Notices. Proposed rule

27,765 words·~126 min read·/register/2007/03/28/07-1496

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 59 Wednesday, March 28, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Executive Office for Immigration Review 8 CFR Part 1003 [EOIR No. 147I; AG Order No. 2876-2007] RIN 1125-AA52 Jurisdiction and Venue in Removal Proceedings AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Justice. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the Department of Justice (Department) regulations addressing jurisdiction and venue in removal proceedings. The amendment is necessary due to the increasing number of removal hearings being conducted by telephone and video conference.

The proposed rule establishes that venue shall lie at the place of the hearing as identified on the charging document or initial hearing notice, unless an immigration judge has granted a change of venue to a different location. The hearing location is the same whether or not the immigration judge or a party to the proceeding appears at the hearing location in person or participates in the hearing by telephone or video conference. The proposed rule also establishes that removal proceedings shall be deemed to be completed at the location of the final hearing, regardless of whether all parties are physically present at that location.

The Department also proposes to amend the regulations to state expressly that, when the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)files a charging document, jurisdiction vests with the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge

(OCIJ)within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments to Kevin Chapman, Acting General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia, 22041. To ensure proper handling, please reference RIN No. 1125-AA52 or EOIR docket number 147I on your correspondence. You may view an electronic version of this proposed rule at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may also comment via the Internet to the Executive Office for Immigration Review

(EOIR)at *eoir.regs@usdoj.gov* or by using the *http://www.regulations.gov* comment form for this regulation. When submitting comments electronically, you must include RIN No. 1125-AA52 in the subject box. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Chapman, Acting General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia, 22041, telephone

(703)305-0470 (not a toll-free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed venue rule would revise the existing regulations to clarify the particular location in which venue lies for proceedings before immigration judges. 8 CFR 1003.20(a) is amended to state that, in removal proceedings, venue lies at the hearing location as identified on the charging document as defined in 8 CFR 1003.13 or the initial hearing notice issued pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.18. The designated hearing location is also known as the location where a case is “docketed for a hearing.” The rule currently provides that venue shall lie at the immigration court where jurisdiction vests pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.14. As revised, the regulations would more clearly distinguish between

(1)the jurisdiction of the immigration judges over proceedings initiated under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1229a, or other provisions of law, and

(2)the proper venue or hearing location for particular cases. In particular, the Department proposes to amend the venue rule to provide greater clarity and consistency of interpretation, in light of the increasing number of removal hearings conducted by telephone and video conference, as well as EOIR's use of administrative control courts for the creation and maintenance of records of proceedings as described in 8 CFR 1003.11. This rule makes clear that the use of telephone or video conferencing or the use of administrative control courts for maintaining records does not alter or affect the designated hearing location where the hearing itself takes place. In addition, in response to requests from federal courts, the Department is amending the rule to specify that, for purposes of judicial review of final orders of removal, pursuant to section 242(b)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(2), removal proceedings will be deemed to be completed at the location of the final hearing. Congress has expressly authorized the immigration judges to conduct merits hearings in removal proceedings through telephone or video conference, although an evidentiary hearing may be conducted by telephone conference only if the alien consents, after being advised of the right to proceed in person or through video conference. See section 240(b)(2) of the INA; see also 8 CFR 1003.25(c). For more than 10 years, immigration judges have conducted hearings by video conference. More than one-half of the immigration courts in the United States are equipped with the technology to conduct video conferences. Due to improved technology, and encouraged by the proven success of video conferencing, EOIR has established a Headquarters Immigration Court

(HQIC)based at EOIR Headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia. The immigration judges assigned to the HQIC conduct hearings through video conference to assist various immigration courts throughout the United States by hearing cases on their dockets. The HQIC provides OCIJ with a flexible tool for responding to short-term resource needs that may arise. Although a useful tool in docket management, the increased use of telephone and video conferencing to conduct hearings complicates questions regarding where venue properly lies and where proceedings are completed. When telephone and video conferencing are used to conduct hearings, the parties, representatives, and immigration judge need not gather in a single physical location. As a result, the hearing may involve persons in different places, and in some cases these multiple geographic locations may be in different judicial circuits. OCIJ's use of administrative control courts also increases the number of cases that involve more than one location. Administrative control courts are used to create and maintain records of proceedings for immigration courts within an assigned geographic area, including established immigration courts in different cities, as well as hearing locations in detail cities, in DHS detention facilities, or in federal, state, or local correctional facilities. See 8 CFR 1003.11; 1003.13. 1 All documents and correspondence in a particular case are filed with the administrative control court (sometimes called the “base city court”), even if the hearings themselves are held at a different location within the assigned geographic area. 1 A list of administrative control courts with their assigned geographic areas is available to the public at any immigration court. See 8 CFR 1003.11. For instance, Dallas, Texas (in the Fifth Circuit), is currently the administrative control court for immigration cases being heard at the immigration court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (in the Tenth Circuit), and Arlington, Virginia (in the Fourth Circuit) is currently the administrative control court for immigration cases being heard at the detail location in Cleveland, Ohio (in the Sixth Circuit). When a hearing is held at a detention facility, documents related to the case may be filed with the immigration court having administrative control over that hearing location and not at the detention facility. Thus, one removal proceeding may involve more than one geographic location, with documents being filed in one place even though the hearings themselves are held at another place, often in a city or detention facility in a different state and sometimes in a different judicial circuit. Due to the increased number of cases that involve more than one geographic location—both because of the use of telephone or video conferencing and because of the use of administrative control courts—the Department has concluded that it is essential to clarify the existing regulations relating to venue to provide more specific guidance. Under this rule, the designated hearing location remains unaffected even if an immigration judge from a different location is conducting the hearing by video conference, or if the records in the case are filed with, and maintained by, an administrative control court in a different city. An immigration judge from a different city who is conducting a hearing by telephone or video conference is deemed to be conducting the hearing at the designated hearing location, just as if the immigration judge had been assigned to conduct the hearing at that location in person. This proposed rule is consistent with longstanding EOIR practice with respect to the use of administrative control courts, and is also consistent with previous guidance provided by OCIJ regarding hearings conducted by telephone or video conference. See Memorandum from Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy, Interim Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum No. 04-06: Hearings Conducted through Telephone and Video Conference at 2 (Aug. 18, 2004) (“The immigration judge's participation in the hearing through video conference d[oes] not change the hearing location.”) (available on the EOIR Web site). The following example illustrates the increased complexity of venue determinations and the operation of the new venue rule in a case involving multiple geographic locations. With respect to an alien being detained at the Nebraska Department of Corrections, DHS would institute removal proceedings against the alien by filing an NTA with the immigration court in Chicago, Illinois (the administrative control court or “base city court”). The NTA or a subsequent hearing notice would identify the Nebraska Department of Corrections in Lincoln, Nebraska, as the hearing location. OCIJ may then decide to assign an immigration judge at the HQIC or in some other city to hear cases that are on the docket at that correctional facility, conducting the hearing by video conference rather than traveling to Nebraska to hear the case in person. In the above scenario, under this rule, venue would lie in Lincoln, Nebraska, the designated hearing location, i.e., the place where the case was docketed to be heard, not in Chicago, Illinois, or in Falls Church, Virginia. The hearing location and thus venue would remain unchanged, even if other events occurred. For instance, Lincoln would remain the hearing location, even if an immigration judge in Chicago (or Denver, Colorado) is substituted to conduct the hearing by video conference instead of an immigration judge at the HQIC in Falls Church. Similarly, the hearing location and thus venue would remain unchanged even if one of the parties or representatives participated in the hearing by telephone or video conference (for example, the alien's attorney who is located in Cleveland, Ohio). Unless the immigration judge grants a party's motion for a change of venue, the hearing location would remain constant, in this case at Lincoln. The regulations authorize an immigration judge to change venue only when one of the parties moves for a change of venue and the opposing party is given notice and the opportunity to respond. See 8 CFR 1003.20(b); see also *Jian* v. *INS* , 28 F.3d 256 (2nd Cir. 1994). The immigration judge may not sua sponte transfer venue. 2 Furthermore, in the case of a detained alien, venue does not automatically change when the DHS moves the alien to another detention facility. See *Jian* v. *INS* , supra. To secure a change of venue, DHS must make a motion before the immigration judge in the location where venue already lies. A notice of hearing is issued for all hearings, so if an immigration judge grants a motion for a change of venue, a new hearing notice will be issued that reflects the new hearing location. 2 The only exception involves a “clerical transfer,” which occurs when two courts have administrative control over the same area. Typically, this sharing occurs when two courts—one a detention setting and the other a non-detained setting—are located in the same geographic area. A case may be transferred between the paired courts with an administrative notation. For example, if a detained alien who has a hearing scheduled at the DHS detention facility in Lancaster, California, is released from custody, the alien's case may be clerically transferred from the Lancaster Immigration Court to the Los Angeles Immigration Court. The public list of administrative control courts contains information about which courts are subject to clerical transfers. See *http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/pairedcourts.htm#NOTE.* The Department's proposed amendments to 8 CFR 1003.20(a) also respond to recent decisions issued by two United States Circuit Courts of Appeals. See *Georcely* v. *Ashcroft* , 375 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2004); *Ramos* v. *Ashcroft* , 371 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2004) (Ramos I). Each of these cases involved more than one geographic location, either because of the use of an administrative control court or the use of video conferencing. 3 These courts had to determine which court of appeals had authority for judicial review of the order of removal under section 242(b)(2) of the INA, which states that a petition for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge “completed the proceedings.” Both courts noted that the proceedings could be deemed to have been completed in a variety of places, including the place where the immigration judge was physically located, where the alien was physically located, where the final order was issued, or where the final order was formally entered. Both courts found that they could review the cases, but suggested that the Department provide guidance for future cases involving multiple geographic locations. See also *Ramos* v. *Gonzales* , 414 F.3d 800, 803 (7th Cir. 2005) (Ramos II) (noting the instruction from the Chief Immigration Judge that venue is not determined by the physical location of an immigration judge who is conducting the hearing by teleconference, but adhering to the court's contrary conclusion in Ramos I as the law of the case). 3 In *Georcely* , the hearing was held in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit, but the record of proceedings was maintained by the administrative control court in Puerto Rico, which is within the jurisdiction of the First Circuit. In *Ramos* , the hearing was held in Council Bluffs, Iowa, located within the Eighth Circuit, but an immigration judge physically located in Chicago presided over the Iowa hearing via video conference. In accord with the rule that venue lies at the location where the hearing is scheduled to occur, as identified in the NTA or a subsequent hearing notice (or as the immigration judge may change venue pursuant to a motion filed for that purpose), the Department is further amending the rule to state that a case is deemed to be completed at the final hearing location. The final hearing location can readily be identified as the place of the hearing identified on the notice for the final hearing. The “final hearing” is the last hearing for which a notice was issued. As previously stated, a hearing notice is issued for each hearing and identifies the hearing location. The hearing location remains unchanged throughout a proceeding, unless an immigration judge grants a change of venue. If venue has been changed, all hearing notices issued after the change of venue will correctly list the new hearing location. As a result, the hearing notice related to the final hearing in a case will identify the location where the hearing is completed. Even if an immigration judge reserves a decision rather than issuing a decision during the final hearing, the hearing will be deemed completed at the hearing location listed on the last hearing notice issued in the case. The previous hypothetical involving the hearing location at the Nebraska Department of Corrections in Lincoln, Nebraska, illustrates the operation of the rule to determine the place where the immigration judge completed the proceedings for purposes of judicial review. The administrative control court where documents are filed is in Chicago, within the Seventh Circuit, and the immigration judge is based at the HQIC in Virginia, located in the Fourth Circuit, conducting the Lincoln hearing through video conferencing. In this scenario, venue would lie at the final hearing location, Lincoln, Nebraska. In turn, the immigration judge would be deemed to have completed the proceedings at the final hearing location in Lincoln, within the jurisdiction of the Eighth Circuit. The immigration judge, although physically located in Virginia, is deemed to be appearing and conducting the proceedings in Nebraska via video conference, as if assigned to conduct the hearing in person at the Nebraska location. Thus, for purposes of section 242(b)(2) of the INA, a petition for review should be filed in the Eighth Circuit, and not in the Seventh Circuit or the Fourth Circuit. Finally, this proposed rule would amend the jurisdiction rule at 8 CFR 1003.14(a) to state that when DHS files an NTA and thereby institutes removal proceedings, jurisdiction over the proceedings vests with OCIJ within EOIR. This amendment is necessary to avoid any possible and unintended implication that jurisdiction over a case is limited to a particular immigration court. This amendment to the jurisdiction rule complements the revision to the venue rule, since it is the venue rule that determines the particular hearing location. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects individual aliens and does not affect small entities, as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year and also will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. Executive Order 12866 The Attorney General has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and, accordingly, this rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review. This rule merely clarifies and restates preexisting principles relating to the venue of immigration proceedings and does not alter existing legal principles or impose new obligations on aliens, their representatives, or the Department of Homeland Security (which represents the government in removal proceedings). Executive Order 13132 This rule will 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Paperwork Reduction Act The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised record keeping or reporting requirements. List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 1003 Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal Services, Organization and Function (Government Agencies). Accordingly, chapter V of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1003—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW 1. The authority citation for part 1003 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, 1254a, 1255, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2 Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1002; section 203 of Pub. L. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2196-200; sections 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1527-29, 1531-32; section 1505 of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-326 to -328. 2. Section 1003.14 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 1003.14 Jurisdiction and commencement of proceedings.

(a)When DHS files a charging document with an immigration court, proceedings commence and jurisdiction vests with the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review. * * * 3. The section heading and paragraph

(a)of section 1003.20 are revised to read as follows: § 1003.20 Venue; change of venue.

(a)Venue lies at the designated place for the hearing as identified by the Department of Homeland Security on the charging document. If the charging document does not identify the place of the hearing, venue shall lie at the place of the hearing identified on the initial hearing notice, issued by the immigration court in accordance with § 1003.18(b).

(1)Venue remains at the designated hearing location unless an immigration judge has granted a motion for change of venue as provided in this section, except that the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge may provide for administrative transfers of proceedings from one hearing location to another hearing location in the same vicinity, with proper notice to the parties, if such a transfer is appropriate because the alien is released from custody, is taken into custody, or, upon release from a federal or state correctional facility, is transferred into DHS custody.

(2)Venue lies at the designated hearing location, even if the immigration judge or any party or representative is not physically present at the hearing location and participates in the hearing through telephone or video conference. In that circumstance, the immigration judge shall clearly identify on the record the hearing location and the location of the immigration judge and the parties or representatives, if different.

(3)The use and location of an administrative control court for the filing of documents and the creation and maintenance of records of proceedings, as described in § 1003.11, does not affect the venue of the case or the hearing location as provided in this section, nor does the venue of the case or the hearing location affect the use or location of the administrative control court.

(4)For purposes of judicial review of a final order of removal, as provided in section 242(b)(2) of the Act, the immigration judge is deemed to complete the proceedings at the final hearing location, without regard to whether the immigration judge, or any party, representative, witness or other person participates in the final hearing through telephone or video conference. For purposes of this provision, the final hearing location refers to the place of the hearing identified on the notice for the final hearing. Dated: March 22, 2007. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General. [FR Doc. E7-5629 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27715; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-140-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 and A340 Airplanes 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)that applies to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires operators to revise the Airworthiness Limitations section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

(ICA)to incorporate new information. This information includes, for all affected airplanes, decreased life limit values for certain components; and for Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, new inspections, compliance times, and new repetitive intervals to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain structures. This proposed AD would revise the ALS, for all affected airplanes, by adding new Airworthiness Limitations Items

(ALIs)to incorporate service life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage or corrosion in certain structures, in accordance with the revised ALS of the ICA. This proposed AD results from the issuance of new and more restrictive service life limits and structural inspections based on fatigue testing and in-service findings. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and to prevent failure of certain life-limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments 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. • *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 Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-2797; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27715; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-140-AD” at the beginning 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 that 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 Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On April 20, 2006, we issued AD 2006-09-07, amendment 39-14577 (71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006), for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. That AD requires operators to revise the Airworthiness Limitations section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new information. This information includes, for all affected airplanes, decreased life limit values for certain components; and for Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, new inspections, compliance times, and new repetitive intervals to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain structures. That AD resulted from a revision to subsection 9-1 of the Airbus A330 and A340 Maintenance Planning Documents

(MPD)for Life limits/Monitored parts, and subsection 9-2 of the Airbus A330 MPD for Airworthiness Limitations Items (ALIs). We issued that AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion, which could result in reduced structural integrity of these airplanes. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2006-09-07, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-541 and A340-642 airplanes. The EASA advises that Airbus has issued new service life limits and structural inspections based upon fatigue testing and in-service findings. Fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements and failure of certain life limited parts, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The EASA also advises that Airbus has moved the service life limits from the A330/A340 MPDs into the applicable ALS Part 1. Airbus has also revised Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitations Items (ALIs),” Issue 12, dated November 1, 2003, to Issue 14, dated October 10, 2005. The revision to the ALIs adds new tasks to those specified in Issue 12; therefore, the revision has been added to the new requirements in this AD. In addition, a new revision to the A340 ALS adds Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0051/97, “A340 Airworthiness Limitations Items,” Issue 9, dated January 17, 2006. Incorporating these revisions into the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness is intended to ensure the continued structural integrity of these airplanes. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued A330 and A340 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, dated March 23, 2006, Sub-part 1-2 , “Life Limits,” and Sub-part 1-3, “Demonstrated Fatigue Lives,” of both ALS Part 1 documents to specify new and more restrictive service life limits for certain ALIs. Airbus has also issued A330 and A340 ALS Part 2, Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items, dated January 17, 2006. The ALS Part 2 document refers to Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitations Items,” Issue 14, dated October 10, 2005; and Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0051/97, “A340 Airworthiness Limitations Items,” Issue 9, dated January 17, 2006 (both approved by the EASA on February 25, 2006). Part 2 references the ALI documents for damage tolerance inspections but does not contain them. The documents specify new and more restrictive inspections for structural items. Accomplishment of the actions specified in these documents is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated these documents and issued EASA airworthiness directives 2006-0129 and 2006-0130, both dated May 22, 2006; and 2006-0307 and 2006-0308, both dated October 10, 2006; to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. Explanation of Change to Applicability We have revised the applicability of the proposed AD to identify model designations as published in the EASA airworthiness directive for the affected models. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are 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. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-09-07 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require revising the ALS, for all affected airplanes, by adding new ALIs to incorporate service life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage or corrosion in certain structures, in accordance with the revised ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 28 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hour Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Revise the ALS, required by AD 2006-09-07 1 $80 None $80 20 $1,600 Revise the ALS, new proposed action 1 80 None 80 28 2,240 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 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. 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 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 Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14577 (71 FR 25919, May 3, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27715; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-140-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 27, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-09-07. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes; certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph

(j)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular

(AC)25-1529-1. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from the issuance of new and more restrictive service life limits and structural inspections based on fatigue testing and in-service findings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. 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. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-09-07 Airworthiness Limitations Revision

(f)Within 3 months after June 7, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-09-07): Revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating into the ALS the documents in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

(1)Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitations Items,” Issue 12, dated November 1, 2003, as specified in Section 9-2 of the Airbus A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD).

(2)Section 9-1, “Life limits/Monitored parts,” Revision 05, dated April 7, 2005, of the Airbus A330 and A340 MPDs.

(g)Except as provided by paragraph

(h)or

(j)of this AD: After the actions in paragraph

(f)of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved for the structural elements specified in the documents listed in paragraph

(f)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD ALS Revision

(h)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the documents specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishing the revision in this paragraph terminates the requirements in paragraph

(f)of this AD.

(1)Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI),” Issue 14, dated October 10, 2005; or Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0051/97, “A340 Airworthiness Limitations Items,” Issue 9, dated January 17, 2006.

(2)Sub-part 1-2 “Life Limits,” and Sub-part 1-3 “Demonstrated Fatigue Lives,” of Airbus A330 or A340 ALS Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items,” dated March 23, 2006, as applicable.

(i)Except as provided by paragraph

(j)of this AD: After the actions in paragraph

(h)of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved for the structural elements specified in the documents listed in paragraph

(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information

(k)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directives 2006-0129 and 2006-0130, both dated May 22, 2006; and 2006-0307 and 2006-0308, both dated October 10, 2006; also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 21, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5656 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27714; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-277-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)issued 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: There are four ECS (environmental control system) grilles located in the flight deck side consoles. There have been occurrences where a grille has become detached during flight. There is a risk that a loose grille could foul the rudder pedals and interfere with rudder/brake control resulting in an unsafe condition. The unsafe condition is a rudder pedal restriction or jam, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. 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 27, 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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175;

(425)227-1149. 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-2007-27714; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-277-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0342, dated November 9, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: There are four ECS (environmental control system) grilles located in the flight deck side consoles. There have been occurrences where a grille has become detached during flight. There is a risk that a loose grille could foul the rudder pedals and interfere with rudder/brake control resulting in an unsafe condition. The unsafe condition is a rudder pedal restriction or jam, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. The MCAI requires modifying the grilles. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Modification Service Bulletins SB.25-495-60730A, dated March 14, 2006; and Revision 1, dated May 9, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $6,893 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $71,330, or $7,133 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: **BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British Aerospace Regional Aircraft):** Docket No. FAA-2007-27714; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-277-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by April 27, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A series airplanes, and Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category; which have modification HCM00674A embodied. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: There are four ECS (environmental control system) grilles located in the flight deck side consoles. There have been occurrences where a grille has become detached during flight. There is a risk that a loose grille could foul the rudder pedals and interfere with rudder/brake control resulting in an unsafe condition. The unsafe condition is a rudder pedal restriction or jam, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. The MCAI requires modifying the grilles. Subject

(e)Equipment/Furnishings. Actions and Compliance

(f)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, carry out the modification of the ECS grilles as described in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Modification Service Bulletin SB.25-495-60730A, dated March 14, 2006; or Revision 1, dated May 9, 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, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175;

(425)227-1149. Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.

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

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

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

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0342, dated November 9, 2006; and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Modification Service Bulletin SB.25-495-60730A, dated March 14, 2006; or Revision 1, dated May 9, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 21, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-5650 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-AZ-0558; FRL-8292-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Boundary Redesignation; Finding of Attainment for Miami Particulate Matter of 10 Microns or Less (PM 10 ) Nonattainment Area; Determination Regarding Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act Requirements; Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State of Arizona's boundary redesignation of the Hayden/Miami PM 10 nonattainment area into two separate PM 10 nonattainment areas: Hayden and Miami. EPA is also proposing to find that the Miami PM 10 nonattainment area is attaining the PM 10 national ambient air quality standard, and, based on this attainment finding, EPA is proposing to determine that certain Clean Air Act requirements are not applicable for so long as the Miami area shows continued attainment of the standard based on current, publicly available, quality-assured monitoring data. EPA is taking this action consistent with obligations under the Clean Air Act to act on State redesignations. Lastly, EPA is proposing to correct two errors in previous rulemakings that involved the designations of PM 10 areas within the State of Arizona. DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2006-AZ-0558 by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: tax.wienke@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*

(415)947-3579 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. • *Hand Delivery:* Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2006-AZ-0558. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 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 Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,

(520)622-1622, e-mail: *tax.wienke@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. This proposal addresses EPA's approval of the State of Arizona's boundary redesignation of the Hayden/Miami PM 10 nonattainment area into two separate PM 10 nonattainment areas: Hayden and Miami. EPA is also proposing to find that the Miami PM 10 nonattainment area is attaining the PM 10 national ambient air quality standard, and, based on this attainment finding, EPA is proposing to determine that certain Clean Air Act requirements are not applicable for so long as the Miami area shows continued attainment of the standard based on current, publicly available, quality-assured monitoring data. EPA is taking this action consistent with obligations under the Clean Air Act to act on State redesignations. Lastly, EPA is proposing to correct two errors in previous rulemakings that involved the designations of PM 10 areas within the State of Arizona. In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , we are taking direct final action to take these actions because we believe that they are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive comments, no further activity is planned. For all the reasons set forth in the parallel direct final rule, we are proposing to approve the State of Arizona's boundary redesignation of the Hayden/Miami PM 10 nonattainment area into two separate PM 10 nonattainment areas: Hayden and Miami, and to determine that the Miami moderate PM 10 nonattainment area in Arizona is attaining the PM 10 national ambient air quality standard. A determination of attainment is not a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have not yet approved a maintenance plan as required under section 175A of the CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for redesignation. Also, for all the reasons set forth in the parallel direct final rule, we further propose to determine that, because the Miami area is attaining the PM 10 NAAQS, certain attainment demonstration requirements, along with other related requirements of the CAA, are not applicable to the Miami area for so long as the area continues to attain. Lastly, EPA is proposing to correct two errors in previous rulemakings that involved the classification of PM 10 nonattainment areas within the State of Arizona. For further information on this proposal and the rationale underlying our proposed action, please see the direct final rule. Dated: March 20, 2007. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region 9. [FR Doc. E7-5662 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B 7711] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations

(BFEs)and proposed BFEs modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The comment period is ninety

(90)days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community. ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet

(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation Effective Modified Communities affected Gallatin County, Kentucky and Incorporated Areas Ohio River Carroll County Line *472 +471 City of Warsaw. Boone County Line *480 +479 Gallatin County (Unincorporated Areas). *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Warsaw Maps are available for inspection at 101 West Market Street, Warsaw, KY 41095. Send comments to The Honorable E. Richard Wood, Mayor, City of Warsaw, 101 West Market Street, Warsaw, KY 41095. Gallatin County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 200 Washington Street, Warsaw, KY 41095. Send comments to The Honorable Kenny R. French, Gallatin County Judge Executive, P.O. Box 144, Warsaw, KY 41095. Phelps County, Missouri (Unincorporated Areas) Burger Branch Approximately 900 ft downstream side of Brookridge Drive None *967 Phelps County (Unincorporated Areas). About 2,200 ft upstream side of Old St. James Road None *1077 Little Piney Creek About 1500 ft downstream of the confluence with Newburg Branch None *710 Phelps County (Unincorporated Areas). About 3000 ft upstream of MO State Highway T/Water Street. None *717 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Phelps County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 200 North Main Street, 200 North Main Street, MO 65401. Send comments to The Honorable Randy Verkamp, Presiding Commissioner, 200 North Main Street, Rolla, MO 65401. Cleveland County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Adams Branch At the confluence with Knob Creek (into First Broad River) None +890 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Belwood. Approximately 50 feet upstream of Woodrow Hoyle Road (State Road 1624) None +1,018 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Adams Branch None +904 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence of Adams Branch None +983 Ashworth Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +669 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). At the North Carolina/South Carolina State boundary None +788 Tributary 5 At the confluence with Ashworth Creek None +763 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 600 feet upstream of Wood Road None +780 Bald Knob Creek At the confluence with Little Knob Creek None +946 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet upstream of Pruitt Road None +1,012 Beams Lake Approximately 275 feet upstream of the confluence with Hickory Creek (near Shelby) None +735 City of Shelby. Approximately 260 feet upstream of the Dam None +801 Beason Creek At the confluence with Buffalo Creek +622 +621 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 1,540 feet upstream of Marion Street None +913 Tributary 1 At the confluence of Beason Creek None +633 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 600 feet upstream of the confluence with Beason Creek None +639 Tributary 18 At the confluence with Beason Creek None +851 City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 955 feet upstream of the confluence with Beason Creek None +864 Beaverdam Creek (near Boiling Springs) At the confluence with First Broad River None +642 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Boiling Springs. Approximately 170 feet upstream of Railroad None +863 Tributary 11 At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek (near Boiling Springs) None +729 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby. Approximately 1,640 feet upstream of West Dixon Boulevard/U.S. Route 74 None +782 Tributary 6 At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek (near Boiling Springs) None +700 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Boiling Springs. Approximately 40 feet upstream of East Homestead Avenue None +782 Big Harris Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +754 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 410 feet upstream of Harris Road None +857 Bowens River At the North Carolina/South Carolina State boundary None +656 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Nickey Sharts Road None +726 Broad River At the North Carolina/South Carolina State boundary None +628 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). At the confluence of Second Broad River None +680 Brushy Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +699 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby, Town of Kingstown. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence of West Fork Brushy Creek None +871 Tributary 1 of Tributary 6 At the confluence with Brushy Creek Tributary 6 None +752 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 820 feet upstream of Barbee Road None +780 Tributary 17 At the confluence with Brushy Creek None +822 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Brushy Creek None +841 Tributary 6 At the confluence with Brushy Creek None +744 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby. Approximately 540 feet upstream of West Zion Church Road None +841 Buck Branch (into West Fork Sandy Run) At the confluence with West Fork Sandy Run None +801 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence with West Fork Sandy Run None +803 Buffalo Creek Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of the North Carolina/South Carolina State boundary None +595 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain, City of Shelby, Town of Belwood. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence of Buffalo Creek Tributary 5 None +1,015 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Buffalo Creek +608 +607 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Buffalo Creek None +631 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Buffalo Creek +610 +611 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Roseborough Road None +678 Tributary 4 At the confluence with Buffalo Creek +658 +662 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 80 feet upstream of Borders Road None +732 Camp Creek At the confluence with Broad River None +651 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Abes Mountain Road None +707 Church Branch At the confluence with Sandy Run None +706 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Boiling Springs. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Sandy Run None +717 Cove Creek (into Wards Creek) At the confluence with Ward Creek None +990 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 420 feet upstream of Brackett Hill Road None +1,063 Cox Creek At the confluence with Ward Creek None +947 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Ward Creek None +993 Crooked Run Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +816 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Casar. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Grady McNeilly Road None +1,077 Dark Hollow Branch At the confluence with Hinton Creek None +888 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Hinton Creek None +894 Dixon Branch At the North Carolina/South Carolina State boundary None +687 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,110 feet upstream of Dixon School Road None +720 Duncans Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +882 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Brooks Chapel Road None +914 First Broad River At the confluence with Broad River None +633 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby, Town of Lawndale. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Moriah Church Road None +933 Tributary 19 At the confluence with First Broad River None +691 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby. Approximately 90 feet downstream of West Dixon Boulevard/Bypass 74 None +799 Tributary 20 At the confluence with First Broad River None +693 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with First Broad River None +697 Tributary 23 At the confluence with First Broad River None +705 City of Shelby. Approximately 240 feet upstream of Kingsbury Street None +767 Tributary 30 At the confluence with First Broad River None +733 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,480 feet upstream of North Lafayette Street None +733 Tributary 5 At the confluence with First Broad River None +646 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 60 feet upstream of Red Road None +661 Tributary of Tributary 19 At the confluence with First Broad River Tributary 19 None +777 City of Shelby. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Gardner Street None +837 Flint Hill Creek At the confluence with Hinton Creek None +874 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 40 feet upstream of Hollis Road None +910 Gilliam Creek At the confluence with Muddy Fork None +783 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 150 feet downstream of Gilliam Creek Tributary 2 None +809 Tributary 1 At the confluence with Gilliam Creek None +786 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Old Post Road None +814 Tributary 2 Approximately 600 feet upstream of the confluence with Gilliam Creek None +811 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 780 feet upstream of Marys Grove Road None +818 Glenn Creek At the confluence with Buffalo Creek None +889 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Bellwood. At the Lincoln/Cleveland County boundary None +898 Grassy Branch At the confluence with First Broad River None +819 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Polkville. Approximately 270 feet downstream of Enid Street None +1,045 Grog Creek At the confluence with Sandy Run None +679 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Grog Creek Tributary 9 None +833 Tributary 9 At the confluence with Grog Creek None +808 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Gantts Grove Church Road None +840 Grover Tributary Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence with Buffalo Creek None +620 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Grover. Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Bethlehem Church Road None +930 Hawkins Branch At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek (near Boiling Springs) None +642 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 700 feet upstream of Beaverdam Creek (near Boiling Springs) None +642 Hickory Creek (near Shelby) At the confluence with First Broad River None +676 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Airport Road None +842 Tributary 12 At the confluence with Hickory Creek (near Shelby) +796 +795 City of Shelby. Approximately 560 feet upstream of Wendover Heights Drive None +869 Tributary 8 At the confluence with Hickory Creek (near Shelby) +743 +741 City of Shelby. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Weathers Street None +848 Tributary 9 At the confluence with Hickory Creek (near Shelby) +748 +747 City of Shelby. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Country Club Circle None +784 Tributary of Tributary 9 At the confluence with Hickory Creek (near Shelby) Tributary of Tributary 9 None +764 City of Shelby. Approximately 650 feet upstream of confluence with Hickory Creek (near Shelby) Tributary of Tributary 9 None +768 Hinton Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +860 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Stroud Road None +979 Tributary 8 At the confluence with Hinton Creek None +909 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 150 feet upstream of Tan Yard Road None +943 Jolly Branch At the confluence with Broad River None +646 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Broad River None +669 Kings Creek Approximately 860 feet downstream of the North Carolina/South Carolina State boundary None +689 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Interstate 85 None +788 Tributary 6 At the confluence with Kings Creek None +748 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 890 feet upstream of Interstate 85 None +841 Kings Mountain Reservoir Entire shoreline +738 +740 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain. Knob Creek (into First Broad River) At the confluence with First Broad River None +806 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Belwood. Approximately 590 feet upstream of the confluence of Knob Creek (into First Broad River) Tributary 5 None +1,002 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Knob Creek (into First Broad River) None +945 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 760 feet upstream of the confluence with Knob Creek (into First Broad River) None +951 Tributary 5 At the confluence with Knob Creek (into First Broad River) None +990 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 930 feet upstream of the confluence with Knob Creek (into First Broad River) None +1,005 Lick Branch At the confluence with Buffalo Creek +606 +603 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 50 feet downstream of Watterson Road None +733 Little Buffalo Creek At the confluence with Buffalo Creek None +835 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 60 feet upstream of East Stage Coach Trail None +854 Little Creek At the confluence with Glenn Creek None +891 Town of Belwood. At the Lincoln/Cleveland County boundary None +961 Little Harris Creek At the confluence with Big Harris Creek None +760 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 440 feet upstream of West Double Shoals Road None +801 Little Hickory Creek At the confluence with Hickory Creek (near Shelby) None +711 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Duck Pond Road None +821 Little Knob Creek At the confluence with Knob Creek (into First Broad River) None +853 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). At the confluence of Bald Knob Creek None +946 Little Persimmon Creek At the confluence with Persimmon Creek None +715 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Brook Road None +872 Logan Branch At the confluence with Sulpher Springs Branch None +719 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Ellis Road None +743 Long Branch (into Beason Creek) At the confluence with Beason Creek None +656 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of Bethlehem Church Road None +826 Long Branch (into Buffalo Creek) At the confluence with Buffalo Creek None +807 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 275 feet downstream of Jim Elliott Road None +834 Long Creek At the confluence with Buffalo Creek None +759 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Arlee Drive None +937 Mangess Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +766 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 240 feet upstream of Philadelphia Road None +832 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Mangess Creek None +803 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 120 feet upstream of Selkirk Drive None +857 Mayne Creek At the confluence with Sandy Run None +778 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 900 feet upstream of Padgett Road None +821 Tributary 3 At the confluence with Mayne Creek None +789 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of West Zion Church Road None +855 Tributary of Tributary 3 At the confluence with Mayne Creek Tributary 3 None +797 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 350 feet downstream of West Zion Church Road None +855 Muddy Fork At the confluence with Buffalo Creek +656 +658 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Gaston/Cleveland County boundary None +828 Tributary At the confluence with Muddy Fork +749 +746 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet upstream of Beattie Road None +877 Tributary 5 At the confluence with Muddy Fork None +816 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet downstream of Docwehunt Road None +818 No Business Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +910 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 30 feet upstream of Moriah School Road None +1,032 Persimmon Creek At the confluence with Muddy Fork +711 +708 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 60 feet upstream of Rollingbrook Road None +824 Poplar Branch At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek (near Boiling Springs) None +673 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Boiling Springs. Approximately 260 feet upstream of Patrick Avenue None +745 Potts Creek At the confluence with Muddy Fork +657 +659 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Waco Road None +886 Tributary 11 At the confluence with Potts Creek None +859 City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Potts Creek None +881 Tributary 6 At the confluence with Potts Creek None +737 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence with Potts Creek None +739 Poundingmill Creek At the confluence with Knob Creek (into First Broad River) None +910 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 150 feet upstream of Boyles Road None +1,027 Sandy Run At the confluence with Broad River None +659 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Boiling Springs, Town of Mooresboro. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Mooresboro Road None +835 Tributary 12 At the confluence with Sandy Run None +726 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Boiling Springs. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Sandy Run Church Road None +792 Tributary 2 At the confluence with Sandy Run None +668 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Sandy Run None +690 Tributary 21 At the confluence with Sandy Run None +748 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,750 feet upstream of West Dixon Boulevard/U.S. Route 74 None +803 Second Broad River At the confluence with Broad River None +680 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Broad River None +681 Shoal Creek (into First Broad River) At the confluence with First Broad River None +649 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Bear Creek Road None +741 Sipe Creek At the confluence with Kings Creek None +758 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 270 feet upstream of Horseshoe Lane None +782 Stoney Run Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +834 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with First Broad River None +863 Suck Creek (into Broad River) At the confluence with Broad River None +676 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Duke Power Road None +770 Suck Creek (into Buffalo Creek) At the confluence with Buffalo Creek None +768 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Sperling Road None +873 Sulpher Springs Branch At the confluence with Hickory Creek (near Shelby) None +676 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the confluence of Logan Branch None +725 Swainsville Creek At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek (near Boiling Springs) None +704 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Boiling Springs. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Beaver Dam Church Road None +769 Tim Creek At the confluence with Ward Creek None +1,075 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of Wards Gap Road None +1,088 UT between Shelby Raw Water Intakes At the confluence with First Broad River None +714 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Frederick Street None +881 Ward Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +883 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Casar. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of South Valley Road None +1,101 West Fork Brushy Creek At the confluence with Brushy Creek None +861 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of Crowder Ridge Road None +879 West Fork Sandy Run At the confluence with Sandy Run None +778 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of the confluence of Buck Branch (into West Fork Sandy Run) None +801 Whiteoak Creek At the confluence with Buffalo Creek +738 +740 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Kings Mountain, Town of Waco. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of State Route 150 None +924 Williams Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +721 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Shelby. Approximately 330 feet upstream of North Lafayette Street None +744 Yancey Creek At the confluence with First Broad River None +633 Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Boiling Springs. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Keen Drive None +861 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. *#Depth in feet above ground. * + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Belwood Maps are available for inspection at the Belwood Town Hall, 916 Belwood-Lawndale Road, Lawndale, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Ben Privett, Mayor of the Town of Belwood, 1206 Belwood-Lawndale Road, Lawndale, North Carolina 28090. Town of Boiling Springs Maps are available for inspection at the Boiling Springs Town Hall, 145 South Main Street, Boiling Springs, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Max Hamrick, Mayor of the Town of Boiling Springs, P.O. Box 1014, Boiling Springs, North Carolina 28017. Town of Casar Maps are available for inspection at the Casar Town Hall, 137 Deviney Street, Casar, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Eddie Walker, Mayor of the Town of Casar, P.O. Box 1014, Shelby, North Carolina 28151. Town of Grover Maps are available for inspection at the Grover Town Hall, 207 Mulberry Road, Grover, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Robert Sides, Mayor of the Town of Grover, P.O. Box 189, Grover, North Carolina 28073. City of Kings Mountain Maps are available for inspection at the Kings Mountain City Hall, 101 West Gold Street, Kings Mountain, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Rick Murphrey, Mayor of the City of Kings Mountain, P.O. Box 429, Kings Mountain, North Carolina 28086. Town of Kingstown Maps are available for inspection at the Kingstown Town Hall, 2014 Kingston Road, Kingstown, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Clarence S. Withrow, Mayor of the Town of Kingstown, 2014 Kingston Road, Kingstown, North Carolina 28150. Town of Lawndale Maps are available for inspection at the Lawndale Town Hall, 207 West Main Street, Lawndale, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Mike O'Brien, Mayor of the Town of Lawndale, P.O. Box 256, Lawndale, North Carolina 28090. Town of Mooresboro Maps are available for inspection at the Mooresboro Town Hall, 211 West Church Street, Mooresboro, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Bobby Watson, Mayor of the Town of Mooresboro, 211 West Church Street, Mooresboro, North Carolina 28114. Town of Polkville Maps are available for inspection at the Polkville Town Hall, 1234 Shytle Drive, Polkville, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Jack Shytle, Mayor of the Town of Polkville, P.O. Box 146, Polkville, North Carolina 28136. City of Shelby Maps are available for inspection at the City of Shelby Planning Department, 315 South Lafayette Street, Shelby, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable W. Ted Alexander, Mayor of the City of Shelby, P.O. Box 207, Shelby, North Carolina 28151. Town of Waco Maps are available for inspection at the Waco Town Hall, 200 North Main Street, Waco, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Horace Lutz, Mayor of the Town of Waco, P.O. Box 249, Waco, North Carolina 28169. Cleveland County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the Cleveland County Planning Department, 311 East Marion Street, Shelby, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. David Dear, Cleveland County Manager, P.O. Box 1210, Shelby, North Carolina 28151. Lorain County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas Battenhouse Ditch Approximately 115 feet downstream of Middle Ridge Road None +714 Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas) Albrecht Road None +783 Beaver Creek Approximately 40 feet downstream of State Route 113 None +752 Village of South Amherst. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Garfield Road None +799 Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas). Brighton-Camden Main Ditch Approximately 600 feet upstream of confluence with East Fork Vermilion River None +871 Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas) State Route 18 None +922 Carpenter Ditch Approximately 390 feet downstream of Avon Belden Road None +786 Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas). East Branch Beaver Creek Northern City of Amherst corporate limits with the City of Lorain None +591 City of Amherst. Eastern City of Amherst Corporate Limits with the City of Lorain None +593 Engle Ditch Confluence with Battenhouse Ditch None +729 Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas). Stang Road None +742 Fortune Ditch Approximately 200 feet upstream of confluence with Willow Creek None +757 City of North Ridgeville. Approximately 2,600 feet upstream of Avon Belden Road None +774 Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas). Gable Ditch Approximately 400 feet upstream of the mouth at Lake Erie +583 +585 City of Avon Lake. Approximately 40 feet downstream of Walker Road +623 +625 Heider Ditch Approximately 80 feet upstream of Lake Road +583 +582 City of Avon Lake. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Walker Road +626 +622 Norfolk and Southern Railroad None +631 Tributary No. 1 Confluence with Heider Ditch None +620 City of Avon Lake. Norfolk and Southern Railroad None +628 Lake Erie Entire Lake Erie coastline from the western City of Avon Lake corporate limits to the confluence of Heider Ditch (USACE Reach S) +589 +576 City of Avon Lake. Entire Lake Erie coastline from the confluence of Heider Ditch to the eastern corporate limits (USACE Reach R) +589 +576 Entire Lake Erie coastline from the western City of Sheffield Lake corporate limits to the eastern City of Sheffield Lake corporate limits (USACE Reach S) +590 +576 Entire Lake Erie coastline from the confluence of Black River to the eastern City of Lorain corporate limits (USACE Reach S) +577 +576 Entire Lake Erie coastline from the western City of Vermilion corporate limits to eastern corporate limits (USACE Reach T) +576 +577 Martins Run Mouth at Lake Erie +578 +576 City of Lorain. City of Lorain corporate limits +722 +721 Phelom Ditch Approximately 160 feet upstream of confluece with Carpenter Ditch None +777 City of North Ridgeville. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the City of North Ridgeville corporate limits None +787 Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas). Plum Creek Approximately 80 feet downstream of Pyle-South Amherst Road None +810 City of Oberlin Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas). US Route 20 None 830 Plum Creek—East Sprague Road None +782 Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas). Crocker Road None +826 Powdermaker Ditch Approximately 1,220 feet upstream of the culvert entrance at Lake Road +599 +598 City of Avon Lake. Approximately 2,320 feet upstream of the culvert entrance at Lake Road +604 +602 Ridgeway Ditch Approximately 50 feet downstream of Case Road None +696 City of North Ridgeville. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Bender Road None +739 Schroeder Ditch Approximately 100 feet downstream of State Route 20 None +738 Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,100 feet upstream of Russia Road None +779 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Amherst Maps are available for inspection at 480 Park Avenue, Amherst, OH 44001. Send comments to Ron Konowal, Building Inspector, City of Amherst, 480 Park Avenue, Amherst, OH 44001. City of Avon Maps are available for inspection at 36080 Chester Road, Avon, OH 44011. Send comments to Jim Piazza, City Engineer, City of Avon, 36080 Chester Road, Avon, OH 44011. City of Avon Lake Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 150 Avon Belden Road, Avon Lake, OH 44012. Send comments to Joseph Reitz, Assistant to City Engineer, City of Avon Lake, City Hall, 150 Avon Belden Road, Avon Lake, OH 44012. City of Elyria Maps are available for inspection at 131 Court Street, Elyria, OH 44035. Send comments to Jon Hart, City Engineer, City of Elyria, 131 Court Street, Elyria, OH 44035. Village of Grafton Maps are available for inspection at 960 Main Street, Grafton, OH 44044. Send comments to Richard Kowalski, Building Inspector, Village of Grafton, 960 Main Street, Grafton, OH 44044. Village of Kipton Maps are available for inspection at 299 State Street, Kipton, OH 44049. Send comments to The Honorable Dennis L. Watson, Mayor, Village of Kipton, 299 State Street, PO Box 177, Kipton, OH 44049. Town of La Grange Maps are available for inspection at 355 South Center Street, LaGrange, OH 44050. Send comments to Walt Sukey, Village Administrator, Village of LaGrange, 355 South Center Street, PO Box 597, LaGrange, OH 44050. City of Lorain Maps are available for inspection at Engineering Department, 4th Floor, 200 West Erie Avenue, Lorain, OH 44052. Send comments to Dale Vandersommen, Civil Engineer III, City of Lorain, Engineering Department, 4th Floor, 200 West Erie Avenue, Lorain, OH 44052. City of North Ridgeville Maps are available for inspection at 7307 Avon Belden Road, North Ridgeville, OH 44039. Send comments to Guy Fursden, Floodplain Administrator, City of North Ridgeville, 7307 Avon Belden Road, North Ridgeville, OH 44039. City of Oberlin Maps are available for inspection at 85 South Main Street, Oberlin, OH 44074. Send comments to Marshall Whitehead, Code Administrator, 85 South Main Street, Oberlin, OH 44074. Village of Rochester Maps are available for inspection at 100 South Street, Rochester, OH 44090. Send comments to The Honorable William Spicer, Mayor, Village of Rochester, 100 South Street, Rochester, OH 44090. Village of Sheffield Maps are available for inspection at 4480 Colorado Avenue, Sheffield Village, OH 44054. Send comments to Ken Kaczay, Village Administrator, Village of Sheffield, 4480 Colorado Avenue, Sheffield Village, OH 44054. City of Sheffield Lake Maps are available for inspection at 4750 Richelieu Avenue, Sheffield Lake, OH 44054. Send comments to Bill Gardner, Service Director, City of Sheffield Lake, 4750 Richelieu Avenue, Sheffield Lake, OH 44054. Village of South Amherst Maps are available for inspection at 103 West Main Street, South Amherst, OH 44001. Send comments to Ken Kaczay, Village Administrator, Village of Sheffield, 4480 Colorado Avenue, Sheffield Village, OH 44054. City of Vermilion Maps are available for inspection at 5511 Liberty Avenue, Vermilion, OH 44089. Send comments to Chris Howard, City of Vermilion, c/o Bramhill Engineering, 801 Moore Road, Avon, OH 44011. Village of Wellington Maps are available for inspection at 115 Willard Memorial Square, Wellington, OH 44090. Send comments to Morris Furcron, Zoning Inspector, Village of Wellington, 115 Willard Memorial Square, Wellington, OH 44090. Lorain County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 226 Middle Avenue, Community Development Department, Elyria, OH 44035. Send comments to Christin Brandon, NFIP Administrator, Lorain County, 226 Middle Avenue, Community Development Department, Elyria, OH 44035. Village of Cambridge, New York Cambridge Creek Confluence with Owl Kill None +477 Village of Cambridge. Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of State Route 372 None +508 Owl Kill Approximately 850 feet upstream of County Route 71 None +466 Village of Cambridge. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of N. Park Street None +493 White Creek Corporate limits of Village of Cambridge None +493 Village of Cambridge. Approximately 150 feet downstream of corporate limits of Village of Cambridge None +523 Village of Cambridge. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Village of Cambridge Maps are available for inspection at 23 West Main Street, Cambridge, NY 12819. Send comments to The Honorable Daniel Walsh, Mayor, Village of Cambridge, PO Box 271, Cambridge, NY 12816. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: March 16, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7-5611 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-1128; MB Docket No. 05-249; RM-10778, RM-11259] Radio Broadcasting Services; Glenmora and Marksville, LA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal. SUMMARY: The Audio Division dismisses a Petition for Rule Making filed by Charles Crawford, requesting the allotment of Channel 292A at Glenmora, Louisiana, as its first local service. Charles Crawford, or no other party, filed comments supporting the allotment of Channel 292A at Glenmora, Louisiana. Additionally, a Petition for Rule Making filed by Goudeau, Inc., proposing the allotment of Channel 292A at Marksville, Louisiana, as its first local service is also dismissed. Goudeau, Inc. or no other party, filed comments supporting the allotment of Channel 292A at Marksville, Louisiana. It is the Commission's policy to refrain from making a new allotment to a community absent an expression of interest. Moreover, the license of Station KIOC, Orange, Texas was reclassified to specify operation on Channel 291C0 in lieu of Channel 291C. *See* File No. BLH-20030303ACM. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order,* MB Docket No. 05-249, adopted March 7, 2007, and released March 9, 2007. The *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* proposed the mutually exclusive allotments of Channel 292A at Glenmora, Louisiana and Channel 292A at Marksville, Louisiana. *See* 70 FR 48358, published August 17, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC's Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule was dismissed.) Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-5440 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 72 59 Wednesday, March 28, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Volunteer Application for Natural Resources Agencies AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; Request for comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension of a currently approved information collection entitled, Volunteer Application for Natural Resources Agencies. DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before May 29, 2007 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Director, Senior, Youth & Volunteer Programs, Mailstop 1136, Forest Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1136. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to

(703)605-5115 or by e-mail to: *abryant@fs.fed.us.* The public may inspect comments received at USDA—Forest Service, 1621 N. Kent Street, Rosslyn Plaza East, Room 1010, Arlington, VA during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to

(703)605-4831 to facilitate entry to the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur Bryant, Director, Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs, at

(703)605-4831. Individuals who use TDD may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Volunteer Application for Natural Resources Agencies. *OMB Number:* 0596-0080. *Expiration Date of Approval:* August 31, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* The collected information is needed by participating natural resources agencies to manage agency volunteer programs. Information is collected from potential and selected volunteers of all ages. Those under the age of 18 years must have written consent from a parent or guardian. *Participating Agencies:* The volunteer programs of the following natural resource agencies are included: *Department of Agriculture:* U.S. Forest Service, National Resources Conservation Service; *Department of the Interior:* National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey; *Department of Defense:* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; *Forms:* *OF-301—Volunteer Application:* Individuals interested in volunteering may access the national Federal volunteer opportunities Web site ( *http://www.volunteer.gov/gov/index.cfm* ), individual agency Web sites, and/or contact agencies to request a Volunteer Application (OF-301). Applicants provide name, address, telephone number, age, preferred work categories, available dates, preferred location, description of physical limitations, and lodging preferences. Information collected using this form assists agency volunteer coordinators and other personnel in matching volunteers with agency opportunities appropriate for an applicant's skills and physical condition and availability. Signature of a parent or guardian is mandatory for applicants under 18 years of age. *OF-New—Volunteer Agreement:* This form will be used by participating resource agencies to document agreements for volunteer services between a Federal agency and individual or group volunteers, including international volunteers. Signature of parent or guardian is mandatory for applicants under 18 years of age. *Forms unique to participating agencies:* The forms listed below gather information necessary to reimburse volunteers for approved, miscellaneous expenses associated with volunteer assignments and record service time of volunteers. *U.S. Forest Service:* FS-6500-299—Volunteers Request for Reimbursement. *U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:* Volunteer Time Sheet; SF-1164—Claim for Miscellaneous Expenses. *U.S. Geological Survey:* Form 9-2080—USGS Individual Volunteer Agreement. *National Park Service:* Form 10-67—Volunteer Claim for Reimbursement. *Estimate of Annual Burden:* 15 minutes. *Type of Respondents:* Individuals. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 400,000. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:* 5. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 500,000. Comment is invited on:

(1)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;

(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. Dated: March 21, 2007. Hank Kashdan, Deputy Chief. [FR Doc. E7-5714 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Notice of Proposed Change to Section IV of the Virginia State Technical Guide AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. ACTION: Notice of Availability of proposed changes in the Virginia NRCS State Technical Guide for review and comment. SUMMARY: It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for Virginia that changes must be made in the NRCS State Technical Guide specifically in practice standards: #647, Early Successional Habitat Development Management, #511, Forage Harvest Management, #655, Forest Trails and Landings and #512, Pasture and Hay Planting. These practices will be used to plan and install conservation practices on cropland, pastureland, woodland, and wildlife land. DATES: Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with the date of this publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquire in writing to John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229-5014; Telephone number

(804)287-1691; Fax number

(804)287-1737. Copies of the practice standards will be made available upon written request to the address shown above or on the Virginia NRCS Web site: *http://www.va.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/draftstandards.html.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Virginia will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Virginia regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made to the subject standards. Dated: March 26, 2007. John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Richmond, Virginia. [FR Doc. E7-5719 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1508 Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Medline Industries, Inc., (Medical Supply Distribution), Lathrop, California 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 Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ”. . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; WHEREAS, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest; WHEREAS, the Port of Stockton (California), grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 231, has made application for authority to establish special-purpose subzone status at the medical supply warehousing and distribution facility of Medline Industries, Inc., in Lathrop, California (Docket 26-2006, filed 6-15-2006); WHEREAS, notice inviting public comment was given in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 35610, 6-21-2006); 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 approval of the application is in the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone status for activity related to medical supply warehousing and distribution at the Medline Industries, Inc., facility located in Lathrop, California (Subzone 231A), as described in the application and **Federal Register** notice, and subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 20 th day of March 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration,Alternate Chairman Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5715 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202)482-4697. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2004), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates. With respect to the antidumping duty orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review for these cases will be published in a separate initiation notice. The Department also received requests to continue the deferral of the 2005 administrative reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on low enriched uranium from France. 1 1 On April 5, 2006, in response to requests, the Department deferred the initiation of the 2005 antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews on imports of low enriched uranium from France. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006). These reviews are being deferred for another year based on submissions filed by all parties on February 1, 2007 and February 28, 2007. Initiation of Reviews: In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than February 28, 2008. Antidumping duty proceedings Period to be reviewed BRAZIL: Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 2 A-351-838 2/1/06-1/31/07 ECUADOR: Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 3 A-331-802 2/1/06-1/31/07 FRANCE: Low Enriched Uranium A-427-818 2/1/06-1/31/07 Eurodif S.A./AREVA NC (formerly COGEMA) INDIA: Stainless Steel Bar A-533-810 2/1/06-1/31/07 Chandan Steel, Ltd D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd INDIA: Forged Stainless Steel Flanges A-533-809 2/1/06-1/31/07 Hilton Metal Forging Ltd Shree Ganesh Forgings, Ltd Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd Nakshatra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd INDIA: Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 4 A-533-840 2/1/06-1/31/07 REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate A-580-836 2/1/06-1/31/07 Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd THAILAND: Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 5 A-549-822 2/1/06-1/31/07 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Axes/Adzes 6 A-570-803 2/1/06-1/31/07 Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Bars/Wedges* A-570-803 2/1/05-1/31/06 Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 7 A-570-893 2/1/06-1/31/07 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Hammers/Sledges* A-570-803 2/1/06-1/31/07 Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Picks/Mattocks* A-570-803 2/1/06-1/31/07 Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 8 A-570-851 2/1/06-1/31/07 China National Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation China Processed Food Import & Export Company COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co., Ltd Fujian Yu Xing Fruit and Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM: Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 9 A-552-802 2/1/06-1/31/07 Countervailing Duty Proceedings: FRANCE: Low Enriched Uranium C-427-819 1/1/06-12/31/06 Eurodif S.A./AREVA NC (formerly COGEMA) REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate C-580-837 1/1/06-12/31/06 Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd TC Steel DSEC; a subsidiary of Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineeering Suspension Agreements: None 2 The initiation of the administrative review for the above referenced case will be published in a separate initiation notice. 3 The initiation of the administrative review for the above referenced case will be published in a separate initiation notice. 4 The initiation of the administrative review for the above referenced case will be published in a separate initiation notice. 5 The initiation of the administrative review for the above referenced case will be published in a separate initiation notice. 6 (*) If the one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part. 7 The initiation of the administrative review for the above referenced case will be published in a separate initiation notice. 8 If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part. 9 The initiation of the administrative review for the above referenced case will be published in a separate initiation notice. During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with *FAG Italia v.United States* , 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: March 21, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-5689 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-504 Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China: Partial Termination of Circumvention Inquiry and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Partial Termination and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China. SUMMARY: On December 14, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received from the National Candle Association

(NCA)an allegation of circumvention of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Pursuant to that allegation, the Department initiated an anticircumvention inquiry on May 11, 2006, with respect to four importers. We preliminarily determine that the importation by, or sale to, three U.S. importers (DECOR-WARE, Inc.; A&M Wholesalers, Inc.; and Albert E. Price) of wickless petroleum wax forms from the PRC, which subsequently undergo insertion of a wick and clip assembly in the United States, constitutes circumvention of the aforementioned order, within the meaning of section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because NCA withdrew its allegation with respect to the fourth importer, Northern Lights Enterprises, the Department is terminating the inquiry with respect to Northern Lights Enterprises. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202-482-1131 and 202-482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 14, 2005, the NCA requested that the Department conduct an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act to determine whether candles assembled in the United States from certain wax forms produced in the PRC are circumventing the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China* , 51 FR 30686 (August 28, 1986) (Candles Order). NCA asserted that the molded or carved articles of wax from the PRC are essentially wickless wax candles, and that producers in the PRC are shipping these wickless wax forms to the United States, with or without a pre-drilled hole in the center, for final assembly of the candle through insertion of a wick and clip assembly. Such assembly in the United States, NCA stated, constitutes circumvention of the order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. *See* Request for Determination of Circumvention - Wickless Wax Candles Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China (A-570-504), dated December 14, 2005 (NCA Request). On April 3 and 4, 2006, NCA supplemented the record with additional information. The April 3, 2006, submission contained a revised list of names of alleged PRC producers/exporters and alleged U.S. importers/assemblers of the wickless wax candles; the April 4, 2006, submission contained copies of Customs Tariff Classification Rulings that NCA had identified in its original December 14, 2005, request. On May 11, 2006, the Department initiated the anticircumvention inquiry with respect to four importers. *See Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 28661 (May 17, 2006) (Notice of Initiation). The Department issued questionnaires to each of the four importers: Northern Lights Enterprises (on June 20, 2006); A&M Wholesalers, Inc. (on June 20, 2006); DECOR-WARE, Inc. (on June 21, 2006); and Albert E. Price (on June 22, 2006). Responses to those questionnaires were originally due on July 11, 2006. Northern Lights Enterprises requested, and was granted, an extension for responding to the original questionnaire, and submitted its response on August 12, 2006. The remaining three importers (DECOR-WARE, Inc.; A&M Wholesalers, Inc.; and Albert E. Price) failed to respond by the deadline of July 11, 2006. Each of these remaining three importers was sent a letter on July 27, 2006, requesting each to respond to the questionnaire by July 31, 2006, and indicating that further delays or lack of response may result in the Department proceeding with results based on facts available including, where appropriate, facts adverse to the importer. All three failed to respond. On May 17, 2006, the Department indicated to NCA that any request to add additional importers to the inquiry needed to be filed by July 5, 2006. *See* Memorandum from Robert James for the File, dated June 30, 2006. NCA submitted a letter on July 5, 2006 requesting that the Department add to the inquiry an entity identified as Indulgence Candles and Home; however, the request did not contain sufficient evidence that the firm in question was importing wax forms for completion into finished candles in the United States. On September 11, 2006, NCA submitted a letter requesting that the Department add to the inquiry an entity identified as Deluxe in Commerce. 1 1 As this submission was untimely, the Department did not consider adding Deluxe in Commerce to this inquiry. On February 21, 2007, NCA submitted a letter withdrawing its request with respect to Northern Lights Enterprises. On March 2, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the final determination to June 5, 2007. *See* Letter from Robert James to All Interested Parties, dated March 2, 2007. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. The products were classified in the original investigation under the Tariff Schedules of the United States item 755.25, Candles and Tapers. The products covered are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3406.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience purposes, the written description remains dispositive. In addition, the Department has determined that mixed-wax candles containing any amount of petroleum wax are later-developed merchandise and are within the scope of the *Candles Order. See Later-Developed Merchandise Anticircumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 59075 (October 6, 2006). Scope of the Anticircumvention Inquiry The products covered by this inquiry are certain scented or unscented petroleum wax forms that do not incorporate a wick within the wax, whether or not having pre-drilled wick holes (wickless petroleum wax forms) that are imported into the United States and assembled into petroleum wax candles, and are currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 9602.00.40. Wickless petroleum wax forms are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals, straight-sided wax forms; rounds, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. This inquiry only covers such products that are imported by, or sold to Northern Lights Enterprises, DECOR-WARE, Inc., A&M Wholesalers, Inc., or Albert E. Price. Applicable Statute Section 781 of the Act addresses circumvention of antidumping or countervailing duty orders. With respect to merchandise assembled or completed in the United States, section 781(a)(1) of the Act provides that if:

(A)the merchandise sold in the United States is of the same class or kind as any other merchandise that is the subject of an antidumping duty order;

(B)such merchandise sold in the United States is completed or assembled in the United States from parts or components produced in the foreign country with respect to which such order applies;

(C)the process of assembly or completion in the United States is minor or insignificant; and

(D)the value of the parts or components produced in the foreign country is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise, then the Department may include within the scope of the order the imported parts or components produced in the foreign country used in the completion or assembly of the merchandise in the United States, after taking into account any advice provided by the United States International Trade Commission

(ITC)under section 781(e) of the Act. In determining whether the process of assembly or completion in the United States is minor or insignificant, section 781(a)(2) of the Act directs the Department to consider:

(A)the level of investment;

(B)the level of research and development;

(C)the nature of the production process;

(D)the extent of production facilities and

(E)whether the value of processing performed in the United States represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise sold in the United States. Section 781(a)(3) sets forth the factors to consider in determining whether to include parts or components in an antidumping duty order. The Department shall take into account:

(A)the pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns;

(B)whether the manufacturer or exporter of the parts or components is affiliated with the person who assembles or completes the merchandise sold in the United States; and

(C)whether imports into the United States of the parts or components produced in the foreign country have increased after the initiation of the investigation which resulted in the issuance of the order. Partial Termination of the Anticircumvention Inquiry As noted above, NCA withdrew its inquiry request with respect to Northern Lights Enterprises. Accordingly, we are terminating this inquiry with respect to Northern Lights Enterprises. Regarding the remaining three importers (DECOR-WARE, Inc.; A&M Wholesalers, Inc.; and Albert E. Price), see the Facts Available section below. Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention For the reasons described below, we preliminarily determine that circumvention of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC is occurring by reason of exports of wickless petroleum wax forms from the PRC imported by, or sold to, DECOR-WARE, Inc., A&M Wholesalers, Inc., and Albert E. Price, and which subsequently undergo insertion of a wick and clip assembly in the United States. Facts Available DECOR-WARE, Inc., A&M Wholesalers, Inc., and Albert E. Price failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. The questionnaires the Department issued to these importers were designed to elicit information for purposes of conducting both qualitative and quantitative analyses in accordance with the criteria enumerated in section 781(a) of the Act as outlined above. This approach is consistent with our analysis in previous anticircumvention inquiries. *See, e.g., Circumvention and Scope Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, Partial Final Termination of Circumvention Inquiry and Final Rescission of Scope Inquiry* , 71 FR 38608 (July 7, 2006); *Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from Germany and the United Kingdom; Negative Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 64 FR 40336 (July 26, 1999). Without this information the Department has no choice but to resort to the use of facts available in making its determination pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act. In selecting from among the facts available, the Department determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, because these importers failed to comply with the Department's requests for information to the best of their ability. Section 776(a) of the Act requires the Department to resort to facts otherwise available if necessary information is not available on the record or when an interested party or any other person fails to provide (requested) information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782. *See* sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. As provided in section 782(c)(1) of the Act, if an interested party, promptly after receiving a request from the Department for information, notifies the Department that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. However, neither DECOR-WARE, Inc., A&M Wholesalers, Inc., nor Albert E. Price notified the Department that they were unable to comply with the Department's requests. Consequently, because these importers failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we must base the preliminary determination in this inquiry on the facts otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act permits the Department to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of an interested party if that party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Because DECOR-WARE, Inc., A&M Wholesalers, Inc., and Albert E. Price refused to comply with the Department's request for information, we find that these importers failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability. The refusals by DECOR-WARE, Inc., A&M Wholesalers, Inc., and Albert E. Price to respond to our questionnaire precludes the Department from making an informed determination based on record evidence as to whether they are (or are not) circumventing the antidumping duty order. In addition, because these importers failed to provide the Department with any information, we are also unable to distinguish between their imports or purchase of wickless petroleum wax forms for purposes other than U.S. assembly into merchandise covered by the *Candles Order* . Accordingly, we are making an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act that wickless petroleum wax forms imported by, or sold to, DECOR-WARE, Inc., A&M Wholesalers, Inc., and Albert E. Price are completed or assembled in the United States by the insertion of a wick and clip assembly within the meaning of section 781(a) of the Act. Therefore, we preliminarily find that these wickless petroleum wax forms are subject merchandise. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), which accompanied the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103rd Congress, 2nd Session (1994), states that the independent sources may include published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the investigation or review. SAA at 870. The SAA also clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *Id* . To the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. *See, e.g., Circumvention and Scope Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, Partial Final Termination of Circumvention Inquiry and Final Rescission of Scope Inquiry* , 71 FR 38608 (July 7, 2006) and accompanying decision memorandum, dated June 30, 2006 (at Comment 2B). We reviewed all information on the record including NCA's December 14, 2005, application for this anticircumvention inquiry, its subsequent submissions, and the Department's initiation of this inquiry. *See Notice of Initiation* . NCA presented information demonstrating an increase in imports of wax forms that may be used in the assembly of finished candles within the United States. *Id* . NCA also provided evidence that the wick and clip assembly process in the United States is minor or insignificant. *Id* . Although NCA did not have direct and specific information from U.S. assemblers, it was able to provide information based on the actual experience of its constituent members, U.S. domestic candle producers, that provided significant information on wick and clip assembly in particular, and commercial candle production in general. *Id* . With respect to whether the value of the parts or components produced in the PRC (the wickless petroleum wax forms) is a significant portion of the total value of the candle, NCA was able to provide information from the domestic candle industry indicating the value of the wax form is typically a significant portion of the total value of the finished candle. 2 Thus, we conclude that NCA identified the elements required by 781(a) of the Act and supported its allegations with reliable and relevant information that continue to be of probative value. 2 *Id* . NCA did acknowledge, in its February 21, 2007, letter withdrawing its request with respect to the importer Northern Lights Enterprises, that this importer “does more than just drill a hole and insert a wick” in the imported wickless petroleum wax forms. Suspension Of Liquidation Section 351.225(l)(2) of the Department's regulations states that, “{i}f the Secretary issues a preliminary scope ruling under paragraph (f)(3)” and “{i}f liquidation has not been suspended, the Secretary will instruct the Customs Service to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties, at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry of the product entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of initiation of the scope inquiry.” In accordance with section 351.225(l)(2) of the Department's regulations, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all wickless petroleum wax forms (as defined in the Scope of the Anticircumvention Inquiry section above) from the People's Republic of China imported by, or sold to DECOR-WARE, Inc., A&M Wholesalers, Inc., or Albert E. Price that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 11, 2006, the date of initiation of this anticircumvention inquiry. *See Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 63 FR 18364, 18366 (April 15, 1998); *Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 63 FR 54672, 54675-6 (October 13, 1998). CBP shall require cash deposits in accordance with those rates prevailing at the time of entry, depending upon the exporter in question. Notification to the International Trade Commission The Department, consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, is notifying the ITC of this affirmative preliminary determination to include the merchandise subject to this inquiry within the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. Pursuant to section 781(e) of the Act, the ITC may request consultations concerning the Department's proposed inclusion of the subject merchandise. These consultations must be concluded within 15 days after the date of the request. If, after consultations, the ITC believes that a significant injury issue is presented by the proposed inclusion, it will have 60 days to provide written advice to the Department. Public Comment Interested parties may request a hearing within 10 days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments from interested parties may be submitted no later than 20 days from the publication of this notice. Rebuttals limited to issues raised in the initial comments may be filed no later than 27 days after publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than 34 days after publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final determination with respect to this anticircumvention inquiry, including the results of its analysis of any written comments. The deadline for the final determination is currently June 5, 2007. *See* Letter from Robert James to All Interested Parties, dated March 2, 2007. This affirmative preliminary circumvention determination is in accordance with section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225. Dated: March 22, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-5691 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-504 Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 2007. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has determined that a request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), received before February 28, 2007, meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) of this new shipper review is August 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Bankhead, 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)482-9068. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC published in the **Federal Register** on August 28, 1986. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China* , 51 FR 30686 (August 28, 1986). 1 On February 16, 2007, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department received a new shipper review request from Hangzhou Fashion Living Co., Ltd (“Fashion Living”). On March 7, 2007, the Department requested that Fashion Living correct certain filing deficiencies. *See* the Department's letter dated March 7, 2007. On March 8, 2007, Fashion Living resubmitted its new shipper request. Fashion Living certified that it is both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise upon which the request for a new shipper review is based. 1 Therefore, a request for a new shipper review based on the semiannual anniversary month, February, was due to the Department by February 28, 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(d)(2). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Fashion Living certified that it did not export petroleum wax candles to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Fashion Living certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any PRC exporter or producer who exported petroleum wax candles to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Fashion Living also certified that its export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC. In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Fashion Living submitted documentation establishing the following:

(1)the date on which Fashion Living first shipped petroleum wax candles for export to the United States and the date on which the petroleum wax candles were first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption;

(2)the volume of its first shipment; 2 and

(3)the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. 2 Fashion Living made no subsequent shipments to the United States, which the Department corroborated using data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Department conducted customs database queries to confirm that Fashion Living's shipment of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and had been suspended for antidumping duties. We confirmed that Fashion Living's shipment had entered for consumption and been suspended for antidumping duties. Initiation of New Shipper Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that Fashion Living's request meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review for the shipment of petroleum wax candles from the PRC it produced and exported. *See Memo to the File from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9: New Shipper Review Initiation Checklist* , dated March 19, 2007. The POR for this new shipper review is August 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(ii)(B). The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this review no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final results of this review no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: March 19, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-5713 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-469-805 Stainless Steel Bar from Spain: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from an interested party, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar

(SSB)from Spain. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Sidenor Industrial SL (Sidenor). The period of review is March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that Sidenor has made sales below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 2007 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Dmitry Vladamirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0665 and

(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 2, 1995, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on SSB from Spain. *See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar From Spain* , 60 FR 11656 (March 2, 1995) (SSB Order). On March 2, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from Spain. See *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 10642 (March 2, 2006). On March 29, 2006, Sidenor requested that the Department conduct a review of its U.S. sales made during the period of review. On April 28, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of initiation of administrative review of this order. See *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 25145 (April 28, 2006). On December 1, 2006, we published a notice announcing the extension of the due date for the completion of these preliminary results of review from December 1, 2006, to February 13, 2007. See *Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 69550 (December 1, 2006) ( *Extension Notice* ). 1 On February 6, 2007, we published a notice announcing a second extension of the due date for the completion of these preliminary results of review from February 13, 2007, to March 22, 2007. See *Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 5419 (February 6, 2007). 1 In the *Extension Notice* we stated inadvertently that we were extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this review to February 13, 2006. On December 15, 2006, we published a correction notice announcing the extension of the due date for the completion of these preliminary results of review to February 13, 2007. See *Correction to Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 75503 (December 15, 2006). The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Use of Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act, significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Act further states that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met:

(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;

(2)the information can be verified;

(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;

(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and

(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. The cost-of-production

(COP)questionnaire responses submitted by Sidenor are incomplete and cannot be used to calculate an accurate dumping margin for Sidenor. The original antidumping questionnaire was issued on July 31, 2006. Since the issuance of the initial questionnaire to Sidenor, we have granted numerous extensions up to and including the submission of the third supplemental questionnaire response, which we received on January 24, 2007. Over a six-month period, we carefully and repeatedly identified numerous deficiencies and errors for which we needed more complete information in order to understand the reported information. Throughout this process, Sidenor demonstrated a consistent pattern of non-responsiveness, providing confusing, incomplete, and inconsistent information. As a result of these serious deficiencies, we are unable to determine adequately whether the COP information in its responses reflects reasonably and accurately the costs incurred by Sidenor to produce the merchandise under consideration. Without this information, we cannot calculate an accurate dumping margin for this company. In accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department preliminarily determines that the use of total adverse facts available

(AFA)is warranted with respect to Sidenor. As discussed in the Memorandum from Mark Todd to Neal Halper, entitled “Use of Adverse Facts Available for the Preliminary Determination,” dated March 22, 2007 (AFA Memo), Sidenor did not provide the following information which we requested:

(1)a consistent explanation for its product-cost calculation methodology that demonstrates the link between its reported costs and its normal books and records;

(2)various reconciliation schedules ( *i.e.* , quantity reconciliation, direct material cost reconciliation, and conversion cost reconciliation); and

(3)requested supporting cost documentation from its normal books and records ( *i.e.* , job cost sheets and cost of sales information). Without this information, the Department is unable to determine whether Sidenor accounted for all of its production costs relating to the merchandise under consideration. Thus, the Department is unable to rely on Sidenor's submitted costs. Because Sidenor has not provided the necessary information on the record, the use of facts available for the preliminary results of review is warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act. Furthermore, because Sidenor has withheld requested information, failed to provide such information in the form and manner required, impeded this review, and reported information that could not be verified, the use of facts available for the preliminary results is warranted pursuant to sections 776(a)

(2)(A), (B), (C), and

(D)of the Act. For further discussion, please refer to the AFA Memo. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, the administering authority may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. See, *e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Mexico* , 68 FR 42378 (July 17, 2003), unchanged in the final determination (see *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Mexico* , 68 FR 68350 (December 8, 2003)). 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 accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870

(1994)(SAA). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith, or willfulness, on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See *Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties, Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997). Despite repeated requests for information concerning Sidenor's reported costs, including extensions of time granted to submit the necessary information, the company did not provide adequate cost data we could use in our calculations. 2 Sidenor submitted a series of supplemental questionnaire responses that were inadequate and lacked certain critical elements that address our evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of the reported cost information. Additionally, Sidenor failed to submit various reconciliation schedules and explanations that we requested in our supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, we find that Sidenor has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it continued to be non-responsive despite our repeated requests to provide critical information regarding Sidenor's reported costs. Consequently, the Department has preliminarily determined that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. See section 776(b) of the Act; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan, 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000), where the Department applied total AFA because the respondents failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire; see also *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India* , 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006), unchanged in the final determination (see *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India* , 71 FR 45012, 45013 (August 8, 2006), where the Department applied total AFA because the respondent had failed to address the various deficiencies identified several times by the Department). 2 Because some of the information regarding Sidenor's costs is business proprietary, see the AFA Memo for further discussion. As total AFA, we have applied the highest rate determined by the Department in the less-than-fair-value investigation, which is 62.85 percent. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar From Spain* , 59 FR 66931 (December 28, 1994) ( *Final LTFV* ). In the LTFV investigation we applied this rate to Acenor S.A. “In cases in which the respondent fails to provide Commerce with the most recent pricing data, it is within Commerce's discretion to presume that the highest prior margin reflects the current margins.” See *Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States* , 298 F.3d 1330, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing *Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Further, as stated in *Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. United States* , 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (citing *D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220,1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), “the purposes of using the highest prior antidumping duty rate are to offer assurance that the exporter will not benefit from refusing to provide information, and to produce an antidumping duty rate that bears some relationship to past practices in the industry in question.” Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *Id* . Information from a prior segment of this proceeding, such as that used here, constitutes secondary information. See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869. The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published prices lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870. With respect to the reliability aspect of corroboration, the Department found the rate of 62.85 percent to be reliable in the investigation. See *LTFV* , 59 FR 66931. There, the Department assigned to Acenor S.A. the highest margin among the margins alleged in the petition, as recalculated by the Department. Because the information was supported by source documents, we preliminary determine that the information is still reliable. In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin as “best information available” (the predecessor to “facts available”) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an unusually high dumping margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See *D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances is present here, and there is no evidence indicating that the margin used as facts available in this review is not appropriate. Further, in accordance with *F. LII De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A v. United States* , 216 F. 3d. 1027, 1030 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2000), we must also examine whether information on the record would support the selected rates as reasonable facts available. In the investigation, we determined that the calculation of 62.85 percent reflects commercial practices of the particular industry during the period of investigation and, as such, was relevant to mandatory respondents that failed to participate in the investigation. Because no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the relevance of this information, we preliminarily determine that the adverse facts-available rate we corroborated in the investigation is relevant to Sidenor in this administrative review of the order. Similar to our position in *Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand* , 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006), because this is the first review of Sidenor (and because Acenor S.A. failed to participate in the investigation), there are no probative alternatives. Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the investigation and preliminarily determined to be relevant to Sidenor in this review, we have corroborated the adverse facts-available rate “to the extent practicable.” See section 776(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d), and *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 347 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1336 (CIT 2004) (stating, “pursuant to the 'to the extent practicable' language the corroboration requirement itself is not mandatory when not feasible”). Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine a dumping margin of 62.85 percent for Sidenor, based on adverse facts available, exists for the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Also, interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument:

(1)a statement of the issue,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the **Federal Register** . Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because we are relying on total adverse facts available to establish Sidenor's dumping margin, we preliminarily determine to instruct CBP to apply a dumping margin of 62.85 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the period of review which were produced and/or exported by Sidenor. Within 15 days of publication of the final results of review, the Department will issue instructions to CBP. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)the cash-deposit rate for Sidenor will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except that if the rate is *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit will be required);

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

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and

(4)the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 25.77 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See *SSB Order* . These cash-deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also 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 occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 22, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-5690 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D.032107C] Marine Mammals; File No. 1100-1849 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Shane Moore, Moore & Moore Films, Box 2980, 1203 Melody Creek Lane, Jackson, Wyoming 83001 has been issued a permit to conduct commercial/educational photography. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone

(301)713-2289; fax

(301)427-2521; and Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone

(907)586-7221; fax

(907)586-7249. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Hubard or Kate Swails,

(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 19, 2006 notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 40995) that a request for a commercial/educational photography permit to take killer whales ( *Orcinus orca* ), gray whales ( *Eschrichtius robustus* ), and minke whales ( *Balaenoptera acutorostrata* ) had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The applicant will take 10 killer whales of the Eastern North Pacific Transient stock, 10 gray whales, and 10 minke whales annually by close approach for filming in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. The purpose of this project is to document the behavior of marine animals in the presence of the carcass of a gray or minke whale that was killed by killer whales. The applicant will fix a remotely operated video camera in an underwater housing to the sea floor approximately 15 feet from the carcass. The camera will be deployed after the killer whales have left the carcass and would be controlled from a boat approximately 100 yards away. In addition, if killer whales, gray whales, or minke whales pass near the boat, the applicant will submerge a small camera on a pole to take photographs of passing animals. This footage will be shared freely with the scientific community as it may reveal to what extent killer whales continue to feed on submerged kills, how they feed on these carcasses, and document what other animals may benefit from these carcasses as well. Filming activities will occur between April 1 and August 31 of each year. The permit will expire three years from the date of issuance. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Dated: March 23, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-5680 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 032307A] North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council's Halibut Charter Stakeholder Committee. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Halibut Charter Stakeholder Committee will meet in Anchorage, AK at the North Pacific Research Board meeting room. DATES: The meeting will be held on April 12, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and on April 13, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the North Pacific Research Board, 1007 West 3rd Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane DiCosimo, Council staff; telephone:

(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda will include the following: report on status of Council actions; report on status of State actions; subcommittee report on finance mechanisms to compensate reallocation from commercial to charter sectors; continued revisions to permanent solution alternatives; separating allocation from permanent solution analysis; charter halibut bycatch mortality estimates; new proposals; other business. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at

(907)271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: March 23, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-5636 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 032007B] National Artificial Reef Plan (as Amended): Guidelines for Siting, Construction, Development, and Assessment of Artificial Reefs AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of agency decision. SUMMARY: The National Artificial Reef Plan (NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS OF-6) was originally published in November 1985, in fulfillment of a requirement under the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984. NMFS worked in partnership with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission to update and revise this plan. A revised version has been completed, entitled the “National Artificial Reef Plan (as Amended): Guidelines for siting, construction, development, and assessment of artificial reefs.” This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives outlined in the National Fishing Enhancement Act. DATES: The revised National Artificial Reef Plan (National Plan) was approved on March 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of the “National Artificial Reef Plan (as Amended): Guidelines for siting, construction, development, and assessment of artificial reefs” are available from Christopher M. Moore, Director of the Partnerships and Communications Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore,

(301)713-2379 ext. 165; fax

(301)713-0596. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Artificial Reef Plan of 1985 was developed by the Secretary of Commerce under direction of the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984. This Act directed the Secretary of Commerce to develop and publish a long-term National Artificial Reef Plan to promote and facilitate responsible and effective artificial reef use based on the best scientific information available. The National Plan provided guidance on various aspects of artificial reef use, including types of construction materials, planning, siting, design, and management of artificial reefs. This document was general in its scope and provided a framework for regional, state, and local planners to develop more detailed, site-specific artificial reef plans to meet local needs and conditions. The National Plan was designed to be a dynamic working document that would be updated as new information became available. Since 1985, new information and research on artificial reefs have become available. Accordingly, NMFS has updated and revised the National Plan, in cooperation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. The National Plan was initially revised with input from state artificial reef programs and staff from the interstate marine fisheries commissions, the Minerals Management Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The draft revision to the 1985 National Artificial Reef Plan was revised in response to comments that were provided through internal NOAA review and external review by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. The interstate marine fisheries commissions have been involved in the development and review of this document due to their extensive involvement and experience with state artificial reef management programs. Most coastal states have coordinated their artificial reef activities through the respective interstate marine fisheries commissions, and most interstate commissions have established technical advisory committees for marine artificial reef development. These committees are composed of the coordinators of the state marine artificial reef programs within the respective state agencies responsible for marine and coastal resources management. Committee membership also includes representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minerals Management Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and Regional Fishery Management Councils. The revised National Plan provides information on the roles of federal, state, and local governments; interstate marine fisheries commissions; Regional Fishery Management Councils; and private citizens in artificial reef development. The document also provides guidelines for siting, materials, design, construction, and management of artificial reefs; and information on regulatory and permitting requirements, liability issues, and research needs. The revised National Plan also includes updated information on artificial reef activities and programs, and it references other useful sources of information for artificial reef development. The most significant changes occur in the section of the plan dealing with materials for artificial reef development. New language in the revised National Plan is consistent with the guidelines and recommendations of the interstate marine fisheries commissions and representatives of state artificial reef programs relative to artificial reef development. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2101 *et seq.* Dated: March 22, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-5711 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 032207C] Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Receipt of applications for scientific research/enhancement permit; request for comment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received an application for a permit from Zachary Larson, Crescent City, CA (Permit 1606). This permit would affect Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon ( *Oncorhynchus kisutch* ). This document serves to notify the public of the availability of the permit application for review and comment before a final approval or disapproval is made by NMFS. DATES: Written comments on the permit application must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) no later than 5 p.m. Daylight Savings Time on April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this renewal and modification request should be sent to the appropriate office as indicated below. Comments may also be sent via fax to the number indicated for the request. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the internet. The applications and related documents are available for review in the indicated office, by appointment: John Clancy, Protected Species Division, NOAA Fisheries, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521 (ph: 707-825-5175, fax: 707-825-4840). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Clancy at phone number (707-825-5175), or e-mail: *john.clancy@noaa.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications:

(1)Are applied for in good faith;

(2)would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and

(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NOAA Fisheries regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS. Species Covered in This Notice This notice is relevant to the following threatened salmonid ESUs: Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon ( *Oncorhynchus kisutch* ). Permit Requests Received Permit 1606 Zachary Larson has requested a Permit (#1606) for take of SONCC coho salmon associated with two studies. Study 1 would investigate juvenile salmonid presence, habitat use and timing in Smith River estuary throughout the year. Proposed capture methods are by beach seining, electrofishing (infrequent), snorkeling, baited minnow traps, and fence traps with provision for upstream-downstream movements. Study 2 would install a downstream migrant trap to be fished 4 days per week to document anadromous fish species use and abundance in Cedar Creek (tributary to the Smith River) before and after a barrier culvert is removed. Permit 1606 will expire August, 2011. Dated: March 22, 2007. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-5679 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Code Committee Meeting ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the forthcoming public meeting of the Code Committee established by Article 146(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 946(a), to be held at the Courthouse of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 450 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20442-0001, at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 2007. The agenda for this meeting will include consideration of proposed changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, and other matters relating to the operation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice throughout the Armed Forces. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William A. DeCicco, Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 450 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20442-0001, telephone

(202)761-1448. Dated: March 20, 2007. L.M. Bynum, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DOD. [FR Doc. 07-1496 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 32

Traces to 32 documents

U.S. Code