7804 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Notices 

for the driver’s forward field of vision is 

70 percent, per U.S. and Japanese 

regulations, rather than 75 percent 

required in European regulations. This 

is supported through a cost-benefit 

analysis, which shows no perceptible 

difference in light transmission and 

savings in energy usage. The light 

transmission test procedure used in the 

GTR was adopted from the European 

and Japanese test procedures, because 

they are based on the driver’s field of 

view and thus better approximate 

normal driving conditions. For the other 

optical quality tests, the main 

differences between the standards and 

regulations examined were not the 

requirements but just the test 

procedures. These differences were 

resolved by selecting the European and 

Japanese test procedures for the same 

reasons mentioned above. 

The GTR also includes environmental 

resistance requirements related to 

temperature change, fire, chemical 

resistance, abrasion, radiation, high 

temperature and humidity. The first 

four of these were common to all the 

examined regulations. The remaining 

three requirements had minor 

differences, which the GTR resolved by 

selecting the best alternatives. For 

example, in the case of resistance to 

radiation, the major difference between 

the American and European approaches 

is that the former specifies 100 hours 

exposure, using a specified radiation 

source, while the later specifies 100 

hours of exposure at 1400 W/m2. Since 

the European procedure ensures a 

constant level of exposure and allows 

for alternative sources of UV radiation 

during testing, it was deemed more 

flexible and was thus selected for the 

GTR. 

In July 2007, NHTSA received 

comments on the draft GTR from the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

Glazing Committee. In October, the 

agency made recommendations to the 

informal working group to implement 

some of the SAE comments into the 

GTR. The comments accepted in the 

GTR included editorial corrections, 

clarifications to Part A of the draft GTR 

(the technical rationale and 

justifications section), adding a 

definition for ‘‘Uniformly toughenedglass’’, and clarifying what would be 

considered a sharp edge for the 

fragmentation test. Several other points 

were not incorporated since they fell 

outside the scope of the GTR, were not 

relevant or already addressed in 

previous notices, or could not 

reasonably be pursued without 

conducting lengthy additional research 

and validation testing that is not 

supported by the majority of the 

Contracting Parties to the 1998 

Agreement. SAE’s comments can be 

found in the docket of this notice. 

The informal working group 

submitted the draft GTR to the Working 

Party on General Safety Provisions 

(GRSG) for consideration at the October 

2007 session. The October 2007 session 

of GRSG voted to recommend the GTR 

to WP.29. The GTR is expected to be 

voted on at the March 2008 session of 

WP.29. In anticipation of this vote, 

NHTSA requests comments on the draft 

GTR. The draft GTR that will be 

considered can be found in the docket 

for this notice. 

Once the GTR is established through 

consensus voting at WP.29, NHTSA will 

initiate domestic rulemaking to amend 

its existing FMVSS to incorporate 

approved provisions of the GTR. This 

will allow for further opportunity to 

consider comments from interested 

parties through the usual rulemaking 

process. If NHTSA’s rulemaking process 

leads it to either not adopt or to modify 

aspects of the GTR, the agency will seek 

to amend the GTR in accordance with 

established procedures under the 1998 

Global Agreement and WP.29, as it 

recently did with the door lock GTR. 

Issued on: February 5, 2008. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E8–2474 Filed 2–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

[TTB Ruling 2008–1] 

Standards of Identity and the Use of 

Semi-generic Designations and 

Retsina on Certain European Wines 

Imported into the United States 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: General notice. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau issues this ruling to 

clarify the standard of identity that 

applies to certain European wines when 

they are imported into the United 

States. 

DATES: This ruling is effective on 

January 24, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Gittes, Program Manager, 

International Trade Division, Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 

1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20220; telephone 202–927–8104. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

TTB Ruling 2008–1 

Standards of Identity and the Use of 

Semi-generic Designations and 

Retsina on Certain European Wines 

Imported into the United States 

27 CFR 4.21 Standards of Identity 

Wines using one of the 17 specified 

designations listed in Annex II of the 

Agreement Between the United States of 

America and the European Community 

on Trade in Wine, which originate in 

the applicable European Union member 

State and which comply with the 

European Union standard for such 

wines, will meet the United States 

standard of identity or the trade 

understanding for such wine. 

TTB RUL. 2008–1 

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau has been asked if the 

adoption of the Agreement Between the 

United States of America and the 

European Community on Trade in Wine 

(‘‘the Agreement’’) and the related 

statutory change regarding semi-generic 

designations and Retsina affect the 

standard of identity that applies to 

certain European wines when they are 

imported into the United States. 

Background 

On March 10, 2006, the United States 

and the European Community (EC) 

signed the Agreement in which the 

United States agreed to seek to change 

the legal status of 17 designations listed 

in Annex II of the Agreement in order 

to restrict their use solely to wine 

originating in the applicable European 

Union (EU) member State, except as 

provided for under a ‘‘grandfather’’

provision. These 17 designations are: 

Burgundy, Claret, Chablis, Champagne, 

Chianti, Malaga, Marsala, Madeira, 

Moselle, Port, Retsina, Rhine Wine or 

Hock, Sauterne, Haut Sauterne, Sherry, 

and Tokay. The Agreement’s 

‘‘grandfather’’ provision allows persons 

or their successors in interest to 

continue to label non-EU wines with 

one of the 17 listed designations if that 

term is used only on labels for wine 

bearing the brand name, or the brand 

name and the fanciful name, if any, for 

which the applicable Certificate of Label 

Approval (COLA) or Certificate of 

Exemption from Label Approval was 

issued by the Secretary of the Treasury 

before March 10, 2006. 

Legislation changing the legal status 

of the 17 designations in the Agreement 

was enacted by Congress and signed by 

the President on December 20, 2006, as 

section 422 of the Tax Relief and Health 

Care Act of 2006 (‘‘the Act’’), Public 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2008 / Notices 7805 

Law 109–432, 120 Stat. 2922, 2972. As 

amended by the Act, section 5388(c) of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 

U.S.C. 5388(c)) contains a provision 

regarding the use of the 17 designations 

listed in the Agreement. The provision 

states that, in the case of wine of the EC, 

the listed designations may be used only 

if the wine conforms to the standard of 

identity, if any, for such wine contained 

in the regulations issued under section 

5388 (27 CFR 24.257 and, by reference, 

27 CFR 4.21) or, if there is no such 

standard, to the trade understanding of 

such class and type. All other wines 

bearing the listed designations are 

subject to two additional requirements: 

(1) That the wine be marked with an 

appropriate appellation of origin 

disclosing the origin of the wine, and (2) 

that the person, or the person’s 

successor in interest, using a listed 

designation hold a COLA or Certificate 

of Exemption from Label Approval 

issued by the Secretary of the Treasury 

before March 10, 2006, for a wine label 

bearing that designation and that brand 

name or brand name and fanciful name. 

Held, that an EU wine product that 

bears one of the 17 designations listed 

in section 5388(c)(3)(C)(i) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 and that 

conforms to the EU standard for such 

wine complies with the United States 

standard of identity or the trade 

understanding for such wine. The recent 

amendment to 26 U.S.C. 5388(c) 

concerning semi-generic designations 

does not require such EU wine products 

imported into the United States to meet 

a new standard of identity. 

Signed: January 24, 2008. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–2392 Filed 2–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Additional Designations of Individuals 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13448 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Treasury Department’s 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

(‘‘OFAC’’) is publishing the names of 

three newly-designated individuals and 

four entities whose property and 

interests in property are blocked 

pursuant to Executive Order 13448 of 

October 18, 2007, ‘‘Blocking Property 

and Prohibiting Certain Transactions 

Related to Burma.’’

DATES: The designation by the Director 

of OFAC of three individuals and four 

entities identified in this notice, 

pursuant to Executive Orders 13448, is 

effective February 5, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Assistant Director, Compliance 

Outreach & Implementation, Office of 

Foreign Assets Control, Department of 

the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW. (Treasury Annex), 

Washington, DC 20220, Tel.: 202/622–

2490. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic and Facsimile Availability 

Information about these designations 

and additional information concerning 

OFAC are available from OFAC’s Web 

site (http://www.treas.gov/ofac) or via 

facsimile through a 24-hour fax-ondemand service, Tel.: 202/622–0077. 

Background 

On October 18, 2007, the President 

signed Executive Order 13448 (the 

‘‘Order’’) pursuant to, inter alia, the 

International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et. seq.). In 

the Order, the President took additional 

steps with respect to, and expanded, the 

national emergency declared in 

Executive Order 13047 of May 20, 1997, 

to address the Government of Burma’s 

continued repression of the democratic 

opposition. The President identified 

twelve individuals and entities as 

subject to the economic sanctions in the 

Annex to the Order. 

Section 1 of the Order blocks, with 

certain exceptions, all property and 

interests in property that are in, or 

hereafter come within, the United 

States, or within the possession or 

control of United States persons, of the 

persons listed in the Annex, as well as 

those persons determined by the 

Secretary of the Treasury, after 

consultation with the Secretary of State, 

to satisfy any of the criteria set forth in 

subparagraphs (b)(i)–(b)(vi) of Section 1. 

On February 5, 2008, the Director of 

OFAC exercised the Secretary of the 

Treasury’s authority to designate, 

pursuant to one or more of the criteria 

set forth in Section 1, subparagraphs 

(b)(i)–(b)(vi) of the Order, the following 

three individuals and four entities, 

whose names have been added to the 

list of Specially Designated Nationals 

and whose property and interests in 

property are blocked pursuant to 

Executive Order 13448: 

Individuals 

1. MANN, AUNG THET (a.k.a. SHWE 

MANN KO KO); Burma; DOB 19 

Jun 1977; c/o Ayer Shwe Wah 

Company Limited; c/o Htoo Group 

of Companies; c/o Htoo Trading 

Company Limited (individual) 

[BURMA] 

2. THEIN, U KYAW; Burma; 503 

Sembawang Rd., #02–29, 757707, 

Singapore; DOB 25 Oct 1947; 

citizen Burma; nationality Burma; 

National ID No. S2733659J 

(Singapore) issued 7 Jul 2005; c/o 

Air Bagan Holdings Pte. Ltd.; c/o 

Htoo Wood Products Pte. Ltd.; c/o 

Pavo Aircraft Leasing Pte. Ltd.; c/o 

Pavo Trading Pte. Ltd.; permanent 

resident Singapore (individual) 

[BURMA] 

3. THIHA (a.k.a. THI HA); Burma; DOB 

24 Jun 1960; c/o Htoo Group of 

Companies; c/o Htoo Trading 

Company Limited (individual) 

[BURMA] 

Entities 

1. AYER SHWE WAH COMPANY 

LIMITED (a.k.a. AYER SHWE WA; 

a.k.a AYE YAR SHWE WAH; a.k.a. 

AYEYA SHWE WAR COMPANY); 5 

Pyay Road, Hlaing Township, 

Yangon, Burma [BURMA] 

2. HTOO GROUP OF COMPANIES; 5 

Pyay Road, Hlaing Township, 

Yangon, Burma [BURMA] 

3. MYANMAR AVIA EXPORT 

COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. 

MYANMAR AVIA EXPORT) 

[BURMA] 

4. PAVO AIRCRAFT LEASING PTE. 

LTD.; 3 Shenton Way, #24–02 

Shenton House, 068805, Singapore 

[BURMA] 

Dated: February 5, 2008. 

Adam J. Szubin, 

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. 

[FR Doc. E8–2425 Filed 2–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4811–42–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Additional Designations of Individuals 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13448 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Treasury Department’s 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

(‘‘OFAC’’) is publishing the names of 

four newly-designated individuals 

whose property and interests in 

property are blocked pursuant to 

Executive Order 13448 of October 18, 

2007, ‘‘Blocking Property and 

Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related 

to Burma.’’


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES