Notices. Notice of Completion of Panel Review of the final injury determination made by the U

18,740 words·~85 min read·/register/2006/12/19/06-9762

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

BILLING CODE 4310-RK-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-822 Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not In Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review; Correction AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice corrects the case number previously published in the **Federal Register** on November 30, 2006 (Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China:

Notice of Court Decision Not In Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review, 71 FR 69204). On page 69204, we used the incorrect case number to reference this case. The correct case number is “A-570-822.” Dated: December 12, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21609 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-847) Persulfates from the People's Republic of China:

Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle or Marin Weaver Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: at

(202)482-0650 and

(202)482-2336, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). On July 31, 2006, FMC Corporation (“FMC”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Shanghai AJ Import and Export Corporation (“Shanghai AJ”). No other parties requested a review. The Department published a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of persulfates from the PRC for the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). On November 21, 2006, FMC withdrew its request for an administrative review. Rescission of Review The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) 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. FMC withdrew its request before the 90-day deadline. Therefore, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the PRC covering the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of publication of this rescission. Notification Regarding APOs 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 issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: December 12, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21628 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-601 Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2004-2005 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (“TRBs”), from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on July 14, 2006. The period of review (“POR”) is June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-0414. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 14, 2006, the Department published its preliminary results. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2003-2004 Antidumping Administrative Review, and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part* , 71 FR 40069 (July 14, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). On August 11, 2006, The Timken Company ( *i.e.* , Petitioner) submitted a case brief. On August 18, 2006, China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation (“CMC”) submitted a rebuttal brief. On November 16, 2006, the Department published a notice extending the time limit for the final results of review until December 11, 2006. *See Notice of Extension of Final Results of the 2003-2004 Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 66750 (November 16, 2006). We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213. Scope of Order Merchandise covered by this order is TRBs from the PRC; flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Rescission of Review In our preliminary results, we stated we preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Chin Jun Industrial Ltd. (“Chin Jun”), Peer Bearing Company—Changshan (“CPZ”), Weihai Machinery Holding (Group) Company, Ltd. (“Weihai Machinery”), and Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp (“ZMC”) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Chin Jun, CPZ, and ZMC had all reported that they had either no sales or no exports to the United States during the POR and we had no evidence of shipments to the United States from these companies during the POR. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 40071. Additionally, in our preliminary results, for Weihai Machinery, we stated that the customs inquiry provided no evidence that Weihai Machinery had any shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and information on the record indicated that Weihai Machinery had no shipments and may be out of business, but indicated that we would continue to pursue this issue for the final results. On July 13, 2006, the Department received confirmation from the Weihai Administration for Industry and Commerce that Weihai Machinery terminated operations on or before December 16, 2003. *See Memo to the file: Weihai Machinery Industry Supply Co., Ltd.: Cancellation of Company Registration* , dated November 29, 2006. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review with respect to Weihai Machinery. In addition, since we have received no new information since the preliminary results that contradicts the decision made in the preliminary results with respect to Chin Jun, CPZ or ZMC, we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to these companies as well. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 18th Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China,” dated December 11, 2006 (“ *Issues and Decision Memorandum* ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded in the * Issues and Decision Memorandum * is attached to this notice as an appendix. The *Issues and Decision Memorandum* is a public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 in the main Department building, 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. Surrogate Country In the *Preliminary Results* , we stated that we treat the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) country, and therefore, we calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act which applies to NME countries. Also, we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this review for the following reasons:

(1)It is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and

(2)provides contemporaneous publicly available data to value the factors of production, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* . For the final results, we made no changes to our findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. Separate Rates In proceedings involving 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 review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is free of *de jure* and *de facto* control over its export decisions, so as to be entitled to a separate rate. In the *Preliminary Results* , we found that CMC demonstrated its eligibility for separate-rate status. For the final results, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this administrative review by CMC demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to its exports of the merchandise under review and thus determine CMC is eligible for separate-rate status. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations for CMC. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 2 and 3. • For these final results, we have changed the surrogate value ratio calculations derived from each of the two surrogate companies. For ratios derived from SKF India Limited, we have excluded the line item “consumption of traded goods” from the denominator of the factory overhead ratio. However, we continue to include the line item “consumption of traded goods” in the denominator of the selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), profit and interest ratios. For ratios derived from Timken India Limited, we have added the line item “purchase of products for resale” to the denominators of the SG&A, profit, and interest ratios. • For the profit ratio derived from Timken India Limited, we corrected a clerical error to use the value from “profit before tax” in this calculation. Final Results of Review We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005: TRBs from the PRC Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation 0.00 Assessment Rates The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of administrative review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of TRBs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)For CMC, the cash deposit rate will be zero;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 60.95 percent, the current PRC-wide rate; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification of Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 77(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 11, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Outdated TRBs tariff classification *Comment 2:* Remove “consumption of Traded Goods” from surrogate financial ratio *Comment 3:* Ministerial error on Timken India Limited's “profit before tax” [FR Doc. E6-21632 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-835] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a March 22, 2006, request by Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai), claiming to be the successor-in-interest to INI Steel Company (INI), the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a changed circumstances review of the countervailing duty

(CVD)order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils

(SSSS)from the Republic of Korea (Korea). S *ee Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 71 FR 37541 (June 30, 2006) ( *Initiation Notice* ). We invited interested parties to comment on our *Initiation Notice* . We received no comments. Based on the information submitted by Hyundai, we preliminarily determine that:

(1)Hyundai is the successor-in-interest to INI, formerly Inchon Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (Inchon); and

(2)upon publication of the final results of this review, INI's current CVD cash deposit rate shall be applied to entries of subject merchandise made by Hyundai. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown or Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-2849 or

(202)482-0395, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 6, 1999, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the CVD order on SSSS from Korea. *See Amendment to Final Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, Italy, and the Republic of South Korea* , 64 FR 42923 (August 6, 1999). The Department has completed three administrative reviews of this CVD order 1 and is currently conducting a fourth review. 2 In September 2001 and June 2002, respectively, the Department initiated and published the preliminary results of a changed circumstances review to determine whether INI was entitled to Inchon's cash deposit rate. 3 In the Second Review the Department determined to assign Inchon's cash deposit rate to INI, thereby eliminating the need to complete the changed circumstances review. 4 The Department has also published notice of continuation of this order upon completion of the first five-year (sunset) review. 5 1 *See Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 67 FR 1964 (January 15, 2002), as amended, *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea: Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 8229 (February 22 2002); *Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 68 FR 13267 (March 19, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Second Review); and *Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 69 FR 2113 (January 14, 2004), as amended, *Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea* , 69 FR 7419 (February 17, 2004). 2 *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005) (initiation of review of Dai Yang Metal Co., Ltd.). 3 *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 49639 (September 28, 2001), and *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Notice of Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 38257 (June 3, 2002). 4 *See Second Review* Decision Memorandum at section “C: Name Changes.” 5 *See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan, and Countervailing Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy and the Republic of Korea* , 70 FR 44886 (August 4, 2005). Hyundai asserts that INI changed its corporate name to Hyundai effective March 10, 2006. On March 22, 2006, Hyundai requested that the Department confirm that Hyundai is entitled to INI's cash deposit rate for the CVD order. Simultaneously, Hyundai requested a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty

(AD)order on SSSS from Korea for the purpose of determining whether Hyundai is the successor-in-interest to INI and is entitled to INI's exclusion from the AD order. On April 11, 20, and 27, 2006, Hyundai submitted additional information in response to three requests from the Department for additional information. In response to Hyundai's request regarding the AD order, on May 12, 2006, the Department initiated a changed circumstances review and preliminarily determined that Hyundai is the successor-in-interest to INI and merchandise from Hyundai should be excluded from the AD order. 6 6 *See Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 27680 (May 12, 2006) ( *AD Changed Circumstances Preliminary Results* ). Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 7 , 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. 7 Due to changes to the HTSUS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:

(1)sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,

(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,

(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),

(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and

(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). The Department has determined that certain additional specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this order. These excluded products are described below. Flapper valve steel is excluded from the scope of this order. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness

(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 8 8 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials

(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 9 9 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System

(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 10 10 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 11 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6”. 11 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 19 CFR 351.221, the Department initiated this changed circumstances review of the CVD order to determine whether Hyundai is the successor-in-interest to INI. In the context of changed circumstances reviews of an AD order involving, e.g. , a change in a company's name, structure or ownership, the Department relies on its successor-in-interest analysis to determine whether the newly named or structured company remains essentially the same as the predecessor company. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India* , 71 FR 31156 (June 1, 2006), citing Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review , 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994). If the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the successor company operates as the same business entity as its predecessor, the Department will assign the successor the existing cash deposit rate of its predecessor. For similar changed circumstances in a CVD order, the appropriate focus of the analysis for determining the cash deposit rate for a successor company is usually whether the successor company operates as the same business entity as its predecessor. For such determinations in the context of a CVD order, however, such an analysis may not always be sufficient, in itself, to determine whether it is appropriate to assign the predecessor's CVD cash deposit rate to the successor where the circumstances indicate that a change relevant to the subsidy analysis may have occurred. We do not find, however, that there are any such circumstances in the instant review, such as a privatization or sale of a company, that would warrant going beyond the Department's standard successor-in-interest analysis. In the instant proceeding, we are only examining a change in the name of the company. Further, Hyundai has presented evidence establishing that its change in corporate name from INI to Hyundai did not affect the company's operations such that they are materially different to those of its predecessor. *See* Hyundai's March 22, 2006, submission at Exhibits 2 though 4; *see also* Hyundai's April 11, 2006, submission at page 3 and Exhibit 7. The evidence indicates that Hyundai has essentially the same corporate structure and operations as INI. Therefore, based on the record evidence, and consistent with the Department's findings in the *AD Changed Circumstances Preliminary Results* , we preliminarily determine that the current cash deposit rate applicable to INI shall be applicable to entries of subject merchandise made by Hyundai, entered on or after the publication date of the final results of this changed circumstances review. Thus, if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this changed circumstances review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect a cash deposit at the rate of 0.54 percent *ad valorem* on all entries of SSSS produced and exported by Hyundai on or after the publication of the final results of this review. This cash deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review in which Hyundai participates. In addition, the Department intends to further consider the issue of whether alternative or additional successorship criteria would be appropriate in the CVD context, and therefore, the Department anticipates releasing a separate **Federal Register** notice shortly hereafter inviting parties to submit public comments on the issue. Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Any written comments may be submitted no later than 14 days after date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are due five days after the case brief deadline. Case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will publish the final results of the changed circumstances review including the results of its analysis of any issues raised in any such comments within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review was initiated. This notice is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221. Dated: December 12, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21634 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel Reviews; Completion of Panel Review AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Completion of Panel Review of the final injury determination made by the U.S. International Trade Commission, in the matter of Magnesium from Canada, Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-00-1904-09. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Order of the Binational Panel dated October 6, 2006, affirming the final remand determination described above, the panel review was completed on November 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 6, 2006, the Binational Panel issued an order which affirmed the final determination of the United States International Trade Commission

(ITC)concerning Magnesium from Canada Injury Determination. The Secretariat was instructed to issue a Notice of Completion of Panel Review on the 31st day following the issuance of the Notice of Final Panel Action, if no request for an Extraordinary Challenge was filed. No such request was filed. Therefore, on the basis of the Panel Order and Rule 80 of the *Article 1904 Panel Rules,* the Panel Review was completed and the panelists discharged from their duties effective November 17, 2006. Dated: December 14, 2006. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E6-21620 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel Reviews; Request for Panel Review AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of First Request for Panel Review. SUMMARY: On November 27, 2006, the Northwest Fruit Exporters filed a First Request for Panel Review with the Mexican Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Panel review was requested of the final revocation of the antidumping investigation, respecting the Importation of Various Red Delicious Table Apples, Its Variations, and Golden Delicious Apples Originating From The United States of America, Classified In Tariff item 08.08.10.01 This determination was published in the *Diario Oficial de la Federacion,* on November 2, 2006. The NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case Number MEX-USA-2006-1904-02 to this request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent bi-national panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the Mexican Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on November 27, 2006, requesting panel review of the final determination described above. The Rules provide that:

(a)a Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is December 27, 2006);

(b)a Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is January 22, 2007); and

(c)the panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review. Dated: December 12, 2006. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E6-21542 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket Number: 061128312-6312-01] Precision Measurement Grants Program; Availability of Funds AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)announces that the Precision Measurement Grants Program is soliciting applications for financial assistance for FY 2007. The Precision Measurement Grants Program is seeking proposals for significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. DATES: Abbreviated proposals must be received at the address listed below no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on February 2, 2007. Proposals received after this deadline will be returned with no further consideration. Finalists will be selected by approximately March 23, 2007, and will be requested to submit full proposals to NIST. All full proposals, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on May 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: Abbreviated proposals and paper applications must be submitted to: Dr. Peter J. Mohr; Manager, NIST Precision Measurement Grants Program; National Institute of Standards and Technology; 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8420; Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8420; E-mail: *mohr@nist.gov* . Electronic final proposals should be uploaded to Grants.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov* . A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Technical questions should be addressed to: Dr. Peter J. Mohr at the address listed in the Addresses section above, or at Tel:

(301)975-3217; E-mail: *mohr@nist.gov* .; Web site: *http://physics.nist.gov/pmg* . Grants Administration questions should be addressed to: Grants and Agreements Management Division; National Institute of Standards and Technology; 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1650; Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1650; Tel:

(301)975-6328. For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number:* Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards—11.609. *Program Description:* The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)announces that the *Precision Measurement Grants Program* is soliciting applications for financial assistance for FY 2007. The *Precision Measurement Grants Program* is seeking proposals for significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. As part of its research program, since 1970 NIST has awarded Precision Measurement Grants primarily to universities and colleges so that faculty may conduct significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. NIST sponsors these grants and cooperative agreements primarily to encourage basic, measurement-related research in universities and colleges and other research laboratories and to foster contacts between NIST scientists and those faculty members of academic institutions and other researchers who are actively engaged in such work. The Precision Measurement Grants are also intended to make it possible for researchers to pursue new ideas for which other sources of support may be difficult to find. There is some latitude in research topics that will be considered under the *Precision Measurement Grants Program* . The key requirement is that the proposed project is consistent with NIST's ongoing work in the field of basic measurement science. *Funding Availability:* Applicants should propose multi-year projects for up to three years at no more than $50,000 per year. NIST anticipates spending $100,000 this year for two new grants at $50,000 each for the first year of the research projects. NIST may award both, one, or neither of these new awards. Second and third year funding will be at the discretion of NIST, based on satisfactory performance, continuing relevance to program objectives, and the availability of funds. Funding for the program listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations. NIST issues this notice subject to the appropriations made available under the current continuing resolution, H.R. 5631, “Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007,” Public Law 109-289, as amended by H.J. Res. 100, Public Law 109-369. NIST anticipates making awards for the program listed in this notice provided that funding for the program is continued beyond December 8, 2006, the expiration of the current continuing resolution. *Statutory Authority:* The authority for the *Precision Measurement Grants Program* is as follows: As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 272

(b)and (c), NIST conducts directly, and supports through grants, a basic and applied research program in the general area of fundamental measurement and the determination of fundamental constants of nature. *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; State, local and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; international organizations; and Federal agencies with appropriate legal authority. *Review and Selection Process:* All abbreviated proposals and full applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated objectives for each program. Incomplete or non-responsive abbreviated proposals and full applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive abbreviated proposal and full application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. To simplify the proposal writing and evaluation process, the following selection procedure will be used: All applicants must submit an abbreviated proposal (original and two signed copies), containing a description of the proposed project, including sufficient information to address the evaluation criteria, with a total length of no more than five

(5)double spaced pages, to the mailing address given above in the Addresses section. These proposals will be screened to determine whether they address the requirements outlined in this notice. Proposals that do not meet those requirements will not be considered further. Eight independent, objective individuals, at least half of whom are NIST employees, and who are knowledgeable about the scientific areas that the program addresses will conduct a technical review of each abbreviated proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described in the Evaluation Criteria section of this notice. Each reviewer will rank all complete proposals. The proposals will then be ranked based on the average of the reviewers' rankings. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but the ranking will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. The Chief of the Atomic Physics Division of the Physics Laboratory, the selecting official, will then select approximately four to eight finalists. In selecting finalists, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank, and relevance to the program objectives described above in the Program Description section. Applicants not selected as finalists will be notified in writing. Finalists will then be asked in writing to submit full proposals in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Content and Form of Application Submission section of the FFO notice. The same independent reviewers that reviewed the abbreviated proposals will then evaluate the full proposals based on the same evaluation criteria, and the proposals will be ranked as previously described. In selecting proposals that will be recommended for funding, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank and relevance to the program objectives described in the Program Description section of this notice. The final approval of selected applications and award of grants will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* The evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating the abbreviated application proposals and full proposals are: 1. The importance of the proposed research—Does it have the potential of answering some currently pressing question or of opening up a whole new area of activity? 2. The relationship of the proposed research to NIST's ongoing work—Will it support one of NIST's current efforts to develop a new or improved fundamental measurement method or physical standard, test the basic laws of physics, or provide an improved value for a fundamental constant? 3. The feasibility of the research and the potential impact of the grant—Is it likely that significant progress can be made in a three year time period with the funds and personnel available and that the funding will enable work that would otherwise not be done with existing or potential funding? 4. The qualifications of the applicant—Does the educational and employment background and the quality of the research, based on recent publications, of the applicant indicate that there is a high probability that the proposed research will be carried out successfully? Each of these factors is given equal weight in the evaluation process. *Cost Share Requirements:* The Precision Measurement Grants Program does not require any matching funds. *The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements:* The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) is applicable to this notice. On the form SF-424, the applicant's 9-digit Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number must be entered in the Applicant Identifier block (68 FR 38402). *Collaborations with NIST Employees:* All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed by an entity other than the applicant, and the cost of such work should ordinarily be included in the budget. If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review. *Use of NIST Intellectual Property:* If the applicant anticipates using any NIST-owned intellectual property to carry out the work proposed, the applicant should identify such intellectual property. This information will be used to ensure that no NIST employee involved in the development of the intellectual property will participate in the review process for that competition. In addition, if the applicant intends to use NIST-owned intellectual property, the applicant must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the licensing of Federal government patents and inventions, described at 35 U.S.C. 200-212, 37 CFR part 401, 15 CFR 14.36, and in section B.20 of the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements published on December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389). Questions about these requirements may be directed to the Counsel for NIST, 301-975-2803. Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one. If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain. *Collaborations Making Use of Federal Facilities:* All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed using Federal Facilities. If an applicant proposes use of NIST facilities, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention and a description of the facilities. Any use of NIST facilities must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the availability of the facilities and approval of the proposed usage. Any unapproved facility use will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review. Examples of some facilities that may be available for collaborations are listed on the NIST Technology Services Web site, *http://ts.nist.gov/* . *Initial Screening of all Applications:* All applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated program objectives. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. *Research Projects Involving Human Subjects, Human Tissue, Data or Recordings Involving Human Subjects:* Any proposal that includes research involving human subjects, human tissue, data or recordings involving human subjects must meet the requirements of the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects, codified for the Department of Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In addition, any proposal that includes research on these topics must be in compliance with any statutory requirements imposed upon the Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS)and other Federal agencies regarding these topics, all regulatory policies and guidance adopted by DHHS, FDA, and other Federal agencies on these topics, and all Presidential statements of policy on these topics. NIST will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards

(IRBs)possessing a current registration filed with DHHS and to be performed by institutions possessing a current, valid Federal-wide Assurance

(FWA)from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance

(SPA)for any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST. On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement

(1)The derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and

(2)the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at *http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf* for funding such research. *Research Projects Involving Vertebrate Animals:* Any proposal that includes research involving vertebrate animals must be in compliance with the National Research Council's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” which can be obtained from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20055. In addition, such proposals must meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 *et seq.* ), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if appropriate, 21 CFR part 58. These regulations do not apply to proposed research using pre-existing images of animals or to research plans that do not include live animals that are being cared for, euthanized, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals, teaching, or testing. These regulations also do not apply to obtaining animal materials from commercial processors of animal products or to animal cell lines or tissues from tissue banks. *Limitation of Liability:* Funding for the program listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations. NIST issues this notice subject to the appropriations made available under the current continuing resolution, H.R. 5631, “Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007,” Public Law 109-289, as amended by H.J. Res. 100, Public Law 109-369 and H.J. Res. 102, Public Law 109-383. NIST anticipates making awards for the program listed in this notice provided that funding for the program is continued beyond February 15, 2007, the expiration of the current continuing resolution. In no event will NIST or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Funding of any award under any program announced in this notice is subject to the availability of funds. *Executive Order 12866:* This funding notice was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. *Executive Order 13132 (Federalism):* It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12372:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” *Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553 (a)). Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* Dated: December 13, 2006. James E. Hill, Acting Deputy Director, NIST. [FR Doc. E6-21605 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Notice of a Public Meeting of the Interim Meeting of National Conference on Weights and Measures in January 2007 AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Interim Meetings of the 92nd National Conference on Weights and Measures

(NCWM)will be held January 21 to 24, 2007, in Jacksonville, Florida. The majority of the meetings are open to the public but registration is required. The NCWM is an organization of weights and measures officials of the states, counties, and cities of the United States, Federal Agencies, and private sector representatives. These meetings bring together government officials and representatives of business, industry, trade associations, and consumer organizations on subjects related to the field of weights and measures technology, administration, and enforcement. Pursuant to (15 U.S.C. 272(b)(6)), the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)supports the NCWM as one of the means it uses to solicit comments and recommendations on revising or updating a variety of publications related to legal metrology. NIST participates to promote uniformity among the States in laws, regulations, methods, and testing equipment that comprise the regulatory control of commercial weighing and measuring devices and other practices used in trade and commerce. Publication of this Notice on the NCWM's behalf is undertaken as a public service; NIST does not endorse, approve, or recommend any of the proposals contained in this notice or in the publications of the NCWM mentioned below. Please see NCWM Publication 15 which contains detailed meeting agendas and schedules, registration forms and hotel reservation information at *http://www.ncwm.net.* DATES: January 21-24, 2007. ADDRESSES: The Omni Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following are brief descriptions of some of the significant agenda items that will be considered along with other issues at the NCWM Interim Meeting. Comments will be taken on these and other issues during several public comment sessions. At this stage, the items are proposals. This meeting also includes work sessions in which the Committees may also accept comments and where they will finalize recommendations for NCWM consideration and possible adoption at its Annual Meeting to be held July 8 to 12, 2007, at the Snowbird Resort in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Committees may withdraw or carry over items that need additional development. The Specifications and Tolerances Committee will consider proposed amendments to NIST Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices (NIST Handbook 44).” Those items address weighing and measuring devices used in commercial measurement applications, that is, devices that are normally used to buy from or sell to the general public or used for determining the quantity of product sold among businesses. Issues on the agenda of the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee relate to proposals to amend NIST Handbook 130, “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the area of legal metrology and engine fuel quality and NIST Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.” This notice contains information about significant items on the NCWM Committee agendas, and several issues are not presented in this notice. As a result, the following items are not consecutively numbered. NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee The following items are proposals to amend NIST Handbook 44: General Code Item 310-3. Multiple Weighing and Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing: this item would require new commercial weighing and measuring devices with multiple weighing or measuring elements to be equipped with one of several means to indicate when changes are made to individual elements that affect metrological parameters. Scales Code Item 320-1. Zero Indication; Requirements for Markings or Indications for Other than Digital Zero Indications: This proposal would clarify the requirement's original intent for marking zero indications on scales and point-of-sale systems when there is no load on the load receiving element of a scale and where zero is represented by other than a digital zero ( *e.g.* , scrolling messages, dashes etc.) Item 320-5. Tare Rounding on a Multiple Range Scale: This proposal would modify indication and rounding requirements for scales which change the value of the scale division at different weight loads. The requirement will prescribe how a multi-range scale may operate to round and indicate the weight of packaging material which must not be included in the net weight of the commodity bought or sold over the device. Item 320-9. Definitions for Tare Mechanism, Gross Weight Value, Net Weight, Net Weight Value, Tare, and Tare Weight Value: This proposal is one of several that would adopt new or modify existing definitions for terms for weight values (net, tare, and gross) indicated by a scale during a weighing transaction to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation or misapplication of requirements in either type evaluation or field applications of commercial weighing devices. Liquid-Measuring Devices Item 330-1. Value of Smallest Unit of Measure for Meters with Flow-Rates up to or more than 750 liters (200 gallons) per-minute and Stationary Jet Refueling Systems with maximum Flow Rates of 375 liters (100 gallons) per-minute or more: This proposal would provide an exemption and prescribe the conditions in which the handbook would allow 5 liter (1 gallon) increments to be used to indicate the quantity of fuel delivered by the specific devices covered by this proposal. Item 330-2. Display of Quantity and Total Price in Aviation Refueling Applications: This is a proposal to revise requirements related to the display of delivered quantity and total price for the stationary liquid measuring devices (typically those used at small or midsized airports) to fuel small aircraft. Vehicle-Tank Meters Item 331-1. Temperature Compensation: This is a proposal to add provisions to Handbook 44 to allow vehicle-mounted measuring devices to be equipped with the automatic means to deliver product with the volume compensated to a reference temperature. (See also Item 232-1 below under the Laws and Regulations Committee). NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee The following item is a proposal to amend NIST Handbook 130: Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation Item 232-1. Temperature Compensation for Petroleum Products: Several proposals will be considered that would allow temperature compensation to take place on a voluntary basis or limit compensation to metering systems with certain flow capacities or specific sales applications. Most of the proposals allow compensation to occur only if certain conditions are met by the seller. Item 232-2. Biodiesel and Fuel Ethanol Labeling: This item requires the identification and labeling of biodiesel fuels and blends at retail service stations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Hockert, Chief, NIST, Weights and Measures Division, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. Telephone

(301)975-5507, or e-mail: *Carol.Hockert@nist.gov.* Dated: December 13, 2006. James E. Hill, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E6-21607 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 121106B] Endangered Species; File No. 1581 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (Responsible Official—Samuel Pooley, Principal Investigator—George Balazs), 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822 has been issued a permit to take green ( *Chelonia mydas* ) and hawksbill ( *Eretmochelys imbricata* ) sea turtles 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; and Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)973-2935; fax (808)973-2941. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Patrick Opay (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 27, 2006 notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 56478) that a request for a scientific research permit to take green and hawksbill sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). Researchers will annually capture up to 600 green and 10 hawksbill sea turtles by hand, scoop net, entanglement net, and bullpen net. All green sea turtles will be measured, weighed, passive integrated transponder tagged, and flipper tagged. A subset of green sea turtles will have their shell etched with an identification mark, be blood sampled, tissue sampled, lavaged, and have an electronic tag attached to them. Hawksbill sea turtles will be measured, weighed, passive integrated transponder tagged, flipper tagged, blood sampled, and tissue sampled. All animals will be released alive. The permit is issued for five years. 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 any endangered or threatened species, and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: December 13, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-21608 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 102406C] Nominations for the Annual Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards for 2007; Extension of Nomination Deadline AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; extension of nomination deadline. SUMMARY: NOAA has established the Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards Program to recognize outstanding performances, achievements and leadership by industries, organizations and individuals who promote best stewardship practices for the sustainable use of living marine resources and ecosystems, and who have fostered change and inspired a stewardship ethic within their community. This notice extends the deadline for nominations for the second annual Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards from January 8 to January 31, 2007. DATES: The due date for nomination forms and required supporting materials has been extended from January 8, 2007 (November 8, 2006; 71 FR 65471) to January 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent electronically to the Fish for the Future Foundation, *nominations@ fish4thefuturefoundation.org.* Nominations can also be mailed to Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards, c/o Fish for the Future Foundation, 3382 Gunston Road, Alexandria, VA 22302, or faxed to

(703)379-5777. All information and official nomination forms can be accessed electronically at the NMFS Web site *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/awards/* or the Fish for the Future Foundation Web site *http://www.fish4thefuture foundation.org* or by calling (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Shea, Fish for the Future Foundation,

(703)379-6101, *Michele.Shea@fish4thefuture foundation.org* or Laurel Bryant, NMFS,

(301)713-2379 x171, *laurel.bryant@noaa.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS published a notice in the **Federal Register** on November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65471) that provided background information as it relates to this nomination process. The background information is not repeated in this document. Today's notice extends the nomination deadline from January 8 to January 31, 2007. Dated: December 12, 2006. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-21613 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 083106B] Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Low-Energy Seismic Surveys in the South Pacific Ocean AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA)as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental Harassment Authorization

(IHA)to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting an oceanographic survey in the South Pacific Ocean

(SPO)has been issued to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO). DATES: Effective from December 12, 2006, through December 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: The authorization and application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact listed here. The application is also available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

(301)713-2289, ext 128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and

(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which

(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or

(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Summary of Request On July 24, 2006, NMFS received an application from SIO for the taking, by harassment, of several species of marine mammals (see Marine Mammals Affected by this Activity later in this document) incidental to conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey program during December 2006 and January 2007 in the SPO. SIO plans to conduct a seismic survey at several sites in the SPO (as illustrated in Figure 1 in SIO's application) as part of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). The purpose of the research program is to conduct a piston/ gravity coring, magnetic, and seismic survey program at 12 sites in the SPO. The seismic surveys will involve one vessel. The source vessel, the *R/V Roger Revelle* , will deploy a pair of low-energy Generator-Injector

(GI)airguns as an energy source (each with a discharge volume of 45 in 3 ), plus a 800-m (1476-ft) long, 48-channel, towed hydrophone streamer. The *Revelle* is scheduled to depart from Apia, Samoa, on or about December 7, 2006, and to arrive at Dunedin, New Zealand, on or about January 17, 2007. The program will consist of approximately 1930 km (1042 nm) of surveys, including turns. The surveys will be conducted entirely in international waters. The GI guns will be operated on a small grid for about 6-10 hours at each of 12 sites during approximately December 10, 2006, to January 13, 2007. A description of the *Revelle* 's oceanographic research program is contained in SIO's application (see ADDRESSES for availability) and in NMFS' notice of receipt of SIO's IHA application (see 71 FR 56955 (September 28, 2006)) and is not repeated here. There have been no significant changes in SIO's oceanographic research program between the September 28, 2006 **Federal Register** notice and NMFS' decision to issue the IHA Comments and Responses A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the application and proposed authorization was published on September 28, 2006 (71 FR 56955). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments only from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). *Comment 1:* The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the requested authorization, provided the applicant is required to conduct all practicable monitoring and mitigation measures that reasonably can be expected to protect the potentially affected marine mammal species from serious injury. In that regard, the Commission notes that it submitted similar comments on this concern in letters dated December 18, 2005 and February 21, 2006 on SIO's activities in the southwestern Pacific Ocean

(SWPO)and eastern tropical Pacific (ETP). As in those cases, since several species of beaked whales occur in the proposed survey area, and given the uncertainties concern the effects of sound on these and possibly other species, caution is warranted. *Response:* NMFS responded to similar concerns from the Commission on January 30, 2006 (71 FR 3260), for SIO's ETP seismic survey and on February 6, 2006 (71 FR 6041), for SIO's SWPO survey. For this low-energy seismic survey, the radius of the zone of potential serious injury for cetaceans is approximately 40 m (131 ft). For the 2-GI airgun seismic activity, the radius of the zone of potential Level B harassment for cetaceans is approximately 400 m (1312 ft). Considering the small size of the 2 GI-gun array compared to other high-energy sources used by the military and industry; the small size of the potential impact zones; the speed of the vessel when towing the airgun (7 knots); the length of daylight at this time of the year in the South Pacific; and, the marine mammal avoidance measures that are implemented by the vessel for marine mammals on the vessel's track, it is very unlikely that any marine mammals would enter the safety zone undetected. If a marine mammal enters the small safety zone, operational shutdown will be implemented until the animal leaves the safety zone. *Comment 2:* The Commission notes that NMFS and SIO believe that the proposed activities will result only in Level B harassment of cetaceans and pinnipeds. However, there is some possibility that the proposed study could result in injuries or deaths to beaked whales or other species of small cetaceans. *Response:* NMFS is unaware of any documented injuries or mortalities caused by low-energy, low-frequency sound sources, such as the 2 GI gun array on beaked whales or other marine mammals. If the Commission has any information on this subject, NMFS would appreciate obtaining this additional information for its review of IHA applications for low-energy noise sources. *Comment 3:* The Commission states that NMFS and/or the applicant should provide additional information concerning the likely effectiveness of the proposed monitoring program in detecting an injured or dead beaked whale or other small cetacean, should an injury or death occur. For example, would any such animals likely be sighted from a ship running transects through an area or retracing recently run transect lines? *Response:* NMFS is unaware of any scientific studies to demonstrate efficacy of conducting marine mammal sightings from a moving vessel for incapacitated or dead marine mammals. However, SIO notes that the *Revelle* will spend approximately 24 hours at each of the 12 seabottom coring sites. As the inset to Figure 1 in SIO's application shows, the *Revelle* will run two parallel and one perpendicular seismic lines at each coring station. In addition, the *Revelle* will remain at the site for several hours while conducting its coring and magnetics work. Using big-eye binoculars, injured or dead mammals that are floating should be readily visible to MMOs during daylight hours. *Comment 4:* The Commission believes NMFS should require that operations be suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could have occurred incidental to the seismic survey. Any such suspension should remain in place until NMFS has reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths or serious injuries are unlikely to occur or has issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. *Response:* A standard condition in all seismic IHAs is for an emergency shut-down. The IHA states that “If observations are made or credible reports are received that one or more marine mammals or sea turtles are within the area of this activity in an injured or mortal state, or are indicating acute distress, the seismic airguns will be immediately shut down and the Chief of the Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources or a staff member contacted. The airgun array will not be restarted until review and approval has been given by the Director, Office of Protected Resources or his designee.” However, NMFS needs to make it clear that this requirement pertains only to recently deceased marine mammals (as determined by the lead MMO onboard the vessel) and not for long-dead “floaters." Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity Forty species of cetacean (including 31 odontocete (dolphins and small- and large-toothed whales) species and nine mysticete (baleen whales) species) and five species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) could potentially occur in the proposed seismic survey area are believed by scientists to occur in the SPO in the proposed seismic survey area. Detailed information on these species is contained in the SIO application and the National Science Foundation

(NSF)EA which are available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha* . Table 2 in both the SIO application and NSF EA summarizes the habitat, occurrence, and regional population estimate for these species. Please see these documents and NMFS' September 28, 2006 (71 FR 56957) notice for additional information on potentially affected marine mammal species. Potential Effects on Marine Mammals As outlined in previous NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows (based on Richardson et al., 1995):

(1)The noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal (i.e., lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both);

(2)The noise may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral response;

(3)The noise may elicit reactions of variable conspicuousness and variable relevance to the well being of the marine mammal; these can range from temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions such as vacating an area at least until the noise event ceases;

(4)Upon repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit diminishing responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist; the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in characteristics, infrequent and unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with situations that a marine mammal perceives as a threat;

(5)Any anthropogenic noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce

(mask)the ability of a marine mammal to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from conspecifics, and underwater environmental sounds such as surf noise;

(6)If mammals remain in an area because it is important for feeding, breeding or some other biologically important purpose even though there is chronic exposure to noise, it is possible that there could be noise-induced physiological stress; this might in turn have negative effects on the well-being or reproduction of the animals involved; and

(7)Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and presumably marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed the animal's hearing threshold for there to be any temporary threshold shift

(TTS)in its hearing ability. For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to the duration of the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher for there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment. In addition, intense acoustic or explosive events may cause trauma to tissues associated with organs vital for hearing, sound production, respiration and other functions. This trauma may include minor to severe hemorrhage. Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals The SIO application and two previous SIO IHA notices (71 FR 6041, February 6, 2006, and 71 FR 14839, March 24, 2006) provide information on what is known about the effects on marine mammals of the types of seismic operations planned by SIO. The types of effects considered in these documents are

(1)tolerance,

(2)masking of natural sounds,

(2)behavioral disturbance,

(3)potential hearing impairment, and

(4)other non-auditory physical effects. This information is incorporated herein. Please refer to these documents for information and analyses on potential impacts to marine mammals by seismic activities. Summarizing from these analyses, given the relatively small size of the airguns planned for the present project, NMFS and SIO believe it is very unlikely that there would be any cases of temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical effects. Also, behavioral disturbance is expected to be limited to distances less than 400 m (1312 ft) from the seismic source. This is the zone calculated for 160 dB or the onset of Level B (behavioral) harassment. As a result, acoustic effects are anticipated to be considerably less than would be the case with a large array of airguns. Possible Effects of Mid-frequency Sonar Signals A multi-beam bathymetric sonar and a sub-bottom profiler will be operated from the source vessel essentially continuously during much of the planned survey. Details about these sonars and potential effects on marine mammals (masking, behavioral response, hearing impairment and other physical effects) have been provided in the SIO application and by NMFS previously (see 71 FR 6041, February 6, 2006, and 71 FR 14839, March 24, 2006) and are not repeated here. This information is incorporated herein by citation. Please refer to these documents for information and analyses on potential impacts to marine mammals by these mid-frequency sonar activities. Estimates of Take by Harassment for the SPO Seismic Survey Although information contained in several documents cited and summarized in SIO's application indicates that injury to marine mammals from seismic sounds potentially occurs at sound pressure levels significantly higher than 180 and 190 dB, NMFS' current criteria for onset of Level A harassment of cetaceans and pinnipeds from impulse sound are, respectively, 180 and 190 re 1 microPa rms. The rms level of a seismic pulse is typically about 10 dB less than its peak level and about 16 dB less than its pk-pk level (Greene, 1997; McCauley *et al.* , 1998; 2000a). Given the small zone of impact due to the low-energy seismic sources and the mitigation and monitoring required under the IHA for this survey (see Mitigation and Monitoring later in this document), all anticipated effects involve, at most, a temporary change in behavior that may constitute Level B (behavioral) harassment, and no injury or mortality is likely. The mitigation measures will essentially eliminate the possibility of Level A harassment or mortality. As described later, SIO has calculated the “best estimates” for the numbers of animals that could be taken by Level B harassment during the proposed SPO seismic survey using data on marine mammal density (numbers per unit area) and estimates of the size of the affected area, as shown in the predicted RMS radii table (see Table 1 in 71 FR 56955 (September 28, 2006)). The Level B harassment estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be exposed to sound levels at or higher than 160 dB, the criterion for the onset of Level B harassment, by operations with the 2 GI-gun array planned to be used for this project. The anticipated zones of influence of the multi-beam sonar and sub-bottom profiler are less than that for the airguns, so it is assumed that during simultaneous operations of these instruments that any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the multi-beam and sub-bottom profiler sonars would already be affected by the airguns. Therefore, no additional incidental takings are included for animals that might be affected by the multi-beam sonar. Also, given their characteristics (described in SIO's application and analyzed by NMFS in previous SIO authorizations), no Level B harassment takings are considered likely when the multibeam and sub-bottom profiler are operating but the airguns are silent. SIO notes that it is difficult to make accurate, scientifically defensible, and observationally verifiable estimates of the number of individuals likely to be subject to low-level harassment by the noise from SIO's GI guns. There are many uncertainties in marine mammal distribution and seasonally varying abundance, and in local horizontal and vertical distribution; in marine mammal reactions to varying frequencies and levels of acoustic pulses; and in perceived sound levels at different horizontal and oblique ranges from the source. The best estimate of the potential number of exposures to received levels equal to, or greater than, 160 dB re 1 microPa

(rms)was calculated by SIO by multiplying the expected density of the species/stock; times the anticipated total line-kilometers of operations with the 2 GI guns (including turns and additional buffer line km to allow for repeating of lines due to equipment malfunction, bad weather, etc.), times the cross-track distances within which received sound levels are predicted to be 160 dB or greater. For the 2 GI guns, that cross track distance is 2x the predicted 160-dB radii of 400 m (1312 ft) in water depths greater than 1000 m (3281 ft). Based on that method, SIO obtained the “best” and “maximum” estimates of the number of marine mammal exposures to airgun sounds 160 dB re 1 microPa

(rms)and higher for each of the ecological provinces using the reported average and maximum densities from Tables 3 and 4 in SIO's application. The two estimates were then added to give total estimated exposures. The estimates show that very small numbers of the five endangered large whale species may be exposed to such noise levels (see Table 5 in SIO's application). SIO's best estimates for these species are one exposure each for the sperm whale, southern right whale, sei whale, and fin whale. The vast majority of the best estimate for exposures to seismic sounds 160 dB and higher would involve delphinids. Best estimates of the number of exposures of cetaceans, in descending order, are bottlenose dolphin (292 exposures), rough-toothed and spotted dolphin (80 exposures each), and southern right whale dolphin (73 exposures). SIO believes that based on the empirical calibration data collected in the Gulf of Mexico for 2-GI guns in deep water, actual 160-dB distances in deep water are likely to be less than predicted (Tolstoy et al., 2004) and, therefore, the predicted numbers of marine mammals that might be exposed to sounds 160 dB or greater may be somewhat overestimated. While data regarding distribution, seasonal abundance, and response of pinnipeds to seismic sonar is sparse, NMFS believes the *Revelle* is unlikely to encounter any of the four pinniped species that live, for at least part of the year, in SIO's proposed survey area because of the decreased likelihood of encountering them in the very deep water, the relatively small area proposed to be ensonified, and the likely effectiveness of the required mitigation measures in such a small area. Table 2 (see 71 FR 56955 (September 28, 2006)) provides the best estimate of the numbers of each species that could be exposed to seismic sounds equal to, or greater than, 160 dB and the number of marine mammals requested to be taken by Level B harassment. A detailed description on the methodology used by SIO to arrive at the estimates of Level B harassment takes that are provided in Table 2 can be found in SIO's application for the SPO survey. Conclusions Effects on Cetaceans Strong avoidance reactions by several species of mysticetes to seismic vessels have been observed at ranges up to 6-8 km (3.2-4.3 nm) and occasionally as far as 20-30 km (10.8-16.2 nm) from the source vessel. However, reactions at the longer distances appear to be atypical of most species and situations, particularly when feeding whales are involved. Few mysticetes are expected to be encountered during the proposed survey in the SPO (Table 2) and disturbance effects would be confined to shorter distances given the low-energy acoustic source to be used during this project. In addition, the estimated numbers presented in Table 2 are considered overestimates of actual numbers that may be harassed. Odontocete reactions to seismic pulses, or at least the reactions of dolphins, are expected to extend to lesser distances than are those of mysticetes. Odontocete low-frequency hearing is less sensitive than that of mysticetes, and dolphins are often seen from seismic vessels. In fact, there are documented instances of dolphins approaching active seismic vessels. However, dolphins as well as some other types of odontocetes sometimes show avoidance responses and/or other changes in behavior when near operating seismic vessels. Taking into account the small size and the relatively low sound output of the 2 GI-gun array to be used, and the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be limited to avoidance of a small area around the seismic operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of Level B harassment. Furthermore, the estimated numbers of animals potentially exposed to sound levels sufficient to cause appreciable disturbance are very low percentages of the affected populations. Based on the 160-dB criterion, the best estimates of the numbers of individual cetaceans that may be exposed to sounds of 160 dB re 1 microPa

(rms)or greater represent from 0 to approximately 0.07 percent of the regional SPO species populations (see Table 2 in 71 FR 56955 (September 28, 2006)). In the case of endangered balaenopterids, it is likely that no more than 1 humpback, sei, or fin whale will be exposed to seismic sounds 160 dB re 1 microPa

(rms)or greater, based on estimated densities of those species in the survey region. Therefore, SIO has requested an authorization to expose up to 1 individuals of each of these species to seismic sounds of 160 dB or greater during the proposed survey given the possibility of encountering one or more groups. Best estimates of blue whales are that no individuals would be potentially exposed to seismic pulses with received levels 160 dB re 1 microPa

(rms)or greater. Higher numbers of delphinids may be affected by the proposed seismic surveys, but the population sizes of species likely to occur in the survey area are large, and the numbers potentially affected are small relative to population sizes. As a result, NMFS believes that the seismic survey proposed by SIO will result in only small numbers of cetaceans being harassed incidental to conducting that activity. Mitigation measures such as controlled speed, course alteration, observers, ramp ups, and shut downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges should further reduce short-term reactions, and minimize any effects on hearing. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-term, with no lasting adverse biological consequence. In light of the type of effects expected and the small percentages of affected stocks of cetaceans, the action is expected to have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of cetaceans. Effects on Pinnipeds Five pinniped species may be encountered at the survey sites, but their distribution and numbers have not been documented in the proposed survey area. In all likelihood, these species will be in southern feeding areas during the period for this survey. However, to ensure that the SIO project remains in compliance with the MMPA in the event that a few pinnipeds are encountered, SIO has requested an authorization to expose up to 3-5 individuals of each of the five pinniped species to seismic sounds with rms levels 160 dB re 1 microPa or greater. Therefore, the proposed survey would have, at most, a short-term effect on their behavior and no long-term impacts on individual pinnipeds or their populations. Responses of pinnipeds to acoustic disturbance are variable, but usually quite limited. Effects are expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral changes falling within the MMPA definition of Level B harassment. As is the case for cetaceans, the short-term exposures to sounds from the two GI-guns are not expected to result in any long-term consequences for the individuals or their populations and the activity is expected to have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of pinnipeds. Potential Effects on Habitat The proposed seismic survey will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, or to the food sources they utilize. The main impact issue associated with the proposed activity will be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals. One of the reasons for the adoption of airguns as the standard energy source for marine seismic surveys was that they (unlike the explosives used in the distant past) do not result in any appreciable fish kill. Various experimental studies showed that airgun discharges cause little or no fish kill, and that any injurious effects were generally limited to the water within a meter or so of an airgun. However, it has recently been found that injurious effects on captive fish, especially on fish hearing, may occur at somewhat greater distances than previously thought (McCauley *et al.* , 2000a,b, 2002; 2003). Even so, any injurious effects on fish would be limited to short distances from the source. Also, many of the fish that might otherwise be within the injury-zone are likely to be displaced from this region prior to the approach of the airguns through avoidance reactions to the approaching seismic vessel or to the airgun sounds as received at distances beyond the injury radius. Fish often react to sounds, especially strong and/or intermittent sounds of low frequency. Sound pulses at received levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa

(peak)may cause subtle changes in behavior. Pulses at levels of 180 dB

(peak)may cause noticeable changes in behavior (Chapman and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson *et al.* , 1992; Skalski *et al.* , 1992). It also appears that fish often habituate to repeated strong sounds rather rapidly, on time scales of minutes to an hour. However, the habituation does not endure, and resumption of the disturbing activity may again elicit disturbance responses from the same fish. Fish near the airguns are likely to dive or exhibit some other kind of behavioral response. This might have short-term impacts on the ability of cetaceans to feed near the survey area. However, only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time, and fish species would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the seismic activity ceased. Thus, the proposed surveys would have little impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where seismic work is planned. Fish that do not avoid the approaching airguns (probably a small number) may be subject to auditory or other injuries. Zooplankton that are very close to the source may react to the airgun's shock wave. These animals have an exoskeleton and no air sacs; therefore, little or no mortality is expected. Many crustaceans can make sounds and some crustacea and other invertebrates have some type of sound receptor. However, the reactions of zooplankton to sound are not known. Some mysticetes feed on concentrations of zooplankton. A reaction by zooplankton to a seismic impulse would only be relevant to whales if it caused a concentration of zooplankton to scatter. Pressure changes of sufficient magnitude to cause this type of reaction would probably occur only very close to the source, so few zooplankton concentrations would be affected. Impacts on zooplankton behavior are predicted to be negligible, and this would translate into negligible impacts on feeding mysticetes. Potential Effects on Subsistence Use of Marine Mammals There is no known legal subsistence hunting for marine mammals in the SPO, so the proposed SIO activities will not have any impact on the availability of these species or stocks for subsistence users. Required Mitigation For the proposed seismic survey in the SPO, SIO will deploy 2 GI-airguns as an energy source, each with a discharge volume of 45 in 3 . The energy from the airguns is directed mostly downward. The directional nature of the airguns to be used in this project is an important mitigating factor. This directionality will result in reduced sound levels at any given horizontal distance as compared with the levels expected at that distance if the source were omnidirectional with the stated nominal source level. Also, the small size of these airguns is an inherent and important mitigation measure that will reduce the potential for effects relative to those that might occur with large airgun arrays. This measure is in conformance with NMFS policy of encouraging seismic operators to use the lowest intensity airguns practicable to accomplish research objectives. The following mitigation measures, as well as marine mammal visual monitoring (discussed later in this document), will be implemented for the subject seismic surveys:

(1)Speed and course alteration (provided that they do not compromise operational safety requirements); (2)shut-down procedures; and

(3)ramp-up procedures. Speed and Course Alteration If a marine mammal is detected outside its respective safety zone (180 dB for cetaceans, 190 dB for pinnipeds) and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the safety zone, the vessel's speed and/or direct course will, when practicable and safe, be revised to avoid the mammal in a manner that also minimizes the effect to the planned science objectives. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach the outer perimeter of safety zone. Shut-down Procedures Although power-down procedures are often standard operating practice for seismic surveys, power-down will not be used or authorized for this activity because powering down from two guns to one gun would make only a small difference in the 180- or 190-dB radius--probably not enough to allow continued one-gun operations if a marine mammal came within the safety radius for two guns. If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius and is likely to enter the safety radius, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed to avoid having the mammal enter the safety radius or an alternative ship speed or trackline is not effective in preventing entry into the safety zone, then the GI airguns must be shut down immediately. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the safety zone when first detected, the airguns must be shut down immediately. Following a shut-down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety zone. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety zone if it:

(1)is visually observed to have left the safety zone, or

(2)has not been seen within the zone for 15 minutes in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds, or

(3)has not been seen within the zone for a minimum of 30 minutes in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, beaked and bottlenose whales. During airgun operations following a shut-down whose duration has exceeded these specified limits, the airgun array will be ramped-up gradually. Ramp-up Procedure A ramp-up procedure will be followed when the airguns begin operating after a period without airgun operations. The two GI guns will be added in sequence 5 minutes apart. During ramp-up procedures, the safety radius for the two GI guns will be maintained. During the day, ramp-up cannot begin from a shut-down unless the entire 180-dB safety radius has been visible for at least 30 minutes prior to the ramp-up (i.e., no ramp-up can begin in heavy fog or high sea states). During nighttime operations, if the entire safety radius is visible using vessel lights and night-vision devices

(NVDs)(as may be the case in deep and intermediate waters), then start up of the airguns from a shut-down may occur, after completion of the 30-minute observation period. Comments on past IHAs raised the issue of prohibiting nighttime operations as a practical mitigation measure. However, this is not practicable due to cost considerations and ship time schedules. If the *Revelle* was prohibited from operating during nighttime, each trip could require an additional several days to complete. If a seismic survey vessel is limited to daylight seismic operations, efficiency would also be much reduced. For seismic operations in general, a daylight-only requirement would be expected to result in one or more of the following outcomes: cancellation of potentially valuable seismic surveys; reduction in the total number of seismic cruises annually due to longer cruise durations; a need for additional vessels to conduct the seismic operations; or work conducted by non-U.S. operators or non-U.S. vessels when in waters not subject to U.S. law. Marine Mammal Monitoring SIO must have at least two experienced marine mammal observer on board the *Revelle* , that NMFS has approved in advance of the start of the SPO cruise. These observers will be on duty in shifts of no longer than 4 hours. The visual observers will monitor marine mammals and sea turtles near the seismic source vessel during all daytime airgun operations, during any nighttime start-ups of the airguns, and at night whenever daytime monitoring resulted in one or more shut-down situations due to marine mammal presence. During daylight, vessel-based observers will watch for marine mammals and sea turtles near the seismic vessel during periods with shooting (including ramp-ups), and for 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations after a shut-down. Use of multiple observers will increase the likelihood that marine mammals near the source vessel are detected. *Revelle* bridge personnel will also assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements whenever possible (they will be given instruction on how to do so), especially during ongoing operations at night when the designated observers are on stand-by and not required to be on watch at all times. The observer(s) will watch for marine mammals from the highest practical vantage point on the vessel, which is either the bridge or the flying bridge. The observer(s) will systematically scan the area around the vessel with Big Eyes binoculars, reticulated binoculars (e.g., 7 X 50 Fujinon) and with the naked eye during the daytime. Laser range-finding binoculars (Leica L.F. 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation. The observers will be used to determine when a marine mammal or sea turtle is in or near the safety radii so that the required mitigation measures, such as course alteration and shut-down, can be implemented. If the GI-airguns are shut down, observers will maintain watch to determine when the animal is outside the safety radius. Observers will not be on duty during ongoing seismic operations at night; bridge personnel will watch for marine mammals during this time and will call for the airguns to be powered-down or shut-down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the safety radii. However, a biological observer must be on call at night and available to assist the bridge watch if marine mammals are detected at any distance from the *Revelle* . If the 2 GI-airgun is ramped-up at night (see previous section), two marine mammal observers will monitor for marine mammals for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and during the ramp-up using either deck lighting or NVDs that will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular image intensifier or equivalent). Post-Survey Monitoring The biological observers will be able to conduct monitoring of most recently-run transect lines as the *Revelle* returns along parallel and perpendicular transect tracks (see inset of Figure 1 in the SIO application). This will provide the biological observers with opportunities to look for injured or dead marine mammals (although no injuries or mortalities are expected during this research cruise). Passive Acoustic Monitoring

(PAM)Because of the very small zone for potential Level A harassment, use the PAM system during this cruise is not warranted and, therefore, is not required. Summary Taking into consideration the additional costs of prohibiting nighttime operations and the likely impact of the activity (including all mitigation and monitoring), NMFS has determined that the required mitigation and monitoring ensures that the activity will have the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks. Due to seismic sound propagation, marine mammals will have sufficient notice of a vessel approaching with operating seismic airguns, thereby giving them an opportunity to avoid the approaching array; if ramp-up is required, two marine mammal observers will be required to monitor the safety radii using shipboard lighting or NVDs for at least 30 minutes before ramp-up begins and verify that no marine mammals are in or approaching the safety radii; ramp-up may not begin unless the entire safety radii are visible. Reporting SIO will submit a draft report to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise, which is currently predicted to occur during December, 2006 and January, 2007. The report, which will be posted by NMFS on its web-site, will describe the operations that were conducted and the marine mammals that were detected. The report must provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring tasks. The report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential take of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. During the recent SIO cruise to the Louisville Ridge (71 FR 6041, February 6, 2006), there were 5 sightings of marine mammals. All observed marine mammals were non-evasive of the research vessel and its activities. Only one sighting occurred while the seismic source was active. The animal's closest approach to the ship was greater than 2 km (1.08 nm), well outside the 40 m (131.2 ft) safety radius for the seismic source used on that cruise. For additional information please see the Louisville Ridge cruise report ( *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha* . Endangered Species Act

(ESA)NMFS has issued a biological opinion regarding the effects of this action on ESA-listed species and critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS. That biological opinion concluded that this action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. A copy of the Biological Opinion is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ). National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)The NSF made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) determination on November 3, 2005 (70 FR 68102, November 9, 2005), based on information contained within its EA (see 70 FR 39346, July 7, 2005, for public availability), that implement-ation of a low-energy seismic survey in the SPO is not a major Federal action having significant effects on the environment within the meaning of NEPA. The NSF determined, therefore, that an environmental impact statement would not be prepared. NMFS noted that the NSF had prepared an EA for a previous SIO 2-GI airgun survey in the SPO and made this EA available upon request (70 FR 60287, October 17, 2005). In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999), NMFS reviewed the information contained in NSF's EA and determined that the NSF EA accurately and completely describes the proposed action alternative, and the potential impacts on marine mammals, endangered species, and other marine life that could be impacted by the preferred alternative and the other alternatives. Accordingly, NMFS adopted the NSF EA under 40 CFR 1506.3 and made its own FONSI. The NMFS FONSI also took into consideration additional mitigation measures that are not in NSF's EA. Therefore, because the actions described in that EA are similar in context and intensity to the current seismic activity by SIO, it is not necessary for NMFS to issue a new EA, a supplemental EA or an environmental impact statement for the issuance of an IHA to SIO for this activity. A copy of the EA and previous FONSI for this activity is available upon request. A copy of the NSF EA for this activity is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ). Conclusions NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting the seismic survey in the SPO may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals. This activity is expected to result in no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. For reasons stated previously in this document, this determination is supported by:

(1)the likelihood that, given advance notice through relatively slow ship speed and ramp-up, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying before it becomes potentially injurious;

(2)recent research that indicates that TTS is unlikely (at least in delphinids) until levels closer to 200-205 dB re 1 microPa are reached rather than 180 dB re 1 microPa;

(3)the fact that 200-205 dB isopleths would be well within 100 m (328 ft) of the vessel even in shallow water; and

(4)the likelihood that marine mammal detection in the safety zone by trained observers is close to 100 percent during daytime and remains high at night to the short distance from the seismic vessel. As a result, no take by injury or death is anticipated or authorized, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very low and would be avoided through the incorporation of the required mitigation measures mentioned in this document. While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small. In addition, the proposed seismic program will not interfere with any known legal subsistence hunts, since seismic operations will not take place in subsistence whaling and sealing areas and will not affect marine mammals used for subsistence purposes. Authorization On this date, NMFS issues an IHA to SIO to take marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to conducting seismic surveys in the SPO for a 1-year period, provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are undertaken. Dated: December 12, 2006. Donna Wieting, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-21611 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary DoD Task Force on Mental Health Meeting AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs); DoD. ACTION: Notice of meeting change. SUMMARY: This notice updates the previous notice, “Notice of Open Meeting” published on December 6, 2006 (71 FR 70743). In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, announcement is made of the following meeting. *Name of Committee:* DoD Task Force on Mental Health, a Subcommittee of the Defense Health Board. *Dates:* December 18, 2006 (Afternoon—Open Session), December 19, 2006 (Morning—Open Session), December 20, 2006 (Morning and Afternoon—Open Session). *Times:* 1300-1500 hours (18 December), 0800-1100 hours (19 December), 0800-1700 hours (20 December). *Location:* Hyatt Regency Crystal City, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. *Agenda:* The purpose of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate information related to the Mental Health Task Force's congressionally-directed task of assessing the efficacy of mental health services provided to members of the Armed Forces by the Department of Defense. The Task Force members will receive briefings on topics related to mental health concerns among military service members and mental health care delivery. The Task Force will hold a “Town Hall Meeting” session to hear concerns from the Washington, DC metro area active Duty Military, National Guard and Reserve, and Veterans communities and conduct executive working sessions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colonel Roger Gibson, Executive Secretary, Defense Health Board, Skyline One, 5205 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810, Falls Church, VA 22041,

(703)681-3279, ext. 123. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The afternoon session on December 18, the morning session on December 19, and both morning and afternoon sessions on December 20, 2006 will be open to the public in accordance with Section 552b(b) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph

(1)thereof an Title 5, U.S.C., appendix 1, subsection 10(d). Open sessions of the meeting will be limited by space accommodations. Any interested person may attend, appear before or file statements with the Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board. Dated: December 13, 2006. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-9762 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 15

Traces to 15 documents

CFR