Rules and Regulations. Direct final rule

49,721 words·~226 min read·/register/2007/03/09/07-1132

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P; 4310-84-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0141; FRL-8286-3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kansas; Interstate Transport of Pollution AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revising the Kansas State Implementation Plan

(SIP)for the purpose of approving the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's

(KDHE)actions to address the “good neighbor” provisions of the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). These provisions require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state's air quality through interstate transport. KDHE has adequately addressed the four distinct elements related to the impact of interstate transport of air pollutants. These include prohibiting significant contribution to downwind nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), interference with maintenance of the NAAQS, interference with plans in another state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and efforts of other states to protect visibility. The requirements for public notification were also met by KDHE. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 8, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 9, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0141, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail* : *jay.michael@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail* : Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0141. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Jay at

(913)551-7460, or by e-mail at *jay.michael@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is being addressed in this document? What action is EPA taking? What is being addressed in this document? EPA is revising the SIP for the purpose of approving the KDHE's actions to address the requirements of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This CAA section requires each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that could adversely affect another state. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will:

(1)Contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the NAAQS,

(2)interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS,

(3)interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and

(4)interfere with efforts to protect visibility. EPA issued guidance on August 15, 2006, relating to SIP submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). As discussed below, Kansas' analysis of its SIP with respect to the statutory requirements is consistent with the guidance. The KDHE has addressed the first two of these elements by submitting a technical demonstration supporting the conclusion that emissions from Kansas do not significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. For PM 2.5 , the state has relied upon existing EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)modeling that determined impacts from the state do not meet or exceed the 0.2 μg/m 3 average annual threshold that EPA established to determine significant impact on another state in the projection year 2010. The state indicated that in EPA's CAIR modeling, Kansas' maximum downwind contribution to average annual nonattainment was 0.11 μg/m 3 (70 FR 25247). The state has relied on this result to demonstrate that emissions from the state do not contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the annual PM 2.5 standard. For 8-hour ozone, the state was unable to rely on EPA CAIR modeling to determine the state's impact on projected 8-hour ozone nonattainment in downwind states. The EPA CAIR 8-hour ozone modeling domain did not include the entire state. As a result, impacts from the state were not provided in the analyses. Therefore, the state has provided additional analyses, as part of the technical demonstration, to support a negative declaration that the state contributes significantly to projected downwind 8-hour ozone nonattainment in the year 2010. The technical demonstration includes analyses on a number of EPA guidance elements. For example, the technical demonstration includes a backtrajectory analysis to examine Kansas' impacts on the nearest EPA projected 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for the year 2010. CAIR modeling projects the ozone nonattainment counties nearest to Kansas will be Kenosha and Ozaukee, Wisconsin. The backtrajectory analysis revealed that relatively few air masses pass over Kansas prior to arriving to these counties during high ozone days, thus demonstrating that emissions from Kansas have a minimal contribution to the 8-hour ozone nonattainment of the two counties. Additionally, the state has emphasized that St. Louis, Missouri, the nearest current nonattainment area, is projected by EPA to be in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the year 2010. Based on this and other information provided by the state in the technical demonstration, EPA believes the state has sufficiently demonstrated that emissions from the state do not significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. Additional supporting information can be found in the state's technical demonstration included in the docket. The third element KDHE addressed was prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). For 8-hour ozone, the state has met the obligation by confirming that major sources in the state are currently subject to PSD programs that implement the 8-hour ozone standard and that the state is on track to meet the June 15, 2007, deadline for SIP submissions adopting any relevant requirements of the Phase II ozone implementation rule. For PM 2.5 , the state has confirmed that the state's PSD program is being implemented in accordance with EPA's interim guidance calling for the use of PM 10 as a surrogate for PM 2.5 for the purposes of PSD review. Once PM 2.5 guidance is finalized by EPA, KDHE commits to transitioning from use of the interim PM 2.5 guidance to the final PM 2.5 implementation guidance after approval of the PM 2.5 SIP revision. The submittal is due in April 2008. It should be noted that Kansas is currently designated attainment for both the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. At this time, it is not possible for KDHE to accurately determine whether there is interference with measures in another state's SIP designed to protect visibility, which is the fourth element that was addressed. Technical projects relating to visibility degradation source-receptor relationships are under development. Kansas will be in a more advantageous position to address the visibility projection requirements once the initial regional haze SIP has been developed. KDHE intends to meet the December 17, 2007, submittal deadline for the regional haze SIP. A public hearing with regard to this action was held by the state. No comments were received. With this action, the non-regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.870(e) is revised to reflect that KDHE addressed the elements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submittal. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving this revision submitted by Kansas and is revising 40 CFR 52.870 to reflect that the KDHE has adequately addressed the required elements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comments on part of this rule, and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this action approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This action also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 8, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: February 27, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart Q—Kansas 2. In § 52.870(e) the table is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read as follows: § 52.870 Identification of plan.

(e)* * * EPA-Approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * *

(30)CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP—Interstate Transport Statewide 1/07/07 3/09/07 [ *insert FR page number where the document begins]* [FR Doc. E7-4304 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0083; FRL-8286-1] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the state of Missouri. EPA is approving a request to amend the Missouri SIP to include revisions to the St. Louis Solvent Metal Cleaning rule. The revisions to this rule include consolidating exemptions in the applicability section, adding new exemptions, adding definitions of new and previously undefined terms, and clarifying rule language regarding operating procedure requirements for spray gun cleaners and air-tight and airless cleaning systems. This revision will ensure consistency between the state and the Federally-approved rules. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 8, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 9, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0083, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov* . 3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0083. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at * http:// www.regulations.gov * , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at

(913)551-7942, or by e-mail at *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a SIP? What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? What is being addressed in this document? Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? What action is EPA taking? What is a SIP? Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body. Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us. All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations

(VOC)emissions from solvent metal cleaning operations in the St. Louis, Missouri, metropolitan area. Generally, the revisions to this rule include:

(1)Consolidating exemptions in the applicability section,

(2)adding new exemptions,

(3)adding definitions of new and previously undefined terms, and

(4)clarifying rule language regarding operating procedure requirements for spray gun cleaners and air-tight and airless cleaning systems. More specifically, the revisions to the applicability section include revisions to subsection (1)(C), which describes the processes which use nonaqueous solvents to clean and remove soils from metal parts which are subject to this rule, and subsection (1)(D), which lists the solvents which are exempt from this rule. Subsection (1)(D) consolidates existing exemptions into one section and adds three new exemptions. The first new exemption is the exemption of solvent metal cleaning operations which are regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T, the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources' Air Pollution Control Program (MDNR/APCP) states that the solvents used in this practice are required to comply with the Federal NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning and states that in general the NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning work practices, solvent loss limits, equipment specifications, and solvent recordkeeping/reporting requirements exceed the requirements in the existing Missouri solvent metal cleaning rule. Based on review of Missouri's analysis, we believe it is appropriate to exempt this source category because the Federal NESHAP is at least as stringent and sources must comply with this Federal NESHAP in order to be exempt from the Missouri rule. The second and third new exemptions added were for flush cleaning operations and hand cleaning/wiping operations. These exemptions were also added because industry conducting these activities were already regulated by Federal standard 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG, the NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities and by Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.455, Control of Emissions From Solvent Cleanup Operations. Based on the review of this analysis, we believe that revision of this rule to exempt these source categories because the Federal NESHAP and existing state rule, 10 CSR 10-5.455, are at least as stringent and sources must comply with this Federal NESHAP and existing state rule. The MDNR/APCP also added several new definitions and evaluated the air quality impact of these new definitions. These definitions include: (2)(E) Flush cleaning, (2)(I) hand cleaning/wiping operation, (2)(M) nonaqueous solvent, and (2)(P) spray gun cleaner. These definitions were added to provide clarity to the rule, and Missouri has provided an analysis showing that this revision will not cause any increase in emissions. The MDNR/APCP also reorganized the General Provisions section. Specifically subsection (3)(A) of the rule was reorganized into subparagraphs for cold cleaners, open-top vapor degreasers, conveyorized degreasers, and air-tight or airless cleaning systems. Subsection (3)(B) outlines operating procedures for the four operations mentioned above. The spray gun cleaner, subparagraph (3)(B)4., and the air-tight and airless cleaning systems, subparagraph (3)(B)5., were added to provide more clarity to the rule's application for these two operations. Subsection 3(C) was revised to add clarifying language to the operator and supervisor training portion of this rule, and subsection (4)(A), reporting and record keeping language, was revised to require the records to be kept current and made available for review on a monthly basis. The Solvent Metal Cleaning rule is part of the St. Louis 15% Rate of Progress

(ROP)Plan, which was required as part of the 1-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area requirements. Therefore, Missouri is currently developing an attainment demonstration and reasonable further progress plan for the 8-hour ozone SIP for the area but has not completed that work. Missouri has prepared documentation which demonstrates that these rule revisions will not negatively impact air quality in the St. Louis area. The demonstration consists of

(1)an explanation of the rationale for the revisions to the rule's format, and

(2)an evaluation of the revisions to the applicability section, definitions section, general provisions section, the reporting and record keeping section, and test methods section. The reformatting of the rule makes this rule consistent with the general format of Missouri air rules. The rule reformatting does not change any requirements and, therefore, does not impact emissions. As explained above, the additional exemptions in the rule do not significantly change the emissions limits to which the affected sources are subject. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? The submittal satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, the state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102 and met the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA including section 110. What action is EPA taking? We are approving the request to amend the Missouri SIP to include revisions to the St. Louis Solvent Metal Cleaning rule, 10 CSR 10-5.300. We are processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial and make regulatory revisions, required by state statute. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 8, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: February 27, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 5 by revising the entry for “10-5.300” to read as follows: § 52.1320 Identification of plan.

(c)* * * EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources * * * * * * * Chapter 5—Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area * * * * * * * 10-5.300 Control of Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning 11/30/06 3/9/07 [ *insert FR page number where the document begins* ] * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-4300 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0041; FRL-8284-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating Permits Program; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan

(SIP)and Operating Permits Program. EPA is approving a revision to the Missouri rule entitled “Submission of Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information.” This revision will ensure consistency between the state and the Federally-approved rules. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 8, 2007, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 9, 2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0041, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov* . 3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0041. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at

(913)551-7942, or by e-mail at *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a SIP? What is the Federal approval process for a SIP? What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? What is the Part 70 operating permits program? What is the Federal approval process for an operating permits program? What is being addressed in this document? Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision and Part 70 revision been met? What action is EPA taking? What is a SIP? Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

(CFR)at title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me? Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA. What is the part 70 Operating Permits Program? The CAA Amendments of 1990 require all states to develop operating permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria. In implementing this program, the states are to require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the CAA. One purpose of the part 70 operating permits program is to improve enforcement by issuing each source a single permit that consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a Federally-enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility into one document, the source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is determined. Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in our implementing regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, or PM 10 ; those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)(specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a combination of HAPs. Revision to the state and local agencies operating permits program are also subject to public notice, comment, and our approval. What is the Federal approval process for an operating permits program? In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable Title V operating permits program, states must formally adopt regulations consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body. Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the approved operating permits program. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us. All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 502 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved operating permits program. Records of such actions are maintained in the CFR at Title 40, part 70, appendix A, entitled “Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs.” What is being addressed in this document? Missouri, in its letter of December 11, 2006, requested that EPA approve a revision to the SIP and Operating Permits Program to include revisions to rule 10 CSR 10-6.110, “Submission of Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information”. This rule deals with submittal of emissions information, emission fees, and public availability of emissions data. It provides procedures for collection, recording, and submittal of emissions data and process information on state-supplied Emission Inventory Questionnaire and Emission Statement forms so that the state can calculate emissions for the purpose of state air resource planning. By state statute and to meet EPA requirements under the Title V program, the emission fees are set annually to fund the reasonable cost of administering the program. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR)continually evaluates the Operating Permits Program financial situation. Section (3)(D)1. established the emissions fee of $34.50 per ton of regulated air pollutant starting for calendar year 2005 which remains the fee for calendar year 2006. This revision merely changes the text from calendar year 2005 to 2006. Subsection (3)(D)2.E. was revised to change the due date for emission fees from the previous year to be due on June 1 instead of April 1, for all Standard Industrial Classifications. Subsection (3)(D)2.F. was revised to change the due date for Emission Inventory Questionnaire forms from April 1 to June 1 for all Standard Industrial Classifications. The rule revisions do not change the stringency of the SIP or Title V program and the revisions otherwise meet the EPA requirements for both programs. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP revision and Part 70 revision been met? The submittal satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, the state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102 and met the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA including section 110 and 40 CFR 51.211, relating to submission of emissions data. Finally, the submittal met the substantive requirements of Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments and 40 CFR part 70, including the requirement in 40 CFR 70.9 relating to emission fees. What action is EPA taking? We are approving revisions to the Missouri SIP and incorporating the revised rule 10 CSR 10-6.110, “Submission of Emissions Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information.” We are also approving sections (3)(D)1, and (3)(D)2.E., and (3)(D)2.F. of this rule as program revisions to the state's Part 70 Operating Permits Program. We are processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial, and make regulatory revisions required by state statute. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP and Title V permit submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 8, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 70 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: February 27, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart AA—Missouri 2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 6 by revising the entry for “10-6.110” to read as follows: § 52.1320 Identification of plan.

(c)* * * EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Missouri Department of Natural Resources * * * * * * * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri * * * * * * * 10-6.110 Submission of Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information 12/30/06 3/9/07 [ *insert FR page number where the document begins* ] Section (3)(D), Emissions Fees, has not been approved as part of the SIP. * * * * * * * PART 70—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for Part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, *et seq.* Appendix A—[Amended] 4. Appendix A to Part 70 is amended by adding paragraph

(u)under Missouri to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 70—Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs Missouri

(u)The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.110, “Submission of Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information” on December 11, 2006; approval of sections (3)(D)1., (3)(D)2.E., and (3)(D)2.F. effective May 8, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-4176 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration 42 CFR Part 121 RIN 0906AA62 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This Final Rule sets forth the Secretary's decision to include intestines within the definition of organs covered by the regulations governing the operations of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. The Secretary under the authority granted by section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act, as amended, further effects a corresponding change to the definition of human organs covered in the statute with this Final Rule. DATES: This Final Rule is effective March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Burdick, M.D., Director, Division of Transplantation, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 12C-06, Rockville, Maryland 20857. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Adding Intestines to the Definition of Organs Covered by the Rules Governing the Operation of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network

(OPTN)Based upon a review of intestinal transplants, the Secretary believes that intestines should now be included within the definition of organs covered by the rules governing the operation of the OPTN (42 CFR part 121) (hereinafter the final rule). This Final Rule sets forth the history of intestinal transplants, the factors that have persuaded the Department of the advisability of including intestines within the ambit of the regulations governing the operation of the OPTN, and the anticipated consequences of this Rule. The first successful intestinal transplant was performed in 1989. Intestinal transplantation may be considered for patients with irreversible intestinal failure due to surgery, trauma, or acquired or congenital disease who cannot be managed through the intravenous delivery of nutrients, also referred to as total parenteral nutrition (TPN). Although intestinal transplants have been performed for years, considerable morbidity and mortality have limited widespread clinical use. Complications are frequent and include acute and chronic rejection, lymphoproliferative disease, and serious infections such as cytomegalovirus disease. For patients who received intestinal transplants in the United States from January 2000 through June 2002, one-year graft and patient survival rates were 67 percent and 81 percent respectively for adults, and 58 percent and 65 percent respectively for pediatric recipients. Despite the shortcomings, the number of candidates for intestinal transplants and the number of intestinal transplants performed annually is increasing. The OPTN first adopted voluntary intestinal organ allocation policies and began to maintain a list of patients waiting for intestinal transplants in 1993. On December 31, 1993, only 43 candidates were listed on the intestinal transplant waiting list, compared to 169 candidates on this list on October 24, 2003. The number of intestinal transplants performed annually has more than tripled from 34 transplants in 1993 to 109 transplants in 2002. However, the volume of transplants per transplant center is relatively small. Ten transplant centers performed one or more intestinal transplants in 2002; only five of these centers performed ten or more transplants. Overall median waiting time was 319 days for patients added to the intestinal transplant waiting list in 2001. According to the OPTN, intestinal organ allocation may include the esophagus, stomach, small and/or large intestine, or any portion of the gastrointestinal tract as determined by the medical needs of individual patients (OPTN Policy 3.11). OPTN voluntary policies are available at *http://www.optn.org/policiesandbylaws/policies.asp* . In addition to allocation for isolated intestinal transplants, the OPTN addresses allocation of the liver-intestine combination and multiple organs. The nature of the regulatory framework governing the operation of the OPTN underlies the importance of including intestines within the definition of organs covered by the regulations. Under the final rule, the OPTN must submit proposed policies for review and approval by the Secretary according to the requirements of 42 CFR 121.4. Upon consideration of public comments on proposed policies that are considered significant, the Secretary will determine whether to make such proposed policies enforceable in accordance with 42 CFR 121.10. Any transplant hospital that fails to comply with any allocation policy approved as enforceable by the Secretary under this process will be subject to the enforcement sanctions delineated in 42 CFR 121.10, including termination from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Secretary is legally obliged, as part of his responsibilities in administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs, to require hospitals that transplant organs to comply with the rules and requirements of the OPTN as a condition of their participation in Medicare and Medicaid under 42 U.S.C. 1320b-8(a)(1)(B). Because intestines currently are not included within the regulation's definition of organs, the Secretary cannot make any intestinal allocation policy enforceable. The inclusion of intestines as covered organs under this Final Rule will allow the Secretary to take appropriate enforcement actions against a transplant hospital that fails to comply with any OPTN intestinal allocation policy if such a policy is approved by the Secretary. This enforcement authority is particularly significant given that many recipients of transplanted intestines receive such organs together with other organs covered under the regulations. It is necessary to ensure that intestinal organ allocation, whether pertaining to isolated intestinal transplants or combined/multi-organ transplants, is consistent with the goal of an equitable national system for organ allocation. Enforcing the allocation for organs currently covered under the regulations, such as livers, would be difficult when intestines are transplanted together with other such organs if an intestinal allocation is not subject to the Secretary's enforcement authority. As the field of intestinal transplantation evolves, it will become more critical that intestinal organ allocation keeps pace with advances in the field; that policy development include performance indicators to assess whether the goals of an equitable transplant system are being achieved; that the Secretary has the authority to make those policies enforceable; and that patients and physicians have timely access to accurate data that will assist them in making decisions regarding intestinal transplantation. Upon consideration of the foregoing factors, and in order to achieve the most equitable and medically effective use of donated organs, the Secretary has determined that intestines should explicitly be added to the definition of organs covered by the OPTN regulations at 42 CFR Part 121. Public Participation The public was invited to respond to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)which was published in the **Federal Register** on November 23, 2005 (70 FR 70765-70768). The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment period. We received a total of three comments from the public. All three comments were in support of adding intestines to the definition of organs covered by the rules governing the OPTN and encouraged coordination with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Consequently, this Final Rule is the same as the proposed rule published on November 23, 2005. Soliciting Public Comment as to Whether Any Other Organs Should Be Covered by the Rules Governing the Operation of the OPTN The Secretary invited public comment as to the advisability of including any other organ within the ambit of this final rule. The comments we received did not request the inclusion of any other organ under the OPTN regulations. Including Intestines Within the Definition of Human Organs Covered by Section 301 of NOTA The Secretary further invited public comment on including intestines within the definition of human organs covered by section 301, as amended, of the National Organ Transplant Act

(NOTA)(hereinafter section 301), which prohibits the purchase or sale of human organs for human transplantation. Originally as enacted section 301 of NOTA (Pub. L. 98-507) defined the term “human organ” as “the human kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, cornea, eye, bone, and skin and any other human organ specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation.” NOTA, Public Law 98-507, Title III, section 301, 98 Stat. 2346-2347 (1984). This section was subsequently amended by Congress to include fetal organs, as well as subparts of the specified organs, by Public Law 100-607, section 407. As set forth by statute, Congress authorized the Secretary to add additional organs to the definition of “human organ” covered by section 301 through rulemaking in order to include the transplantation of additional human organs. Through this Final Rule, the Secretary adds intestines to the list of human organs covered by section 301. The Secretary adds a new section to 42 CFR Part 121 to effectuate this change. The comments we received supported adding intestines to the definition of organs covered under section 301 of NOTA and encouraged coordination with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regarding implementation of the respective but related authorities regarding organ procurement and transplantation. Economic and Regulatory Impact Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when rulemaking is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that provide the greatest net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, safety, distributive and equity effects). In addition, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, if a rule has a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities the Secretary must specifically consider the economic effect of a rule on small entities and analyze regulatory options that could lessen the impact of the rule. Executive Order 12866 requires that all regulations reflect consideration of alternatives, of costs, of benefits, of incentives, of equity, and of available information. Regulations must meet certain standards, such as avoiding an unnecessary burden. Regulations which are “significant” because of cost, adverse effects on the economy, inconsistency with other agency actions, effects on the budget, or novel legal or policy issues, require special analysis. The Secretary has determined that no resources are required to implement the requirements in this Final Rule. Therefore, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, which amended the RFA, the Secretary certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since independent and hospital-based organ procurement organizations

(OPOs)are not considered small rural hospitals because OPOs generally service large geographical areas, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA and a rural impact analysis under section 1102(b) of the Act are not required. The Secretary has also determined that this Final Rule does not meet the criteria for a major rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258, and would have no major effect on the economy or Federal expenditures. We have determined that the Final Rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the statute providing for Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking, 5 U.S.C. 801. Similarly, it will not have effects on State, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector such as to require consultation under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Nor on the basis of family well-being will the provisions of this Final Rule affect the following family elements: Family safety, family stability, marital commitment; parental rights in the education, nurture and supervision of their children; family functioning, disposable income or poverty; or the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, as determined under section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999. As stated above, this Final Rule will modify the regulations governing the OPTN and section 301 of NOTA based on legal authority. Impact of the New Rule This Final Rule will have the effect of including human intestines within the ambit of the regulations governing the operation of the OPTN, and will include transplanted human intestines within the changes made at section 301 of NOTA. The changes made in this Rule will authorize the Secretary to take enforcement actions against entities violating OPTN policies pertaining to the transplantation of intestines once such policies are approved as enforceable by the Secretary. In addition, individuals violating section 301 of NOTA with respect to intestinal transplants will be subject to criminal penalties. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The amendments proposed in this Rule will not impose any additional data collection requirements beyond those already imposed under the current regulations, which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB No. 0915-0157). The currently approved data collection includes worksheets and burden for intestinal transplants. List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 121 Health care, Hospitals, Organ transplantation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 9, 2007. Elizabeth M. Duke, Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. Approved: November 27, 2006. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary. Accordingly, 42 CFR part 121 is amended as set forth below: PART 121—ORGAN PROCUREMENT AND TRANSPLANTATION NETWORK 1. The authority citation for part 121 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Sections 215, 371-376 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 273-274d); sections 1102, 1106, 1138 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1306, 1320b-8 and 1395hh); and section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 274e). 2. Amend § 121.1 as follows: a. Amend paragraph

(a)by removing the phrase “this part apply” and adding in its place the phrase “this part, with the exception of § 121.13, apply.” b. Redesignate paragraph

(b)as paragraph (c). c. Add a new paragraph (b). The revision reads as follows: § 121.1 Applicability.

(b)The provisions of § 121.13 apply to the prohibition set forth in section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act, as amended. § 121.2 [Amended] 3. Amend the definition of “organ” in § 121.2 by removing the word “or” and by adding the phrase “, or intestine (including the esophagus, stomach, small and/or large intestine, or any portion of the gastrointestinal tract)” after the term “pancreas.” 4. Add a new § 121.13 to read as follows: § 121.13 Definition of Human Organ Under section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act, as amended. “Human organ,” as covered by section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act, as amended, means the human (including fetal) kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, cornea, eye, bone, skin, and intestine, including the esophagus, stomach, small and/or large intestine, or any portion of the gastrointestinal tract. [FR Doc. E7-4267 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-15-P 72 46 Friday, March 9, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27208; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-010-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Vulcanair S.p.A. P68 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: The backrest recline of pilot and copilot seats requires the removal of a “quick release pin” not correctly indicated in the AFM and not ready detectable by the passengers. Moreover the operation of removal the device is difficult. This cause difficulty or disables the access to the escapes of the cabin in case of emergency evacuation. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • DOT Docket Web Site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4145; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27208; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-010-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile (ENAC), which is the aviation authority for Italy, has issued AD N. 2004-522, Rev. 0, dated December 20, 2004 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: The backrest recline of pilot and copilot seats requires the removal of a “quick release pin” not correctly indicated in the AFM and not ready detectable by the passengers. Moreover the operation of removal the device is difficult. This cause difficulty or disables the access to the escapes of the cabin in case of emergency evacuation. The MCAI requires: Carry out the operational checks/inspection/modification: —Kit SB 128/A-1 applicable to aircraft model P68C. Serial numbers (S/N) 429, 434 and 435 are excluded; —Kit SB 128/A-2 applicable only to P68C aircraft with S/N 429, 434 and 435; —Kit SB 128/B applicable to aircraft model P68 Observer 2; —Kit SB 128/C applicable to aircraft model P68TC Observer; called for by the referenced Service Bulletin, in accordance with the procedures in there specified, within the terms set forth under “COMPLIANCE” of this AD. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Vulcanair S.p.A. has issued P68 Variants Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 128, dated October 12, 2004. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 15 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,400, or $160 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Vulcanair S.p.A. (Type certificate No. A31EU formally held by Partenavia Costruzioni Aeronautiche S.p.A.):** Docket No. FAA-2007-27208; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-010-AD Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by April 9, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Models P68C, P68 Observer 2, and P68TC Observer airplanes, serial numbers 412 through 424 (except 418), 429, 434, and 435, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 51: Structures. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: The backrest recline of pilot and copilot seats requires the removal of a “quick release pin” not correctly indicated in the AFM and not ready detectable by the passengers. Moreover the operation of removal the device is difficult. This cause difficulty or disables the access to the escapes of the cabin in case of emergency evacuation. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions within 30 days after the effective date of this AD:

(1)*For Model P68C airplanes, serial numbers 412 through 424 (except 418):* Install Kit SB 128/A-1, following Vulcanair S.p.A. P68 Variants Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 128, dated October 12, 2004;

(2)*For Model P68C airplanes, serial numbers 429, 434, and 435:* Install Kit SB 128/A-2 following Vulcanair S.p.A. P68 Variants Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 128, dated October 12, 2004;

(3)*For Model P68 Observer 2 airplanes:* Install Kit SB 128/B, following Vulcanair S.p.A. P68 Variants Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 128, dated October 12, 2004; or

(4)*For Model P68TC Observer airplanes:* Install Kit SB 128/C, following Vulcanair S.p.A. P68 Variants Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 128, dated October 12, 2004. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4145; fax:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et.seq.), the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile (ENAC), AD N. 2004-522, Rev. 0, dated December 20, 2004; and Vulcanair S.p.A. P68 Variants Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 128, dated October 12, 2004, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 2, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4242 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-21242; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-09-AD] RIN 21207-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 Turboshaft Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. That AD currently requires initial and repetitive position checks of the gas generator 2nd stage turbine blades on all Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. That AD also currently requires initial and repetitive replacements of 2nd stage turbines on 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines only. This proposed AD would require adding a 3,000 hour life limit to Arriel 1B 2nd Stage Turbine Blades. This proposed AD results from reports of failures of second stage blades. We are proposing this AD to prevent failures of the 2nd stage turbine blades, which could result in uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown, and subsequent forced autorotation landing or accident. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by May 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone

(33)05 59 74 40 00, fax

(33)05 59 74 45 15, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone

(781)238-7175, fax

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-21242; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-09-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the DMS Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Discussion On August 8, 2006, the FAA issued AD 2006-02-08R1, Amendment 39-14721 (71 FR 46390, August 14, 2006). That AD requires initial and repetitive position checks of the gas generator 2nd stage turbine blades on all Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines, and initial and repetitive replacements of 2nd stage turbines on 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines only. The Direction Generale de L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition might exist on Turbomeca, Arriel 1B (modified per TU 148), 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. The DGAC advises that sixteen cases of release of gas generator 2nd stage turbine blades occurred in service, with full containment of debris. These events resulted in uncommanded in-flight engine shutdowns. Although terminating action is still unavailable, mandatory checks of the turbine blades and replacement of the turbine are being required in order to reduce the probability of an uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown. That AD requires initial and repetitive position checks of the gas generator 2nd stage turbine blades on all Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. That AD also requires initial and repetitive replacements of 2nd stage turbines on 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines only. That condition, if not corrected, could result in uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown. Actions Since AD 2006-02-08R1 Was Issued Since we issued that AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)informed us that they have received reports of additional failures of the 2nd stage turbine blades. The debris from the failures was fully contained. The failures were caused by: • Deterioration of 2nd stage nozzle guide vanes

(NGV2)modified to TU197, • Aerodynamic excitation from deteriorated NGV2, • Excessive temperature on the fir-tree roots, and • 2nd stage turbine blades modified to TU204. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Turbomeca Alert Service Bulletins

(ASBs)A292 72 0807, Update 1, dated October 26, 2006, for Arriel 1B post-TU 148; ASB A292 72 0809, dated October 4, 2005, for Arriel 1D and 1D1; and ASB A292 72 0810, for Arriel 1S1, all dated March 24, 2004. These ASBs describe procedures for initial and repetitive position checks of the 2nd stage turbine blades, and replacement of 2nd stage turbines on 1B and 1D1 engines only. The EASA classified these ASBs as mandatory and issued airworthiness directive 2007-0018, dated January 15, 2007, in order to ensure the airworthiness of these Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines in the European Union. Bilateral Agreement Information This engine model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of Section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. In keeping with this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the EASA, which is the airworthiness authority for the European Union, kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of the EASA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require: • Initial and repetitive position checks of the 2nd stage turbine blades on Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. • Replacement of 2nd stage turbines on 1B and 1D1 engines only. • Initially replacing 2nd stage turbines in Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 turboshaft engines. The proposed AD would require that you do these actions using the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD revision would affect 721 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per engine to inspect all 721 engines and 40 work-hours per engine to replace about 587 2nd stage turbines on 1B and 1D1 engines, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,200 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD revision to U.S. operators to be $3,905,240. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14721 (71 FR 46390, August 14, 2006) and by adding a new airworthiness directive, to read as follows: **Turbomeca:** Docket No. FAA-2005-21242; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-09-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by May 8, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-02-08R1, Amendment 39-14721. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Turbomeca Arriel 1B engines fitted with 2nd stage turbine modification TU 148, and Arriel 1D, 1D1, and 1S1 engines. Arriel 1B engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter France AS-350B and AS-350A “Ecureuil” helicopters. Arriel 1D engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter France AS-350B1 “Ecureuil” helicopters. Arriel 1D1 engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter France AS-350B2 “Ecureuil” helicopters. Arriel 1S1 engines are installed on, but not limited to, Sikorsky Aircraft S-76A and S-76C helicopters. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of failures of second stage blades. We are issuing this AD to prevent failures of the 2nd stage turbine blades, which could result in uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown, and subsequent forced autorotation landing or accident. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Initial Relative Position Check of 2nd Stage Turbine Blades

(f)Do an initial relative position check of the 2nd stage turbine blades using the Turbomeca mandatory alert service bulletins

(ASBs)specified in the following Table 1. Do the check before reaching any of the intervals specified in Table 1 or within 50 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Table 1.—Initial and Repetitive Relative Position Check Intervals of 2nd Stage Turbine Blade Turbomeca engine model Initial relative position check interval Repetitive interval Mandatory alert service bulletin Arriel 1B (modified per TU 148) Within 1,200 hours time-since-new

(TSN)or time-since-overhaul

(TSO)or 3,500 cycles-since-new

(CSN)or cycles-since-overhaul (CSO), whichever occurs earlier Within 200 hours time-in-service-since-last-relative-position-check (TSLRPC) A292 72 0807, Update 1, dated October 26, 2006. Arriel 1D1 and Arriel 1D Within 1,200 hours TSN or TSO or 3,500 hours CSN or CSO, whichever occurs earlier Within 150 hours TSLRPC A292 72 0809, Update No. 1, dated October 4, 2005. Arriel 1S1 Within 1,200 hours TSN or TSO or 3,500 hours CSN or CSO, whichever occurs earlier Within 150 hours TSLRPC A292 72 0810, dated March 24, 2004. Repetitive Relative Position Check of 2nd Stage Turbine Blades

(g)Recheck the relative position of 2nd stage turbine blades at the TSLRPC intervals specified in Table 1 of this AD, using the mandatory ASBs indicated. Credit for Previous Relative Position Checks

(h)Relative position checks of 2nd stage turbine blades done using Turbomeca Service Bulletin A292 72 0263, Update 1, 2, 3, or 4, or A292 72 0807, dated March 24, 2004, comply with the initial requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD. Initial Replacement of 2nd Stage Turbines on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 Engines

(i)Initially replace the 2nd stage turbine with a new or overhauled 2nd stage turbine as follows:

(1)Before accumulating 1,500 hours TSN or TSO on the module for Arriel 1D and 1D1 engines.

(2)Before accumulating 2,200 hours TSN or TSO on the module or 3,000 total hours TSN on the 2nd stage turbine blades, whichever occurs first, for Arriel 1B engines. Repetitive Replacements of 2nd Stage Turbines on Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 Engines

(j)Thereafter, replace the 2nd stage turbine with a new or overhauled 2nd stage turbine within every 1,500 hours TSN or TSO on the module for Arriel 1D and 1D1 engines, and within every 2,200 hours TSN or TSO on the module or 3,000 total hours TSN on the 2nd stage turbine blades, for Arriel 1B engines. Criteria for Overhauled 2nd Stage Turbines

(k)Do the following to overhauled 2nd stage turbines, referenced in paragraphs

(i)and

(j)of this AD:

(1)You must install new blades in the 2nd stage turbines of overhauled Arriel 1D and 1D1 engines.

(2)You may install either overhauled blades with fewer than 3,000 total hours TSN or new blades in the 2nd stage turbines of overhauled Arriel 1B engines. Relative Position Check Continuing Compliance Requirements

(l)All 2nd stage turbines, including those that are new or overhauled, must continue to comply with relative position check requirements of paragraphs

(f)and

(j)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(m)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(n)The EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0018, dated January 15, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.

(o)Contact Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *Christopher.spinney@faa.gov;* telephone

(781)238-7175; fax

(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 5, 2007. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4244 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27342; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-014-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10 B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: A CAP10B aircraft experienced a reduced elevator deflection by about 13° due to an incorrect routing of the Push To Talk

(PTT)wire bundle and improperly secured connectors which impeded the complete and free movement of the control stick. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • DOT Docket Web Site: Go *to http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(816)329-4145; fax:

(PTT)wire bundle and improperly secured connectors which impeded the complete and free movement of the control stick. The MCAI requires: Actions specified in this AD are intended to inspect, detect and correct any discrepancy on the PTT electrical circuit connectors and wires that could lead to a reduction of the control stick movements. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information APEX Aircraft has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 050605, dated October 17, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 31 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,480, or $80 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $90, for a cost of $330 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **APEX Aircraft (Type Certificate No. A36EU formerly held by AVIONS MUDRY et CIE):** Docket No. FAA-2007-27342; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-014-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by April 9, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model CAP 10 B airplanes, serial numbers 001 through 282, fitted with major change 000302 (wood-carbon wings), that are certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 27: Flight Controls. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: A CAP10B aircraft experienced a reduced elevator deflection by about 13° due to an incorrect routing of the Push To Talk

(PTT)wire bundle and improperly secured connectors which impeded the complete and free movement of the control stick. Actions and Compliance

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

(1)Within the next 50 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, inspect the wire routing for the proper location and attachment of the connectors as detailed in the accomplishment instructions of APEX Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 050605, dated October 17, 2006.

(2)Before further flight, if a defect or discrepancy is found during the inspection in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, modify the wire bundle and connectors routing as detailed in the accomplishment instructions of APEX Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 050605, dated October 17, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)* : The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4145; fax:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

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

(3)*Reporting Requirements* : For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et.seq.), the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD No: 2007-0014, dated January 12, 2007; and APEX Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 050605, dated October 17, 2006, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 2, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4243 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0083; FRL-8285-9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a request to amend the Missouri State Implementation Plan

(SIP)to include revisions to the St. Louis Solvent Metal Cleaning rule. The revisions to this rule include consolidating exemptions in the applicability section, adding new exemptions, adding definitions of new and previously undefined terms, and clarifying rule language regarding operating procedure requirements for spray gun cleaners and air-tight and airless cleaning systems. This revision will ensure consistency between the state and the Federally-approved rules. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0083 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail* : *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail* : Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier.* Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at

(SIP)for the purpose of approving the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's

(KDHE)actions to address the “good neighbor” provisions of the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). These provisions require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state's air quality through interstate transport. KDHE has adequately addressed the four distinct elements related to the impact of interstate transport of air pollutants. These include prohibiting significant contribution to downwind nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), interference with maintenance of the NAAQS, interference with plans in another state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and efforts of other states to protect visibility. The requirements for public notification were also met by KDHE. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0141 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *jay.michael@epa.gov.* 3. Mail: Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule that is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Jay at

(913)551-7460, or by e-mail at *jay.michael@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule that is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: February 27, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-4302 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0041; FRL-8284-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating Permits Program; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan

(SIP)and Operating Permits Program. EPA proposes to approve a revision to the Missouri rule entitled “Submission of Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information.” This revision will ensure consistency between the state and the Federally-approved rules. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0041 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* 3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at

(913)551-7942, or by e-mail at *algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision and Title V revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: February 27, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-4175 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [I.D 020807A] RIN 0648-AV24 Fisheries off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Species Fishery; Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) has submitted Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) for review by the Secretary of Commerce. Amendment 1, in combination with the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Western Pacific Council) proposed Amendment 14, address overfishing of bigeye tuna ( *Thunnus obesus* ) Pacific-wide as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The specific actions to end overfishing would be implemented by multilateral cooperation through appropriate regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs) - the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in the Eastern Pacific Ocean

(EPO)and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Specifically, Amendment 1 would recommend that fishing mortality on Pacific bigeye in the EPO by longline vessels be reduced immediately by 30 percent and by purse seine fishing vessels by 38 percent from 2003-2004 fishing levels, and in the WCPO by longline and purse seine vessels by 20 percent from 2001-2003 levels for each gear type. Taken together, these proposed reductions in fishing mortality would end overfishing of Pacific bigeye tuna. Amendment 1 would also reorganize the West Coast HMS FMP to create a more user-friendly document as the current FMP is combined with a lengthy Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). DATES: Comments on Amendment 1 must be received by May 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this action identified by [I.D. 0220807A], by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *0648-AV24.SWR@noaa.gov* . Include the I.D. number in the subject line of the message. • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: *http.//www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. • Fax: (562)980-4047 Copies of Amendment 1 are available by contacting Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384. Copies of Amendment 14 to the Pelagics FMP, and the Environmental Assessment

(EA)for Amendment 14, which addresses potential effects for actions proposed under both Amendments 1 and 14, may be obtained by contacting Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi Taylor, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4039, or Christopher Dahl, Pacific Fishery Management Council, at 503-820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HMS fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the West Coast is managed under the HMS FMP, which was developed by the Pacific Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The HMS FMP was approved by the Secretary of Commerce and implemented by regulation at 50 CFR part 660. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each regional fishery management council to submit any amendment to an FMP to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment to an FMP, publish notification in the **Federal Register** that the amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider public comment received during the comment period in determining whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 1. Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP was developed by the Pacific Council, in coordination with the development of Amendment 14 to the Western Pacific Council's Pelagics FMP. Both Amendments have been submitted to NMFS for review under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* This document announces that Amendment 1 is available for public review and comment. A similar announcement for Amendment 14 was published on February 15, 2007, in the **Federal Register** . On December 15, 2004, NMFS notified both Councils that overfishing was occurring on bigeye tuna Pacific-wide. As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Councils were requested to take appropriate action to end overfishing. The Pacific Council, having fisheries for bigeye tuna in the EPO only, and the Western Pacific Council, having fisheries in both the EPO and the WCPO, worked to develop an international strategy that addresses overfishing Pacific-wide. According to the guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, fishery stock status is assessed to determine if the stock is subject to “overfishing.” Overfishing occurs when the maximum fishing mortality threshold

(MFMT)is exceeded for one year or more and when the ratio of the current fishing mortality F current to F maximum sustainable yield (MSY), or F current /F MSY , exceeds one. Stock assessments leading up to the overfishing determination for bigeye tuna in the Pacific concluded that current fishing mortality on the bigeye stock exceeded MFMT, that is, the ratio of F current /F MSY has been exceeded for one year or more. Therefore, the Secretary of Commerce determined that overfishing is occurring on bigeye tuna throughout the Pacific. The Pacific Council adopted Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP at its November 2006 Council meeting following a lengthy process that fully considered various drafts of an alternatives analysis. The Pacific Council also considered actions taken by the Western Pacific Council, input from Council advisory bodies, and public comment before adopting Amendment 1. Because bigeye tuna are targeted by many nations, including the United States, and taking into consideration the comparatively small proportion of total fishing mortality on the stock contributed by the United States, no Federal regulations to limit fishing effort by West Coast vessels managed under the HMS FMP have been proposed. Rather, Amendment 1 would revise the HMS FMP to include a multilateral strategy where the Pacific Council would transmit recommendations for the immediate reduction in fishing mortality of bigeye tuna in the EPO to the U.S. delegation to the IATTC. A similar international strategy has been proposed in Amendment 14 for the WCPO, and thus any combined fishery conservation and management recommendation from the Pacific and Western Pacific Councils to the relevant RFMOs, will end overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide. Amendment 1 outlines general principals that would be adhered to when proposing management measures to the U.S. delegation to the IATTC intended to meet the goal of ending overfishing. For example, conservation and management recommendations would focus on fisheries with the greatest impacts and on regions with the highest catch rate and on spawning areas; reducing surplus capacity; restrict the use of purse seines fishing on fish aggregating devices; and support the identification of those measures that will have a measurable impact on bigeye tuna conservation. The Pacific Council would develop management goals, to the extent practicable, that are consistent with IATTC staff scientist recommendations. Specifically, Amendment 1 would recommend that fishing mortality on Pacific bigeye be reduced immediately:

(1)in the EPO, by longline vessels by 30 percent and by purse seine fishing vessels by 38 percent from 2003-2004 fishing levels; and

(2)in the WCPO, by longline and purse seine vessels by 20 percent from 2001-2003 levels for each gear type. However, as part of its strategy the Pacific Council recognizes that conservation and management goals may need to be revised to reflect changes in stock status and the best available science. These recommendations would be communicated to the relevant U.S. delegations to RFMOs and thus comprise the international strategy to end overfishing of bigeye tuna Pacific-wide. Amendment 1 is consistent with section 406 of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA, Public Law 109-479), which added section 304(i) to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This section requires the Secretary to, among other things, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, immediately take appropriate action at the international level to end overfishing for fisheries that NMFS has determined:

(a)to be overfished or approaching a condition of being overfished due to excessive international fishing pressure, and

(b)for which there are no management measures to end overfishing under an international agreement to which the United States is a party. NMFS interprets “no management measures” to mean the absence of management measures that are adequate to stop overfishing for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its implementing regulations. NMFS has made a determination that both of these conditions are present, and therefore subsection 304(i) governs the MSA mandate to end overfishing in the case of Pacific bigeye tuna. Pacific bigeye tuna are fished in waters under U.S. jurisdiction, waters under the jurisdiction of other nations, and on the high seas by foreign fishing fleets. U.S. fisheries account for only a small percentage of the Pacific bigeye tuna harvests. Thus, fishing mortality of the bigeye stock stems predominantly from non-U.S. fleets in the region, and any unilateral management to end overfishing by the U.S. would have a proportionally small effect in terms of reducing fishing mortality and ending overfishing. Since 1998, the U.S. has addressed the relative impacts of U.S. fishing on Pacific bigeye tuna by implementing annual or multi-annual conservation and management resolutions under the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951-961 and 971 *et seq.* ). Additionally, in Amendment 1, the Pacific Council proposes to recommend to NMFS and the Secretary of State, international management actions to end overfishing in fisheries for Pacific bigeye tuna. Finally, NMFS, in collaboration with the Pacific and Western Pacific Councils and Department of State, is working to end overfishing through the RFMOs. Existing HMS and Pelagics FMP measures for bigeye tuna have been implemented to address the relative impact of U.S. fishing vessels within the meaning of the MSRA section 304(i)(2)(A). Depending on the region, these measures include limited access programs, mandatory data collection, scientific observers, vessel size limits and gear specifications, and a vessel monitoring system. Amendment 1 would also reorganize the original HMS FMP in a manner that calls attention to elements specific to the FMP and would move much of the lengthy background material in the original FMP/FEIS to a series of appendices. Amendment 1 thus includes new chapters and headings for the FMP. Cross references to chapters, sections, tables, and figures would be renumbered to reflect the reorganization proposed without referencing such changes in the text. The preface of Amendment 1 further explains the reorganization of the HMS FMP. The original FMP/FEIS will remain a publicly available document. Though Amendment 1 incorporates elements of Amendment 14, it does not require NMFS to promulgate implementing regulations. NMFS seeks public comment on Amendment 1, which must be received by May 8, 2007 to be considered by NMFS in the decision whether to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the Amendment 1. Authority: U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 5, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4259 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 46 Friday, March 9, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture Meeting AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21). DATES: The meeting dates are March 26, 2007, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and March 27, 2007, 8 am to 4 pm. ADDRESSES: Room 107A, USDA Jamie L. Whitten Building, 12th Street and Jefferson Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20250. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Schechtman, Telephone

(202)720-3817. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fifteenth meeting of the AC21 has been scheduled for March 26-27, 2007. The AC21 consists of 19 members representing the biotechnology industry, international plant genetics research, farmers, food manufacturers, commodity processors and shippers, environmental and consumer groups, and academic researchers. In addition, representatives from the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, and State, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture serve as “ex officio” members. At this meeting, new Committee members will be introduced, and the Committee plans to continue work to address the question, “In an increasingly complex marketplace, what issues should USDA consider regarding coexistence among increasingly diverse agricultural systems?” The work at the meeting will include consideration of presentations from external speakers as well as review of a compilation of draft submissions on a series of subtopics for a paper on the subject. Background information regarding the work of the AC21 will be available on the USDA Web site at *http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navid=BIOTECH&parentnav=AGRICULTURE&navtype=RT.* Members of the public should enter the building through the Jefferson Drive entrance. Requests to make oral presentations at the meeting may be sent to Michael Schechtman, Designated Federal Official, Office of the Deputy Secretary, USDA, 202 B Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, 12th Street and Jefferson Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Telephone

(202)720-3817; Fax

(202)690-4265; E-mail Michael.schechtman@ars.usda.gov. On March 26, 2007, if time permits, reasonable provision will be made for oral presentations of no more than five minutes each in duration. Written requests to make oral presentations at the meeting must be received by the contact person identified herein at least three business days before the meeting. The meeting will be open to the public, but space is limited. If you would like to attend the meetings, you must register by contacting Ms. Debra Lindsay at

(202)720-4074, by fax at

(202)720-3191 or by E-mail at debra.lindsay@ars.usda.gov at least five business days prior to the meeting. Please provide your name, title, business affiliation, address, and telephone and fax numbers when you register. If you require a sign language interpreter or other special accommodation due to disability, please indicate those needs at the time of registration. Dated: March 1, 2007. Jeremy Stump, Senior Advisor for International and Homeland Security Affairs and Biotechnology. [FR Doc. E7-4208 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0010] Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; National Animal Identification System; Tribal Participants in Premises Registration AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: New information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to initiate a new information collection activity for Tribal participants in premises registration for the National Animal Identification System. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0010 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0010, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0010. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on an information collection for Tribal participants in premises registration for the National Animal Identification System, contact Dr. John Wiemers, National Animal Identification Staff, VS, 2100 Lake Storey Road, Galesburg, IL 61401;

(309)344-1942. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* National Animal Identification System; Tribal Participants in Premises Registration. *OMB Number:* 0579-XXXX. *Type of Request:* Approval of a new information collection. *Abstract:* As part of ongoing efforts to safeguard animal health, the U.S. Department of Agriculture initiated implementation of a National Animal Identification System

(NAIS)in 2004. The NAIS is a cooperative State-Federal-industry program administered by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The purpose of the NAIS is to provide a streamlined information system that will help producers and animal health officials respond quickly and effectively to animal disease events in the United States. The first component of the program, premises registration, is well underway and the second component, animal identification, is being implemented for several species. The third component, animal tracing, is currently under development with USDA's State and industry partners. Industry, through private systems, and States will manage the animal tracking databases that maintain the movement records of animals. These information systems will provide the location of a subject animal and the records of other animals that the subject animal came into contact with at each premises. Participation in any component of the program is voluntary. Premises registration, the foundation of NAIS, is critical to rapidly detecting and evaluating the scope of animal disease outbreaks, controlling emergency program budgets, and improving emergency response efficiency. Having the ability to plot locations within a radius of affected premises will help determine the potential magnitude of a disease event and the resources that are needed to adequately respond in an effective manner. This can be accomplished only if the affected premises and other premises in the area have been registered. All 50 States, 60 Native American Tribes, and 2 territories are currently participating in premises registration. More than 350,000 premises have been registered to date. Several systems are available to States and Tribes for use in registering premises: The Standardized Premises Registration System provided by USDA, Compliant Premises Registration Systems developed by States or third parties and evaluated by USDA as compliant, and now a Tribal Premises Registration System provided by USDA. USDA is pleased with the cooperative working relationships we have with Tribes participating in the development and implementation of the NAIS. Meeting the needs of Native Americans has been a priority for USDA since the inception of the NAIS, and we have sought to have Tribal representatives involved in the development of the system. Most recently, USDA partnered with Tribal representatives in the development and testing of the Tribal Premises Registration System that is now available for use. APHIS will provide the opportunity for participating Tribes to designate, by completing a form, which premises registration system they prefer to use, and will use the form to initiate the process for Tribes to have access to their system of choice. The form will be made available by the Tribal liaison for the NAIS program and on the NAIS Web site ( *http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml* ). We are asking the Office of Management and Budget to approve our use of this information collection activity for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. *Respondents:* Tribal entities or organizations who are interested in participating in the NAIS premises registration component or who are already participating in the NAIS. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 60. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 1. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 60. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 60 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of March 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-4239 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0024] Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Plant Protection and Quarantine; Customer Satisfaction Surveys AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: New information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to initiate a new information collection for Plant Protection and Quarantine Customer Satisfaction Surveys. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0024 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0024, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0024. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the Plant Protection and Quarantine customer satisfaction surveys, contact Ms. Nancy Heffernan, Management Analyst, Permits, Registrations, Imports and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737;

(301)734-7491. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Plant Protection and Quarantine; Customer Satisfaction Surveys. *OMB Number:* 0579-XXXX. *Type of Request:* Approval of a new information collection. *Abstract:* In 2003, the Plant Health Programs

(PHP)unit, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, obtained from the International Organization of Standardization (ISO, a nongovernmental worldwide network of national standards institutes) certification in the ISO 9001:2000 standard for its permit services. The ISO 9001:2000 standard specifies the requirements for a quality management system. To meet the ISO 9001:2000 standard, an organization must demonstrate its ability to consistently provide a product that meets customer quality requirements and applicable regulatory requirements, while aiming to enhance customer satisfaction through effective application of the system, including processes for continual improvement of its performance. To remain in compliance with Clause 8.2.1 (Customer Satisfaction) of the ISO 9001:2000 standard, PHP must measure the performance of its quality management system by monitoring customer perception of its service. PHP has determined that the best method for obtaining this information is through the use of performance measurement surveys. Customers will have the option of completing the surveys by telephone, e-mail, or facsimile, or through an automated voice response system. PHP will use responses derived from these surveys to develop new processes and modify existing procedures to provide customers with the optimal level of service. We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.16 hours per response. *Respondents:* Persons who require a permit. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 500. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 1. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 500. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 80 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of March 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-4240 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service RIN 0596-AC39 Travel Management, Proposed Forest Service Directives; Forest Service Manual 2350, 7700, and 7710 and Forest Service Handbook 7709.55 AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed directives; request for comment. SUMMARY: The Forest Service proposes to amend internal agency directives regarding travel management to make them consistent with and facilitate implementation of the agency's final travel management rule (36 CFR part 212), “Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use” (70 FR 68264, November 9, 2005) (travel management rule). The travel management rule requires each Forest Service administrative unit or Ranger District to designate those roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use. Changes to existing travel management directives are needed to provide guidance on implementation of the travel management rule, to conform terminology to the rule, to provide consistent direction on the process of designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, and to integrate direction on roads analysis with direction on travel planning. The proposed directives would consolidate direction for travel planning for both roads and trails in Forest Service Manual

(FSM)7710 and Forest Service Handbook

(FSH)7709.55. Direction for trail management would continue to be found in FSM 2350. Consistent terminology and delegations of authority would be established in FSM 7700, Zero Code. The proposed directives expand the scope of the current roads analysis process to encompass trails and areas designated for motor vehicle use, while streamlining some of the procedural requirements involved. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by May 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Travel Management Proposed Directives, Attention: LeRoy Schmitz, c/o USDA Forest Service Northern Region, P.O. Box 7669, Missoula, MT 59807; by delivery service to 200 East Broadway, Missoula MT 59807; by e-mail to *traveldir@fs.fed.us;* or by facsimile to 406-329-3198. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, will be placed in the record and will be available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received on these proposed directives in the office of the Director of Engineering, USDA Forest Service Northern Region, 200 East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59807, on business days between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Those wishing to inspect comments are encouraged to call ahead at 406-329-3173 to facilitate entry into the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Gallagher, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff,

(202)205-0931. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published the travel management rule, governing use of motor vehicles on National Forest System

(NFS)lands. The travel management rule (36 CFR part 212, subpart B) requires each administrative unit or Ranger District to designate those roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year. The travel management rule also requires designated roads, trails, and areas to be identified on a motor vehicle use map. After roads, trails, and areas have been designated and identified on a motor vehicle use map, motor vehicle use inconsistent with those designations is prohibited under 36 CFR 261.13. The travel management rule combined regulations governing administration of the forest transportation system and regulations governing use of motor vehicles off NFS roads into part 212, Travel Management, covering the use of motor vehicles on NFS lands. The travel management rule implements Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 (February 8, 1972), “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,” as amended by E.O. 11989 (May 24, 1977). Nationally, the Forest Service manages approximately 287,000 miles of NFS roads and 32,000 miles of NFS trails that are open to motor vehicle use. Other NFS roads and NFS trails are managed for nonmotorized uses or are not open to general public use. Motor vehicle routes in the forest transportation system range from paved roads designed for passenger cars to single-track trails used by dirt bikes. Many roads designed for high-clearance vehicles (such as logging trucks and sport utility vehicles) are also used by all-terrain vehicles

(ATVs)and other off-highway vehicles

(OHVs)not normally found on city streets. Almost all NFS trails serve nonmotorized users such as hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians, alone or in combination with motorized users. NFS roads often accept nonmotorized use as well. In addition to this managed system of NFS roads and NFS trails, many National Forests contain user-created roads and trails. These routes are concentrated in areas where cross-country travel by motor vehicles has been allowed and sometimes include dense, braided networks of criss-crossing trail. There has been no comprehensive national inventory of user-created routes (and continuing proliferation of these routes has made a definitive inventory difficult), but they are estimated to number in the tens of thousands of miles. Wilderness areas are closed to motor vehicles by statute. On some National Forests and portions of others, motor vehicle use is restricted by order to designated routes and areas. On other National Forests, motor vehicle use is not restricted to designated routes and areas. Need for Proposed Directives The Forest Service provides internal direction to field units through its directives system, consisting of the FSM and FSH. Directives provide guidance to field units in implementing programs established by statute and regulation. Forest Service directives establish agency policy for delegations of authority, consistent definitions of terms, clear and consistent interpretation of regulatory language, and standard processes. The travel management rule will be implemented on administrative units and Ranger Districts, each of which will complete the designation process and publish a motor vehicle use map identifying those NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands open to motor vehicle use. The Forest Service hopes to complete that task on all units of the NFS within 4 years. One of the main objectives of the travel management rule is to provide a consistent procedural framework and consistent terminology for travel management decisions made at the local level. Current policy in the Forest Service directives system was written prior to the travel management rule and reflects previous travel management direction and terminology. For example, current directives use the terms “classified road” and “unclassified road,” which were removed by the travel management rule. Until this policy is updated, inconsistent terminology may result in confusion and inconsistent application of the travel management rule. The proposed directives are also needed to provide a procedural approach to implementing the travel management rule in conformance with agency policy on land management planning, environmental analysis, roads analysis, and other requirements of law and policy. While some of the proposed changes simply reiterate direction in the travel management rule, other proposed changes provide clarifying instructions, delegations of authority, or other guidance on implementing the travel management rule. To ensure timely and consistent implementation of the travel management rule, the Forest Service is proposing to amend travel management directives in FSM 2350, 7700, and 7710 and FSH 7709.55. Many comments on the proposed travel management regulation requested an opportunity for public input in development of agency directives implementing the travel management rule, and these proposed directives are expected to garner substantial public interest. Pursuant to 36 CFR part 216 and to build public understanding of and participation in travel management decisions, the Forest Service is seeking comment on these proposed directives. The proposed directives are available for review on the Forest Service Web site at *http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv.* Additional purely technical, nonsubstantive amendments to FSM 2354 and 7730 and FSH 2309.18 and 7709.59 (which primarily conform terminology in those directives to terminology in the travel management rule) will be issued without public notice and comment when these proposed directives are finalized. Summary of Changes The proposed directives would conform agency directives to the travel management rule. Many of the proposed changes to the directives simply reiterate requirements of the travel management rule or update terminology based on the travel management rule. The Forest Service is not proposing to revise the travel management rule. Reviewers may find it helpful to become familiar with the travel management rule before reviewing these proposed directives. The proposed directives would consolidate Forest Service policy for travel management into FSM 7700. This chapter, now entitled “Transportation System,” would be renamed “Travel Management” to be consistent with the new title of 36 CFR part 212. FSM 7700, Zero Code, would be amended to contain new authorities and responsibilities. FSM 7710, “Travel Planning,” would be amended to provide direction on travel analysis and route and area designation. The “Travel Planning Handbook,” FSH 7709.55, would be revised to integrate roads analysis into the new travel management process. Directives governing road maintenance and operations would remain in FSM 7730, “Operations and Maintenance,” and FSH 7709.59, the Road System Operations Handbook. Within FSM 2300, “Recreation Management,” FSM 2350, “Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities,” would be amended to consolidate travel planning direction for motor vehicle use, mirroring the consolidation of regulations formerly in 36 CFR parts 212 and 295. Directives governing trail maintenance and operations would remain in FSM 2350 and FSH 2309.18. A key objective of the proposed directives is to integrate roads analysis, as required by 36 CFR part 212, subpart A, with the travel management process required by 36 CFR part 212, subpart B, to avoid duplicative planning processes. On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service published final regulations at 36 CFR part 212, “Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System; Prohibitions; Use of Motor Vehicles Off Forest System Roads; Final Rule” (roads rule), and “Forest Service Transportation; Final Administrative Policy; Notice” (roads policy) (66 FR 3216). The roads rule requires each administrative unit of the NFS to “identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands * * * incorporating a science-based roads analysis at the appropriate scale” (36 CFR 212.5(b)). The new travel management rule requires each administrative unit or Ranger District of the NFS to designate those roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use. The Forest Service believes that a single, integrated analysis can be used to fulfill both requirements. The roads policy (FSM 7700 and 7710) established Publication FS-643, Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (August 1999), as the science-based roads analysis to be followed when implementing the roads rule. The roads policy also established specific requirements for the use of roads analysis at various scales prior to making travel management decisions involving NFS roads. The proposed changes in the Forest Service directives would move the six-step analysis described in FS-643 to FSH 7709.55, Chapter 20, and rename it “Travel Analysis” to reflect its broader application in informing travel management decisions regarding motor vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands. The Forest Service also proposes to change its directives to streamline the travel analysis process and to provide the responsible official additional discretion in determining the scope and scale of travel analysis. In addition to the section-by-section discussion that follows, the digest section of the proposed directives enumerates the proposed changes from existing directives. Section-by-Section Analysis of Proposed Changes Proposed Revisions to FSM 2350, “Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities” FSM 2352, “Road Recreation Management,” and FSM 2355, “Off-Road Vehicle Use Management,” would be removed. To ensure consistent implementation of the travel management rule, direction for travel planning, travel management decisions, and designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use would be moved to FSM 7710, “Travel Planning,” and would be revised to be consistent with 36 CFR part 212. FSM 2353, “National Forest System Trails,” would be revised to conform with the terminology and contents of 36 CFR part 212. FSM 2353.28, “Management of Motor Vehicle Use,” would be added to provide guidance for management of NFS trails designated for motor vehicle use. Other proposed technical corrections not directly associated with the travel management rule would update FSM 2353 to conform with changes in laws, regulations, and policy that have occurred since this section was last updated. Examples include the 2005 planning rule, the Forest Service's national Infrastructure database, and changes in the Forest Service's organizational structure and accounting practices. Proposed Revisions to FSM 7700, “Travel Management,” Zero Code FSM 7700, Zero Code, sets general direction applicable to the entire chapter, including FSM 7710 through 7740. The series title would be changed from “Transportation System” to “Travel Management.” In general, the Zero Code enumerates the agency's authority to establish policy, sets out the agency's objectives and general policy for travel management, provides for delegation of authority to agency officials, and contains definitions for terms used throughout the chapter. FSM 7700 concludes by identifying the handbooks supplementing the direction in that chapter. In FSM 7701, “Authority,” the references to 36 CFR part 212 would be updated to reflect the changes effected by the travel management rule and to include references to E.O. 11644. FSM 7702, “Objectives,” would be updated to reflect the objectives of the travel management rule: to manage motor vehicle use within the capabilities of the land and within available agency resources; to provide a wide range of recreation experiences for NFS visitors; to address visitor safety; and to involve the public and coordinate with relevant governmental entities in designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. The proposed directives would add an objective to make use of transit and intermodal transportation systems. FSM 7703, “Policy,” would be updated to reflect new regulatory requirements in 36 CFR part 212 and to provide for consistent interpretation of those requirements. In general, the proposed directives would require the responsible official to provide a transportation system consistent with the desired conditions described in the applicable land management plan and to coordinate with other transportation officials and State, local, and tribal governments when making travel management decisions. FSM 7703.1, “Travel Management,” would provide general direction for designating routes and areas. FSM 7703.1 would reiterate the regulatory requirements at 36 CFR part 212, subpart B. In addition, FSM 7703.1 would require responsible officials to use travel analysis to consider the criteria in 36 CFR 212.55 and contribute towards identification of the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands (36 CFR 212.5(b)). Responsible officials would be advised to use restraint in designating areas for motor vehicle use. Areas are not intended to be large or numerous and should have natural resource characteristics that are suitable for cross-country motor vehicle use. No administrative unit would be required to designate areas. FSM 7703.2, “Management Opportunities,” would require travel analysis to be based on a complete inventory of NFS roads and NFS trails. A complete inventory of user-created routes would not be required. However, responsible officials would be required to work with the public to identify which user-created routes might be suitable for inclusion in the forest transportation system. FSM 7703.2 would require consideration of the full spectrum of motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities, so that designation results in an appropriate mix of recreational activities that minimize conflicts among uses. Responsible officials would be encouraged to consider the availability of resources for maintenance and administration before adding routes to the forest transportation system. Grants, agreements, and volunteers would be considered in this evaluation. Lastly, the requirement that travel management decisions be informed by travel analysis would be restated and clearly established as policy. FSM 7703.22, “Motor Vehicle Use Off Designated Roads and Trails and Outside Designated Areas,” would reiterate the regulatory provision that once designation is complete on an administrative unit or Ranger District and designated routes and areas are identified on a motor vehicle use map, motor vehicle use off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations will be prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13. Responsible officials would be advised to apply provisions for limited use of motor vehicles for big game retrieval or dispersed camping sparingly per 36 CFR 212.51(b). FSM 7703.23, “Use by Over-Snow Vehicles and Non-Motorized Use,” would establish that responsible officials may use the provisions in 36 CFR 212.81 and 261.14 to allow, restrict, or prohibit use by over-snow vehicles on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands. FSM 7703.24, “Maintaining and Reconstructing Roads,” FSM 7703.25, “Decommissioning Roads,” and FSM 7703.26, “Adding Roads,” would not be changed. FSM 7703.3, “Jurisdiction Over Forest Transportation Facilities,” would update terminology to match definitions in 36 CFR 212.1, to expand language to encompass jurisdiction over trails as well as roads, and to recognize that multiple agencies may share jurisdiction over a single road or trail. FSM 7703.4, “Common Transportation Interests With Local Public Road Authorities and Other Landowners,” would incorporate minor wording changes to improve clarity and to correct the cross-reference to FSH 1509.11, section 23. FSM 7703.5 would be renamed “Agreements for Road Operation and Maintenance,” and would add a cross-reference to FSM 2353.16. FSM 7704, “Responsibility,” would establish delegations of authority for agency officials in travel management. Responsibilities for the Director of Recreation and Heritage Resources, Washington Office, would be added to reflect the integration in FSM 7700 of direction for motor vehicle use on NFS trails and in areas on NFS lands. Regional Foresters would have the responsibility to coordinate travel analysis and planning to promote consistency within States and between adjacent national forests. Forest Supervisors would be responsible for conducting travel analysis, making travel management decisions, monitoring motor vehicle use, and maintaining information about the forest transportation system. FSM 7705, “Definitions,” would remove definitions for “classified roads,” “forest roads,” “new road construction,” “road improvement,” “road realignment,” “road reconstruction,” “temporary roads,” “traffic service level,” “transportation facility jurisdiction,” and “unclassified roads”; would add definitions for “administrative unit,” “all-terrain vehicle,” “area,” “arterial road,” “collector road,” “designated road, trail, or area,” “engineering analysis,” “engineering judgment,” “engineering report,” “forest road or trail,” “forest transportation atlas,” “forest transportation system,” “highway-legal vehicle,” “jurisdiction over a forest transportation facility,” “local road,” “motor vehicle,” “motor vehicle use map,” “motorcycle,” “motorized mixed use,” “National Forest System trail,” “non-highway-legal vehicle,” “off-highway vehicle,” “over-snow vehicle,” “private road,” “qualified engineer,” “road construction or reconstruction,” “route,” “temporary road or trail,” “terminal facility,” “trail,” “travel management atlas,” and “unauthorized road or trail”; and would revise definitions for “forest transportation facility,” “forest transportation system management,” “public road,” “road,” “road decommissioning,” “road maintenance,” and “road subject to the Highway Safety Act.” FSM 7705, Exhibit 1, would be revised to reflect policy changes and changes in terminology and definitions. FSM 7709 would be updated to reflect changes in the titles of FSH 7709.55 and 7709.59. Proposed Revisions to FSM 7710, “Travel Planning” This chapter would be renamed “Travel Planning.” Existing direction for planning associated with the forest transportation system would be revised to reflect the regulatory changes in 36 CFR part 212. Directives implementing the roads policy (36 CFR part 212, subpart A) would be largely retained, but would be updated to reflect the use of travel analysis both to identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands and to inform travel management decisions related to designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. FSM 7710 also would provide responsible officials the discretion to allow, restrict, or prohibit use of over-snow vehicles on NFS lands per 36 CFR part 212, subpart C. The travel planning chapter would be organized into 10 sections: FSM 7710 would establish authorities, objectives, policy, responsibilities, and definitions unique to this chapter. FSM 7711 would establish policy for developing and maintaining forest transportation system records, including motor vehicle use maps. FSM 7712 would establish policy for conducting travel analysis. FSM 7713 and 7719 would be reserved for future direction. FSM 7714 would establish requirements for developing road and trail management objectives. FSM 7715 would establish policy for making travel management decisions. FSM 7716 would establish policy for designating routes and areas for motor vehicle use. FSM 7717 would set policy for monitoring motor vehicle use and revising designations. FSM 7718 would describe policy for use of over-snow vehicles. FSM 7710.1, “Authority,” and FSM 7710.2, “Objectives,” largely would reiterate the authorities and objectives established in FSM 7700, Zero Code. FSM 7710.3, “Policy,” would establish policy for determining the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. FSM 7710.3 would require appropriate travel analysis, environmental analysis, public involvement, and intergovernmental coordination to inform travel management decisions. The criteria in 36 CFR 212.55 would guide travel management decisions. FSM 7710.04, “Responsibility,” would assign the Deputy Chief for the National Forest System the responsibility for approving schedules for completing designation on each administrative unit or Ranger District. The Director of Engineering, Washington Office, would be responsible for maintaining and publishing national standards for motor vehicle use maps. Regional Foresters would develop regional schedules for designation and promote coordination within States and between units. Forest Supervisors would be responsible for coordination with Federal, State, county, and local public road authorities; developing and maintaining travel management atlases and motor vehicle use maps; issuing temporary emergency closures under 36 CFR 212.52(b)(2); approving travel management decisions that designate roads for motorized mixed use; conducting travel analysis; conducting appropriate environmental analysis and making travel management decisions; designating NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for motor vehicle use; revising designations when necessary; regulating over-snow vehicle use on NFS lands when appropriate; and monitoring motor vehicle use. District Rangers would approve road and trail management objectives and other duties as delegated by the Forest Supervisor. FSM 7710.5, “Definitions,” would add definitions for “primitive area” and “travel management decision” and would remove the definition for “network analysis.” FSM 7711, “Forest Transportation System Records,” would add policy for developing and maintaining a travel management atlas and making it available to the public. The travel management atlas consists of two parts: the motor vehicle use map and the forest transportation atlas. The forest transportation atlas consists of maps, inventories, and plans for forest transportation facilities and tabular and other data documenting the forest transportation system, including a road atlas. Travel management decisions would be documented in the travel management atlas. Proposed direction would allow storage of information on unauthorized and decommissioned routes, as well as routes in the forest transportation system. FSM 7711.3 would specify the contents of motor vehicle use maps. Motor vehicle use maps would be widely available to the public and would be reprinted annually regardless of whether there are any changes to designations. Per 36 CFR 212.5(b), FSM 7712, “Travel Analysis,” would require that the travel analysis in FSH 7709.55 incorporate a science-based roads analysis at the appropriate scale. Travel analysis would not be a decision-making process, but would be required to inform travel management decisions, including determining the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. Travel analysis also could be used to inform decisions relating to management of over-snow vehicle use. FSM 7712.1, “Scale and Scope of Travel Analysis,” would revise direction on the application of roads analysis and remove the reference to FS-643. Units would still be required to complete a travel analysis addressing broad-scale concerns, but responsible officials would have more discretion to determine the scale and scope at which to conduct travel analysis. Travel analysis would result in a set of focused proposals for changes to the forest transportation system or to existing travel management direction. As under existing policy, travel analysis would be based on a complete and accurate inventory of the forest transportation system on an administrative unit or a Ranger District, but in contrast to existing policy, a complete inventory of user-created routes on a unit or district would no longer be required. FSM 7712.2, “Travel Analysis and Land Management Planning,” would reflect recent changes in regulations governing land management planning at 36 CFR part 219 and would establish that travel management decisions are made at the project level. While travel management decisions must be consistent with the applicable land management plan, they would not be made as part of the land management planning process. FSM 7712.3, “Relationship of Travel Analysis to Travel Management Decisions,” would establish direction on the use of travel analysis and the components of travel analysis when it is used to inform travel management decisions. FSM 7712.4, “Travel Analysis for Administration of the Forest Transportation System,” would revise direction for the use of roads analysis in determining the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. FSM 7714, “Road and Trail Management Objectives,” would revise direction on establishment of road and trail management objectives and would add requirements for management objectives for each NFS road and NFS trail. FSM 7715, “Travel Management Decisions,” would establish objectives and direction for making travel management decisions that implement 36 CFR part 212. Per 36 CFR 212.50(b) and the preamble to the travel management rule (70 FR 68268), FSM 7715.1, “Incorporating Previous Travel Management Decisions,” would provide that past travel management decisions (including decisions to allow motor vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands and restrictions on motor vehicle use) represent the starting point for travel analysis and travel management decisions. As stated in 36 CFR 212.52(a), if an administrative unit or a Ranger District already has a set of travel management decisions consistent with the requirements in 36 CFR 212.51, the responsible official may, with public notice but no further analysis or decisionmaking, recognize that set of decisions as the designation of NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for motor vehicle use on that unit or district. FSM 7715.2, “Scale of Decisions,” would recognize the responsible official's discretion to establish the appropriate scale at which to conduct environmental analysis for travel management decisions, as long as a motor vehicle use map is published for an entire administrative unit or Ranger District. FSM 7715.3, “Public Involvement and Coordination with Governmental Entities,” would reiterate the requirements in 36 CFR 212.52, would encourage responsible officials to use the public notice and comment procedures in the environmental analysis process to fulfill those requirements, and would encourage early public involvement in the travel planning process. FSM 7714.4, “Environmental Documentation,” would recognize that the required environmental documentation depends on the scale, scope, and nature of the proposed changes to travel management decisions and the site-specific issues involved. FSM 7715.5, “Criteria,” would restate the regulatory requirement to consider both the general and specific criteria in 36 CFR 212.55 when making travel management decisions. FSM 7715.6, “Components of Travel Management Decisions,” would establish direction for nine components of travel management decisions necessary to implement the travel management rule. FSM 7715.61, “Restrictions,” would recognize that when existing travel management direction provides for large tracts of NFS lands to be open to cross-country motor vehicle use, responsible officials must restrict motor vehicle use to designated roads, trails, and areas to meet the requirements of 36 CFR 212.51. FSM 7715.62, “Roads and Trails,” would direct responsible officials to consider jurisdiction over forest transportation facilities when designating NFS roads and NFS trails; to evaluate the consistency of proposed travel management decisions with applicable State traffic laws; and to coordinate travel management decisions with adjacent administrative units and Ranger Districts. Nothing in the travel management rule or these proposed directives in any way alters the Forest Service's jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws, to protect NFS lands underlying routes, or to regulate use, including use on valid rights-of-way. FSM 7715.63, “Areas,” would reference the direction on areas established in FSM 7703.14. FSM 7715.64, “Big Game Retrieval and Dispersed Camping,” would reiterate authority established in 36 CFR 212.51(b) on including in designation decisions the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or big game retrieval. This proposed direction includes a clarification of the circumstances under which this authority may be used. The regulation states “within a specified distance of certain designated routes.” The proposed directives would provide “within a specified distance of certain forest roads and forest trails.” State and county roads are not NFS roads and are not subject to designation under the rule. However, the intent of the regulation is to allow the responsible official to authorize limited use of motor vehicles for dispersed camping and game retrieval on NFS lands. It would make little sense for this authority to depend on the jurisdiction of the road or trail involved. FSM 7715.64 also would encourage responsible officials to consider alternatives prior to designating off-route motor vehicle use for dispersed camping or big game retrieval. FSM 7715.65, “Valid Existing Rights and Private Roads,” would reiterate direction from 36 CFR 212.55(d)(1) recognizing valid existing rights. FSM 7715.66, “Wilderness Areas and Primitive Areas,” would reiterate the regulatory prohibition in 36 CFR 212.55(e) against designation of roads, trails, and areas in wilderness areas and primitive areas. FSM 7715.67, “Motorized Mixed Use of NFS Roads,” would require certain travel management decisions involving motorized mixed use to be informed by engineering analysis. Documentation of engineering analysis would be addressed in FSH 7709.55, Chapter 30. FSM 7715.68, “User-Created Routes,” would establish that user-created routes may be considered for inclusion in the forest transportation system. FSM 7715.68 would provide that once designation is complete on an administrative unit or a Ranger District, any user-created routes not added to the forest transportation system would be unauthorized and should be decommissioned. FSM 7715.69, “Accessibility,” would reiterate that under the definitions in 36 CFR 212.1 and 261.2, wheelchairs are not motor vehicles, are not subject to designations under 36 CFR 212.51, and are not subject to the prohibition on motor vehicle use in 36 CFR 261.13. Wheelchairs may be used wherever pedestrian use is allowed. Pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations at 7 CFR 15e.103, FSM 7715.69 also would recognize that there is no legal requirement to allow people with disabilities to use OHVs or other motor vehicles on NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are not designated for motor vehicle use. FSM 7716, “Designations,” would describe the content of motor vehicle designations. FSM 7716.03, “Policy,” would recognize that designations for motor vehicle use do not establish that use as dominant or exclusive of other uses and that designations are not decisions, but rather reflect travel management decisions supported by appropriate environmental analysis and public involvement. FSM 7716.1, “Content of Designations,” would establish that designation of an NFS road or NFS trail includes the use of all terminal facilities, trailheads, parking lots, and turnouts associated with that road or trail, as well as parking within one vehicle length from the edge of the road surface when safe to do so. FSM 7716.1 also would establish five standard vehicle classes that may be used in designations and would recognize that designations by time of year must be written in terms of the time of year the route is open. When designations include the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of designated routes solely for dispersed camping or big game retrieval, the vehicle class and time of year specified would not need to be the same as those specified for the route. FSM 7716.2, “Exemptions,” would restate the exemptions from designations enumerated in 36 CFR 212.51(a) and would explain some of them. FSM 7716.21, “Existing Authorizations,” would require responsible officials to review written authorizations prior to publishing a motor vehicle use map to ensure that they specifically provide for motor vehicle use to the extent necessary for the authorized use. FSM 7716.22, “Use of Public Roads,” would recognize that State, county, and local public road authorities regulate use of roads for which they have a legally documented right-of-way. State, county, and local public roads are not subject to designations under the travel management rule or the corresponding prohibition on motor vehicle use. FSM 7716.3, “Areas,” would establish policy for designation of areas. Like designations of roads and trails, area designations would include vehicle class and, if appropriate, time of year. FSM 7716.3 would require area boundaries to be displayed on the corresponding motor vehicle use map and to be easily located on the ground. FSM 7716.4, “Identification of Designated Roads, Trails and Areas,” would require administrative units and Ranger Districts to produce motor vehicle use maps meeting national standards. Only the motor vehicle use map is required to implement and enforce designations. However, as soon as practicable, units should post route identification signs on routes designated for motor vehicle use. Route identification markers must correspond to route identifiers shown on the corresponding motor vehicle use map. Signing would have to comply with EM 7100-15. FSM 7716.5, “Travel Management Orders,” would be organized in three parts. FSM 7716.51, “Temporary Emergency Closures,” would reiterate the requirement for temporary emergency closures from 36 CFR 212.52(b)(2) and E.O. 11644 when the responsible official determines that motor vehicle use is directly causing or will directly cause considerable adverse effects on public safety, soil, vegetation, wildlife habitat, or cultural resources. These closures would remain in effect until the responsible official determines that the adverse effects have been mitigated or eliminated and measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence. FSM 7716.52, “Existing Orders,” would direct responsible officials to review existing orders and update or rescind them if they duplicate or conflict with designations. FSM 7716.53, “New Orders,” would direct responsible officials to avoid issuing orders that duplicate or conflict with the prohibition on motor vehicle use in 36 CFR 261.13. However, orders will still be needed to close routes designated for motor vehicle use on a temporary, emergency basis, such as during natural disasters or to protect public safety. FSM 7716.54, “Enforcement,” would reiterate that the motor vehicle use map is the primary tool for enforcing the prohibition at 36 CFR 261.13 and would provide further direction on measuring motor vehicle length, width, and distances established in designations for dispersed camping and big game retrieval. FSM 7717, “Monitoring and Revision of Designations,” would be organized into two sections. FSM 7717.1, “Monitoring of Motor Vehicle Use,” would reiterate the requirement in 36 CFR 212.57 for responsible officials to monitor the effects of motor vehicle use. FSM 7717.2, “Revision of Designations,” would reiterate that designations may be revised as needed to meet changing conditions (36 CFR 212.54) and would provide that any change in the status of a designated route that will last more than 1 year should be reflected on the corresponding motor vehicle use map. FSM 7718, “Over-Snow Vehicle Use,” would reiterate that responsible officials may allow, restrict, or prohibit over-snow vehicle use under 36 CFR 212.81. FSM 7718 would provide that restrictions or prohibitions on over-snow vehicle use may be implemented through orders issued under 36 CFR part 261, subpart B, or under 36 CFR 212.81 and 261.14. If 36 CFR part 212, subpart C, is used to restrict or prohibit over-snow vehicle use, the requirements governing designations in 36 CFR 212.52 through 212.57 would apply and the responsible official would have to publish an over-snow vehicle use map, separate from the motor vehicle use map, displaying any restrictions or prohibitions on over-snow vehicle use. Proposed Revisions to FSH 7709.55, the Travel Planning Handbook The Forest Service proposes to rename FSH 7709.55, the “Transportation Planning Handbook,” as “the Travel Planning Handbook.” Chapter 10 would be titled “Travel Planning Process,” Chapter 20 would be titled “Travel Analysis,” and Chapter 30 would be titled “Engineering Analysis.” Chapter 10, “Travel Planning Process,” would establish a six-step process for designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. The six steps of the route and area designation process would be: 1. Compile existing travel management direction. 2. Assemble resource and social data. 3. Use travel analysis to identify proposals for change. 4. Conduct necessary environmental analysis and decision making. 5. Identify designated routes and areas on a motor vehicle use map. 6. Implement, monitor, and revise. In step one, the responsible official would compile existing travel management direction to serve as the starting point for travel planning. In step two, the responsible official would gather the information needed to analyze the forest transportation system and would engage the public and other relevant governmental entities to identify local resource and social issues, recreational opportunities, and the need for change in existing travel management direction. In step three, the responsible official would conduct travel analysis, which could result in specific proposals for changes to the forest transportation system (additions or deletions to the system of NFS roads and NFS trails on the administrative unit or Ranger District) and changes in travel management direction (changes to motor vehicle use or restrictions on motor vehicle use on the unit or District). In step four, the responsible official would conduct and document appropriate environmental analysis, including consideration of alternatives, and would make travel management decisions. In step five, the responsible official would identify designated routes and areas on a motor vehicle use map. In step six, the responsible official would monitor motor vehicle use on the unit or district and revise travel management decisions as necessary. Chapter 20, “Travel Analysis,” would incorporate into Forest Service directives the six-step process for travel analysis (which is the third step in the six-step process for designating routes and areas) and other key provisions of FS-643, Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System (August 1999). The six steps of travel analysis are: 1. Setting up the analysis. 2. Describing the situation. 3. Identifying issues. 4. Assessing benefits, problems, and risks. 5. Describing opportunities and setting priorities. 6. Reporting. In step one, the responsible official would establish the scale, scope, and depth of travel analysis and would identify who will conduct it. In step two, the responsible official would describe current environmental and social conditions. In step three, the responsible official would identify issues relevant to travel management decisions. In step four, the responsible official would analyze the benefits, problems, and risks associated with the forest transportation system. In step five, the responsible official would use the analysis conducted in step four to identify recommendations for change and proposed actions for purposes of environmental analysis. In step six, the responsible official would document the results of travel analysis. Chapter 30, “Engineering Analysis,” would incorporate into Forest Service directives the process for exercising and documenting engineering judgment contained in EM-7700-30, “Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System Roads.” Chapter 30 would require that travel management decisions involving motorized mixed use be informed by engineering analysis conducted by a qualified engineer. The analysis would involve a technical evaluation of road conditions and traffic and an analysis of potential mitigation measures regarding motorized mixed use. Depending on the complexity of the situation, the analysis would range from documenting engineering judgment to a comprehensive engineering report that would address many factors related to motorized mixed use, including mitigation. The analysis would be presented to the responsible official for a decision. Regulatory Certifications Environmental Impact The proposed directives would provide policy and procedural guidance to agency officials implementing the travel management rule. Travel management decisions implementing these proposed directives would include appropriate site-specific environmental analysis and public involvement. The proposed directives would have no effect on the ground until designations of roads, trails, and areas are completed at the field level, with opportunity for public involvement. Section 31b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180, September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.” The agency's conclusion is that these proposed directives fall within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Regulatory Impact The proposed directives have been reviewed under USDA procedures and E.O. 12866 on regulatory planning and review. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has determined that these proposed directives are not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. These proposed directives would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor would they adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health and safety, or State and local governments. These proposed directives would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency, nor would they raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, these proposed directives would not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of beneficiaries of such programs. Accordingly, these proposed directives are not subject to OMB review under E.O. 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis These proposed directives have been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et seq. The proposed directives would not have any effect on small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The proposed directives would require identification at the field level, with public input, of a designated system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. The proposed directives would not directly affect small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental entities. The agency has determined that these proposed directives would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the directives would not impose recordkeeping requirements on them; would not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and would not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. No Takings Implications These proposed directives have been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12630. It has been determined that these directives would not pose the risk of a taking of private property. Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments The agency has considered these proposed directives under the requirements of E.O. 13132 on federalism, and has determined that the proposed directives conform with the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the agency has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary. Moreover, these proposed directives would not have Tribal implications as defined by E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, and therefore advance consultation with Tribes is not required. Energy Effects These proposed directives have been reviewed under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect the Energy Supply. It has been determined that these proposed directives would not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the E.O. Unfunded Mandates Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the agency has assessed the effects of these proposed directives on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. These proposed directives would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or Tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required. Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public These proposed directives do not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply. Therefore, for the reasons set out in this notice, the Forest Service proposes to amend FSM 2350, 7700, and 7710 and FSH 7709.55. The proposed directives are available for review on the Forest Service Web site at *http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv.* Dated: February 15, 2007. Abigail R. Kimball, Chief, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E7-4261 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Additions to and deletions from Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List products previously furnished by such agencies. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additions On January 12, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 1490, 1491) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List: Products Hydramax Hydration System: NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0080—Replacement Reservoir, Alpha and Mustang; NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0139—Mustang, Black; NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0151—Mustang, Universal Camouflage; NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0152—Mustang, Desert Camouflage; NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0154—Alpha, High Visibility Orange; NSN: 8465-00-NIB-0155—Alpha, Universal Camouflage. *Coverage:* B-list—for (Broad Government Requirement) as aggregated by the General Services Administration. *NPA:* The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, TX. Spices, Dry, Group II: NSN: 8950-01-E60-9152—Ground Ginger; NSN: 8950-01-E60-9155—Cayenne Pepper; NSN: 8950-01-E61-0099—Taco Mix Seasoning; NSN: 8950-01-E61-0100—Taco Mix Seasoning (Group II); NSN: 8950-01-E61-0101—Taco Mix Seasoning (Group II); NSN: 8950-01-E61-0102—Taco Mix Seasoning (Group II); NSN: 8950-01-E61-0103—Cayenne Pepper; NSN: 8950-01-E61-0104—Ginger Ground; NSN: 8950-01-E61-0105—Ginger Ground; NSN: 8950-01-E61-0106—Cayenne Pepper; NSN: 8950-01-E61-0107—Cayenne Pepper; NSN: 8950-01-E61-0108—Red Pepper. *Coverage:* C-List for the requirements of Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP). *NPA:* Continuing Developmental Services, Inc., Fairport, NY. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. Services *Service Type/Location:* Administrative Services, Calexico Border Station, Port of Entry, Calexico, CA. *NPA:* ARC-Imperial Valley, El Centro, CA. *Contracting Activity:* Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Federal Building, 555 Independence, Cape Girardeau, MO. *NPA:* Cape Girardeau Community Sheltered Workshop, Inc., Cape Girardeau, MO. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, PBS—Region 6, Kansas City, MO. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Kastenmeir U.S. Courthouse, (120 North Henry Street), Madison, WI. *NPA:* Madison Area Rehabilitation Centers, Inc., Madison, WI. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Public Buildings Service, Region 5, Chicago, IL. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, U.S. DOI—Bureau of Land Mgmt., (Eight Recreation Areas/Campgrounds), Bessemer Bend Rec Site, Golden Eye Rec Site, Government Bridge Site, Lodgepole Campground, Muddy Mountain Educational Kiosk, Poison Spider OHV Rec Site, Rim Campground, Trappers Route #1 Rec Site, Casper, WY. *NPA:* Northwest Community Action Programs of Wyoming, Inc., Casper, WY. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. DOI—Bureau of Land Mgmt., Denver, CO. Deletions On January 12, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR1491) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List: Products Holder, Card Label: NSN: 9905-00-045-3624—Holder, Card Label; NSN: 9905-00-045-3626—Holder, Card Label; NSN: 9905-00-782-3768—Holder, Card Label. *NPA:* Unknown. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, TX. Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E7-4255 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions ACTION: Proposed additions to and deletions from procurement list. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete products previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must Be Received on or Before:* April 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)

(2)and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. Additions If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Services *Service Type/Location:* Furniture Moving Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture—Forest Service, Region 8, 1720 Peachtree Road, NW., Atlanta, GA. *NPA:* Bobby Dodd Institute, Inc. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of Agriculture—Forest Service, Atlanta, GA. *Service Type/Location:* Maintenance/Custodial/Administrative Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture—Forest Service, Caribbean National Forest, Rio Grande, PR. *NPA:* The Corporate Source, Inc., New York, NY. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cleveland, TN. Deletion Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. End of Certification The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: Products Perforator, Paper, Desk; *NSN:* 7520-01-431-6246—Perforator, Paper, Desk. *NSN:* 7520-01-431-6252—Perforator, Paper, Desk. *NPA:* Foothill Workshop for the Handicapped, Inc., Pasadena, CA. Contracting Activity: Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Ctr, New York, NY. Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E7-4256 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Clarification of Scope of Procurement List Additions; 2007 Commodities Procurement List; Quarterly Update of the A-List and Movement of Products Between the A-List, B-List and C-List AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Publication of the quarterly update of the A-list and movement of products between the A-list, B-list and C-list as of April 1, 2007. SUMMARY: The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, in accordance with the procedures published on December 1, 2006 (71 FR 69535-69538), has updated the scope of the Program's procurement preference requirements for the products listed below between and among the Committee's A-list, B-list and C-list. A-list products are suitable for the Total Government Requirement as aggregated by the General Services Administration, the B-list are those products suitable for the Broad Government Requirement as aggregated by the General Services Administration, and C-list products are suitable for the requirements of one or more specified agency(ies). The lists below track changes to A-, B-, C-designations that occurred between December 1, 2006 and March 2, 2007. If not currently available, the products listed below as being included on the A-list will be available for purchase through the GSA Global Supply system and JWOD-authorized commercial distributors on or about April 1, 2007. DATES: The effective date for the quarterly update of the A-list and movement of products between and among the A-list, B-list and C-list is April 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily A. Covey, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *cmtefedreg@jwod.gov.* Products moved from B-list to A-list: 7510-00-NIB-0633 Skilcraft Toner Cartridge 7510-00-NIB-0641 Skilcraft Toner Cartridge 7510-00-NIB-0642 Skilcraft Toner Cartridge 7510-00-NIB-0644 Skilcraft Toner Cartridge 7530-00-NIB-0679 Folders, Classification Pressboard 7530-00-NIB-0673 Folders, Classification Pressboard 7530-01-501-2688 Pads, Message 7520-00-NIB-1461 Pen, Gel Ink, Aristocrat 7530-00-NIB-0549 Folder Classification 7530-00-NIB-0551 Folder, Classification 7530-00-NIB-0555 Folder, Classification 7530-00-NIB-0660 CD/DVD Label Kit 7530-00-NIB-0688 CD Refills Products moved from C-list to A-list: None Products moved from A-list to B-list: None Products moved from A-list to C-list: None Products moved from B-list to C-list: None Products moved from C-list to B-list: None The complete A-list is available at *http://www.jwod.gov/jwod/p_and_s/alist2007.htm.* Patrick Rowe, Deputy Executive Director. [FR Doc. E7-4269 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1503] Approval of Request for Manufacturing Authority (Wheel Assembly), Foreign-Trade Subzone 22N, Michelin North America, Inc., Monee, Illinois Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas,* the Illinois International Port District, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 22, has applied for manufacturing authority under zone procedures within Subzone 22N, at the Michelin North America, Inc., tire-distribution facility located in Monee, Illinois, to conduct wheel assembly (FTZ Docket 4-2006; filed 2/2/2006); *Whereas,* notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 7008, 2/10/06); and, *Whereas,* the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; *Now, therefore,* the Board hereby approves the request for manufacturing authority related to wheel assembly, as described in the application and in the **Federal Register** notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of February 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. [FR Doc. E7-4286 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 3-2007] Review of Sourcing Change, Foreign-Trade Subzone 43D, Perrigo Company, Allegan, Michigan (Ibuprofen Products) Pursuant to the regulations of the Foreign-Trade Zones

(FTZ)Board (the Board), a review has been initiated (under 15 CFR Sec. 400.28(a)(3)(iii)(A)) of changes in sourcing related to certain ibuprofen products at Foreign-Trade Subzone 43D, at the manufacturing facilities of the Perrigo Company (Perrigo), in Allegan, Michigan, which produce a range of store-brand, over-the-counter

(OTC)pharmaceutical products. In May 2003, the Board filed an application from the City of Battle Creek, Michigan, grantee of FTZ 43, requesting special-purpose subzone status with certain manufacturing authority for Perrigo. The subzone application was approved by the Board on April 13, 2004 (Board Order 1326, 69 FR 21498, 4/21/04), including the manufacture under FTZ procedures of certain OTC pharmaceutical products containing ibuprofen, aspirin and acetaminophen. Specific to ibuprofen, Perrigo produces finished ibuprofen mixture and finished ibuprofen products (HTSUS headings 3003 and 3004, duty-free) using foreign-sourced active ingredient ibuprofen (HTSUS 2916.39.15, 6.5% duty rate). On products shipped to the U.S. market, the company is able to choose the duty rate during Customs entry procedures that applies to the finished ibuprofen mixture and products (duty-free) for the otherwise dutiable foreign active ingredient (6.5% duty rate) noted above (inverted tariff), as described in the application. Perrigo has now notified the Board of additional sourcing of foreign active ingredient ibuprofen that it may manufacture into OTC ibuprofen products under zone procedures. In its original application, Perrigo had projected approximately $450,000 (90 percent of its total FTZ savings) in annual inverted tariff savings for its OTC ibuprofen, acetaminophen and aspirin production. Perrigo's sourcing-change submission now projects up to an additional $1.55 million in inverted tariff savings tied to the sourcing change for its OTC ibuprofen products. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ staff has been designated examiner to investigate the sourcing change, including its potential to cause “significant adverse effects” (15 CFR 400.28(a)(3)(iii)(A)), and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Information submitted for the record generally should be in a non-proprietary format. If there is a need to submit business proprietary information, it should be appropriately marked and summarized or ranged (in the case of numerical data) in the public submission, which should be accompanied by a single business proprietary version. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for the receipt of the public comment submissions is May 10, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period through May 25, 2007. A copy of the sourcing-change submission will be available for public inspection at the following location: Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2814B, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230-0002. For further information, contact Diane Finver at Diane_Finver@ita.doc.gov or

(202)482-1367. Dated: March 5, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-4284 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1504] Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 49; Newark, New Jersey Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas,* the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 49, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 49 in the Newark area to include additional sites at the I-Port 12 industrial park (Site 7) in Carteret, the I-Port 440 industrial park (Site 8) in Perth Amboy, the Port Reading Business Park (Site 9) in Woodbridge, and, the Port Elizabeth Business Park (Site 10) in Elizabeth, within the Newark/New York Customs and Border Protection port of entry (FTZ Docket 23-2006; filed 6/14/06); *Whereas,* notice inviting public comment was given in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 35611, 6/21/06), and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and, *Whereas,* the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; *Now, therefore,* the Board hereby orders: The application to expand FTZ 49 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall zone project and a sunset provision for Sites 7 through 10 that would terminate authority for the sites on March 31, 2014, for any of the sites that have not been activated under FTZ procedures before that date. Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of February 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-4287 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 9-2007] Foreign-Trade Zone 38-Spartanburg County, South Carolina, Application for Subzone, Leiner Health Products LLC (Ibuprofen Products), Fort Mill, South Carolina An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones

(FTZ)Board (the Board) by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting special-purpose subzone status with manufacturing authority for certain ibuprofen products at the pharmaceutical manufacturing facility of Leiner Health Products, LLC (Leiner), located in Fort Mill, South Carolina. Leiner is a manufacturer of store-brand vitamin, mineral and nutritional supplements

(VMS)and over-the-counter

(OTC)pharmaceutical products. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on March 2, 2007. The proposed subzone (1 building of 620,000 square feet of enclosed space on 27 acres) is located at 355 Crestmont Drive, in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The Leiner plant (600 permanent employees and 100-200 seasonal employees) manufactures, packages, and warehouses both solid-dose VMS and OTC pharmaceutical products. Initially, Leiner is proposing to manufacture ibuprofen products under zone procedures at the plant. At the outset, inverted tariff zone savings will result from the production of finished ibuprofen mixture (HTSUS 3003.90, duty-free) and finished ibuprofen products (HTSUS 3004.90, duty-free; up to 2.5 billion pills per year) using foreign-sourced active ingredient ibuprofen (HTSUS 2916.39, 6.5% duty rate). The application also indicates the possibility of producing bulk acetaminophen mixture (HTSUS 3003.90, duty-free) and finished acetaminophen products (HTSUS 3004.90, duty-free), which the company may produce at the plant in the future, using foreign-sourced active ingredient acetaminophen (HTSUS 2924.29, 6.5% duty rate). (New major activity for this product would require review by the FTZ Board.) Leiner also plans to admit other foreign inputs under FTZ procedures, but will make customs entry before manufacture into products at the Fort Mill facility or before distribution to other Leiner U.S. manufacturing facilities. For Leiner's ibuprofen-related production, zone procedures would exempt the company from Customs duty payments on foreign materials used in production for export. On domestic shipments, the company would be able to choose the duty rate during Customs entry procedures that applies to finished ibuprofen mixture and products (duty-free) for the otherwise dutiable foreign active ingredient inputs (6.5% duty rate) noted above (inverted tariff). Leiner would also obtain duty deferral savings and be able to avoid duty on foreign inputs which become scrap/waste (approximately 5% scrap and waste rate). Additionally, Leiner may realize logistical/procedural and other benefits from subzone status. The application projects up to $642,000 in total FTZ savings (some 65% of which are tied to the inverted tariff on ibuprofen), which it indicates would help improve the international competitiveness of Leiner's Fort Mill plant.In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Information submitted for the record generally should be in a non-proprietary format. If there is a need to submit business proprietary information, it should be appropriately marked and summarized or ranged (in the case of numerical data) in the public submission, which should be accompanied by a single business proprietary version. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for the receipt of the public comment submissions is May 10, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period through May 25, 2007. A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 521 East Morehead Street, Suite 435, Charlotte, NC 28217; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2814B, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230-0002. For further information, contact Diane Finver at Diane_Finver@ita.doc.gov or

(202)482-1367. Dated: March 5, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-4285 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-801, A-412-801] Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Italy and the United Kingdom: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce has received information sufficient to warrant initiation of changed-circumstances reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Italy and the United Kingdom pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case at

(202)482-3174 or Richard Rimlinger at

(202)482-4477, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department of Commerce (the Department) published antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Italy and the United Kingdom on May 15, 1989. See * Antidumping Duty Orders: Ball Bearings and Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Italy * , 54 FR 20903 (May 15, 1989), and *Antidumping Duty Orders and Amendments to the Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ball Bearings and Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From the United Kingdom* , 54 FR 20910 (May 15, 1989). On August 11, 2000, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Italy with respect to Somecat S.p.A. (Somecat). See *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part* , 65 FR 49219 (August 11, 2000). 1 On July 12, 2001, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from the United Kingdom with respect to SNFA UK. See *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part* , 66 FR 36551 (July 12, 2001). 1 The Department had determined previously that Somecat bearings are marked “SNFA Italy” (Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590 (July 1, 1999), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 in Section 11.B). On January 9, 2007, Somecat S.p.A., a subsidiary of Societe Nouvelle de Fabrication Aeronautique S.A.S.U. (SNFA), and SKF Industries S.p.A. (SKF Italy) notified the Department of a change in ownership of SNFA. 2 On January 26, 2007, SNFA Bearings Ltd. (SNFA UK), a subsidiary of SNFA, and SKF UK Ltd. filed a similar notification. Specifically, Somecat, SNFA UK, SKF Italy, and SKF UK notified the Department that, on July 4, 2006, through its subsidiary SKF Holding France S.A., AB SKF purchased all outstanding shares of SNFA. Somecat and SKF Italy stated that, because Somecat and SKF Italy will continue to operate as separate and distinct businesses, Somecat is not the successor-in-interest to SKF Italy nor is SKF Italy a successor-in-interest to the pre-acquisition Somecat. Accordingly, SKF Italy and Somecat asserted, it would be inappropriate to assign the SKF Italy cash-deposit rate to entries of subject merchandise from Somecat. SNFA UK and SKF UK stated that, because SNFA UK and SKF UK will continue to operate as separate and distinct businesses until a planned relocation of SNFA UK's manufacturing facilities occurs later in 2007, SNFA UK is not the successor-in-interest to SKF UK nor is SKF UK the successor-in-interest to the pre-acquisition SNFA UK. Accordingly, SKF UK and SNFA UK asserted, it would be inappropriate to assign the SKF UK cash-deposit rate to entries of subject merchandise from SNFA UK. 2 In response to a request by Societe Nouvelle de Fabrication Aeronautique S.A.S.U., SKF France S.A., and SKF Aerospace France S.A.S., the Department has initiated a changed- circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from France. See *Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France: Initiation of an Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review* , 72 FR 9513 (March 2, 2007). We did not receive any other comments. Scope of the Order The products covered by these orders are ball bearings and parts thereof. These products include all bearings that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are classified under the following categories: antifriction balls, ball bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units and parts thereof. Imports of these products are classified under the following *Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States* (HTSUS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90. As a result of recent changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, effective February 2, 2007, the subject merchandise is also classifiable under the following additional HTS item numbers: 8708.30.5090, 8708.40.7500, 8708.50.7900, 8708.50.8900, 8708.50.9150, 8708.50.9900, 8708.80.6590, 8708.94.75, 8708.95.2000, 8708.99.5500, 8708.99.68, and 8708.99.8180. Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience and customs purposes, written descriptions of the scope of these orders remain dispositive. For a listing of scope determinations which pertain to the order on ball bearings and parts thereof, see the Scope Determination Memorandum (Scope Memorandum) from the Antifriction Bearings Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated March 2, 2006. The Scope Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), main Commerce building, Room B-099, in the General Issues record (A-100-001) for the 2004/2005 administrative reviews of the orders on antifriction bearings. Initiation of Changed-Circumstances Reviews Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department will conduct a changed-circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. Although SKF Italy, SKF UK, Somecat, and SNFA UK assert that conduct of changed-circumstances reviews for the Italy and United Kingdom proceedings would be premature, we disagree and determine that the information submitted demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Italy and the United Kingdom. For example, SKF Italy and Somecat acknowledge a degree of overlapping production and state that, in instances where both utilize a common supplier, attempts have been made to renegotiate prices based on their combined purchasing power. Further, SKF UK's and SNFA UK's statement that a plan to relocate SNFA UK's production facilities is being developed indicates that production planning and production management decisions may have changed as a result of AB SKF's purchase of SNFA. Finally, SKF Italy, SKF UK, Somecat, and SNFA UK state that SNFA Group management now reports to SKF Group management. Accordingly, we cannot conclude, as requested by SNFA UK and SKF UK, that SNFA UK is not the successor-in-interest to SKF UK nor is SKF UK the successor-in-interest to the pre-acquisition SNFA UK. Similarly, we cannot conclude, as requested by Somecat and SKF Italy, that Somecat is not the successor-in-interest to SKF Italy nor is SKF Italy a successor-in-interest to the pre-acquisition Somecat. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department is initiating changed-circumstances reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Italy and the United Kingdom. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2) and

(4)and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), we will issue questionnaires requesting factual information for the reviews and will publish a notice of preliminary results of the antidumping duty changed-circumstances reviews in the **Federal Register** . The notice will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of the reviews. During the course of these antidumping duty changed-circumstances reviews, we will not change the cash-deposit requirements for the subject merchandise. The cash-deposit rates will be altered, if warranted, pursuant only to the final results of these reviews. This notice of initiation is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and (d), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1). Dated: March 5, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4290 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-893] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2006 Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent To Rescind 2004/2006 New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is currently conducting the 2004/2006 administrative review and a 2004/2006 new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) for both the administrative and new shipper reviews is July 14, 2004, through January 31, 2006. We preliminarily determine that sales have not been made below normal value (“NV”) with respect to certain exporters subject to the administrative review. We also have preliminarily found that the single sales made by Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. (“Asian Seafoods”) and Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhao An, Fujian (“Hai Li”), the new shipper, were not *bona fide.* Further, we are preliminarily applying adverse facts available to Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co., Ltd. (“Meizhou”) and Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff/Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co. (collectively, “Red Garden”). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”) for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Scot Fullerton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; *telephone:*

(202)482-1442 or

(202)482-1386, respectively. Background On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 5149 (February 1, 2005). On February 22, 2006, Hai Li, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), requested a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC, which has a February anniversary month. On March 23, 2006, the Department initiated a new shipper review of Hai Li covering the period July 16, 2004, through January 31, 2006. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 14681 (March 23, 2006). On February 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). The Department received timely requests from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee and certain individual companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the anniversary month of February, for administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC covering 164 companies. However, on March 1, 2006, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee withdrew its request for administrative review on one company. The Department, therefore, initiated an administrative review on the remaining 163 companies. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 17813 (April 7, 2006) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). The *Initiation Notice* specified that responses to the Department's quantity and value (“Q&V”) questionnaire were due by April 28, 2006. Additionally, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that a single dumping margin is appropriate for all exporters in a non-market economy (“NME”) country. However, the Department stated that it would consider information submitted in response to the Department's separate rate certifications/applications in order to determine whether or not respondents qualify for a separate rate. The *Initiation Notice* indicated that responses to the Department's separate rate certification were due on April 28, 2006, and responses to the Department's separate rate application were due May 19, 2006. On March 17, 2006, the Department received copies of CBP documents pertaining to the entry of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC, exported by Hai Li during the POR, from CBP. *See* Memorandum to the File through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Entry Package(s) from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”)* (December 11, 2006). On March 21, 2006, the Department issued Hai Li its antidumping duty questionnaire sections A, C, and D. On April 14, 2006, Hai Li agreed to waive the time limits of its new shipper review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), and agreed to have its review conducted concurrently with the 2004/2006 administrative review. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Time Limits for New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews in Conjunction with Administrative Review* , 71 FR 26454 (May 5, 2006). On April 25, 2006, Hai Li submitted its response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On May 11, 2006, Hai Li submitted its response to section C and D of the Department's questionnaire, and the Department issued Hai Li its supplemental section A questionnaire. Hai Li responded to the Department's supplemental section A questionnaire on June 1, 2006. Of the 163 named firms for which the Department initiated an administrative review, and consistent with the guidelines established in the *Initiation Notice* , on April 28, 2006, 28 firms responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. Of these 28 firms, 16 indicated they had shipments of subject merchandise during the POR that were subject to review and 14 firms submitted their separate rate certification. Also, on May 19, 2006, three firms submitted their separate rate application. One of the three, Fuqing Minhua Trade Co., Ltd., an affiliate of Yelin, was not listed in the *Initiation Notice* ; however it submitted a separate rate application. Furthermore, on May 19, 2006, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee withdrew its request for an administrative review of one company: Polypro Plastics. On May 22, 2006, the Department sent a letter to the remaining firms that did not respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire and separate rate certification/application providing them with another opportunity to submit the requested information ( *i.e.* , by June 5, 2006). *See* Memorandum to the File, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Letters to Interested Parties Regarding Final Opportunity to Submit Quantity and Value Questionnaire Response and Separate Rate Applications/Certifications* (May 22, 2006); *see also* Letter to Whom It May Concern, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding *2004-2006 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China* (May 22, 2006) (“ *Q&V Follow-up Letter* ”). On May 1, 2006, and May 10, 2006, one company and 14 companies, respectively, filed a letter with the Department indicating they had no shipments during the POR. On June 5, 2006, in response to the Department's May 22, 2006, letter, eight more companies filed letters indicating they had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR for a total of 44 responses (including statements of no shipments) to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. 1 1 The following 44 companies/corporate groupings ( *i.e.* , 52 individual firms) responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire: Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co., Ltd., Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff/Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd. Hong Kong, Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co. Ltd., Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Savvy Seafood Inc., Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhao An, Fujian, Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhangjiang) Co., Ltd. (“Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang)”), Allied Pacific (H.K.) Co. Ltd. (“Allied Pacific HK”), Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co. Ltd., King Royal Investments, Ltd. (collectively “Allied Pacific”), Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd., Dalian FTZ Sea-Rich International Trading Co., Ltd., Beihai Zhengwu Industry Co., Ltd., Shantou Long Feng Foodstuffs Co., Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company, Shantou Ruiyuan Industry Co., Ltd., Shantou Freezing Aquatic Product Food Stuffs Co., Shantou Ocean Freezing Industry and Trade General Corporation, Shantou Jinhang Aquatic Industry Co., Ltd., Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing Plants, Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd. (Shantou Qiaofeng (Group) Co., Ltd.) (Shantou/ Chaoyang Qiaofeng)/Shantou City Qiaofeng Group, Shantou Wanya Food Factory Co., Ltd., Shantou Shengping Oceanstar Business Co., Ltd., Pingyang Xinye Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Taizhou Zhonghuan Industrial Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuff Import & Export Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Evernew Seafood Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Zhenlong Foodstuffs Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Cereals, Oils, and Foodstuffs Import and Export Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Diciyuan Aquatic Products, Zhoushan Haichang Food Co., Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Xifeng Aquatic Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Zhenyang Developing Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Guotai Fisheries Co., Ltd., Yanti Wei-Cheng Food Co., Ltd., Hainan Fruit Vegetable Food Allocation Co. Ltd., Zhanjiang Bobogo Ocean Co., Ltd., Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Lingshan Aquatic Products Co. Ltd., Spectrum Plastics, Ruin Huasheng Aquatic Products, and Sealord North America. Two additional companies, Fuqing Minhua Trade Co., Ltd., and Ocean Duke Corporation, responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire as affiliates of companies named in the *Initiation Notice.* Respondents Of the 163 named firms for which the Department initiated an administrative review, nine companies/corporate groupings (which consisted of sixteen individually initiated companies, some of which are affiliated, yielding nine potential respondents) had both an active request for review, an appropriately submitted Q&V questionnaire response, and shipments of subject merchandise. Thus, nine companies/corporate groupings were considered in the selection of respondents for this review. On June 16, 2006, the Department selected Meizhou, Red Garden, and Yelin Enterprise Co. Hong Kong and its affiliates (collectively “Yelin”) as mandatory respondents. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, regarding *Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents* (June 16, 2006). The Department sent its antidumping questionnaire to Meizhou, Red Garden, and Yelin on June 20, 2006. In the questionnaire, the Department requested that the three firms provide a response to section A of the Department's questionnaire by July 11, 2006, and sections C and D of the questionnaire by July 27, 2006. On July 6, 2006, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee withdrew its request for an administrative review of the following 36 companies: Beihai Zhengwu Industry Co., Ltd.; Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd. (Shantou Qiaofeng (Group) Co., Ltd.) (Shantou/Chaoyang Qiaofeng); Chengai Nichi Lan Foods Co., Ltd.; Citic Heavy Machinery; Dalian Ftz Sea-Rich International Trading Co., Ltd.; Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing Plants; Fuqing Dongwei Aquatic Products Industry Co. Ltd.; Gallant Ocean (Liangjiang) Co. Ltd.; Hainan Fruit Vegetable Food Allocation Co., Ltd.; Hainan Golden Spring Foods Co., Ltd/Hainan Brich Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd.; Kaifeng Ocean Sky Industry Co., Ltd.; Leizhou Zhulian Frozen Food Co., Ltd.; Pingyang Xinye Aquatic Products Co. Ltd.; Savvy Seafood Inc.; Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd.; Shantou Freezing Aquatic Product Food Stuff Co.; Shantou Jinhang Aquatic Industry Co., Ltd.; Shantou Jinyuan District Mingfeng Quick-Frozen Factory; Shantou Long Feng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Shantou Longfeng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.); Shantou Ruiyaun Industry Co., Ltd.; Shantou Shengping Oceanstar Business Co. Ltd.; Shantou Wanya Food Factory Co. Ltd.; Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company; Xuwen Hailang Breeding Co., Ltd.; Yantai Wei-Cheng Food Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiang Bobogo Ocean Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiang Newpro Food Co., Ltd.; Zhanjiang Go-Harvest Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Zhanjiang Runhai Foods Co., Ltd.; Zhanjiang Universal Seafood Corp; Zhejiang Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Cereals, Oils, and Foodstuffs Import and Export Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Diciyuan Aquatic Products; Zhoushan Lizhou Fishery Co., Ltd.; and Zhoushan Xifeng Aquatic Co., Ltd. In turn, on July 31, 2006, the Department issued a notice of partial rescission for the 36 above-referenced companies, as well as Polypro Plastics, for whom the Department initiated, in part, the first administrative review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of the First Administrative Review* , 71 FR 43107 (July 31, 2006) (“ *Rescission Notice* ”). On July 10, 2006, Meizhou submitted its response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On July 11, 2006, Asian Seafoods submitted a voluntary response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On July 12, 2006, Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd. (“Zhanjiang Regal”) submitted a letter indicating it had only one POR shipment of subject merchandise which was already subject to a new shipper review. *See, e.g.* , *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 70362 (December 4, 2006) (“ *Zhanjiang Regal New Shipper Final Results* ”). On July 17, 2006, counsel for Red Garden filed a letter, in lieu of its section A response, stating that it had decided not to answer the questionnaires in this administrative review. *See* Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from Red Garden, regarding *Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China* (July 17, 2006) (“ *Red Garden Withdrawal* ”). Because Red Garden indicated that it did not intend to respond to the Department's questionnaires in this administrative review, we determined to individually review Asian Seafoods in its stead, pursuant to section 782(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See* Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin C. Begnal, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent* (July 26, 2006). On July 18, 2006, Yelin submitted its response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On July 25, 2006, Zhanjiang Regal submitted a letter requesting the administrative review of the company's sales be rescinded as they were already subject to an ongoing new shipper review. On July 25, 2006, Hai Li responded to the Department's July 6, 2006, second supplemental questionnaire. On July 27, 2006, Asian Seafoods submitted its response to sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire. On August 3, 2006, and September 5, 2006, the Department invited parties to submit comments on the selection of a surrogate country and to submit publicly available information for purposes of calculating normal value. *See* Letter to “All Interested Parties” from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *2004/2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)* (August 3, 2006); *see also* Letter to “All Interested Parties” from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding *Antidumping Duty New Shipper and Administrative Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China (7/16/04-1/31/06)* (September 5, 2006) (collectively, “ *PAI/Surrogate Country Letters* ”). On August 10, 2006, Meizhou submitted its response to sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire. On August 11, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Asian Seafoods and Yelin. On August 14, 2006, Yelin submitted its response to sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire. On August 16, 2006, the Department issued a memorandum which indicated that data from CBP corroborated the statements of certain companies which reported making no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See Memorandum to the File, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *2004/2006 Administrative review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Intent to Rescind Administrative Review, in Part* (August 16, 2006) (“ *Intent to Rescind Memo* ”). Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department indicated that it intended to rescind this administrative review with respect to: Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Guangzhou Lingshan Aquatic Products; Ruian Huasheng Aquatic Products; Sealord North America; Shantou City Qiaofeng Group; Shantou Ocean Freezing Industry and Trade General Corporation; Spectrum Plastics; Taizhou Zhonghuan Industrial Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Evernew Seafood Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Zhenlong Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Guotai Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (AKA Zhoushan Guotai Fisheries Co., Ltd.); Zhoushan Haichang Food Co.; Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd.; and Zhoushan Zhenyang Developing Co., Ltd. Yantai Xinlai Trade also submitted a letter of no shipments, on July 13, 2006, to the Department. As we found no information to contradict this statement, we intend to rescind the administrative review with respect to Yantai Xinlai Trade as well. The Department also indicated that it was unable to directly serve certain companies with the *Q&V Follow-up Letter* . *Id* . The Department contacted petitioners in order to ascertain accurate addresses, but petitioners were unable to provide additional contact information. *See* , Letter to the Department of Commerce, from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, regarding *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam: Request for Administrative Reviews* (March 21, 2006). Therefore, the Department informed parties that it intended to rescind the review with respect to these companies, in accordance with our practice. *See, e.g.* , Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: Preliminary results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455, 26457 (May 5, 2006) (“ *Rebar from Turkey* ”). These companies were: Allied Pacific Food; Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd.; Dhin Foong Trdg; Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing Plants Shengping; Dongshan Xinhefa Food; Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology; Formosa Plastics; Fuchang Trdg; Fuqing City Dongyi Trdg; Fuqing Dongyi Trading; Fuqing Fuchang Trading; Fuqing Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff; Fuqing Xuhu Aquatic Food Trdg; Gaomi Shenyuan Foodstuff; Guangxi Lian Chi Home Appliance Co; I T Logistics; Juxian Zhonglu Foodstuffs; Logistics Harbour Dock; Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff; Master International Logistics; Nichi Lan Food Co. Ltd. Chen Hai; P&T International Trading; Perfection Logistics Service; Phoenix Seafood; Putuo Fahua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Dayang Jian Foodstuffs; Qinhuangdao Jiangxin Aquatic Food; Seatrade International; Second Aquatic Food; Second Aquatic Foodstuffs Fty; Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce Trd; Shandong Sanfod Group; Shantou Junyuan Pingyuan Foreign Trading; South Bay Intl; Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Tianhe Hardware & Rigging; Xiamen Sungiven Imports & Exports; Yantai Guangyuan Foods Co; Yantai Xuehai Foodstuffs; Yelin Frozen Seafood Co.; Zhanjiang CNF Sea Products Engineering Ltd; Zhanjiang Shunda Aquatic Products; Zhejiang Zhongda; Zhejiang Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic Products Co.; Zhoushan Guangzhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan International Trade Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Provisions & Oil Food Export and Import Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Xi'an Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; and ZJ CNF Sea Products Engineering Ltd. The Department was also unable to directly serve the following companies with the *Q&V Follow-up Letter* , which were not included in the *Intent to Rescind Memo:* Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Co. Ltd., Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Trdg., Hainan Jiadexin Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Meizhou Aquatic Products, 2 Round the Ocean Logistics, Shantou Sez Xuhoa Fastness Freeze Aquatic Factory, Zhanjiang Fuchang Aquatic Products, and Zhanjiang Jebshin Seafood Limited. Despite further research, the Department was unable to ascertain viable address information for these companies. Therefore, the Department also intends to rescind the review with respect to these companies. 2 On August 18, 2006, the Department was informed by Meizhou that it was doing business as Meizhou Aquatic Products, Meizhou Aquatic, and Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co., Ltd., and that the companies were one-and-the-same. *See* Letter to the Department, from Meizhou, regarding *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Peoples Republic of China (PRC)* (August 18, 2006). However, because Meizhou withdrew from the administrative review, Meizhou did not substantiate that these companies were the same entity. Therefore, the Department considers these three companies to be independent entities. On August 16, 2006, Shantou City Qiaofeng Group submitted a letter indicating that it is the same company as Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd., a company for which the Department rescinded the administrative review. *See Rescission Notice.* On August 17, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Meizhou. On August 25, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of review by 120 days, until February 28, 2007. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, and Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Reviews and New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 50387 (August 25, 2006). On September 1, 2006, Yelin and Asian Seafoods responded to the Department's supplemental section A questionnaires. On September 6, 2006, Meizhou submitted its response to the Department's supplemental section A questionnaire. On September 14, 2006, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee submitted criteria for invoking the multinational corporation (“MNC”) provision for Yelin, and on September 26, 2006, Yelin submitted a response. On October 6, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section C and D questionnaire response to Meizhou, and on October 12, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Yelin. On October 26, 2006, the Department issued its second supplemental questionnaire to Asian Seafoods. On October 27, 2006, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee responded to Yelin's September 26, 2006, MNC submission. On November 1, 2006, the Department rejected Meizhou's October 27, 2006, questionnaire response pursuant to 19 CFR 351.304(b). The Department, however, provided Meizhou with an opportunity to correct the filing and to submit the requested information. On November 9, 2006, Yelin submitted its response to the Department's October 12, 2006, questionnaire. On November 6, 2006, Meizhou withdrew from the administrative review. *See* Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from Meizhou, regarding *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co., Ltd., Shantou* (November 6, 2006) (“ *Meizhou Withdrawal* ”). On November 24, 2006, Asian Seafoods submitted its response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. On November 27, 2006, Hai Li submitted its response to the Department's third supplemental questionnaire dated November 3, 2006. On November 30, 2006, Asian Seafoods, Allied Pacific, and Hai Li submitted publicly available information for use in the calculation of normal value in the administrative and new shipper reviews. Also, Yelin, on November 30, 2006, and the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, on December 1, 2006, December 21, 2006, and January 19, 2007, submitted publicly available information for use in the calculation of normal value in the administrative review. On December 1, 2006, and December 6, 2006, the Department issued its verification outlines to Asian Seafoods and Hai Li, respectively. The Department conducted verification of the responses of Asian Seafoods from December 8 through 10, 2006, and Hai Li from December 13 through 15, 2006. On December 8, 2006, Asian Seafoods submitted its minor corrections presented at the commencement of verification. On December 13, 2006, the Department requested documentation supporting Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology Co., Ltd.'s (“Evergreen”) and Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd.'s (“Huading”) April 28, 2006, separate rate certifications. On December 29, 2006, Evergreen submitted its separate rate supporting documentation. On January 8, 2007, the Department issued a verification outline to Yelin, Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (“Fuqing Yihua”), and Ocean Duke Corporation (“Ocean Duke”), affiliates of Yelin. The Department conducted verification of Yelin's responses from January 15 through 16, 2007, at Fuqing Yihua, from January 22 through 23, 2007, at Yelin, and from January 25 through 26, 2007, at Ocean Duke. On January 11, 2007, the Department issued a verification outline to Huading, and began verification of its separate rate responses on January 18, 2007. *See* Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China* (February 28, 2007). However, on January 18, 2007, Huading withdrew from verification and the administrative review. On January 23, 2007, the Department published a correction to the scope of the order in which it clarified that the scope does not cover warmwater shrimp in non-frozen form. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders* , 72 FR 2857 (Jan. 23, 2007). On February 13, 2006, the Department issued a separate rate supplemental questionnaire to Evergreen. On February 20, 2007, Evergreen submitted its response to the Department's separate rate supplemental questionnaire. On February 28, 2007, the Department released the verification reports for Asian Seafoods, Hai Li, Zhoushan Huading and Yelin and its affiliates Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. and Ocean Duke Corporation. *See* Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton and Prentiss Lee Smith, Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China* (February 28, 2007) (“Asian Seafoods Verification Report”); Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton and Prentiss Lee Smith, Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China* (February 28, 2007) (“Hai Li Verification Report”); Memorandum to the File, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and Erin C. Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Verification of the Separate Rate Certification of Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd. in the 2004/2006 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China* (February 28, 2007) (“Huading Verification Report”); *see also* Memorandum to the File, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, Office 9, and Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9, regarding *Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd., Hong Kong in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China* (February 28, 2007); Memorandum to the File, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, Office 9, and Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9, regarding *Verification of the Factors of Production Responses of Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China* (February 28, 2007); Memorandum to the File, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9 regarding *Verification of the Sales Response of Ocean Duke Corporation in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China* (February 28, 2007) (collectively, “Yelin Group Verification Reports”). Surrogate Country and Factors As previously stated, on August 3, 2006, and September 5, 2006, the Department provided parties an opportunity to submit publicly available information (“PAI”) on surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary results. As previously indicated, the Department received comments on November 30, 2006, December 1, 2006, December 21, 2006, and January 19, 2007. Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, 3 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 3 Tails in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this investigation, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the *Penaeidae* family. Some examples of the farmed and wild caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, white-leg shrimp ( *Penaeus vannemei* ), banana prawn ( *Penaeus merguiensis* ), fleshy prawn ( *Penaeus chinensis* ), giant river prawn ( *Macrobrachium rosenbergii* ), giant tiger prawn ( *Penaeus monodon* ), redspotted shrimp ( *Penaeus brasiliensis* ), southern brown shrimp ( *Penaeus subtilis* ), southern pink shrimp ( *Penaeus notialis* ), southern rough shrimp ( *Trachypenaeus curvirostris* ), southern white shrimp ( *Penaeus schmitti* ), blue shrimp ( *Penaeus stylirostris* ), western white shrimp ( *Penaeus occidentalis* ), and Indian white prawn ( *Penaeus indicus* ). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this investigation. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this investigation. Excluded from the scope are:

(1)Breaded shrimp and prawns ( HTS subheading 1605.20.10.20);

(2)shrimp and prawns generally classified in the *Pandalidae* family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing;

(3)fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40);

(4)shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10);

(5)dried shrimp and prawns;

(6)Lee Kum Kee's shrimp sauce;

(7)canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.10.40);

(8)certain dusted shrimp; and

(9)certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp based product:

(1)That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp;

(2)to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied;

(3)with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour;

(4)with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and

(5)that is subjected to individually quick frozen (“IQF”) freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by this investigation are currently classified under the following HTS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Verification On July 17, 2006, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee requested that the Department conduct verification of the data submitted by all of the firms for which the Department initiated an administrative review, as well as Hai Li. However, due to the Department's resource constraints in conducting these reviews, we only selected Asian Seafoods, Hai Li, Yelin, and Huading for verification, pursuant to section 782(i)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307. For the administrative and new shipper review respondents that we did verify, we used standard verification procedures, including on site inspection of the manufacturers' and exporters' facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification report for each company. For a further discussion, *see* the Asian Seafoods Verification Report, the Hai Li Verification Report, the Yelin Group Verification Reports, and the Huading Verification Report. Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2004/2006 Administrative Review Several companies indicated they did not export certain frozen warmwater shrimp to the United States during the POR. In order to corroborate these submissions, we reviewed PRC certain frozen warmwater shrimp shipment data maintained by CBP, and found no discrepancies with the statements made by these firms. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to: Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Guangzhou Lingshan Aquatic Products; Ruian Huasheng Aquatic Products; Sealord North America; Shantou Ocean Freezing Industry and Trade General Corporation; Spectrum Plastics; Taizhou Zhonghuan Industrial Co., Ltd.; Yantai Xinlai Trade; Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Evernew Seafood Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Zhenlong Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Guotai Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (AKA Zhoushan Guotai Fisheries Co., Ltd.); Zhoushan Haichang Food Co.; Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd.; and Zhoushan Zhenyang Developing Co., Ltd. because each reported having made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, and the Department found no information to indicate otherwise. The Department is also preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to: Allied Pacific Food; Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd.; 4 Dhin Foong Trdg; Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing Plants Shengping; Dongshan Xinhefa Food; Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology; Formosa Plastics; Fuchang Trdg; Fuqing City Dongyi Trdg; Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Co. Ltd., Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Trdg.; Fuqing Dongyi Trading; Fuqing Fuchang Trading; Fuqing Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff; Fuqing Xuhu Aqautic Food Trdg; Gaomi Shenyuan Foodstuff; Guangxi Lian Chi Home Appliance Co; Hainan Jiadexin Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; I T Logistics; Juxian Zhonglu Foodstuffs; Logistics Harbour Dock; Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff; Master International Logistics; Meizhou Aquatic Products; Nichi Lan Food Co. Ltd. Chen Hai; P&T International Trading; Perfection Logistics Service; Phoenix Seafood; Putuo Fahua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Dayang Jian Foodstuffs; Qinhuangdao Jiangxin Aquatic Food; Round the Ocean Logistics; Seatrade International; Second Aquatic Food; Second Aquatic Foodstuffs Fty; Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce Trd; Shandong Sanfod Group; Shantou Junyuan Pingyuan Foreign Trading; Shantou Sez Xuhoa Fastness Freeze Aquatic Factory; South Bay Intl; Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Tianhe Hardware & Rigging; Xiamen Sungiven Imports & Exports; Yantai Guangyuan Foods Co; Yantai Xuehai Foodstuffs; Yelin Frozen Seafood Co.; Zhanjiang CNF Sea Products Engineering Ltd; Zhanjiang Fuchang Aquatic Products; Zhanjiang Jebshin Seafood Limited; Zhanjiang Shunda Aquatic Products; Zhejiang Zhongda; Zhejiang Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic Products Co.; Zhoushan Guangzhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan International Trade Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Provisions & Oil Food Export and Import Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Xi'an Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; and ZJ CNF Sea Products Engineering Ltd. because the Department was unable to directly serve these companies with the *Q&V Follow-up Letter.* Therefore, the Department is rescinding the review with respect to these companies, in accordance with our practice. *See Rebar from Turkey.* 4 Allied Pacific Group indicated this company is no longer operational, and also made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Additionally, consistent with section 351.214(j) of the Department's regulations, the Department is rescinding the administrative review of Zhanjiang Regal because the Department has already reviewed all of the company's sales which were made during the POR in the context of a new shipper review. *See Zhanjiang Regal New Shipper Final Results.* Furthermore, the Department is rescinding the administrative review of Shantou City Qiaofeng Group as this is the same company, but with a different name, as a company for which the administrative review has already been rescinded ( *i.e.* , Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd.). *See* Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9, regarding *2004/2006 Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Shantou City Qiaofeng Group* (August 16, 2006). Bona Fide Sale Analysis—Hai Li & Asian Seafoods For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Hai Li's reported U.S. sale during the POR does not appear to be a *bona fide sale* , based on the totality of the facts on the record. *See* , *e.g.* , *Glycine From The People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd.* , 69 FR 47405, 47406 (August 5, 2004). Specifically, we find that:

(1)The difference in the sales price of Hai Li's single POR sale as compared to the average unit value of suspended entries derived from CBP data;

(2)the involvement of unaffiliated parties in Hai Li's single POR sale;

(3)irregularities relating to packing materials, and finally,

(4)other indicia of a non- *bona fide* transaction, all demonstrate that the single sale under review was not bona fide. Therefore, this sale does not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin. Additionally, for the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Asian Seafood's reported U.S. sale during the POR does not appear to be a *bona fide* sale, based on the totality of the facts on the record. *See* , *e.g.* , *Glycine From The People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd.* , 69 FR 47405, 47406 (August 5, 2004). Specifically, we find that:

(1)The difference in the sales price of Asian Seafoods' single POR sale as compared to the prices of its subsequent sales and the average unit value of suspended entries derived from CBP data;

(2)irregularities relating to its customer correspondence;

(3)atypical terms for the POR sale, and finally;

(4)other indicia of a non-bona fide transaction, all demonstrate that the single sale under review was not *bona fide.* Therefore, this sale does not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin. For the reasons mentioned above, the Department preliminarily finds that Hai Li's and Asian Seafood's single U.S. sales during the POR were not *bona fide* commercial transactions and is preliminarily rescinding the new shipper review of Hai Li, and the administrative review of Asian Seafoods. For a more detailed analysis, *see* Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from P. Lee Smith, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and Scot Fullerton, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9 and regarding *Bona Fides Analysis and Intent to Rescind New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China for Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhao An, Fujian* (February 28, 2007), and Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot Fullerton, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Bona Fides Analysis and Intent to Rescind New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China for Asian Seafoods* (February 28, 2007). Non-Market Economy Country In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. *See* , *e.g.* , *Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 34893 (June 16. 2006). Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See* , *e.g.* , *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006); and *Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part* , 71 FR 65073, 65074 (November 7, 2006). None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that

(1)are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and

(2)are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India and Indonesia are among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development. *See PAI/Surrogate Country Letters.* In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record ( *e.g.* ** , production data), India and Indonesia are significant producers of the subject merchandise. *See* Memorandum to The File, through James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, and Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael J. Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael J. Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country* (February 28, 2007). Accordingly, we have selected India as the primary surrogate country, and Indonesia as a secondary surrogate where applicable, for purposes of valuing the factors of production because they meet the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. *See Id.* Facts Available For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts available to: Ammon International; Aquatic Foodstuffs FTY; Dafu Foods Industry; Dalian Shanhai Seafood; Dalian Shan Li Food; Fuchang Aquatic Products; Gallant Ocean International; Gallant Seafoods; Go Harvest Aquatic Products; Guolian Aquatic Products; Hainan Jiadexin Foodstuff; Jinhang Aquatic Industry; Laiyang Hengrun Foodstuff; Laiyang Luhua Foodstuffs; Longsheng Aquatic Product; Luk Ka Paper Industry; Marnex; Meizhou Aquatic; Meizhou; North Supreme Seafood (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; Ocean Freezing Industry & Trade General; Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd.; Red Garden; Red Garden Food, Red Garden Foodstuff, Rongcheng Tongda Aquatic Food; Shanghai Linghai Fisheries Economic and Trading Co.; Shantou Longshen Aquatic Product; Silvertie Holding; The Second Aquatic food; Weifang Taihua Food; Weifang Yongqiang Food Ind; Wenling Xingdi Aquatic Products; Zhejiang Xintianjiu Sea Products Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Xingyang Import & Export; Zhenjaing Evergreen Aquatic Products Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Jingzhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; and Huading. In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department established the deadline for Q&V questionnaire responses ( *i.e.* , April 28, 2006). However, the Department did not receive responses from: Ammon International; Aquatic Foodstuffs FTY; Dafu Foods Industry; Dalian Shanhai Seafood; Dalian Shan Li Food; Fuchang Aquatic Products; Gallant Ocean International; Gallant Seafoods; Go Harvest Aquatic Products; Guolian Aquatic Products; Hainan Jiadexin Foodstuff; Jinhang Aquatic Industry; Laiyang Hengrun Foodstuff; Laiyang Luhua Foodstuffs; Longshen Aquatic Product; Luk Ka Paper Industry; Marnex; Meizhou Aquatic; North Supreme Seafood (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; Ocean Freezing Industry & Trade General; Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd.; Red Garden Food; Red Garden Foodstuff; Rongcheng Tongda Aquatic Food; Shanghai Linghai Fisheries Economic and Trading Co.; Shantou Longshen Aquatic Product; Silvertie Holding; The Second Aquatic Food; Weifang Taihua Food; Weifang Yongqiang Food Ind; Wenling Xingdi Aquatic Products; Zhejiang Xintianjiu Sea Products Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Xingyang Import & Export; Zhenjaing Evergreen Aquatic Products Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; and Zhoushan Jingzhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. The Department sent a *Q&V Follow-up Letter* to each of the above-referenced firms. *See Q&V Follow-up Letter, see also Intent to Rescind Memo.* Although each of the above-referenced companies received the letter, which included the Q&V questionnaire, they did not reply to the Department. 5 5 Laiyang Luhua Foodstuffs refused to accept the *Q&V Follow-up Letter. See Id.* By not responding to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, the above-referenced companies failed to provide critical information to be used for the Department's respondent selection process. Pursuant to sections 776(a) and

(b)of the Act, the Department may apply adverse facts available if it finds a respondent has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the Department. By failing to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, the above-referenced companies have failed to act to the best of their ability in this segment of the proceeding. In addition, because the above-referenced companies did not submit a separate rate application or certification, the Department was unable to determine whether or not they qualified for a separate rate. Therefore, they are not eligible to receive a separate rate and will be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have applied total adverse facts available with respect to the PRC-wide entity, including, among others, the above-referenced companies. For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts available to Red Garden, Meizhou, and Huading. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party:

(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and

(e)of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. On July 17, 2006, Red Garden submitted a letter to the Department indicating it would not comply with the Department's requests for information. *See Red Garden Withdrawal.* Additionally, on November 6, 2006, Meizhou submitted a letter indicating it would no longer cooperate with the Department in the administrative review. *See Meizhou Withdrawal.* On January 18, 2007, Huading also withdrew from the administrative review. *See* Letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, from Huading, regarding *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd.* (November 6, 2006). As noted above, Red Garden, Meizhou, and Huading submitted letters to the Department withdrawing their participation from the administrative review, in lieu of responding to a request for information. By not responding to the Department's request for information, Red Garden, Meizhou, and Huading failed to provide critical information to be used for the Department's margin calculation, significantly impeded the review, and provided unverifiable information. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff/Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co.* , (February 28, 2007) and Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co. Ltd. Shantou, (February 28, 2007) for further discussion on the application of adverse facts available to Red Garden and Meizhou; see also Memorandum to the File, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd. Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review* (February 28, 2007) (“Huading Analysis Memorandum”). Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and

(D)of the Act, the Department must apply facts available. By failing to respond to the Department's requests for information and by not allowing the Department to conduct verification, Red Garden, Meizhou, and Huading, respectively, have not proven they are free of government control and are therefore not eligible to receive a separate rate. In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department stated that if one of the companies on which we initiated a review does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity of which the named exporter is a part. *See Initiation Notice* at n.1. For these preliminary results, Red Garden, Meizhou, and Huading will be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). As explained above, the PRC-wide entity (including Red Garden, Meizhou, and Huading) would either not permit the Department to verify information placed on the record or informed the Department that it would not participate further in this review and did not respond to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, the Department finds it necessary, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts available (“AFA”) as the basis for these preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide entity. In this segment of the proceeding, in accordance with Department practice ( *see* , *e.g.* , *Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999), as adverse facts available, we have assigned to exports of the subject merchandise by the above referenced companies a rate of 112.81 percent, which is the rate established for the PRC-wide entity in the LTFV investigation. However, as discussed in the Huading Analysis Memorandum, because Huading terminated verification and we found reimbursement of antidumping duties, it is appropriate to assign Zhoushan Huading a rate inclusive of the PRC-wide entity rate and the reimbursement adjustment. See Huading Analysis Memorandum. This is consistent with the Department's past practice. *See* , *e.g.* , 19 CFR 351.402, *see also* , *Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Administrative Review* , 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006). Therefore, in accordance with our regulations and past practice, in this unique situation in which the Department found evidence of reimbursement at verification, the cash deposit rate assigned to Huading for these preliminary results is double that of the PRC-wide entity, or 225.62 percent. See Huading Analysis Memorandum. Corroboration of Facts Available Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, a figure which it applies as facts available. To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both reliable and relevant. We are applying as AFA the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, which is the rate currently applicable to all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. The AFA rate in the current review ( *i.e.* , the PRC-wide rate of 112.81 percent) represents the highest rate from the petition in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 5149 (February 1, 2005). For purposes of corroboration, the Department will consider whether that margin is both reliable and relevant. The AFA rate we are applying for the current review was corroborated in the LTFV investigation. See, *e.g.* , Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004). No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,* 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. The information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and production data submitted by the petitioner in the LTFV investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department chosen from submissions by the parties in the LTFV investigation, as well as information gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the proceeding. Moreover, there were no previous reviews of this antidumping duty order. As there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as AFA, we determine that this rate has relevance. As the 112.81 percent rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the calculated rate of 112.81 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accord with the requirement of section 776(c) that secondary information be corroborated to the extent practicable ( *i.e.* , that it have probative value). We have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by the PRC-wide entity. 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 assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate ( *i.e.* , a PRC-wide rate). Of the 163 companies initiated upon, 16 companies filed separate rate certifications or applications. Allied Pacific Group ( *i.e.* , Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd. and its affiliates, Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd., Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd., and King Royal Investments Ltd.), Red Garden, Yelin and its affiliates ( *i.e.* , Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd., Fuqing Minhua Trade Co. Ltd., 6 Asian Seafoods, Savvy Seafood Inc., Evergreen, Huading, Meizhou, and Hai Li each filed a separate rate certification or application. Because Petitioners withdrew its request for review of Savvy Seafoods Inc. (See Rescission Notice), and we rescinded the review, its separate rate status remains unchanged from the investigation. 6 Although Fuqing Minhua Trade Co. Ltd. submitted a separate rate application, the company was not listed in the Department's notice of initiation of the administrative review. See Initiation Notice. As no review was requested of this entity, and the firm is therefore not subject to the review, it is not entitled to a separate rate. Six of the companies listed above ( *i.e.* , Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd.; Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd.; King Royal Investments Ltd.; Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; and Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. had no shipments or exports of subject merchandise to the United States during this POR and are therefore not eligible for a separate rate in this proceeding. As referenced above, Red Garden, Meizhou, and Huading failed to establish that they qualify for a separate rate. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Red Garden* , (February 28, 2007), Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co. Ltd.* Shantou, (February 28, 2007), and *Huading Analysis Memorandum.* Further, as discussed above, because we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review for Asian Seafoods, and the new shipper review for Hai Li, because their sales are not *bona fide,* they are ineligible for a separate rate. Finally, although Fuqing Minhua Trade Co. Ltd. submitted a separate rate application, the company was not listed in the Department's notice of initiation of the administrative review. *See Initiation Notice.* As no review was requested of this entity, and the firm did not export subject merchandise to the United States, it is therefore not entitled to a separate rate. *See* Letter to the Department, from Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd. Hong Kong, ant is affiliates, regarding *Yelin Group: Response to Section A-D Supplemental: First Administrative Review of Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from China* (November 9, 2006). The remaining respondents ( *i.e.* , Yelin, Allied Pacific (Hong Kong), Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), and Evergreen ) are either entities wholly foreign owned and/or limited liability companies in the PRC. Thus, for these four respondents, a separate rates analysis is necessary to determine whether the export activities of each above-mentioned respondent is independent from government control. *See, e.g. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China,* 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996) (“ *Bicycles* ”). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”); *See also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,* 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”), where the Department adapted and amplified the separate rates test set out in *Sparklers.* Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over its export activities. 1. De Jure Control Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes:

(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See id.* Yelin, Allied Pacific (Hong Kong), Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), and Evergreen have each placed on the administrative record documents to demonstrate an absence of *de jure* control ( *e.g.* , the 1994 “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China,” and the 1999 “Company Law of the People's Republic of China”). As in prior cases, we have analyzed the laws presented to us and have found them to establish sufficiently an absence of *de jure* control over joint ventures between the PRC and foreign companies, and limited liability companies in the PRC. *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China,* 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (“ *Furfuryl Alcohol* ”); *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China,* 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995). We have no new information in this proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination with regard to Yelin, Allied Pacific (Hong Kong), Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), and Evergreen. 2. De Facto Control As stated in previous cases, there is evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See Silicon Carbide; see also Furfuryl Alcohol.* Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:

(1)Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental authority;

(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;

(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and

(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide; see also Furfuryl Alcohol.* Yelin, Allied Pacific (Hong Kong), Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), and Evergreen have each asserted the following:

(1)It establishes its own export prices;

(2)it negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations;

(3)it makes its own personnel decisions; and

(4)it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, each of these companies' questionnaire responses indicates that its pricing during the POR does not suggest coordination among exporters. Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that Yelin, Allied Pacific (Hong Kong), Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), and Evergreen have each met the criteria for the application of separate rates based on the documentation each of these respondents has submitted on the record of these reviews. *See* Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9, regarding *2004/2006 Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates Analysis for Respondents (Including Exporters Not Being Individually Reviewed)* (February 28, 2007). Separate Rate Calculation Based on timely requests from individual exporters and petitioners, the Department originally initiated this review with respect to 163 companies. During the course of the review, however, the Department employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not have the resources to examine all companies for which a review request was made. As stated previously, the Department selected three exporters, Yelin, Red Garden (which ultimately withdrew and was replaced by Asian Seafoods), and Meizhou (which also later withdrew) as mandatory respondents in this review. Three additional companies (Allied Pacific HK, Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang) and Evergreen) submitted timely information as requested by the Department and remain subject to review as cooperative separate rate respondents. Yelin participated fully in this review and is receiving a preliminary antidumping duty rate of zero. As noted above, however, the mandatory respondents either withdrew from the administrative review ( *i.e.* , Miezhou and Red Garden) or made a non *bona fide* transaction ( *i.e.* , Asian Seafoods). As a result, these three entities are not entitled to a separate rate in this review and we are either rescinding the review of the company ( *i.e.* , Asian Seafoods) or the company is being considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity ( *i.e.* , Miezhou and Red Garden). As part of the PRC-wide entity, Meizhou and Red Garden are receiving a preliminary antidumping duty rate of 112.81 percent. The Department must also assign a rate to the remaining three cooperative separate rate respondents not selected for individual examination. We note that the statute and the Department's regulations do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not selected for examination where the Department limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777(A)(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in this regard, in cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of trade, has been to weight-average the rates for the selected companies excluding zero and *de minimis* rates and rates based entirely on adverse facts available. In the instant review, however, the rates for the mandatory respondents include only a single zero rate and a rate for the PRC-wide entity based on total AFA. While the statute does not specifically address this particular set of circumstances, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act does specify the methodology to be followed when a similar fact pattern arises in the context of the all-others rate established in an investigation. While not entirely analogous to the determination of a rate to be applied to responsive separate rate respondents in the context of a NME review, we find it to be instructive in these circumstances. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act states that in situations where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or *de minimis* , or are determined entirely under section 776 (facts available section), “the administering authority may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the weighted-average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” The Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that in using any reasonable method to calculate the all-others rate, “the expected method in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and *de minimis* margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data is available.” *See* SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.Doc. 316, Vol. 1., 103rd Cong

(SAA)at 203. However, the SAA also provides that: {I} this method is not feasible, or if it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable means.” *Id.* In this case, because of the nature of the shrimp industry, the Department preliminarily concludes that it cannot accurately determine a margin based on information provided by the separate rate entities. Furthermore, we preliminarily find that we cannot employ such alternative methods as weight-averaging AFA, *de minimis* and zero rates or partial use of the information on the record. Specifically, while the separate rates entities have given us total volume and value information with respect to subject merchandise, we note that shrimp prices vary dramatically, principally due to count-size. Thus margins calculated on the basis of average prices without regard to count size and other factors do not reflect a meaningful, accurate comparison. Because the Department does not have comparable information with respect to the count sizes sold by the separate entities, we find we must look to other reasonable means to determine an appropriate margin for the separate rate entities subject to this review. In the case of Allied Pacific HK and Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), we received voluntary questionnaire responses, but we have not examined these submissions because of the Department's resource constraints and its decision to review only three exporters. The Department has therefore preliminarily determined to apply the margin calculated for cooperative separate rate respondents in the immediately preceding segment of this proceeding, *i.e.* , the margin of 53.68 percent assigned to such companies in the LTFV investigation. We believe this methodology constitutes a reasonable method by which to calculate such rate. The rate of 53.68 percent calculated in the LTFV was based on the Department's thorough examination of several cooperative companies accounting for a majority of exports during the period of investigation. We believe, therefore, that this rate is reflective of the range of commercial behavior demonstrated by exporters of the subject merchandise during a very recent period in time. Therefore, we find it a reasonable means by which to determine a rate for non-examined cooperative separate entities and have employed this methodology for purposes of these preliminary results. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Yelin to the United States were made at prices below normal value (“NV”), we compared each company's constructed export prices (“CEPs”) to NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Constructed Export Price For Yelin, we used CEP methodology in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act for sales in which the subject merchandise was first sold in the United States before or after the date of importation by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made the following company-specific adjustments: A. Yelin We calculated CEP based on packed U.S. prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, international ocean freight, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as well as imputed inventory carrying costs, commissions, credit expenses, indirect selling expenses, and profit, in accordance with section 772(d) of the Act. For additional discussion on these, and other specifics pertaining to Yelin's margin calculation, *see* Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China—Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of Yelin Enterprise Co., Hong Kong* (February 28, 2007). Because some foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate rates from India. *See* “Surrogate Country” section above for further discussion of our surrogate-country selection. To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we used publicly summarized or “ranged” expense data submitted during the past year by Indian companies in connection with other antidumping duty administrative reviews conducted by the Department. 7 7 We used data from the public version of the February 28, 2005, section C response of Essar Steel Limited in the antidumping duty administrative review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, which covers the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. We also used information from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd., taken from the administrative review of preserved mushrooms from India, for which the POR was February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006); *see also Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006). In determining the most appropriate surrogate values to use in a given case, the Department's stated practice is to use investigation or review period-wide price averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices that are net of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous with the period of investigation or review, and publicly available data. The data we used for brokerage and handling expenses fulfill all of the foregoing criteria except that they are not specific to the subject merchandise: there is no information of that type on the record of this review. We used a simple average of two companies' brokerage expense data in order to achieve a more representative value than a single source would provide. Both sources are of equal quality and are contemporaneous with the POR. See Bicycles, 61 FR at 19039 (on using a simple, as opposed to a weighted, average in the calculation of financial ratios). Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors of production methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department will base NV on the factors of production because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of production include, but are not limited to, hours of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital costs, including depreciation. *See* section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value which was an average non-export value, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) (“ *Chlorinated Isocyanurates* ”). We used the usage rates reported by the respondents for materials, energy, labor, by-products, and packing. For a detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate surrogate values, *see* Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Factor Values* (February 28, 2007) (“Factor Valuation Memo”). Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production reported by the respondents for the POR. We relied on the factor specification data submitted by the respondents for the above-mentioned inputs in their questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses, where applicable, for purposes of selecting surrogate values. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except where noted below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Due to the extensive number of surrogate values in this administrative review, we present a discussion of the main factors. For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents, *see Factor Valuation Memo.* Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using July 2004-January 2006 weighted-average Indian import values derived from the *World Trade Atlas* online (“ *WTA* ”) ( *see also Factor Valuation Memo* ). The Indian import statistics we obtained from the *WTA* were published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India, which were reported in rupees. Indian surrogate values denominated in foreign currencies were converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable average exchange rate for India for the POR. The average exchange rate was based on exchange rate data from the Department's Web site. *See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.* Where we could not obtain PAI contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values for inflation using Indian wholesale price indices (“WPIs”) as published in the International Monetary Fund's *International Financial Statistics. See Factor Valuation Memo.* Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded prices from NME countries and those that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized ( *i.e.* , Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand). We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe or suspect all exports to all markets from these countries are subsidized. *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From The People's Republic of China,* 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Finally, we excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with general export subsidies. We valued these factors of production based on Indian WTA data: shrimp feed; antiseptic; anti virus; nutriment; sodium; and salt. Additionally, we valued these packing factors of production based on Indian WTA data: cardboard boxes; plastic bags; and adhesive tape. *See Factor Valuation Memo,* at Exhibit 5. To value raw shrimp, we used Indonesian data from an October 2006 report on shrimp farming in South and South-East Asia from the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific ( *http://library.enaca.org/shrimp/publications/NACAStudy/pdf* ). We extrapolated three additional count size groups based on the average percentage change between the five groups of data given in the study. *See Id.* at Exhibit 2. To value shrimp larvae, we used the audited 2004-2005 financial statements of Sharat Industries Limited, an Indian shrimp producer. Trade Pacific, PLLC placed this data on the record of this review. *See Id.* at Exhibit 3. To value by-products, we used a public price quote from an Indonesian company that has been used in the investigation of this proceeding. *See* Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu through Maureen Flannery, regarding *Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, Administrative Review 9/1/00-8/31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00-8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01* (August 5, 2002). *See Id.* at Exhibit 4. We valued electricity using the 2000 total average price per kilowatt hour for “Electricity for Industry” as reported in the International Energy Agency's publication, *Energy Prices and Taxes, Second Quarter, 2003.* We adjusted this rate for inflation. *See Id.* at Exhibit 6. We valued heavy oil using the 2005 first quarter “Heavy Fuel Oil for Industry” price as reported in the International Energy Agency's publication, *Key World Energy Statistics 2005. See Id.* at Exhibit 7. To value water, the Department used the industrial water rates within the Maharashtra Province of India from June 2003. To achieve comparability of water prices to the factors reported for the POR, we adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation to the POR. *See Id.* at Exhibit 8. To value diesel fuel, we used the 2005 first quarter “Automotive Diesel Oil” price as reported in the International Energy Agency's publication, *Key World Energy Statistics 2005. See Id.* at Exhibit 9. The Department revised its calculation of expected wages of selected NME countries. *See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html.* The Department's revised calculation of expected NME wages, consistent with its normal methodology and with section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations, is based on the most current data available as of January 2007. The Department's expected NME wage rate for the PRC is USD $0.83 per hour. We used this wage rate in valuing labor. To value PRC inland freight for inputs shipped by truck, we used Indian freight rates from the following Web site: *http://www.infreight.com. See Id.* at Exhibit 11. For the domestic ground transport of shrimp, we used an Indian refrigerated truck freight rate based on price quotations provided by Petitioners in the investigation of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC from CTC Freight Carriers of Delhi, India. *See* Petitioners' May 21, 2004 surrogate value submission at Attachment 6. Since the rate was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the rate for inflation. *See Id.* at Exhibit 12. To value factory overhead and selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit, we used data from the 2004-2005 financial reports of Falcon Marine Exports Limited and Nakkanti Sea Foods Limited. These Indian companies are shrimp producers based on data contained in each Indian company's financial reports. We averaged the ratios for the two companies. *See Id.* at Exhibit 10. Preliminary Results of Reviews We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist during the period July 16, 2004, through January 31, 2006: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the PRC Individually Reviewed Exporters Yelin Enterprise Co., Hong Kong 0.00 Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd 53.68 Allied Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd 53.68 Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology Co., Ltd 53.68 Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd 225.62 PRC-Wide Rate PRC-Wide Rate 8 112.81 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. 8 PRC-Wide Rate includes, among others, Red Garden and Meizhou. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:

(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. The Department will issue the final results of these reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC via *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);

(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 112.81 percent; and

(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These administrative and new shipper reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. Dated: February 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 07-1132 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 44

Traces to 44 documents

CFR