults as participants or programs that may benefit Indian children or adults, including any program established under Title VII, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Council submits to the Congress, not later than June 30 of each year, a report on the activities of the Council that includes recommendations the Council considers appropriate for the improvement of Federal education programs that include Indian children or adults as participants or that may benefit Indian children or adults, and recommendations concerning the funding of any such program. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the Council with a briefing on three new reports recently completed by the Department: The National Indian Education Study, Parts I and II, and The Status and Trends of Indian Education which will be released at the National Conference on Indian Education that starts on July 8, 2008 in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Council will also receive informational updates on State initiatives by selected State Indian Education Directors and general updates from the Department of Education. The meeting is being held as a pre-conference activity of the National Conference on Indian Education which is an activity of Executive Order 13336 on American Indian and Alaska Native Education. Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistance listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify Cathie Carothers at

(202)260-7485 no later than July 1, 2008. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Records are kept of all Council proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of Indian Education, United States Department of Education, Room 5C140, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister/index.html* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(EISA)of 2007; Subtitle E; Section 655, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, on behalf of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Building Technologies Program, intends to accept entrants to the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Competition (L Prize TM ). As outlined in the EISA, the DOE is accepting entries of Solid-State Lighting

(SSL)products for full performance evaluation which have the technical potential to qualify for one of two entrant categories: 60-watt incandescent replacement and PAR type 38 halogen replacement lamps. The DOE anticipates release of the twenty-first century lamp category at a future date. DATES: The entry period for the 60-watt incandescent and PAR 38 halogen replacement lamps is now open and will remain open until a qualified winner is announced. ADDRESSES: National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, WV 26505. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. Eddie Christy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, MS E-06, Morgantown, WV 26505,

(304)285-4604, E-mail: *cchris@netl.doe.gov.* Detailed information regarding this competition is available at *http://www.lightingprize.org.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The L Prize Competition is intended to encourage development and deployment of highly energy efficient solid-state lighting

(SSL)products to replace several of the most common lighting products currently used in the United States, including 60-watt A19 incandescent and PAR 38 halogen lamps. To significantly impact the national market and lighting use, the SSL products must perform similarly to the lamps they are intended to replace in terms of color appearance, light output, light distribution, and lamp shape, size, form factor, appearance and operating environment. They must be reliable, available through normal market channels, and competitively priced. Entries to each category will be evaluated against the respective performance criteria which are based upon the statutory requirements of the EISA. Full performance specification criteria and competition details can be found at *http://www.lightingprize.org.* Subject to the availability of funding through appropriations, EISA provides for cash prizes for each prize category. Actual cash prizes are subject to the availability of appropriated funding from future appropriations and private funding contributions as authorized by the EISA. Funding for the cash prizes is not available during fiscal year 2008; however, due to the required duration of the evaluation process, the DOE does not anticipate declaring successful entrants prior to fiscal year 2009. In addition to cash prizes, the L Prize authorization provides that the Secretary of Energy is to consult with the Administrator of General Services to develop federal purchase guidelines with the goal of conducting a Federal procurement of SSL products from the winner under the 60-watt incandescent and PAR 38 halogen categories. Entrants must submit 2,000 commercially acceptable quality control units which meet the full criteria specified at *http://www.lightingprize.org* . Issued in Morgantown, WV on June 10, 2008. C. Edward Christy, Division Director, Buildings & Industrial Technologies Division. [FR Doc. E8-14202 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 Wednesday, June 18, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP97-81-048. *Applicants:* Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Trans. LLC. *Description:* Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC submits Twenty- Second Revised Sheet 4G.01 to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1-A, to be effective 6/16/08. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-0091. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP00-426-035. *Applicants:* Texas Gas Transmission, LLC. *Description:* Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits Second Revised Sheet 54A *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective 6/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080603-0134. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 20, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP04-98-004. *Applicants:* *Indicated Shippers* v. *Columbia Gulf Tran.* *Description:* Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits Second Revised Sheet 235 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective 7/16/08. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-409-000. *Applicants:* MarkWest New Mexico, L.L.C. *Description:* MarkWest New Mexico, LLC submits its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1 effective 8/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-0084. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-410-000. *Applicants:* Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. *Description:* Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP submits Fifth Revised Sheet 8 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be effective 7/16/08. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-0092. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-411-000. *Applicants:* Northwest Pipeline GP. *Description:* Northwest Pipeline GP submits First Revised Sheet 204 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective July 16, 2008. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0075. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-412-000. *Applicants:* Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. *Description:* Guardian Pipeline, LLC submits Ninth Revised Sheet 6 *et al.* of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 7/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0254. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14175 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 June 18, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER96-2495-030; ER97-4143-018; ER07-1130-001; ER98-2075-024; ER98-542-020. *Applicants:* AEP Power Marketing Inc; American Electric Power Service Corporation; CSW Energy Services, Inc.; Central and South West Services, Inc. *Description:* Response of American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-5108. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER96-2601-021; ER96-2602-010. *Applicants:* DPL Energy, LLC; The Dayton Power and Light Company. *Description:* The Dayton Power and Light Co *et al.* submits a corrected compliance filing re revised tariff filed 4/23/08. *Filed Date:* 06/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080618-0015. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 08, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER96-496-017; ER99-14-014; ER99-3658-004. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company; Select Energy, Inc. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Service Co on behalf of Northeast Utilities Companies *et al.* submits a revised affirmative statement and revised proposed market-base rate tariffs etc in compliance with Order 614 and 697. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0107. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-59-004. *Applicants:* Fortis Energy Marketing & Trading GP. *Description:* Fortis Energy Marketing & Trading GP submits a request for Category 1 status and revised market-based rate tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/17/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0259. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 08, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-774-001. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Operating Companies submits their responses to FERC's letter request dated 5/30/08. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0076. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-794-001. *Applicants:* Ameren Services Company. *Description:* Central Illinois Public Service Company submits a Letter Agreement in compliance with FERC's 5/27/07 Order, to be effective 6/3/08. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0001. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-795-001. *Applicants:* Ameren Services Company. *Description:* Central Illinois Public Service Company submits a Letter Agreement in compliance with FERC's 5/27/07 letter order. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0002. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1108-000; ER00-2603-005; ER06-169-001. *Applicants:* Syracuse Energy Corporation; Trigen-Syracuse Energy Corporation; SUEZ Energy Marketing NA, Inc. *Description:* Syracuse Energy Corp submits notification of a change in status with respect to their market-based rate authority. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0103. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1109-000. *Applicants:* Maine Public Service Company. *Description:* Maine Public Service Co submits an informational filing setting forth the changes open access transmission tariff charges effective 6/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0102. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1110-000. *Applicants:* Tampa Electric Company. *Description:* Tampa Electric Company submits amended charges for operation and maintenance services performed under two interconnection agreements with Mosaic Fertilizer LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0108. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1111-000. *Applicants:* Pioneer Prairie Wind Farm I, LLC. *Description:* Petition of Pioneer Prairie Wind Farm I, LLC for order accepting market-based rate tariff for filing and granting waivers and blanket approvals. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0101. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1112-000. *Applicants:* New York State Electric and Gas Corporation. *Description:* New York State Electric & Gas Corporation submits a supplement to Rate Schedule FERC 200—Facilities Agreement with New York Power Authority. *Filed Date:* 06/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0255. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA07-51-002. *Applicants:* Mid-Continent Area Power Pool. *Description:* Mid-Continent Area Power Pool submits revisions to their FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, effective date of 11/30/07. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0257. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-61-002. *Applicants:* Maine Public Service Company. *Description:* Compliance filing of Maine Public Service Co. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-5073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-12-002. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator C. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp submits a filing to comply with FERC's 5/16/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0105. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-14-004. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits a compliance filing revising their Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0104. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-5-002. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool Inc submits revisions to their Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080617-0256. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-9-001. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits its Order No. 890 OATT Filing. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-5120. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings: *Docket Numbers:* PH08-29-000. *Applicants:* NEC-EPS Holding, LLC. *Description:* Application (FERC-56A) of Exemption of NEC-EPS Holding, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/16/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-5099. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14176 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 June 16, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-102-000. *Applicants:* Dynegy Holdings Inc.; Rolling Hills Generating, LLC; TPF II Rolling Hills, LLC. *Description:* Application of Dynegy Holdings, Inc *et al* . for approval to indirectly transfer to buyers of all ownership interest in Rolling Hills. *Filed Date:* 06/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080613-0022. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 02, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER01-48-010. *Applicants:* Powerex Corp. *Description:* Powerex Corp submits Substitute Original Sheet 3 to Third Revised Rate Schedule 1. *Filed Date:* 06/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080613-0056. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-1527-011; ER01-1529-011. *Applicants:* Sierra Pacific Power Company; Nevada Power Company. *Description:* Nevada Power Co *et al* . submits notification of non-material changes in status. *Filed Date:* 06/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080612-0012. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-268-008; ER06-398-005; ER06-399-005; ER07-157-003; ER98-4159-011. *Applicants:* Duquesne Power, LLC; Duquesne Keystone, LLC; Duquesne Conemaugh, LLC; Macquarie Cook Power Inc.; Duquesne Light Company. *Description:* Supplement to Updated Triennial Market Power Analysis for Duquesne Light Company, *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080611-5114. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-739-012; ER06-738-012; ER03-983-010; ER07-501-008; ER02-537-014; ER07-758-006; ER08-649-003. *Applicants:* East Coast Power Linden Holding, LLC; Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P.; Fox Energy Company LLC; Birchwood Power Partners, L.P.; Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C.; Inland Empire Energy Center, L.L.C. *Description:* Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the GE Companies per Order Nos. 652, and 697. *Filed Date:* 06/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080611-5113. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-864-010; ER07-1356-002; ER07-1112-001; ER07-1113-001; ER07-1115-001; ER07-1116-001; ER07-1117-001; ER07-1358-002; ER07-1118-001; ER07-1119-001; ER07-1120-001; ER07-1122-001; ER06-1543-007; ER00-2885-017; ER01-2765-016; ER08-148-001; ER05-1232-009; ER02-1582-014; ER02-1785-015; ER02-2102-016; ER03-1283-011. *Applicants:* Bear Energy LP; BE Alabama LLC; BE Allegheny LLC; BE CA LLC; BE Colquitt LLC; BE Ironwood LLC; BE KJ LLC; BE Rayle LLC; BE Red Oak LLC; BE Satilla LLC; BE Walton LLC; BE Louisiana LLC; BRUSH COGENERATION PARTNERS; Cedar Brakes I LLC; Cedar Brakes II, LLC; JPMorgan Ventures Energy Corporation; Mohawk River Funding IV, L.L.C.; Thermo Cogeneration Partnership L.P.; Utility Contract Funding, L.L.C.; Vineland Energy, LLC; CENTRAL POWER & LIME INC. *Description:* Notice on Non-Material Change in Status re Bear Energy LP *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080613-5005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1409-001; ER06-1408-001; ER05-1511-003; ER06-1407-001; ER06-1413-001; ER08-577-002; ER08-578-002; ER08-579-002. *Applicants:* Noble Altona Windpark, LLC; Noble Ellenberg Windpark, LLC; Noble Thumb Windpark I, LLC; Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC; Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC; Noble Bellmont Windpark, LLC; Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC; Noble Wethersfield Windpark, LLC. *Description:* Noble Environmental LLC notifies FERC of changes in certain characteristics upon which the Commission may have relied in granting market-based rate authority to the Noble Project Companies. *Filed Date:* 06/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080613-0045. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1332-004. *Applicants:* Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC. *Description:* Notice of Change in Status re Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080613-5010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-357-002. *Applicants:* Fenton Power Partners I, LLC. *Description:* Supplemental to Notice of Change in Status of Fenton Power Partners I, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080613-5063. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-777-001. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc *et al.* submits Substitute 3rd revised Sheet 172 *et al.* to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 5 under ER08-777. *Filed Date:* 06/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-0085. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-796-001. *Applicants:* ITC Midwest LLC. *Description:* ITC Midwest LLC submits responses to FERC's letter dated 5/29/08. *Filed Date:* 06/11/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080612-0204. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 02, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-889-001. *Applicants:* Carolina Power & Light Company. *Description:* Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc submits supplemental information requested by the FERC Staff in support of original 4/30/08 filing under ER08-889. *Filed Date:* 06/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-0072. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1098-001; ER08-1099-001; ER08-1100-001. *Applicants:* National Grid Generation LLC; National Grid-Port Jefferson Energy Cent; National Grid-Glenwood Energy Center, LLC. *Description:* National Grid USA submits Supplements to the Notices of Succession for KeySpan Generation LLC *et al.* under ER08-1098 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-0076. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1103-000. *Applicants:* American Transmission Systems, Incorporated. *Description:* American Transmission Systems Incorporated submits a Construction Agreement dated 5/22/08 with Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080612-0014. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1104-000. *Applicants:* Arizona Public Service Company. *Description:* Arizona Public Service Co submits proposed revisions to their FERC Electric Tariff, Volume 3. *Filed Date:* 06/10/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080612-0015. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 01, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1105-000. *Applicants:* TFS Capital LLC. *Description:* TFS Capital LLC submits a notice of cancellation of FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 06/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080613-0046. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 03, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1106-000. *Applicants:* MATL LLP. *Description:* MATL LLP submits an amendments to Attachment L of their Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1 to become effective 8/12/08 under ER08-1106. *Filed Date:* 06/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-0086. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1107-000. *Applicants:* The American Electric Power Service Corp. *Description:* American Electric Power submits a second revisions to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1419 between the Village of Carey and AEP under ER08-1107. *Filed Date:* 06/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080616-0075. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 07, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA07-36-002. *Applicants:* South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. *Description:* Attachment L Compliance Filing of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. *Filed Date:* 06/12/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080612-5098. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 03, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14177 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R01-OW-2008-0215; FRL-8683-8] Massachusetts Marine Sanitation Device Standard—Notice of Determination AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Determination. SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency—New England Region, has determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the state waters of Salem Sound in the towns of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beverly, Danvers, Salem, and Marblehead. ADDRESSES: *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 copy-righted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Rodney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—New England Region, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, COP, Boston, MA 02114-2023. *Telephone:*

(617)918-0538. *Fax number:*

(617)918-1505. *E-mail address: Rodney.ann@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 16, 2008, EPA published a notice that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had petitioned the Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to determine that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the state waters of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beverly, Danvers, Salem, and Marblehead. No comments were received on this petition. The petition was filed pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217 and 100-4, for the purpose of declaring these waters a No Discharge Area (NDA). *Section 312(f)(3) states:* After the effective date of the initial standards and regulations promulgated under this section, if any State determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the waters within such States require greater environmental protection, such State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters, except that no such prohibition shall apply until the Administrator determines that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for such water to which such prohibition would apply. This Notice of Determination is for the state waters of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beverly, Danvers, Salem, and Marblehead, collectively referred to as Salem Sound. The NDA includes: Waterbody/General Area Latitude Longitude Southern Landward boundary—Marblehead town line 42°28′43″ N 70°52′45″ W Southern Seaward Boundary— 42°26′33″ N 70°49′05″ W Eastern Boundary—Halfway Rock 42°30′10″ N 70°46′30″ W Northern Seaward boundary—3 miles off Eastern Point 42°33′03″ N 70°36′06″ W Northern Landward boundary—Manchester town line 42°34′20″ N 70°42′52″ W The NDA boundary includes the municipal waters of Manchester-by-the-Sea, Beverly, Danvers, Salem, and Marblehead and extends to the boundary between state and federal waters. This area includes Bakers Island, Crowninshield Island, Cat Island, Children's Island, Great and Little Misery Islands, and House Island. The information submitted to EPA by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts certifies that there are eight pumpout facilities located in this area. A list of the facilities, with phone numbers, locations, and hours of operation is appended at the end of this determination. Based on the examination of the petition, its supporting documentation, and information from site visits conducted by EPA New England staff, EPA has determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the area covered under this determination. This determination is made pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217 and 100-4. Pumpout Facilities Within Proposed No Discharge Area Name Location Contact info. Hours Mean low water depth Manchester Marine Manchester

(978)526-7911 VHF 72 Mon-Thus—7 a.m.-6p.m.; Fri-Sun (+holidays), 7 a.m.-8 p.m 6 ft. Manchester Marine Manchester

(978)526-7911, VHF 72 Mon-Thus—7 a.m.-6; p.m. Fri-Sun (+holidays), 7 a.m.-8 p.m N/A, Boat service. Ferry Way Public Landing Beverly

(978)921-6059, VHF 9 Fri-Sun (+holidays), 8 a.m.-4 p.m. 10 ft. Danversport Yacht Club Danvers (2 facilities)

(978)774-8644 Mon-Thurs—8 a.m.-5 p.m.; Fri-Sat—8 a.m.-6 p.m.; Sun—8 a.m.-4 p.m 6 ft. Salem Waterfront (Winter Island) Salem

(978)741-0098 VHF 9 Sat-Sun (+holidays), 9 a.m.-5 p.m. N/A Boat service. Congress St. Landing Salem

(978)741-0098, VHF 9 24 hours/7 days a week 3 ft. Ferry Lane—Harbormaster's office Marblehead

(781)631-2386, VHF 16 Mon-Fri, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. N/A, Boat Service. Cliff Street Boatyard Marblehead

(781)631-2386, VHF 16 24 hours/7 days a week 9 ft. *Danvers Danvers TBD TBD N/A, Boat service. *Salem Salem TBD TBD N/A, Boat service. * = Pending facilities. Dated: June 17, 2008. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, Region 1. [FR Doc. E8-14251 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8683-9; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0058] Draft Toxicological Review of Carbon Tetrachloride: In Support of the Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System

(IRIS)AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Listening Session. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a listening session to be held on July 16, 2008, during the public comment period for the external review draft document entitled, “Toxicological Review of Carbon Tetrachloride: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).” This listening session is a new step in EPA's revised process, announced on April 10, 2008, for development of human health assessments for inclusion on IRIS. The purpose of the listening session is to allow all interested parties to present scientific and technical comments on draft IRIS health assessments to EPA and other interested parties during the public comment period and prior to the external peer review meeting. EPA welcomes the scientific and technical comments that will be provided to the Agency by the listening session participants. The comments will be considered by the Agency as it revises the draft assessment in response to the independent external peer review and public comments. All presentations will become part of the official and public record. The EPA's draft assessment and peer review charge are available via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's

(NCEA)home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea.* DATES: The listening session on the draft IRIS health assessment for carbon tetrachloride will be held on July 16, 2008, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 4 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. If you wish to make a presentation at the listening session, you should register by July 9, 2008, and indicate that you wish to make oral comments at the session, and indicate the length of your presentation. At the time of your registration, please indicate if you require audio-visual aid (e.g., lap top and slide projector). In general, each presentation should be no more than 30 minutes. If, however, there are more requests for presentations than the allotted time will allow, then the time limit for each presentation will be adjusted accordingly. Participants who have registered to attend may also register at the beginning of the listening session to make comments. The order of the presentations will follow the order of registration. A copy of the agenda for the listening session will be available at the meeting. The public comment period for review of this draft assessment was announced previously in the **Federal Register**

(FR)(73 FR 29502) on May 21, 2008. As stated in that FR notice, the public comment period began on May 21, 2008, and ends July 21, 2008. Any technical comments submitted during the public comment period should be in writing and must be received by EPA by July 21, 2008, according to the procedures outlined below. Only those public comments submitted using the procedures identified in the May 21, 2008 FR notice by the July 21, 2008, deadline will be provided to the independent peer-review panel prior to the peer-review meeting. The date and logistics for the peer-review meeting will be announced later in a separate FR notice. Listening session participants who wish to have their comments available to the external peer reviewers should also submit written comments during the public comment period using the detailed and established procedures included in the aforementioned FR notice (May 21, 2008). Comments submitted to the docket prior to the end of the public comment period will be submitted to the external peer reviewers and considered by EPA in the disposition of public comments. Comments received in the docket after the public comment period closes must still be submitted to the docket but will not be submitted to the external peer reviewers. ADDRESSES: The listening session on the draft carbon tetrachloride assessment will be held at the EPA offices at Two Potomac Yard (North Building), 7th Floor, Room 7100, 2733 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202. To attend the listening session, register by July 9, 2008, via e-mail at *ross.christine@epa.gov* ( *subject line:* Carbon tetrachloride listening session), by phone: 703-347-8592, or by faxing a registration request to 703-347-8689 (please reference the “Carbon Tetrachloride Listening Session” and include your name, title, affiliation, full address and contact information). Please note that to gain entrance to this EPA building to attend the meeting, attendees must have photo identification with them and must register at the guard's desk in the lobby. The guard will retain your photo identification and will provide you with a visitor's badge. At the guard's desk, attendees should give the name Christine Ross and the telephone number, 703-347-8592, to the guard on duty. The guard will contact Ms. Ross who will meet you in the reception area to escort you to the meeting room. Upon your exit from the building please return your visitor's badge and you will receive the photo identification that you provided. A teleconference line will also be available for registered attendees/speakers. The teleconference number is 866-299-3188 and the access code is 7033478503, followed by the pound sign (#). The teleconference line will be activated at 8:45 am, and you will be asked to identify yourself and your affiliation at the beginning of the call. *Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Christine Ross at 703-347-8592 or *ross.christine@epa.gov.* To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Ms. Ross, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public listening sessions, please contact Christine Ross, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment, (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; *telephone:* 703-347-8592; *facsimile:* 703-347-8689; or *e-mail: ross.christine@epa.gov* . If you have questions about the draft carbon tetrachloride assessment, contact Susan Rieth, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment, (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; *telephone:* 703-347-8582; *facsimile:* 703-347-8689; or *e-mail:* *rieth.susan@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This listening session is a new step in EPA's revised process, announced on April 10, 2008, for development of human health assessments for inclusion on IRIS. The new process is posted on the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions menu at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea* . Two listening sessions are scheduled under the new IRIS process. The first is during the public review of the draft assessment that includes only qualitative discussion. The second session is during the public review of the externally peer-reviewed draft assessment; if feasible, this draft will include both qualitative and quantitation elements (i.e., a “complete draft”). All IRIS assessments that are at the document development stage will follow the revised process, which includes the two listening sessions. However, when EPA initiated the new IRIS process, the draft assessment for carbon tetrachloride had already completed document development and been through several rounds of internal review. Therefore, EPA will only hold one listening session during the public review and comment period of the externally peer-reviewed draft. Dated: June 18, 2008. Joseph A. DeSantis, Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E8-14226 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796; FRL-8684-3] Notice of Scientific Peer Review Teleconference on the Draft “Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes” AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is announcing that a telephone conference will be held with the peer reviewers (who are reviewing the draft *Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes* or draft risk assessment) and interested members of the public. During this teleconference, the Agency will accept oral comments from the public on technical aspects of the draft risk assessment. DATES: The teleconference will be held on Tuesday, July 8, 2008, beginning at 12 Noon Eastern Time. Requests from members of the public who wish to make oral presentations during the teleconference will be accepted through Thursday, July 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Telephone conference call only. See the following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on how to submit an oral statement during the teleconference. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For general information on this teleconference, contact Ms. Thea Johnson at

(703)308-0050, or *johnson.thea@epa.gov,* Office of Solid Waste (Mailcode: 5307P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Any member of the public who wishes to make an oral statement during the teleconference (10 minutes or less) must pre-register according to the instructions outlined in the following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* On August 29, 2007, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability

(NODA)in the **Federal Register** that announced the availability of new information and data contained in three documents regarding the management of coal combustion wastes

(CCW)in landfills and surface impoundments. (72 FR 49714.) The Agency sought public comments on how, if at all, this additional information should affect EPA's decisions as it continues to follow-up on its Regulatory Determination for CCW disposed of in landfills and surface impoundments. The three documents that the Agency requested comment on included: The joint U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE)and EPA report entitled, *Coal Combustion Waste Management at Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 1994-2004;* the draft risk assessment conducted by EPA on the management of CCW in landfills and surface impoundments entitled, *Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes;* and the EPA's damage case assessment. (The Agency also included in the Docket to the NODA a rulemaking petition submitted by a number of citizens' groups and several approaches, one prepared by the electric utility industry and the other prepared by a number of citizens' groups regarding the management of CCW). The Agency solicited information regarding the damage cases, the results of the risk assessment, and the new liner and groundwater monitoring information from the DOE/EPA report. EPA also requested comment on the draft risk assessment document to help inform a planned peer review, with which this notice is associated. In addition to the draft risk assessment, EPA will also make available to the peer reviewers the public comments regarding the draft risk assessment that were submitted during the comment period, which closed on February 11, 2008. *Availability of Teleconference Materials:* A draft agenda and other supporting materials, including the teleconference number and instructions on how to access the teleconference telephone line will be posted on the Science Inventory Web site no later than Thursday, July 3, 2008. The Science Inventory Web site can be accessed at *http://www.epa.gov/si.* Additional information related to the Regulatory Determination for CCW disposed of in landfills and surface impoundments can be found in docket EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796, available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Procedures for Providing Public Input:* Interested members of the public may make an oral statement to the independent peer reviewers during the teleconference. Oral Statements: Individuals or groups requesting to make oral presentations to the independent peer reviewers on this public telephone conference will be limited to 10 minutes per speaker. Comments will be accepted from only one speaker per organization. *Procedures for Pre-Registration:* Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc), an EPA contractor for external scientific review, will convene the independent experts, organize, and conduct the peer review teleconference. To participate in this teleconference, register by Thursday, July 3, 2008 by visiting *http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/tele-form.htm* or by sending an e-mail to *register@indecon.com.* Please reference “CCW Peer Review Telephone Conference” and include your name, title, affiliation, full address and contact information. Due to the limited number of telephone lines, pre-registration is strongly recommended. You may also register by calling the registration telephone line at

(703)308-0436. The deadline for pre-registration is Thursday, July 3, 2008. If telephone lines are available after the pre-registration deadline, then, registrations will continue to be accepted after this date. *Accessibility:* For information on services for individuals with disabilities, please leave a detailed message, as well as contact information at

(703)308-0436 or e-mail your request to *register@indecon.com.* Dated: June 18, 2008. Matt Hale, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. E8-14234 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Farm Credit Administration Board; Regular Meeting AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board). Date and Time: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on July 10, 2008, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board,

(703)883-4009, TTY

(703)883-4056. ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are: Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • June 12, 2008. B. New Business • Merger of First AgCredit, FCS and its subsidiaries with and into Capital Farm Credit, ACA. C. Reports • OE Quarterly Report. Closed Session * * Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9). • Update on OE Oversight Activities. Dated: June 19, 2008. Roland E. Smith, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. 08-1386 Filed 6-20-08; 12:58 pm]

Connectionstraces to 88

Traces to 88 documents

U.S. Code