13864 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 51 / Friday, March 14, 2008 / Notices 

Std 625, 1st Edition, Design, 

Construction, Testing, and 

Commissioning of Large, Low 

Pressure, Refrigerated Tanks and their 

Associated Systems 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Crimaudo, Standards Department, 

e-mail: (crimaudos@api.org). 

Valves 

RP 591, 4th Edition, Process Valve 

Qualification Procedure 

Std 608, 4th Edition, Metal Ball 

Valves—Flanged, Threaded, and ButtWelding Ends 

Std 603, 8th Edition, CorrosionResistant, Bolted Bonnet Gate 

Valves—Flanged and Butt-Welding 

Ends 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gordon Robertson, Standards 

Department, e-mail: 

(robertsong@api.org). 

Electrical Equipment 

RP 500, 3rd Edition, Classification of 

Locations for Electrical Installations at 

Petroleum Facilities Classified as 

Class 1, Division 1 and Division 2 

RP 505, 2nd Edition, Classification of 

Locations for Electrical Installations at 

Petroleum Facilities Classified as 

Class 1, Zone 0, Zone 1 and Zone 2 

RP 545, 1st Edition, Lighting Protection 

for Above Ground Storage Tanks 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gordon Robertson, Standards 

Department, e-mail: 

(robertsong@api.org). 

Heat Transfer Equipment 

Std 663, 1st Edition, Multiple Hairpin 

Heat Exchangers 

Std 664, 1st Edition, Spiral Plate Heat 

Exchangers 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gordon Robertson, Standards 

Department, e-mail: 

(robertsong@api.org). 

Instruments and Control Systems 

RP 554, 2nd Edition, Process 

Instrumentation and Control, Parts 2 

& 3 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gordon Robertson, Standards 

Department, e-mail: 

(robertsong@api.org). 

Corrosion and Materials 

TR 934–C, 1st Edition, Materials and 

Fabrication of 11⁄4 Cr–1⁄2 Mo Steel 

Heavy Wall Pressure Vessels for High 

Pressure Hydrogen Service Operating 

at or Below 825 °F (441 °C) 

RP 934–A, 2nd Edition, Materials and 

Fabrication Requirements for 21⁄4 Cr– 

1M0 & 3Cr–1Mo Steel Heavy Wall 

Pressure Vessels for High 

Temperature, High Pressure Hydrogen 

Service 

RP 936, 3rd Edition, Refractory 

Installation Quality Control 

Guidelines 

TR 938–B, 1st Edition, Use of 9Cr–1Mo– 

V (Grade 91) Steel in the Oil Refining 

Industry 

RP 941, 7th Edition, Steels for Hydrogen 

Service at Elevated Temperatures and 

Pressures in Refineries and 

Petrochemical Plants 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Crimaudo, Standards Department, 

email: (crimaudos@api.org). 

Inspection 

API 510, 10th Edition, Pressure Vessel 

Inspection Code: In-service 

Inspection, Rating, Repair, and 

Alteration 

RP 574, 3rd Edition, Inspection 

Practices for Piping Systems 

Components 

RP 576, 3rd Edition, Inspection of 

Pressure Relieving Devices 

Publ 581, 2nd Edition, Base Resource 

Document—Risk Based Inspection 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Soffrin, Standards Department, 

email: (soffrind@api.org). 

Pressure Relieving Systems 

Std 521, Addendum 1 to 5th Edition, 

Guide for Pressure-relieving and 

Depressuring Systems RP 520, Part 1, 

8th Edition, Sizing, Selection and 

Installation of Pressure-Relieving 

Devices in Refineries, Part 1—Sizing 

and Selection 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Crimaudo, Standards Department, 

email: (crimaudos@api.org). 

Mechanical Equipment 

Std 614, 5th Edition, Lubrication, ShaftSealing, and Control-oil Systems and 

Auxiliaries for Petroleum, Chemical 

and Gas Industry Services 

Std 619, 5th Edition, Rotary-Type 

Positive-Displacement Compressors 

for Petroleum, Petrochemical, and 

Natural Gas Industries 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gordon Robertson, Standards 

Department, email: 

(robertsong@api.org). 

Meetings/Conferences: The Spring 

Refining and Equipment Standards 

Meeting will be held in New Orleans, 

Louisiana, April 14–16, 2008. The Fall 

Refining and Equipment Standards 

Meeting will be held in Los Angeles, 

California, November 10–12, 2008. 

Interested parties may visit the API 

website at http://www.api.org/meetings/ 

for more information regarding 

participation in these meetings. 

Safety and Fire Protection 

RP 2350, 4th Edition, Overfill Protection 

for Storage Tanks in Petroleum 

Service 

Publ 2218, 3rd Edition, Fireproofing 

Practices in Petroleum and 

Petrochemical Processing Plants 

Publ 2210, 4th Edition, Flame Arrestors 

for Vents of Tanks Storing Petroleum 

Products 

Publ 2510A, 3rd Edition, Fire Protection 

Consideration for the Design and 

Operation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas 

(LPG) Storage Facilities 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Soffrin, Standards Department, 

email: (soffrind@api.org). 

For additional information on the 

overall API standards program, Contact: 

David Miller, Standards Department, 

email: miller@api.org. 

Dated: March 10, 2008. 

Richard F. Kayser, 

Acting Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. E8–5179 Filed 3–13–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG11 

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative 

Management Act Provisions; Tautog 

Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of determination of Noncompliance; Declaration of a 

moratorium. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative 

Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act), 

NMFS, upon a delegation of authority 

from the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary), has determined that the 

State of New Jersey has failed to carry 

out its responsibilities under the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission’s (Commission) Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for Tautog 

(Plan) and that the measures New Jersey 

has failed to implement and enforce are 

necessary for the conservation of the 

tautog resource. This determination is 

consistent with the findings of the 

Commission on February 7, 2008. 

Pursuant to the Atlantic Coastal Act, a 

Federal moratorium on fishing for 

tautog within the state waters of New 

Jersey is hereby declared and will be 

effective on April 1, 2008. Tthe 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 51 / Friday, March 14, 2008 / Notices 13865 

moratorium will be withdrawn when 

New Jersey is found to have come back 

into compliance with the Commission’s 

Tautog Plan. 

DATES: Effective April 1, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Harold C. Mears, Director, 

State, Federal and Constituent Programs 

Office, NMFS, Northeast Region, One 

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

Ross, Fishery Management Specialist, 

NMFS, Northeast Region, (978) 281–

9327, fax (978) 281–9117, e-mail 

Bob.Ross@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Non-Compliance Statutory Background 

The Atlantic Coastal Act, 16 U.S.C. 

5101 et seq. sets forth a non-compliance 

review and determination process that 

is triggered when the Commission finds 

that a state has not implemented 

measures specified in the Plan and 

refers that determination to the 

Secretary for review and potential 

concurrence. The Secretary delegated all 

decision-making under this process to 

NMFS, although NMFS is required to 

notify the Secretary before any final 

action is taken. 

The Atlantic Coastal Act’s noncompliance process involves two stages 

of decision-making. In the first stage, the 

Secretary (delegated to NMFS) must 

make two findings: 1) whether the state 

in question has failed to carry out its 

responsibility under the Commission’s 

Interstate Fishery Management Plan; 

and if so 2) whether the measures that 

the state failed to implement and 

enforce are necessary for the 

conservation of the fishery in question. 

These initial findings must be made 

within 30 days after receipt of the 

Commission’s non-compliance referral 

and consequently, this first stage of 

decision-making is referred to as the 

‘‘30-day Determination.’’

A positive 30-day Determination 

triggers a mandatory moratorium on 

fishing within state waters for the 

fishery in question. This moratorium 

may begin immediately or at any time 

within six (6) months of the 30-day 

Determination. 

Commission Referral of NonCompliance 

On February 7, 2008, the Commission 

voted the State of New Jersey out of 

compliance with the Commission’s 

Tautog Plan. Specifically, the 

Commission found that New Jersey had 

not implemented management measures 

to achieve the required 25.6 percent 

reduction in tautog exploitation as was 

required by Addendum IV and 

Addendum V to the Tautog Plan. 

Addenda IV and V were developed in 

response to the best and most recently 

available science as set forth in the 

January 2006 peer reviewed tautog stock 

assessment. The stock assessment 

indicated that stock levels were at 

historic lows, that the coastwide stock 

was overfished and that overfishing was 

occurring. Addendum IV mandated that 

states reduce their harvest by 25.6 

percent and Addendum V allowed 

states discretion to parse Addendum 

IV’s reductions between the different 

fishing sectors (i.e., commercial versus 

recreational). 

The Commission’s vote on February 7, 

2008, was the culmination of months of 

debate between the Commission and its 

Scientific Technical Committee (TC) on 

the one hand and the State of New 

Jersey and the New Jersey Marine 

Fisheries Council (NJ Council) on the 

other. Throughout this process, New 

Jersey argued that it has already taken 

measures - outside of addenda IV and V 

- that have substantially reduced 

mortality in the state’s tautog 

population and that no additional 

restrictions on harvest are necessary to 

meet the Plan’s fishing mortality targets. 

To support this position, New Jersey 

submitted a numerous state-specific 

proposals to the Commission including 

a proposal based upon a Virtual 

Population Assessment (VPA), as well 

as proposals based upon a Trawl Based 

Assessment Method (TBAM). 

New Jersey admitted that its state 

VPA model was of much lower 

precision than the Commission’s 

coastwide VPA model and not suitable 

as a stand alone analysis. The TC 

concurred and rejected the state VPA. 

Similarly, the TC was unable to support 

New Jersey’s TBAM analysis due to the 

lack of comparable metrics between the 

state’s methodology and the 

Commission’s coastwide analysis. The 

TC also expressed concerns over certain 

assumptions contained in the TBAM 

analysis, and, as a result, could not 

approve New Jersey’s proposal. The NJ 

Council nevertheless remained 

committed to the TBAM analysis, which 

justified taking no further harvest 

restrictions, and the Council blocked 

state efforts to implement complying 

tautog regulations. The Council 

informed the Commission of their veto 

of the States’ complying tautog 

regulations in a letter dated November 

7, 2007. This position formed the basis 

of the Commission’s vote on February 7, 

2008 to find the State of New Jersey out 

of compliance. 

Agency Action In Response to 

Commission Non-Compliance Referral 

The Commission forwarded the 

findings of their vote on February 7, 

2008, in a formal non-compliance 

referral letter that the Secretary received 

on February 11, 2008. In response, 

NMFS began the Atlantic Coastal Act’s 

30-day determination clock. 

Immediately thereafter, NMFS sent 

letters to the State of New Jersey, the 

Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery 

Management Councils and to the 

Commission, advising them of the 

Atlantic Coastal Act’s non-compliance 

process, inviting them to provide 

commentary on the issue, and in the 

case of New Jersey, inviting the State to 

meet with NMFS to present its position 

in person or provide written comments 

on the Commission’s findings. 

Although New Jersey declined the 

invitation to meet, they did provide 

written comments to NMFS on February 

28, 2008. New Jersey’s February 28, 

2008 letter simply restated the 

arguments that New Jersey had made in 

support of the TBAM method before the 

TC and Commission. The letter 

presented no new facts, nor propounded 

any new arguments. The Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council 

commented on February 27, 2008 in 

support of the Commission’s noncompliance determination, but provided 

no new information in support of their 

conclusion. The Commission also 

responded on February 27, 2008 

indicating that it had no further 

comments to add. No comments have 

yet been received from the New England 

Fisheries Management Council. 

Agency’s Findings 

New Jersey did not fulfill its 

responsibilities under the Commission’s 

Tautog Plan. New Jersey does not 

dispute that it has not implemented 

additional measures pursuant to 

Addendum IV and Addendum V. The 

addenda require states to reduce fishing 

mortality for tautog by 25.6 percent. In 

2007, New Jersey, along with all other 

states on the Commission’s Tautog 

Management Board, voted to adopt the 

addenda as a mandatory part of the 

Tautog Plan. New Jersey, also voted to 

approve the findings of the 2006 tautog 

stock assessment upon which the 

Addenda were based. Specifically, the 

2006 stock assessment concluded that 

existing Tautog Plan management 

measures were not enough to save the 

tautog resource; that still more 

reduction measures (Addenda IV and V) 

were necessary. Thus, New Jersey is in 

the position of agreeing with the 

scientific call for action (the 2006 stock 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
13866 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 51 / Friday, March 14, 2008 / Notices 

assessment), agreeing with the proposed 

action itself (Addenda IV and V’s 25.6 

percent reduction), yet a few months 

later, the State advances the argument 

that, all along, it need do nothing more 

under the Tautog Plan than was 

required of the State under the preexisting Tautog Plan. 

New Jersey used state-specific 

assessments to argue that it need do 

nothing under Addendum IV to meet 

the Plan’s mortality targets. Addendum 

IV allows New Jersey to make such an 

attempt, but places the burden on the 

state to establish that its methodology is 

‘‘ at the same level of precision as the 

most recent [2006 tautog stock] 

assessment.’’ New Jersey failed to meet 

this burden. The scientists of the TC 

reviewed New Jersey’s proposals, but 

could approve none as being sufficiently 

precise. NMFS agrees with the TC’s 

findings and further notes that the most 

recent landings data - data that was 

unavailable to the TC and not present in 

New Jersey’s proposals shows a three 

fold increase in New Jersey recreational 

landings in 2006 over the prior years 

harvest. Accordingly, even if, for 

argument’s sake, the TC’s analysis was 

overly cautious at the time, New Jersey’s 

substantial increase in tautog harvest in 

2006 seems to underscore the 

applicability of Addendum IV, or at the 

very least, justifies the lack of 

confidence in the State’s proposals and 

the need for additional constraints on 

harvest in New Jersey. 

Absent an acceptable submission by 

the state, New Jersey is required to 

comply with measures under Addenda 

IV and V. It has not, and has thus not 

fulfilled its responsibilities under the 

Tautog Plan. NMFS determined the 

measures that New Jersey failed to 

implement are necessary for the 

conservation of the fishery. The 

conservation basis of Addenda IV and V 

is straight-forward and obvious. The 

following facts are accepted by New 

Jersey and disputed by nobody: 

1. According to the 2006 peerreviewed stock assessment, the tautog 

resource continues to be at very low 

biomass levels. 

2. Since the mid–1980s, tautog has 

undergone a substantial decrease in 

total and spawning stock biomass, with 

both currently at levels about one-third 

of their historical averages. 

3. Tautog is currently listed both as 

overfished and with overfishing 

occurring. The most recent landings 

data suggests that New Jersey’s 

recreational landings more than tripled 

in 2006. 

4. Addendum IV and Addendum V 

directly respond to this conservation 

need and the addenda were voted upon 

and unanimously approved by all states 

including New Jersey in 2007. 

New Jersey Council erroneously 

contends that it has already met the 

required reductions through measures it 

implemented under the pre-existing 

Tautog Plan. First, the 2006 stock 

assessment took account of the earlier 

Tautog Plan reductions for which New 

Jersey would like to claim credit. In 

other words, Addendum IV=s measures 

incorporated these earlier reductions 

and new, lower targets were still 

deemed necessary in order to rebuild 

the tautog resource. New Jersey, thus, 

has yet to contribute to any of the 

reductions deemed necessary under 

Addenda IV and V to conserve the 

resource. 

Second, New Jersey’s harvest as a 

percentage of the coastwide total harvest 

is significant. New Jersey landings by 

recreational and commercial harvesters 

frequently place New Jersey among the 

top harvesters of tautog. New Jersey=s 

recreational harvest as a percentage of 

the coastwide total rose by more than 

300 percent from 2005 to 2006, 

ballooning from 5 percent to 17 percent, 

respectively. Commercial landings have 

remained between 15 and 23 percent of 

the 2003–2006 coastwide harvest. These 

numbers represent a significant 

contribution by New Jersey to the 

overall coastwide fishing mortality for 

tautog. Accordingly, its failure to 

implement conservation measures 

under Addenda IV and V will most 

certainly jeopardize any rebuilding 

efforts. 

A Moratorium Shall be Implemented on 

April 1, 2008 

Pursuant to the Atlantic Coastal Act, 

NMFS must implement a moratorium 

within 180 days of the positive 30-day 

Determination that is being made in this 

matter. NMFS has determined that an 

April 1, 2008, closure would both 

benefit tautog conservation and allow 

for the necessary logistics that 

accompany such a closure. 

The April 1, 2008, date provides more 

conservation than dates towards the end 

of the six month moratorium window, 

which would not conserve tautog when 

they congregate to spawn in late spring/ 

early summer. Nor would these later 

potential closure dates capture the 

potential spike in tautog landings that 

occurred in the spring according to the 

most recent NMFS Marine Recreational 

Fisheries Statistical Survey data. An 

immediate closure i.e., on the first date 

after the positive 30-day Determination, 

(March 12, 2008) would likely provide 

the most conservation, although not 

significantly more, but the short time 

frame would make the closure difficult 

to implement as a matter of logistics and 

notice. Closure dates to the end of the 

six month moratorium window provide 

ample time for logistics and notice, 

more time than is necessary. In sum, an 

April 1, 2008, closure date would on 

balance maximize conservation while 

allowing sufficient time for the notice 

and logistics necessary to implement 

such closure. 

Moratorium Prohibitions 

Once the moratorium takes effect, the 

moratoriums’ proscribed conduct shall 

reflect the prohibited acts mandated by 

the Atlantic Coastal Act as set forth as 

16 U.S.C. 5106(e). Accordingly, as of 

Tuesday, April 1, 2008, it shall be 

unlawful any person or vessel to do the 

following: 

1. Engage in fishing for tautog 

(Tautogis onitis)–also commonly known 

as ‘‘blackfish’’ within New Jersey 

waters–0 to 3 nautical miles (0 to 5.5 

kilometers) from shore; 

2. Land, attempt to land, or possess 

tautog that are caught, taken, or 

harvested in New Jersey state waters–

waters 0 to 3 nautical miles (0 to 5.5 

kilometers) from shore; 

3. Fail to return to the water 

immediately, with a minimum of injury, 

any tautog that are taken incidental to 

fishing for species (i.e., as bycatch) other 

than tautog; 

4. Refuse to permit any officer 

authorized to enforce the provisions of 

this moratorium to board a fishing 

vessel subject to such person’s control 

for purposes of conducting any search 

or inspection in connection with the 

enforcement of this moratorium; 

5. Forcibly assault, resist, oppose, 

impede, intimidate, or interfere with 

any such authorized officer in the 

conduct of any search or inspection 

under this moratorium; 

6. Resist a lawful arrest for any act 

prohibited by this moratorium; 

7. Ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, 

purchase, import, or have custody, 

control, or possession of, any tautog 

taken or retained in violation of this 

moratorium; or 

8. Interfere with, delay, or prevent, by 

any means, the apprehension or arrest of 

another person, knowing that such other 

person has committed any act 

prohibited by this moratorium. 

Classification 

This declaration of a moratorium is 

consistent with the Atlantic Coastal Act 

at 16 U.S.C. 5106 insofar as New Jersey 

has been found to have failed to carry 

out its responsibilities under the 

Commission Tautog Plan and the 

measures that New Jersey has failed to 

implement and enforce are necessary for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 51 / Friday, March 14, 2008 / Notices 13867 

1 streetTRACKS is a registered service mark of 

State Street Corporation, an affiliate of State Street 

Global Markets, LLC, the marketing agent for the 

streetTRACKS Gold Trust. 

2 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 

3 7 U.S.C. 6(c). 

4OneChicago is jointly owned by the CME Group, 

Inc., IB Exchange Corp., and the Chicago Board 

Options Exchange. 

5 In accordance with Section 2(a)(9)(B)(i) of the 

Act, Commission staff forwarded the new contract 

filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, 

the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System on 

October 29, 2007. No comments were received in 

response to this correspondence. On January 4, 

2008, the Exchange filed a rule amendment 

concerning minimum price fluctuations to 

supplement its initial submission. 

6 7 U.S.C. 7a–2(c)(2), 17 CFR 40.5, 41.23. 

the conservation of the tautog fishery. 

Further, the moratorium prohibits 

fishing for tautog within New Jersey 

state waters and is being implemented 

within six (6) months of the agency 

findings. 

The declaration of moratorium is 

consistent with the Administrative 

Procedures Act at 5 U.S.C. 555 insofar 

as New Jersey was promptly notified of 

the Commission’s non-compliance 

referral and given an opportunity to 

meet with the agency and provide 

comments on the matter. New Jersey has 

also been promptly notified of the 

agency’s determination in this matter. 

The Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that 

providing prior public notice and 

opportunity for comment is 

impracticable and unnecessary. 

Providing prior notice and opportunity 

for comment would be impracticable, 

because it would prevent the agency 

from executing its functions under the 

Act in a timely manner. The Act 

contemplates quick action on the 

declaration of a moratorium that would 

not be possible if prior notice and an 

opportunity for comment are provided. 

Furthermore, providing prior notice and 

opportunity for comment would be 

unnecessary because it would serve no 

purpose. The nature of a moratorium is 

described in the Act and, therefore, 

cannot be modified in response to 

public comments. 

The declaration of moratorium does 

not trigger the analytical requirements 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq. because prior notice 

and opportunity for public comment are 

not required for this determination by 

the Administrative Procedures Act or 

any other law. 

The declaration of a moratorium does 

not fall under review under Executive 

Order 12866 insofar as the moratorium 

is not a regulatory action of the agency 

but is an action mandated by Congress 

upon the findings of certain conditions 

precedent set forth in the Atlantic 

Coastal Act, which also prescribes the 

nature and extent of the moratorium. 

The fishery is smaller relative to other 

Commission fisheries and a moratorium 

is not expected to materially adversely 

affect the economy or have an impact of 

over $100 million. The matter creates no 

serious inconsistency with actions by 

other agencies and it is not expected to 

have material budgetary impacts. The 

declaration of moratorium is not 

significant within the meaning of the 

Executive Order. 

The declaration of moratorium is not 

the result of a policy formulated or 

implemented by the agency, but is 

instead the result of the application of 

found facts to the Congressional 

standards set forth in the Atlantic 

Coastal Act and as such, the declaration 

does not implicate federalism in the 

manner contemplated by Executive 

Order 13132. Further, the agency has 

consulted with New Jersey to the 

maximum extent practicable in this 

matter given the truncated timeframe set 

forth in the Atlantic Coastal Act. Rather, 

the Act provides clear evidence that 

Congress intended the Secretary to have 

the authority to preempt state law. That 

authority has been delegated from the 

Secretary to NMFS. The scope of the 

moratorium reflects the standards set 

forth in the Atlantic Coastal Act, and as 

such restricts state law to the minimum 

level necessary to further the objectives 

of the statute. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. 

Dated: March 10, 2008. 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 08–1026 Filed 3–11–08; 12:07 p.m.] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

RIN 3038–AC52 

Proposed Exemptive Order for ST Gold 

Futures Contracts 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed order and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (Commission) is 

proposing to exempt certain 

transactions in physically delivered 

futures contracts based on 

streetTRACKS Gold Trust Shares (ST 

gold futures contracts) 1 from those 

provisions of the Commodity Exchange 

Act (CEA or Act),2 and the 

Commission’s regulations thereunder, 

that are inconsistent with the trading 

and clearing of ST gold futures contracts 

as security futures. The proposed 

exemption would be conditioned on the 

compliance of transactions in ST gold 

futures contracts with the requirements 

established for security futures. The 

authority for the issuance of this 

exemption is found in Section 4(c) of 

the Act.3

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 31, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to 

the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581, attention: Office of the 

Secretariat. Comments may be sent by 

facsimile to 202.418.5521, or by e-mail 

to secretary@cftc.gov. Reference should 

be made to the ‘‘Proposed Exemptive 

Order for ST Gold Futures Contracts.’’

Comments may also be submitted 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.CFTC.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bruce Fekrat, Special Counsel, Office of 

the Director (telephone 202.418.5578, email bfekrat@cftc.gov), Division of 

Market Oversight, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

In correspondence dated October 26, 

2007, OneChicago, LLC (OneChicago or 

the Exchange),4 a contract market 

designated with the Commission 

pursuant to Sections 5 and 6(a) of the 

Act, proposed and requested 

Commission approval to list for trading 

ST gold futures contracts as security 

futures.5 OneChicago is noticeregistered with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) as a 

national securities exchange under 

Section 6(g) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 (’34 Act) for the purpose of 

listing and trading security futures 

products. The approval request was 

filed pursuant to Section 5c(c)(2) of the 

Act and Commission Regulations 40.5 

and 41.23.6 OneChicago submitted its 

request for approval under the 45-day 

fast-track review period established by 

Commission Regulation 40.5. The fasttrack review period for the Exchange’s 

submission was scheduled to expire on 

December 10, 2007. The review period 

was extended by the Director of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES