Proposed Rules. Administrative correction; proposed rule

32,302 words·~147 min read·/register/2007/04/27/07-2093

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 112 [DoD-2007-OS-0025] 32 CFR Part 112 Indebtedness of Military Personnel AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Administrative correction; proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is administratively amending the proposed rule published at 72 FR 19136, April 17, 2007 to remove a reference that had erroneously been included. The reference in question has been canceled. All other information remains unchanged.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Colonel Mark Gingras, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Program Integration, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reference, DoD Instruction 7230.7, was canceled by SD 106, dated November 6, 1997 and has been removed from the DoD Directives System. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 112 Claims, Credit, Military personnel. Accordingly, the proposed rule, 32 CFR part 112 is administratively corrected as follows:

PART 112—INDEBTEDNESS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 112 continues to read as follows: 5 U.S.C. 5520a(k) and 10 U.S.C. 113(d). § 112.4 [Corrected] 2. Section 112.4(b) is administratively amended by removing the words “, as provided under DoD Instruction 7230.7 2 ” in the last sentence and by removing the footnote. 3. Renumber the remaining footnotes in the Proposed Rule accordingly. Dated: April 23, 2007. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc.

E7-8064 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0155; FRL-8305-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio: Transportation Conformity AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)is proposing to approve a January 31, 2007, request from Ohio for a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision related to the State transportation conformity regulations. This revision rescinds a number of the state transportation conformity regulations, from the SIP, so that the Federal transportation conformity regulations will be the enforceable regulations governing transportation conformity determinations in Ohio. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0155, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *mooney.john@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*

(312)886-5824. • *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-8656, *morris.patricia@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: April 12, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7-7897 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0584-200701-; FRL-8306-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky: Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Kentucky), through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), submitted a request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision containing a maintenance plan for the Kentucky portion of the bi-State Louisville area. The Kentucky portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area”) is comprised of three Kentucky Counties—Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham. The Indiana portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised of two Indiana Counties—Clark and Floyd. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's 8-hour ozone redesignation request for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area, including the regional motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This proposed approval of Kentucky's redesignation request is based upon EPA's determination that Kentucky has demonstrated that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that the entire (both the Kentucky and Indiana portions) Bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. In July and September 2006, Indiana submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Indiana portion of this 8-hour ozone area. EPA is taking action on that redesignation request and maintenance plan in a separate action. In this action, EPA is also notifying the public that EPA is reviewing the 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs for NO X and VOCs submitted by Kentucky as part of its maintenance plan, for adequacy. These regional MVEBs are identical to those contained in the Indiana submittal for the bi-State area. During the comment period for this proposal, the public may also comment on the adequacy of the proposed regional MVEBs. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0584, by one of the following methods:

(a)*www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

(b)*E-mail* : *LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov* .

(c)*Fax* : 404-562-9019.

(d)*Mail* : EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0584 Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

(e)*Hand Delivery or Courier* : Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0584, EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *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 *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 electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is

(404)562-9074. Mrs. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail at *LeSane.Heidi@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions? III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions? V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions? VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request? VII. What Are the Proposed Regional MVEBs for the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area? VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the MVEBs for the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area? IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan SIP Revision, Including Proposed Approval of the 2003 and 2020 MVEBs X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking? EPA is proposing to take three related actions, which are summarized below and described in greater detail throughout the notice of proposed rulemaking:

(1)To redesignate the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS;

(2)to approve Kentucky's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, including the associated MVEBs; and

(3)to notify the public that EPA is reviewing regional MVEBs for adequacy. First, EPA is proposing to determine that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised of three Kentucky Counties—Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham, and two Indiana Counties—Clark and Floyd. Today's proposal addresses only the Kentucky portion of the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area. EPA will take action on the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Indiana portion of this area in a separate action. EPA is now proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in Kentucky from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Second, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area in attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2020. Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is proposing to approve today also includes 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs for NO X and VOCs. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs that are included as part of Kentucky's maintenance plan. These regional MVEBs apply to both the Kentucky and Indiana portions of this bi-State 8-hour ozone area. Third, EPA is notifying the public in today's notice of proposed rulemaking that EPA is reviewing the 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs for NO X and VOCs, as provided in the Kentucky submittal, for adequacy pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). The public may comment at this time on whether the proposed MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria found in EPA's conformity regulations, 40 CFR 93.118(e). Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Kentucky's September 29, 2006, SIP submittal which supersedes Kentucky's June 7, 2006, submittal that included a request for parallel processing. The September 29, 2006, submittal requested redesignation of the Kentucky bi-State Louisville Area, and included a SIP revision addressing the specific issues summarized above, and the necessary elements for redesignation described in section 107(d)(3)(E). II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions? Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of NO X and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NO X and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the NAAQS. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm ( *i.e.* , 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See, 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information). Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, “ *Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards* ” states: “The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.” The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data. The entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area was designated using 2001-2003 ambient air quality data. The **Federal Register** document making these designations was signed on April 15, 2004, and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). The CAA contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (which covers areas that EPA refers to as “basic” nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant—including ozone—governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which covers areas that EPA refers to as “classified” nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule (69 FR 23857) (Phase 1 Rule), signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April 30, 2004, an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value ( *i.e.* , the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart 2). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour ambient air quality design values. Various aspects of EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule were challenged in court and on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v. EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The D.C. Circuit Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase I Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of title I, part D of the CAA. The Court also held that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of EPA's regulations:

(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review

(NSR)requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;

(2)CAA section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas;

(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and

(4)certain conformity requirements for certain types of Federal actions. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided that there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions in place. This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling on this redesignation action. For the reasons described throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA does not believe that the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling alters any requirements relevant to the redesignation of the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area so as to preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from proposing to finalize, or finalizing, the Louisville redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon the petitions for rehearing that have been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area to attainment, because redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. The Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area was originally designated as moderate nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). The Area was redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on October 23, 2001 (66 FR 53665). On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area as a “basic” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. (69 FR 23857). The D.C. Circuit Court's decision in 2006 also addressed the 8-hour ozone classification scheme. The Court rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is possible that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville area could, as a result of the remand to EPA, be reclassified under subpart 2. Although any future decision by EPA to classify this area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for the area, this does not mean that redesignation cannot go forward now. EPA's position is based upon:

(1)EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the requirements due at the time that the request is submitted; and

(2)consideration of the inequity of retroactively applying any requirements that might be applied in the future. In September 2006, when Kentucky submitted its final redesignation request, the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area was classified under subpart 1 of the CAA, and was obligated to meet only the subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See, “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992; see also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, “SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993; and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995)(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). See, *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. See also, 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri). Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was submitted. The D.C. Circuit Court recognized the general inequity in retroactive rulemakings in *Sierra Club* v. *Whitman* , 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit Court upheld a district court's refusal to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. In *Sierra Club* , the D.C. Circuit Court stated, “[a]lthough EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on notice at the time.” *Id.* at 68. Similarly, with regard to Kentucky's redesignation request, it would be unfair to penalize Kentucky by retroactively applying to it for purposes of redesignation, additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request, and that are not currently in effect, but that might be in effect as a result of the D.C. Circuit Court's remand. With respect to the requirements under the 1-hour standard ozone standard, the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area was originally designated as moderate nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). The Area was redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on October 23, 2001 (66 FR 53665). Therefore, the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area was designated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard prior to its nonattainment designation for the 8-hour ozone standard. As a result, it is considered to be a 1-hour attainment area subject to a CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard. The D.C. Circuit Court's ruling does not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas for two main reasons. First, there are no conformity requirements relevant for the Louisville redesignation request, such as a transportation conformity SIP. 1 It is EPA's longstanding policy position that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) because State conformity rules are still required after redesignation, and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been approved. See, 40 CFR 51.390; see also, *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding EPA's interpretation). See also, 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida). 1 CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. Second, with regard to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the 1-hour standard that the D.C. Circuit Court found were not properly retained, the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area is an attainment area subject to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision requirements no longer apply to this area because it was redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard. As a result, the decision in *SCAQMD* should not alter any requirements that would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. As noted earlier, in 2005, the ambient ozone data for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area indicated no further violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, using data from the 3-year period of 2003-2005 to demonstrate attainment. As a result, on September 29, 2006, Kentucky requested redesignation of the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality data for the ozone seasons (March 1st until October 31st) of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been achieved for the entire Bi-State Louisville area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured data is available for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation providing that:

(1)The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;

(2)the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k);

(3)the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;

(4)the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and,

(5)the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA. EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents: 1. “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,” Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, June 18, 1990; 2. “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992; 3. “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

(CO)Redesignations,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992; 4. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memorandum”); 5. “State Implementation Plan

(SIP)Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; 6. “Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

(CO)Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 7. “ State Implementation Plan

(SIP)Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

(CO)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993; 8. “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993; 9. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and 10. “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions? On September 29, 2006, Kentucky requested redesignation of the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's evaluation indicates that Kentucky has demonstrated that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also notifying the public of its review of the adequacy of the proposed regional MVEBs, which is relevant to the requested redesignation. V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions? EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take final action on the three issues being proposed for approval today. Approval of Kentucky's redesignation request would change the official designation of Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in Kentucky for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. Approval of Kentucky's request would also incorporate into the Kentucky SIP, a plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area through 2020. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan also establishes regional MVEBs of 40.97 tons per day

(tpd)for VOC and 95.51 tpd for NO X for the year 2003, and MVEBs of 22.92 tpd for VOC and 29.46 tpd for NO X for the year 2020. Approval of Kentucky's maintenance plan would also result in approval of the regional MVEBs. Additionally, EPA is notifying the public that it is reviewing the adequacy of the proposed regional MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request? EPA is proposing to make the determination that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has attained the 8- hour ozone NAAQS, and that all other redesignation criteria have been met. The basis for EPA's determination is discussed in greater detail below.

(1)The Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS EPA is proposing to determine that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from ambient ozone monitoring stations in the bi-State Louisville area for the ozone season from 2003-2005. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AQS. The fourth high averages for 2003, 2004 and 2005, and the 3-year average of these values (i.e., design value), are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1.—Annual 4th Max High and Design Value for 8-Hour Ozone for Bi-State Louisville Area [parts per million, ppm] Monitor County 2003 2004 2005 Design value Charleston, IN Clark 0.090 0.074 0.080 0.081 New Albany, IN Floyd 0.086 0.071 0.080 0.079 WLKY, KY Jefferson 0.073 0.068 0.074 0.071 Watson, KY Jefferson 0.075 0.070 0.085 0.076 Bates, KY Jefferson 0.072 0.070 0.079 0.073 Shepherdsville, KY Bullitt 0.072 0.068 0.080 0.073 Buckner, KY Oldham 0.082 0.076 0.089 0.082 As discussed above, the design value for an area is the highest design value recorded at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the design value for the Kentucky Louisville Bi-State Area is 0.082 ppm, which meets the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, preliminary air quality data from the 2006 monitoring season indicates that the Kentucky Louisville Bi-State Area is continuing to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. As is discussed in more detail below, KDAQ has indicated a commitment to continue monitoring in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The data submitted by Kentucky provides an adequate demonstration that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

(2)Kentucky Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for the Three Affected Counties and

(5)Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA Below is a summary of how these two criteria were met. EPA has determined that Kentucky has met all applicable SIP requirements for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA has also determined that the Kentucky SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1 basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas), in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and that if applicable, they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements. a. Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties in Kentucky Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA The September 4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E). Consistent with this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum (“SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS On or After November 15, 1992,” September 17, 1993), and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See, section 175A(c) of the CAA; *Sierra Club,* 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); see also, 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri). *General SIP requirements.* Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, techniques, or provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D requirements (New Source Review

(NSR)permit programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain States to establish programs to address the transport of air pollutants (NO X SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that States have not submitted SIPs under section 110(a)(1) to meet the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that State. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a State regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the State. Thus, we do not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The State will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See, Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also, the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001). EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, since, as explained below, no part D requirements for the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission of the redesignation request. Therefore, as discussed earlier, for purposes of redesignation, they are not considered applicable requirements. Nonetheless, EPA notes that it has previously approved provisions into the Kentucky SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (47 FR 30059, July 12, 1982). EPA believes that the section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is also sufficient to meet the requirements under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (as well as satisfying the issues raised by the D.C. Circuit Court in the *SCAQMD* case). *Part D requirements.* EPA has also determined that the Kentucky SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no requirements became due prior to the submission of the area's redesignation request. Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of part D, set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. Subpart 2 is not applicable to the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area. *Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements.* For purposes of evaluating Kentucky's redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D became due prior to the submission of the redesignation request, and therefore none are applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation. For example, the requirements for an attainment demonstration that meets the requirements of section 172(c)(1) are not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for Reasonably Achievable Control Technology

(RACT)and Reasonably Available Control Measures

(RACM)(section 172(c)(1)), reasonable further progress

(RFP)(section 172(c)(2)), or contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)). In addition to the fact that no part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission of the redesignation request, and therefore are not applicable, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval prior to EPA final action approving the redesignation. *Section 176 Conformity Requirements:* Section 176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) because State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been approved. See, *Wall* , 265 F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation). See also, 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida). EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without a part D NSR program in effect since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. The rationale for this view is described in a Memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Kentucky has demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the standard without a part D NSR program in effect, and therefore, Kentucky need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. EPA most recently approved Kentucky's NSR program (including a nonattainment NSR and PSD program) into the Kentucky SIP on July 11, 2006 (71 FR 38990). Kentucky's PSD program will become effective in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area upon final redesignation to attainment. See, rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). Thus, the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA. b. The Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA EPA has fully approved the applicable Kentucky SIP for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties in Kentucky under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request, see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; *Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance* v. *Browner* , 144 F.3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); *Wall* , 265 F.3d 426; plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See, 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003), and citations contained therein. Following the passage of the CAA of 1970 by the U.S. Congress, Kentucky adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions addressing the various 1-hour ozone standard SIP elements applicable in the Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001). As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that since the part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the redesignation request, they also are therefore not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

(3)The Air Quality Improvement in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions EPA believes that Kentucky has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures. EPA has determined that the implementation of the following permanent and enforceable emissions controls, that occurred from 2002-2005, have reduced local NO X and VOC emissions and brought the area into attainment: 2002-2005 Emission Reduction Programs Highway Mobile Source Reductions Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP). Tier 2 Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards Heavy Duty Engine, Vehicle and Fuel Standards. Point Source Emissions Reductions. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM). Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT). Area Source Reductions. Open burning regulations for former 1-hour ozone area. Additional Reductions NO X SIP Call Reductions Notably, no credit specific emission reduction is being claimed in the SIP for the NO X SIP call reductions although this program has resulted in measurable emissions reductions. Kentucky has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent and enforceable emissions controls have reduced local VOC and NO X emissions. Most of the reductions are attributable to Federal programs such as EPA's Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline program and other national clean fuel programs that began implementation in 2004. Additionally, Kentucky has indicated in its September 2006 SIP submittal that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has benefited from emissions reductions that have been achieved, and will continue to be achieved, through the implementation of the NO X SIP Call, beginning in 2002. Kentucky has further demonstrated that year-to-year meteorological changes and trends are not the likely source of the overall, long-term improvements in ozone levels. In addition, the following non-highway mobile source reduction programs were implemented during the 2002-2004 period: small spark-ignition engines, large-spark ignition engines, locomotives and land-base diesel engines. EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, in and surrounding the nonattainment area, are the cause of long-term improvements in ozone levels, and are the cause of the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

(4)The Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA In its request to redesignate Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties in Kentucky to attainment, KDAQ submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. a. What is required in a maintenance plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, Kentucky must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The Calcagni Memorandum explains that an ozone maintenance plan should address five requirements: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As is discussed more fully below, Kentucky's maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is approvable as part of the redesignation request. b. Attainment Emissions Inventory In coordination with Indiana, Kentucky selected 2003 as “the attainment year” for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area for the purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This attainment inventory identifies the level of emissions in the area which is necessary to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. The 2003 VOC and NO X emissions (as well as the emissions for other years) for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties in Kentucky were developed consistent with EPA guidance, and are summarized in the table in the following subsection. c. Maintenance Demonstration The September 29, 2006, SIP submittal includes a maintenance plan for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area. This demonstration:

(i)Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NO X will remain at or below attainment year 2003 emissions levels. The year 2003 was chosen as the attainment year because it is one of the most recent three years ( *i.e.* , 2003, 2004, and 2005) for which the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has clean air quality data for the 8-hour ozone standard.

(ii)Uses 2003 as the attainment year and includes actual emissions for 2003 and 2005, and future emission inventory projections for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020.

(iii)Identifies an “out year” at least 10 years after the time necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. In accordance with 40 CFR part 93, regional MVEBs for NO X and VOCs were established for the last year of the maintenance plan (in addition to 2003).

(iv)Provides the following actual and projected emissions inventories for the Kentucky portion of the bi-State Louisville nonattainment area. *See,* Tables 2 and 3. For informational purposes, a summary of the actual and projected emissions inventories for the entire bi-State area are also provided. *See,* Tables 4 and 5. Table 2.—Actual and Projected VOC Emissions for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties [Tons per day] Categories 2003 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 Point Bullitt 8.10 8.21 8.39 8.58 8.77 8.95 9.16 Jefferson 23.63 23.62 23.55 23.33 23.15 22.96 22.74 Oldham 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.81 Point Subtotal 32.45 32.56 32.69 32.67 32.70 32.70 32.71 Area Bullitt 3.34 3.43 3.60 3.75 3.92 4.09 4.26 Jefferson 17.33 17.41 17.51 17.59 17.67 17.76 17.85 Oldham 2.46 2.55 2.70 2.82 3.01 3.16 3.32 Area Subtotal 23.13 23.39 23.81 24.16 24.60 25.01 25.43 Mobile* Bullitt 3.74 3.43 2.87 2.52 2.30 2.18 2.05 Jefferson 25.34 23.04 19.22 15.49 12.24 10.52 9.52 Oldham 2.29 2.16 1.79 1.56 1.45 1.40 1.34 Mobile Subtotal 31.37 28.63 23.88 19.57 15.99 14.10 12.91 Nonroad Bullitt 1.77 1.91 1.91 1.82 1.69 1.49 1.36 Jefferson 14.31 13.14 11.50 10.62 10.41 10.45 10.64 Oldham 1.54 1.38 1.18 1.08 1.06 1.06 1.08 Nonroad Total 17.62 16.43 14.59 13.52 13.16 13.00 13.08 Total 104.57 101.01 94.97 89.92 86.45 84.81 84.13 Table 3.—Actual and Projected NO X Emissions for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties [Tons per day] Categories 2003 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 Point Bullitt 0.60 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.72 Jefferson 74.48 53.95 53.63 50.91 51.76 51.24 46.49 Oldham 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Point Subtotal 75.47 54.65 54.36 51.66 52.54 52.05 47.31 Area Bullitt 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 Jefferson 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Oldham 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 Area Subtotal 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.99 Mobile* Bullitt 7.52 7.23 5.99 4.83 3.84 3.17 2.73 Jefferson 63.29 54.96 41.55 29.62 19.76 13.87 11.02 Oldham 4.43 4.36 3.58 2.88 2.34 1.96 1.72 Mobile Subtotal 75.24 66.55 51.12 37.33 25.94 19.00 15.47 Nonroad Bullitt 1.81 1.78 1.70 1.60 1.47 1.35 1.27 Jefferson 31.94 31.11 29.36 27.37 25.26 23.44 22.17 Oldham 1.63 1.59 1.49 1.37 1.22 1.07 0.95 Nonroad Total 35.38 34.48 32.55 30.34 27.95 25.86 24.39 Total 187.02 156.62 138.98 120.29 107.41 97.89 88.16 Table 4.—Attainment Year and End-Year VOC Emissions for Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area [Tons per day] * 2003 2020 Kentucky 104.57 84.13 Indiana 29.26 ** 27.91 Total 133.83 112.04 Safety Margin n/a 21.79 * Emissions inventories, as provided by Kentucky, for this table and Table 2 may be slightly different due to rounding conventions. ** This total reflects the VOC emissions for Indiana as submitted in the Indiana SIP and is an update to the total of 27.65 as provided in the Kentucky submittal. Table 5.—Attainment Year and End-Year NO X Emissions for Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area [Tons per day] * 2003 2020 Kentucky 187.02 88.16 Indiana 51.77 ** 38.10 Total 238.79 126.26 Safety Margin n/a 112.53 * Emissions inventories, as provided by Kentucky, for this table and Table 3 may be slightly different due to rounding conventions. ** This total reflects the NO X emissions for Indiana as submitted in the Indiana SIP and is an update to the total of 38.11 as provided in the Kentucky submittal. A safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance area. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. Kentucky and Indiana have collectively decided to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the regional 2020 MVEBs for VOC and NO X . This allocation and the remaining available safety margin for this bi-State area are discussed further in section VII of this rulemaking. d. Monitoring Network There are currently seven monitors measuring ozone in the entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area—two in Indiana and five in Kentucky. KDAQ has committed in the maintenance plan to continue operation of the Kentucky monitors in compliance with 40 CFR part 58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring. Indiana has provided a similar commitment for the monitors in Clark and Floyd Counties. e. Verification of Continued Attainment Kentucky has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the ozone maintenance plan for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment problems. Kentucky will track the progress of the maintenance plan by performing future reviews of actual emissions for the area using the latest emissions factors, models and methodologies. For these periodic inventories Kentucky will review the assumptions made for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth of activity levels. If any of these assumptions appear to have changed substantially, Kentucky will re-project emissions. Following the redesignation of the area, sources are prohibited from reducing emission controls already in place when attainment is achieved unless EPA approves a SIP revision consistent with section 110 of the CAA. Kentucky and EPA have instituted the following programs that will remain enforceable and are included as part of Kentucky's September 2006 SIP submittal, to maintain air quality which meets the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard. • All new major VOC or NO X sources locating in Kentucky shall, as a minimum, apply control procedures that are reasonable, available, and practical; • All major modifications to existing major VOC or NO X sources are subject to RACT requirements as well as the best available control technology

(BACT)requirement of the KDAQ and Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD) PSD regulations; • All new affected facilities with the potential to emit more than 5 tons per year of VOC are required to comply with the Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation Number 7 regarding emissions of VOCs; • Continuation of the rule effectiveness programs to enhance inspection of stationary sources to ensure emission control equipment is functioning properly and compliance is maintained (Jefferson County); • Stage I vapor recovery in former 1-hour maintenance portions of Bullitt and Oldham counties; • Stage II vapor recovery (Jefferson County); • Federal Motor Vehicle Control Standards; • Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD) Amended Board Order with the Kosmos Cement Company to comply with an allowed emission rate for the cement kiln that is more stringent than the previous Kentucky SIP NO X RACT limit; • Reformulated Gasoline Phase II in effect in Jefferson County and the former 1-Hour Maintenance portions of Bullitt and Oldham counties since January 1, 2000; • Transportation conformity requirements; • PSD requirements; • Federal controls on certain nonroad engines ( *e.g.* diesel and other Federal requirements, industrial diesel equipment, locomotives) after 2000; • Federal controls on the VOC content for architectural and maintenance paints, auto body shops and consumer products; • The Kentucky open burning rule to further limit types of burning in the former 1-hour Maintenance portions of Bullitt and Oldham Counties. In addition to these measures, Kentucky explains in its submittal that further reductions will be achieved through the continued implementation of new Federal regulations to further control the emissions of hazardous air pollutants that are VOCs (40 CFR part 63—NESHAPS). f. Contingency Plan The contingency plan provisions of the maintenance plan are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that a State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the State. A State should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a State will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d). This requirement is met because all SIP measures are retained for maintenance. Kentucky's submittal satisfies all the contingency plan requirements described in section 175A of the CAA. In its September 29, 2006, SIP submittal, Kentucky affirms that a combination of all programs already instituted by Kentucky and EPA have resulted in cleaner air in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area and the anticipated future benefits from these programs are expected to result in continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this area. Sources are prohibited from terminating emissions controls following the redesignation of the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area unless EPA approves a SIP revision consistent with section 110 of the CAA. The contingency plan includes tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and adopting appropriate control measures. The triggers of the contingency plan are

(1)If a measured design value of the fourth highest maximum at any monitor within the maintenance area in a single ozone season is .087 ppm or greater, or

(2)if periodic emission inventory updates reveal excessive or unanticipated growth greater than 10 percent in ozone precursor emissions. If either of these two triggers are met, Kentucky will evaluate existing control measures to determine if any further emission reduction measures should be implemented at that time. If there is a measured violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area, Kentucky, or as appropriate, LMAPCD, commits to consider for adoption one or more of the following measures within nine months. All regulatory programs adopted will be implemented within 18 months from a measured violation. • A program to require additional emission reductions on stationary sources; • A program to enhance inspection of stationary sources to ensure emission control equipment is functioning properly; • Fuel programs 2 including incentives for alternative fuels; 2 Generally, states are preempted from adopting fuel controls pursuant to section 211(c)(4)(A) of the CAA unless EPA grants a fuel waiver in accordance with section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA. Specifically, section 211(c)(4)(A) of the CAA states that: “Except as otherwise provided in [the CAA], no State (or political subdivision thereof) may prescribe or attempt to enforce, for purposes of motor vehicle emission control, any control or prohibition respecting any characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel additive in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine * * * ” Thus, any SIP-approved fuel program can only be approved if a section 211(c)(4)(C) waiver is granted. • Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high occupancy vehicles; • Trip-reduction ordinances; • Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives; • Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas, or other areas of emission concentration particularly during periods of peak use; • Programs for new construction and major reconstructions of paths or tracks for use by pedestrians or by non-motorized vehicles when economically feasible and in the public interest; and • LMAPCD vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M) program. The following milestones are applicable to all contingency measures and are calculated from the date upon which Kentucky is notified of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS: • Proposal of draft regulations and promulgation of final regulations—3 months; • Issuance of final specifications and procedures—3 months; • Issuance of final request for proposals (if applicable)—4 months; and • Licensing or certifications of stations and inspectors—17 months. EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Kentucky for Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties therefore meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable. VII. What Are the Proposed Regional MVEBs for the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area? Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPs ( *e.g.* , reasonable further progress SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans establish MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, an MVEB is established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A State may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. Additionally, in coordination with cooperating States in a multi-State area, such States may adopt regional MVEBs that include another State. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. See, 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and revise the MVEB. In addition to MVEBs for the last year of the maintenance plan, a State may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. Kentucky and Indiana developed regional MVEBs for NO X and VOCs. Kentucky used the year 2020, the last year of its maintenance plan, and an additional year, 2003. Kentucky's maintenance plan being proposed for approval today includes the regional MVEBs for NO X and VOCs developed jointly by Kentucky and Indiana. EPA is now proposing to approve the regional MVEBs. Kentucky's September 29, 2006, SIP submittal included a maintenance plan with regional MVEBs for NO X and VOCs for the entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area for the years 2003 and 2020. As part of its rulemaking process, Kentucky presented the regional MVEBs (for 2020) for public comment on the State level, however, the additional 2003 year was not included in that public comment process. The 2003 mobile emissions projections (the partial basis of the 2003 MVEBs) were, however, included in Kentucky's June 7, 2006, initial SIP submittal that was the subject of public comment. At that time, the public had an opportunity to comment on those projections. In its final submittal in September 2006, Kentucky included the 2003 MVEBs, and addressed the inclusion of the 2003 MVEBs in a response to comments on its June 7, 2006, submittal. MVEBs are mandatory for the last year of most maintenance plans (2020 for this area), and optional for other years (such as 2003 for this Area). Kentucky's inclusion of 2003 MVEBs in its final submittal was made to provide consistency between the Kentucky and Indiana submittals for the regional MVEBs years provided for this entire bi-State area. Indiana included the 2003 MVEBs in its request for redesignation of the 8-hour ozone standard and its maintenance plan SIP revision. The interstate-Louisville transportation and air quality partners were consulted on the development of the MVEBs for 2003 and 2020, and are in agreement with the establishment of MVEBs for 2003 and 2020 for the entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area. In the present circumstance, EPA believes that the public had adequate notice and opportunity to comment on Kentucky's use of the years 2003 and 2020 for the regional MVEBs. The regional MVEBs for the entire bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area are defined in the table below. Table 6.—Louisville KY-IN 8-Hour Ozone Regional Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets [Tons per day] 2003 2020 VOC 40.97 22.92 NO X 95.51 29.46 Kentucky and Indiana have jointly chosen to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the 2020 MVEBs. This allocation is 6.03 tpd for VOC and 9.84 tpd for NO X . The 2020 regional MVEBs are derived as follows for VOC: (16.89 tpd for total mobile emissions) + (6.03 tpd from available safety margin) = 22.92 tpd; and for NO X : (19.62 tpd for total mobile emissions) + (9.84 tpd from available safety margin) = 29.46 tpd. Thus, the remaining safety margin for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area is 15.76 tpd for VOC and 102.69 tpd for NO X . Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the 2003 and 2020 regional MVEBs for NO X and VOCs for the bi-State Louisville 8-hour ozone area because EPA has determined that the Area maintains the 8-hour ozone standard with emissions at the levels of the budgets. Once the new MVEBs are approved or found adequate (whichever is done first), they must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. As is discussed in greater detail below, EPA is also notifying the public of EPA's review of the adequacy of the proposed 2003 and 2020 MVEBs for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the MVEBs for the Bi-State Louisville 8-Hour Ozone Area? Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to ( *i.e.* , be consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. “Conformity” to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not “conform,” most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since been redesignated to attainment with a maintenance plan for that NAAQS. When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA can make the MVEBs available for use for transportation conformity finding these MVEBs “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity through EPA's Adequacy Process. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can be used by State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects “conform” to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of an MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e). In accordance with the adequacy evaluation process outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2), EPA has the option of using a proposed rule to notify the public that EPA is reviewing MVEBs for adequacy. Today, EPA is making such a notification that it is reviewing the regional MVEBs included as part of Kentucky's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, for adequacy. The public has 30 days in which to comment on the adequacy of the regional MVEBs. If EPA affirmatively finds the MVEBs adequate prior to approval of the maintenance plan and redesignation request, the applicable budgets for the purposes of conducting transportation conformity for the required regional emissions analysis years that involve the year 2020 or beyond, will be the 2020 MVEBs for the bi-State Louisville area. For required analysis years prior to 2020, the applicable budgets would be the 2003 MVEBs. The new regional 2003 and 2020 MVEBs will be available on the effective the date of EPA's adequacy finding, or the date of publication of the final rulemaking in which the MVEBs are approved into the SIP in the **Federal Register** , whichever is done first. IX. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and the Maintenance Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2003 and 2020 MVEBs Today, EPA is proposing to determine that the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area has met the criteria for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's redesignation request for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area. After evaluating Kentucky's SIP submittal requesting redesignation, EPA has determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the bi-State Louisville area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the September 29, 2006, SIP revision containing Kentucky's 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Kentucky Bi-State Louisville Area. The maintenance plan includes regional MVEBs for 2003 and 2020, among other requirements. Further, as part of today's action, EPA is providing notice that it is reviewing the adequacy of the regional MVEBs in accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). Within 24 months from the effective date of EPA's adequacy finding for the MVEBs, or the date of publication of the final rule for this action, whichever is done first, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to these new MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e) as effectively amended by new section 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005. X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow a State to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the Commonwealth to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: April 18, 2007. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E7-8114 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 94 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0120; FRL-8306-6] RIN 2060-A026 Change in Deadline for Rulemaking To Address the Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed Rule. SUMMARY: A January 2003 final rule established the first U.S. emission standards for new compression-ignition Category 3 marine engines, those with a displacement at or above 30 liters per cylinder displacement. It also established a deadline of April 27, 2007 for EPA to promulgate a new tier of emission standards for these engines as determined appropriate under Clean Air Act

(CAA)section 213(a). This rulemaking schedule was intended to allow EPA time to consider the state of technology that may permit deeper emission reductions and the status of international action for more stringent standards. Since 2003, we have continued to gain a greater understanding of the technical issues described in the final rule and to assess the continuing efforts of manufacturers to apply advanced emission control technologies to these very large engines, through ongoing discussions with various stakeholders. In addition, we have continued to work with and through the International Maritime Organization

(IMO)toward more stringent international emission standards that would apply to all new marine diesel engines on ships engaged in international transportation. IMO is an important forum for EPA to gather new information and data regarding emission control technologies, costs, and other information on Category 3 engines and vessels. IMO is also important because the majority of ships used in international commerce are flagged in other nations. Due to the length of time necessary to assess advanced emission control technologies much of the information that we believe is necessary to develop more stringent Category 3 marine diesel engines standards has only become available recently and we expect more information to come to light in the course of the current negotiations underway at the IMO. Therefore, EPA is proposing a new deadline for the rulemaking that will consider the next tier of Category 3 marine diesel engine standards. Under this new schedule, EPA would adopt a final rule by December 17, 2009. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , we are making this revision as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. DATES: Written comments must be received by May 29, 2007. If a public hearing is requested no later than May 17, 2007, it will be held at a time and place to be published in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0120, by mail to Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460. Please include two copies. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier, or a public hearing may be requested, by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Samulski, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105; telephone number:

(734)214-4532; fax number:

(734)214-4050; e-mail address: *samulski.michael@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule? This document proposes to take action on changing the regulatory deadline for a rulemaking to address the control of emissions from new marine compression-ignition engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder. We have published a direct final rule making this revision in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** because we view this as a relatively noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment or a request for a public hearing, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. Otherwise, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document. II. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action will affect companies that manufacture, sell, or import into the United States new marine compression-ignition engines for use on vessels flagged or registered in the United States; companies and persons that make vessels that will be flagged or registered in the United States and that use such engines; and the owners or operators of such U.S. vessels. This action may also affect companies and persons that rebuild or maintain these engines. Affected categories and entities include the following: Category NAICS code a Examples of potentially affected entities Industry 333618 Manufacturers of new marine diesel engines. Industry 336611 Manufacturers of marine vessels. Industry 811310 Engine repair and maintenance. Industry 483 Water transportation, freight and passenger. a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether particular activities may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action as noted in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . III. Summary of Rule This proposed rule would make a revision to the regulations to implement the following amendment: • Extend the regulatory deadline to promulgate a new tier of standards for Category 3 marine engines by amending § 94.8(a)(2)(ii), so that the date is on or before December 17, 2009. For additional discussion of the proposed rule change, see the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** . This proposal incorporates by reference all the reasoning, explanation, and regulatory text from the direct final rule. Furthermore, elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , EPA is publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which describes EPA's current thinking with regard to potential new requirements for C3 marine engines and identifies and discusses a number of important issues upon which EPA is seeking comment. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. This proposed rule merely changes the regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to address emissions from Category 3 marine engines. There are no new costs associated with this proposed rule. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This direct final rule merely changes the regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to address emissions from Category 3 marine engines. However, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations [40 CFR 94] under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0287, EPA ICR number 1684.08. A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request

(ICR)may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202)566-1672. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, *a small entity is defined as:*

(1)A small business that meet the definition for business based on SBA size standards at 13 CFR 121.201;

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule merely changes the regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to address emissions from Category 3 marine engines. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This proposed rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, tribal governments, or the private sector as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental entities. This proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no federal mandates that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million to the private sector in any single year. This proposed rule merely changes the regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to address emissions from Category 3 marine engines. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of UMRA policy. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule merely changes the regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to address emissions from Category 3 marine engines. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13132. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule does not uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal Governments. Further, no circumstances specific to such communities exist that would cause an impact on these communities beyond those discussed in the other sections of this rule. This proposed rule merely changes the regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to address emissions from Category 3 marine engines. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13132. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant, and does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13045. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This proposed rule merely changes the regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to address emissions from Category 3 marine engines. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rule merely changes the regulatory schedule for a rulemaking to address emissions from Category 3 marine engines. Thus, we have determined that the requirements of the NTTAA do not apply. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of NTTAA policy. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13045. K. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for this action comes from section 213 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7547). This action is a notice of proposed rulemaking subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act section 307(d). See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 94 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Warranties. Dated: April 23, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-8103 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 070410083-7083-01; I.D. 040207C] RIN 0648-AV45 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico Vermilion Snapper Fishery Management Measures AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule that would implement a regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico

(FMP)prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would reduce the minimum size limit for vermilion snapper to 10 inches (25.4 cm) total length (TL), eliminate the 10-fish recreational bag limit for vermilion snapper within the existing 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit, and eliminate the 40-day commercial closed season for vermilion snapper (from April 22 through May 31 each year). The intended effect of this proposed rule is to help achieve optimum yield

(OY)by reducing vermilion snapper harvest limitations consistent with the findings of the recent stock assessment for this species. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *0648-AV45.Proposed@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier: 0648-AV45. • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Sarah DeVido, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. • Fax: 727-824-5308; Attention: Sarah DeVido. Copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes an environmental assessment (EA), a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)may be obtained from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: 813-348-1630; fax: 813-348-1711; e-mail: *gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah DeVido, telephone 727-824-5305; fax 727-824-5308; e-mail *sarah.devido@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Background In 2001, the Gulf of Mexico vermilion snapper stock was assessed using data through 1999. The findings from that assessment indicated the stock to be overfished and undergoing overfishing. Based on the assessment, the Council prepared Amendment 23 to the FMP, which implemented measures to end overfishing and rebuild the stock within 10 years. This plan was implemented on July 8, 2005 (70 FR 33385). In 2006, a new stock assessment was conducted through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process. This assessment included a new data set to assess the vermilion snapper stock through 2004. The findings from this assessment determined vermilion snapper to be neither overfished nor undergoing overfishing. Based on the findings of this recent stock assessment, the rebuilding plan for vermilion snapper implemented in Amendment 23 is no longer necessary. Under the current rebuilding plan, harvest of vermilion snapper would not achieve the OY for the fishery. This is resulting in the unnecessary loss of social and economic benefits. National standard

(NS)1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that management measures prevent overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis the OY from the fishery. Therefore, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing to implement the measures described above. This proposed rule contains a measure that would eliminate the annual commercial closure period, thus relieving a restriction in the commercial sector, and other measures for both the recreational and commercial sectors that allow for increased harvest of vermillion snapper consistent with national standard 1 and the best scientific information available. Current Rebuilding Plan The current rebuilding plan, under Amendment 23, is based on a stepped-harvest strategy that was designed to restore the vermilion snapper stock to the stock biomass needed to allow harvest at maximum sustainable yield

(BMSY)in 10 years or less. The plan would reduce harvest to 1.475 million lb (0.669 million kg) for the first 4 years (2005-2008), increase to 2.058 million lb (0.933 million kg) for the next 3 years (2009-2011), and increase to 2.641 million lb (1.198 million kg) for the final 3 years (2012-2014). Overfishing was expected to end by 2008, three years after the plan was implemented. The final rule for Amendment 23 (70 FR 33385, July 8, 2005) implemented measures designed to achieve the reductions necessary for the first 4-year interval of the rebuilding plan. These measures included increasing the minimum size limit in the vermilion snapper fishery to 11 inches (27.9 cm) TL, reducing the recreational bag limit to 10 fish within the 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit, and establishing a commercial closure from April 22 through May 31 each year. Recision of Rebuilding Plan The 2006 vermilion snapper stock assessment, conducted through the SEDAR process, incorporated new age data, where available, into their analyses. The results from this age-structured assessment indicated the vermilion snapper stock to be neither overfished nor undergoing overfishing. The 2006 assessment also determined that stock biomass is generally declining and fishing mortality

(F)is increasing. The SEDAR panel concluded that if fishing mortality were to continue on the same trajectory as it is today, using data from 1986 through the projected target dates, F could exceed FOY in 2012, however, it is not likely to exceed F MSY , the overfishing threshold, through 2017. NMFS and the Council will continue to monitor the fishery to ensure compliance with the plan, the national standards, and other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. After receiving the assessment report and recommendations from its Science and Statistical Committee

(SSC)and Reef Fish Advisory Panel (RFAP), the Council decided to eliminate the management measures developed in Amendment 23. The stock appears healthy and the current regulations are more restrictive than necessary to protect the stock at this time. Therefore, this rule proposes to eliminate the regulations established for vermilion snapper by Amendment 23 that are causing the vermilion snapper fishery to be fished below OY. Eliminating the management measures established by Amendment 23 results in social and economic gain for the fishery. New Management Measures The following measures in this proposed rule are designed to achieve a 25.5-percent increase in vermilion snapper harvest fairly and equitably across the commercial and recreational sectors. Measures Applicable to the Recreational Vermilion Snapper Fishery This proposed rule would reduce the minimum size limit for vermilion snapper from 11 inches (27.9 cm) TL to 10 inches (25.4 cm) TL. Implementing this measure alone is expected to increase harvest in the recreational sector by 20.4 percent. This proposed rule would also eliminate the 10-fish bag limit specific to vermilion snapper but would include vermilion snapper in the 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit. This alternative would allow recreational vermilion snapper harvest to increase another 1.4 percent. Measures Applicable to the Commercial Vermilion Snapper Fishery This proposed rule would reduce the minimum size limit for vermilion snapper in the commercial fishery from 11 inches (27.9 cm) TL to 10 inches (25.4 cm) TL, which alone is expected to increase harvest in the commercial sector by 12.6 percent. Elimination of the commercial seasonal closure is expected to increase commercial harvest of vermilion snapper by approximately 15.8 percent. Together these recreational and commercial measures are expected to increase harvest of the vermilion snapper stock by 25.5 percent, which would allow vermilion snapper to be fished at the OY for the fishery. Classification At this time, NMFS has not determined the regulatory amendment is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment periods on the vermilion snapper regulatory amendment and this proposed rule. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the IRFA follows. This proposed rule would reduce the minimum size limit for vermilion snapper to 10 inches (25.4 cm) TL, eliminate the 10-fish vermilion snapper recreational bag limit but include vermilion snapper in the 20-fish aggregate bag limit, and eliminate the April 22 through May 31 commercial closed season. The purpose of this action is to eliminate management measures that are causing the vermilion snapper fishery to be fished at a rate below OY, which is resulting in the unnecessary loss of social and economic benefits. These regulations have been determined to no longer be required because the vermilion snapper stock has been determined to be healthy, not overfished, nor undergoing overfishing. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal basis for the rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. The measures in this proposed rule would be expected to affect commercial reef fish operations, for-hire vessels operating in the reef fish fishery, and dealers and processors that receive vermilion snapper. As of October 2003, there were 1,158 active commercial reef fish permits. Of these entities, 441 vessels reported logbook landings of vermilion snapper, with most using vertical line gear. During the period 2000-2004, the average vessel operating in the commercial vermilion snapper fishery generated revenues of $65,200 of which $7,400 was from vermilion snapper harvests. These estimates included all vessels that landed at least 1 lb (0.5 kg) of vermilion snapper and all the trips taken by these vessels regardless of whether vermilion snapper was caught on that trip. These estimates are assumed to be lower bound estimates, however, since landings of all commercial species, whether from Federal or state fisheries, are not required to be recorded or captured by the logbook program, which captures only reef fish and coastal pelagic harvests. An estimated 1,625 for-hire vessels are permitted to harvest reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico. This sector is comprised of charter boats that are generally smaller and charge a fee on a per-vessel basis, and headboats that are larger and charge a fee per angler. On average, charter boats are estimated to generate gross revenues ranging from $58,000 in the eastern Gulf to $81,000 in the western Gulf, or an overall average of $64,000. The comparable values for headboats are $281,000 and $550,000, or an overall average of $400,000. The Small Business Administration

(SBA)defines a small business operating in the finfish industry as one that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has average annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing). The appropriate revenue benchmark for a vessel operating in the for-hire sector is $6.5 million (NAICS code 713990, amusement and recreation industries). Based on the gross revenues presented above, all commercial and for-hire fishing vessels and reef fish dealers potentially affected by the proposed regulations are determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small business entities. Instead of a receipts threshold, the SBA uses an employment threshold for seafood dealers and processors, with the appropriate values of fewer than 100 employees for dealers and fewer than 500 employees for processors. A Federal permit is required for a fish dealer to purchase reef fish from commercial vessels. Based on permits files, there are 227 dealers holding permits to buy and sell reef fish species. All reef fish processors would be included in this total since a processor must be a dealer. Dealers often hold multiple types of permits and operate in both Federal and state fisheries. It is unknown what percentage of any of the average dealer's business comes from the vermilion snapper fishery. Average employment information per reef fish dealer is unknown. Although dealers and processors are not synonymous entities, total employment for reef fish processors in the Southeast is estimated at approximately 700 individuals, both part and full time. While all processors must be dealers, a dealer need not be a processor. Further, processing is a much more labor-intensive exercise than dealing. Therefore, given the employment estimate for the processing sector (700 persons) and the total number of dealers operating in the reef fish fishery (227), it is assumed that the average number of employees per dealer and processor would be unlikely to surpass the SBA employment benchmark and, for the purpose of this analysis, it is determined that all dealers that would be affected by this action are small entities. None of the measures considered in this amendment would alter existing reporting and record-keeping requirements. The proposed rule would be expected to increase net revenues in the commercial vermilion snapper fishery by approximately $1.443 million, or approximately 3.5 percent of total average net revenues relative to the 2000-2002 fishery. If spread over the average 441 vessels that operated in the fishery from 2000-2004, the increased net revenues expected to be generated as a result of the proposed rule equate to approximately $3,300 per vessel or approximately 5 percent of average gross revenues. Within the for-hire sector, the proposed rule would be expected to result in an increase of approximately $3.158 million in net revenues. It is not possible to determine how many of the 1,625 entities permitted to operate in this fishery would be affected. If evenly distributed across all said entities, the expected increase in net revenues would equate to approximately $1,900 per entity, or approximately 12 percent per entity. Since not all of the vessels permitted to operate in the for-hire reef fish fishery would be expected to participate in the vermilion snapper fishery, actual increases in net revenue per vessel for those vessels fishing for vermilion snapper would be expected to exceed these estimates. The impact of the proposed rule on reef fish dealers cannot be determined with available data. However, although the current measures were originally projected to result in an approximate 26-percent reduction in vermilion snapper harvests, which would be recovered under the proposed rule, the vermilion snapper fishery comprises less than 10 percent of the total commercial reef fish fishery. Hence, the additional commercial harvests, and resultant effect on revenues or profits, that would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed rule, however, are not expected to be substantial relative to overall commercial reef fish sales. Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for this proposed rule. The status quo would maintain current regulations in the fishery that are not biologically supported and would result in the loss of economic benefits. The second alternative allowed the continuation or suspension of the individual components of current vermilion snapper regulations. The continuation of any of these individual components would be expected to, similar to the status quo, result in the continued loss of economic benefits to the fishery. The proposed rule would rescind current regulations that have been determined to be unnecessary from a biological perspective and would be expected to result in increased economic and social benefits to the fishery. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands. Dated: April 23, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* § 622.34 [Amended] 2. In § 622.34, paragraph

(n)is removed and reserved. 3. In § 622.37, paragraph (d)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows: § 622.37 Size limits.

(d)* * *

(1)* * *

(ii)Vermilion snapper—10 inches (25.4 cm), TL. 4. In § 622.39, paragraph (b)(1)(v) is revised to read as follows: § 622.39 Bag and possession limits.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(v)Gulf reef fish, combined, excluding those specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) and paragraphs (b(1)(vi) through (b)(1)(vii) of this section and excluding dwarf sand perch and sand perch—20. § 622.45 [Amended] 5. In § 622.45, paragraph (c)(5) is removed. [FR Doc. E7-8116 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 81 Friday April 27, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 24, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Business Cooperative Service *Title:* 7 CFR 4284-F, Rural Cooperative Development Grant. *OMB Control Number:* 0570-0006. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural cooperative Development Grants

(RCDG)program is administered through State Rural Development Offices on behalf of the Rural Business Cooperative Service (RBS). The primary objective of the program is to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Grant funds are awarded on a competitive basis using a scoring system that gives preference to applications that demonstrate a proven track record. The applicants, who are non-profit corporations or institutions of higher education, will provide information using various forms and supporting documentation. *Need and Use of the Information:* RBS will use the information collected to evaluate the applicant's ability to carry out the purposes of the program. If this information were not collected, RBS would have no basis on which to evaluate the relative merit of each application. *Description of Respondents:* Not for profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 60. *Frequency of Responses:* Record keeping; Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 8,200. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-8088 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Request an Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agricultural Research Service's

(ARS)intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection, Form AD-761, USDA Patent License Application for Government Invention that expires September 30, 2007. DATES: Comments must be received within sixty-five

(65)days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to June Blalock, USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131; Telephone Number 301-504-5989. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock, USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 301-504-5989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* USDA Patent License Application for Government Invention. *OMB Number:* 0518-0003. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* To extend a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The USDA patent licensing program grants patent licenses to qualified businesses and individuals who wish to commercialize inventions arising from federally supported research. The objective of the program is to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from such research. The licensing of federally owned inventions must be done in accordance with the terms, conditions and procedures prescribed under 37 CFR part 404. Application for a license must be addressed to the Federal agency having custody of the invention. Licenses may be granted only if the license applicant has supplied the Federal agency with a satisfactory plan for the development and marketing of the invention and with information about the applicant's capability to fulfill the plan. 37 CFR 404.8 sets forth the information which must be provided by a license applicant. For the convenience of the applicant, USDA has itemized the information needed on Form AD-761, and instructions for completing the form are provided to the applicant. The information submitted is used to determine whether the applicant has both a complete and sufficient plan for developing and marketing the invention and the necessary manufacturing, marketing, technical and financial resources to carry out the submitted plan. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response. *Description of Respondents:* Businesses or other for profit individuals. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 75. *Frequency of Responses:* One time per invention. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 225 hours. This data will be collected under the authority of 44 U.S.C.3506(c)(2)(A). Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from June Blalock, USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer by calling 301-504-5989. Comments are invited on

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques. Comments may be sent to USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Richard J. Brenner, Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-8089 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. 01-009-9] Wildlife Services; Availability of a Supplemental Decision/Finding of No Significant Impact for Oral Rabies Vaccine Program AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that we have prepared a proposed decision/finding of no significant impact relative to oral rabies vaccination programs in several States. Since the publication of our original environmental assessment and decision/finding of no significant impact in 2001, we have prepared, and made available to the public for comment, several supplemental environmental assessments and decisions/findings of no significant impact in order to reflect changes in the program. The decision/finding of no significant impact made available by this notice clarifies the term “contingency actions,” which was used in a supplemental environmental assessment we prepared in 2004, and analyzes a type of contingency action called trap-vaccinate-release that was not analyzed as part of the proposed action in the 2004 supplemental environmental assessment. The new decision/finding of no significant impact is intended to facilitate planning and interagency coordination in the event of rabies outbreaks and to clearly communicate to the public the actions involved in the oral rabies vaccination program. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 29, 2007. Unless we determine that new substantial issues bearing on the conduct of the oral rabies vaccine programs have been raised by public comments on this notice, the proposed decision/finding of no significant impact will become final and take effect upon the close of the comment period. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0055 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. After the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the “Advanced Search” function in Regulations.gov. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 01-009-9, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 01-009-9. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Dennis Slate, Rabies Program Coordinator, Wildlife Services, APHIS, 59 Chenell Drive, Suite 2, Concord, NH 03301;

(603)223-9623. To obtain copies of the documents discussed in this notice, contact Tara Wilcox, Operational Support Staff, WS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; phone

(301)734-7921, fax (301)734-5157, or e-mail: *Tara.C.Wilcox@aphis.usda.gov.* This notice and the proposed decision/finding of no significant impact are also posted on the APHIS Web site at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nepa.shtml* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Wildlife Services

(WS)program in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) cooperates with Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private individuals to research and implement the best methods of managing conflicts between wildlife and human health and safety, agriculture, property, and natural resources. Wildlife-borne diseases that can affect domestic animals and humans are among the types of conflicts that APHIS-WS addresses. Wildlife is the dominant reservoir of rabies in the United States. On December 7, 2000, a notice was published in the **Federal Register** (65 FR 76606-76607, Docket No. 00-045-1) in which the Secretary of Agriculture declared an emergency and transferred funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation to APHIS-WS for the continuation and expansion of oral rabies vaccination

(ORV)programs to address rabies in the States of Ohio, New York, Vermont, Texas, and West Virginia. On March 7, 2001, we published a notice in the **Federal Register** (66 FR 13697-13700, Docket No. 01-009-1) to solicit public involvement in the planning of a proposed cooperative program to stop the spread of rabies in the States of New York, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and West Virginia. The notice also stated that a small portion of northeastern New Hampshire and the western counties in Pennsylvania that border Ohio could also be included in these control efforts, and discussed the possibility of APHIS-WS cooperating in smaller-scale ORV projects in the States of Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, and Alabama. The March 2001 notice contained detailed information about the history of the problems with raccoon rabies in eastern States and with gray fox and coyote rabies in Texas, along with information about previous and ongoing efforts using ORV baits in programs to prevent the spread of the rabies variants or “strains” of concern. Subsequently, on May 17, 2001, we published in the **Federal Register** (66 FR 27489, Docket No. 01-009-2) a notice in which we announced the availability, for public review and comment, of an environmental assessment

(EA)that examined the potential environmental effects of the ORV programs described in our March 2001 notice. We solicited comments on the EA for 30 days ending on June 18, 2001. We received one comment by that date. The comment was from an animal protection organization and supported APHIS' efforts toward limiting or eradicating rabies in wildlife populations. The commenter did not, however, support the use of lethal monitoring methods or local depopulation as part of an ORV program. On August 30, 2001, we published a notice in the **Federal Register** (66 FR 45835-45836, Docket No. 01-009-3) in which we advised the public of APHIS' decision and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the use of oral vaccination to control specific rabies virus strains in raccoons, gray foxes, and coyotes in the United States. That decision allows APHIS-WS to purchase and distribute ORV baits, monitor the effectiveness of the ORV programs, and participate in implementing contingency plans that may involve the reduction of a limited number of local target species populations through lethal means ( *i.e.* , the preferred alternative identified in the EA). The decision was based upon the final EA, which reflected our review and consideration of the comments received from the public in response to our March 2001 and May 2001 notices and information gathered during planning/scoping meetings with State health departments, other State and local agencies, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Following the August 2001 publication of our original decision/FONSI, we determined there was a need to expand the ORV programs to include the States of Kentucky and Tennessee to effectively stop the westward spread of raccoon rabies. Accordingly, we prepared a supplemental decision/FONSI to document the potential effects of expanding the programs. We published a notice announcing the availability of the supplemental decision/FONSI in the **Federal Register** on July 5, 2002 (67 FR 44797-44798, Docket No. 01-009-4). Following the publication of the supplemental decision/FONSI in July 2002, we determined the need to further expand the ORV program to include the States of Georgia and Maine to effectively prevent the westward and northward spread of the rabies virus across the United States and into Canada. To facilitate planning, interagency coordination, and program management and to provide the public with our analysis of potential individual and cumulative impacts of the expanded ORV programs, we prepared a supplemental EA that addresses the inclusion of Georgia and Maine, as well as the 2002 inclusion of Kentucky and Tennessee, in the ORV program. In addition, we prepared a new decision/FONSI based on the supplemental EA that was published in the **Federal Register** on June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38669-38670, Docket No. 01-009-5). Following publication of the 2003 supplemental EA and decision/FONSI, we determined the need to further expand the ORV program to include portions of National Forest System lands, excluding Wilderness Areas, within several eastern States. The National Forest System lands where APHIS-WS involvement could be expanded included the States of Maine, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey. Cooperative rabies surveillance activities and/or baiting programs were already being conducted on various land classes, with the exception of National Forest System lands, in many of the aforementioned States. The programs' primary goals were to stop the spread of a specific raccoon rabies variant or “strain” of the rabies virus. If not stopped, this strain could potentially spread to much broader areas of the United States and Canada and cause substantial increases in public and domestic animal health costs because of increased rabies exposures. As numerous National Forest System lands are located within current and potential ORV barrier zones, it became increasingly important to bait these large land masses to effectively combat this strain of the rabies virus. In addition, we prepared a new decision/FONSI based on the supplemental EA that was published in the **Federal Register** on February 20, 2004 (69 FR 7904-7905, Docket No. 01-009-6). Following the 2004 supplemental EA and decision/FONSI for expansion of the ORV program to include portions of National Forest System lands, we determined the need to further expand the ORV program to include 25 eastern States (Maine, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Louisiana and New Jersey), the District of Columbia, and Texas to effectively prevent the westward and northward spread of the rabies virus across the United States and into Canada. In addition, we prepared a new decision/FONSI based on the supplemental EA that was published in the **Federal Register** on September 23, 2004 (69 FR 56992-56993, Docket No. 01-009-7). Following the 2004 supplemental EA and decision/FONSI, we determined the need to expand the ORV program to include portions of National Forest System lands, excluding Wilderness Areas, within the same 25 eastern States and the District of Columbia. As numerous National Forest System lands are located within current and potential ORV barrier zones, it had become increasingly important to bait these large land masses to effectively combat this strain of the rabies virus. Accordingly, we prepared a supplemental EA and decision/FONSI that served to update program needs and evaluate current data. Those documents were made available through a notice published in the **Federal Register** on December 8, 2005 (70 FR 72977-72978, Docket No. 01-009-8). The purpose of the new 2007 decision/FONSI that we are making available through this notice is to clarify the term “contingency actions,” which is used in the 2004 supplemental EA. Clarification should facilitate planning and interagency coordination in the event of rabies outbreaks and clearly communicate to the public the actions involved in the ORV program. In addition, a type of contingency action called trap-vaccinate-release

(TVR)is analyzed in the 2007 decision document, as it was not analyzed as part of the proposed action in the 2004 supplemental EA. Analysis of TVR in the 2007 decision document does not involve any substantially new information and does not raise or create any new substantive issues or circumstances, thus APHIS-WS has determined that there is no need to supplement the 2004 EA with that analysis. The new 2007 decision/FONSI will serve to update and replace the previous decision/FONSI, dated September 9, 2004, for the 2004 supplemental EA. The proposed decision/FONSI that is the subject of this notice, as well as the documents cited above that preceded it, have been prepared in accordance with:

(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),

(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),

(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1), and

(4)APHIS's NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). The decision/FONSI may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-8091 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P 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 March anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 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 March anniversary dates. 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 March 31, 2008. Antidumping Duty Proceedings Period to be Reviewed BRAZIL: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products A-351-828 3/1/06 - 2/28/07 Companhia Siderurgica Nacional Companhia Siderurgica de Tubarao BRAZIL: Certain Orange Juice A-351-840 8/24/05 - 2/28/07 Coinbra-Frutesp S.A. Fischer S/A Agroindustria Sucocitrico Cutrale Ltda. FRANCE: Stainless Steel Bar A-427-820 3/1/06 - 2/28/07 Ascometal S.A. UGITECH S.A. GERMANY: Stainless Steel Bar A-428-830 3/1/06 - 2/28/07 BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH/BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH/BGH Edelstahl Lugau GmbH/BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH Schmiedewerke Groditz GmbH ITALY: Stainless Steel Bar A-475-829 3/1/06 - 2/28/07 Acciaierie Valbruna S.p.A. REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 1 A-580-836 2/1/06 - 1/31/07 TC Steel DSEC, a subsidiary of Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering THAILAND: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes A-549-502 3/1/06 - 2/28/07 Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Certain Tissue Paper Products 2 A-570-894 3/1/06 - 2/28/07 Foshan Sansico Co., Ltd. Guangzhou Baxi Printing Products Limited Guilin Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. Guilin Samsam Paper Products Ltd. Max Fortune Industrial Limited/Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper Products Co., Ltd. PT Grafitecindo Ciptaprima PT Printec Perkasa PT Printec Perkasa II PT Sansico Utama Samsam Production Limited Sansico Asia Pacific Limited Vietnam Quijiang Paper Co., Ltd. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Glycine 3 A-570-836 3/1/06 - 2/28/07 A.H.A. International Company, Ltd. Amol Biotech Limited Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. Beijing Jian Li Pharmaceutical Company Changzhou Dahua Importer and Exporter (Group) Chem-Base (Nantong) Laboratories Company China Container Line

(USA)Dongchang Chemical Industrial Company Jizhou City Huayang Chemical Company, Ltd. Nantong Dongchang Chemical Industry Corporation Orichem International Ltd. Qingdao Samin Chemical Company, Ltd. Shanghai Dayue International Shanghai Light Industrial Shanghai Waseta International Sinochem Qingdao Company Ltd. Sinosweet Company, Ltd. Sumee China Jiangsu Machinery Sumec (On Behalf of Nantong) Textiles Silk Light Ind. Products Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Company Weifang Sunwin Chemicals Company, Ltd. Yicheng Logistics Shanghai Ltd. Zhejiang Ruili Cemented Carbide UNITED KINGDOM: Stainless Steel Bar A-412-822 3/1/06 - 2/28/07 Corus Engineering Steels Enpar Special Alloys Limited Sandvik Bioline Countervailing Duty Proceedings TURKEY: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe C-489-502 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 The Borusan Group/Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. Suspension Agreements None. 1 The companies listed for the above referenced case were inadvertently omitted from the initiation notice that published on March 28, 2007 (72 FR 14516). 2 If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of Certain Tissue Paper Products 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. 3 If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of Glycine 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. 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: April 23, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8129 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-904] Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Department is issuing an antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). On April 16, 2007, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determination of material injury to a U.S. industry (Certain Activated Carbon from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Final), Publication 3913, April 2007). EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand, 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)482-3207. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In accordance with section 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), on March 2, 2007, the Department published the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007) (“ *Final Determination* ”). An amended final determination was published on March 30, 2007. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 15099, (March 30, 2007). Scope of Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain activated carbon. Certain activated carbon is a powdered, granular, or pelletized carbon product obtained by “activating” with heat and steam various materials containing carbon, including but not limited to coal (including bituminous, lignite, and anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive stones, and peat. The thermal and steam treatments remove organic materials and create an internal pore structure in the carbon material. The producer can also use carbon dioxide gas (CO 2 ) in place of steam in this process. The vast majority of the internal porosity developed during the high temperature steam (or CO 2 gas) activated process is a direct result of oxidation of a portion of the solid carbon atoms in the raw material, converting them into a gaseous form of carbon. The scope of this order covers all forms of activated carbon that are activated by steam or CO 2 , regardless of the raw material, grade, mixture, additives, further washing or post-activation chemical treatment (chemical or water washing, chemical impregnation or other treatment), or product form. Unless specifically excluded, the scope of this order covers all physical forms of certain activated carbon, including powdered activated carbon (“PAC”), granular activated carbon (“GAC”), and pelletized activated carbon. Excluded from the scope of the order are chemically activated carbons. The carbon-based raw material used in the chemical activation process is treated with a strong chemical agent, including but not limited to phosphoric acid, zinc chloride sulfuric acid or potassium hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in the raw material, and results in the formation of water that is removed from the raw material by moderate heat treatment. The activated carbon created by chemical activation has internal porosity developed primarily due to the action of the chemical dehydration agent. Chemically activated carbons are typically used to activate raw materials with a lignocellulosic component such as cellulose, including wood, sawdust, paper mill waste and peat. To the extent that an imported activated carbon product is a blend of steam and chemically activated carbons, products containing 50 percent or more steam (or CO 2 gas) activated carbons are within this scope, and those containing more than 50 percent chemically activated carbons are outside this scope. This exclusion language regarding blended material applies *only* to mixtures of steam and chemically activated carbons. Also excluded from the scope are reactivated carbons. Reactivated carbons are previously used activated carbons that have had adsorbed materials removed from their pore structure after use through the application of heat, steam and/or chemicals. Also excluded from the scope is activated carbon cloth. Activated carbon cloth is a woven textile fabric made of or containing activated carbon fibers. It is used in masks and filters and clothing of various types where a woven format is required. Any activated carbon meeting the physical description of subject merchandise provided above that is not expressly excluded from the scope is included within this scope. The products subject to the order are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 3802.10.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Antidumping Duty Order On April 16, 2007, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination, pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject merchandise from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise for all relevant entries of certain activated carbon from the PRC. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of certain activated carbon from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after October 11, 2006, the date on which the Department published its preliminary determination. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 59721 (October 11, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of the PRC exports of the subject merchandise, we extended the four-month period to no more than six months. *See Preliminary Determination* , 71 FR 59723. In this investigation, the six-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the preliminary determination ends on April 8, 2007. Furthermore, section 737 of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of certain activated carbon from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 9, 2007, and before the date of publication of the ITC 's final injury determination in the **Federal Register** . Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the **Federal Register** . Effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP officers will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins as listed below. The “PRC-wide” rate applies to all exporters of subject merchandise not specifically listed. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Exporter Supplier WA margin Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd Alashan Yongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd Changji Hongke Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd 67.14 Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant 67.14 Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd Ningxia Luyuangheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Datong Carbon Corporation 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Datong Changtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Datong Fuping Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Datong Hongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Datong Huanqing Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Datong Huibao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Datong Kangda Activated Carbon Factory 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Datong Runmei Activated Carbon Factory 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Dushanzi Chemical Factory 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Fangyuan Carbonization Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Hongke Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Huairen Jinbei Chemical Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Jiaocheng Xinxin Purification Material Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Ningxia Guanghua A/C Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Ningxia Honghua Carbon Industrial Corporation 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Ningxia Luyuanheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Ningxia Pingluo Yaofu Activated Carbon Factory 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Ningxia Tianfu Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Ningxia Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Nuclear Ningxia Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Xingtai Coal Chemical Co., Ltd 69.54 Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd Yuyang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 69.54 Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd 67.14 Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant 67.14 Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation Da Neng Zheng Da Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation Shanxi Bluesky Purification Material Co., Ltd 67.14 Jacobi Carbons AB Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 61.95 Jacobi Carbons AB Datong Hongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 61.95 Jacobi Carbons AB Datong Huibao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 61.95 Jacobi Carbons AB Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 61.95 Jacobi Carbons AB Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Company Limited 61.95 Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd Shanxi Xinhua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 228.11 Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd Tonghua Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant 228.11 Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd Zuoyun Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant 228.11 Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd Shanxi Xinhua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 228.11 Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd Tonghua Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant 228.11 Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd Zuoyun Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant 228.11 Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited Ningxia Baota Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi DMD Corporation China Nuclear Ningxia Activated Carbon Plant 67.14 Shanxi DMD Corporation Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi DMD Corporation Shanxi Xinhua Chemical Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi DMD Corporation Tonghua Xinpeng Activated Carbon Factory 67.14 Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd Actview Carbon Technology Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd Datong Tri-Star & Power Carbon Plant 67.14 Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd Fu Yuan Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd Jing Mao (Dongguan) Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd Xi Li Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd Ningxia Guanghua Chemical Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd Ningxia Tianfu Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation Datong Tianzhao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation Ningxia Huinong Xingsheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation Ningxia Yirong Alloy Iron Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation Ninxia Tongfu Coking Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation Shanxi Xiaoyi Huanyu Chemicals Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd Datong Guanghua Activated Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd Ningxia Guanghua-Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd Ningxia Pingluo County YaoFu Activated Carbon Factory 67.14 Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd Ningxia Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd Datong Zuoyun Biyun Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd Ningxia Xingsheng Coal and Active Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd Pingluo Yu Yang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd Hegongye Ninxia Activated Carbon Factory 67.14 Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd Ningxia Pingluo County YaoFu Activated Carbon Plant 67.14 Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd Datong Fu Ping Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 67.14 United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemical Co. Ltd 67.14 United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd Xinhua Chemical Company Ltd 67.14 Xi'an Shuntong International Trade & Industrials Co., Ltd DaTong Tri-Star & Power Carbon Plant 67.14 Xi'an Shuntong International Trade & Industrials Co., Ltd Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Company Limited 67.14 PRC-Wide Rate 228.11 This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to certain activated carbon from the PRC pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect. This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211. Dated: April 20, 2007. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8122 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-875 Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings (“NMP fittings”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. We preliminarily determine to apply adverse facts available (“AFA”) with respect to Myland Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Myland”), and Buxin Myland (Foundry) Ltd. (“Buxin”), which failed to cooperate to the best of their ability and failed to demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan and Mark Manning, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4081 and

(202)482-5253, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 7, 2003, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on NMP fittings from the PRC. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Filings (Sic.)From the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 16765 (April 7, 2003). On April 3, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on NMP fittings from the PRC for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 16549 (April 3, 2006). On April 20, 2006, Myland and Buxin requested an administrative review of their sales of NMP fittings to the United States during the POR. No other party requested a review of shipments made by Myland or Buxin. On April 28, 2006, Ward Manufacturing, Inc. (“Ward”), a domestic producer of NMP fittings, requested an administrative review of the sales to the United States during the POR of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Jinan Meide Corporation (“JMC”) and Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprises Co., Ltd. (“SFTEC”). On May 31, 2006, the Department published in the ** Federal Register ** a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of NMP fittings from the PRC for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 30864 (May 31, 2006) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). On July 25, 2006, Ward timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of NMP fittings from the PRC regarding subject merchandise produced and/or exported by JMC and SFTEC. No other interested party requested a review of JMC and SFTEC. Therefore, the Department rescinded this review with respect to JMC and SFTEC, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). *See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 55430 (September 22, 2006). On July 24, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Myland and Buxin. Myland and Buxin submitted a Section A questionnaire response on August 11, 2006, and Sections C and D responses on September 12, 2006. On December 7, 2006, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review until April 30, 2007. *See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the Peoples'(Sic.) Republic of China; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 70957 (December 7, 2006). From November 2006 to February 2007, the Department issued, and Myland and Buxin responded to, six supplemental questionnaires. The verification of the respondents' responses was scheduled from March 12 through March 17, 2007. On February 23, 2007, the Department released the verification agenda to Myland and Buxin. From March 12 through March 13, 2007, the Department conducted verification of Myland in Hong Kong. On March 14, 2007, the verification team arrived in Guangzhou, China, to continue verification at Buxin. On that day, Myland and Buxin refused to allow the verification team access to Buxin's factory, refused to provide the information requested in the verification agenda, informed the verification team that they were unable to continue participating in the verification, and withdrew from the verification. *See* Memorandum from Karina Gziryan and Melissa Blackledge, to the File, “Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China - Administrative Review,” dated March 27, 2007. Myland and Buxin destroyed the verification exhibits taken in Hong Kong, and did not serve those exhibits on the petitioner or the Department. *Id* . On March 21, 2007, Myland and Buxin filed a letter in which they withdrew their request to conduct the administrative review and consented to the assessment of antidumping duties at the PRC-wide rate. Period of Review The POR is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. Scope of Order The products subject to this administrative review are finished and unfinished non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings with an inside diameter ranging from 1/4 inch to 6 inches, whether threaded or un-threaded, regardless of industry or proprietary specifications. The subject fittings include elbows, ells, tees, crosses, and reducers as well as flanged fittings. These pipe fittings are also known as “cast iron pipe fittings” or “gray iron pipe fittings.” These cast iron pipe fittings are normally produced to ASTM A-126 and ASME B.l6.4 specifications and are threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications. Most building codes require that these products are Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”) certified. The scope does not include cast iron soil pipe fittings or grooved fittings or grooved couplings. Fittings that are made out of ductile iron that have the same physical characteristics as the gray or cast iron fittings subject to the scope above or which have the same physical characteristics and are produced to ASME B.16.3, ASME B.16.4, or ASTM A-395 specifications, threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications and UL certified, regardless of metallurgical differences between gray and ductile iron, are also included in the scope of the order. These ductile fittings do not include grooved fittings or grooved couplings. Ductile cast iron fittings with mechanical joint ends (“MJ”), or push on ends (“PO”), or flanged ends and produced to the American Water Works Association (“AWWA”) specifications AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not included. Imports of subject merchandise are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7307.11.00.30, 7307.11.00.60, 7307.19.30.60 and 7307.19.30.85. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Nonmarket Economy Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a nonmarket economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003) (unchanged in final results of review). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of these preliminary results. Request for Withdrawal of Administrative Review As noted above, Myland and Buxin submitted a letter to the Department withdrawing their request for an administrative review on March 21, 2007. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), “the Secretary will rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary decides that it is reasonable to do so.” The 90-day deadline for withdrawing from this administrative review expired on August 29, 2006. Therefore, Myland's and Buxin's request to withdraw from the administrative review was submitted after the deadline established by the Department. The Department reviewed and analyzed Myland's and Buxin's response to the Department's original questionnaire. As a result of the respondents' deficient and/or incomplete questionnaire responses, the Department sent six supplemental questionnaires in an attempt to gather necessary information from the respondents. Because of the need to issue an extensive number of supplemental questionnaires, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results. In March 2007, the Department attempted to verify Myland's and Buxin's responses in their offices in Hong Kong and China. *See* Background section of this notice, above. The Department expended considerable effort and resources in its analysis of Myland and Buxin prior to their late withdrawal request during an advanced stage of the review. Therefore, the Department is not granting the respondents' request to withdraw their request for review. This is consistent with past Department practice. *See Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results Of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Rescission Of Administrative Reviews, Notice Of Intent to Rescind Administrative Reviews, And Notice Of Intent To Revoke Order In Part* , 69 FR 5949, 5951 (February 9, 2004) (“Although we have accepted untimely withdrawals of requests for review elsewhere, the circumstances surrounding the review of INA are different from other situations . . . {because} we had expended effort and resources in our analysis of INA prior to the untimely withdrawal such that we were quite advanced in the review”) (unchanged in final results of review). *See also, Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review* , 71 FR 35613 (June 21, 2006) (unchanged in final results of review). Facts Available Sections 776(a)(1) and

(2)of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person

(A)withholds information that has been requested,

(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act,

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding, or

(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. On March 14, 2007, Myland and Buxin refused to provide information requested in the verification agenda, and withdrew from verification. Moreover, Myland and Buxin destroyed the verification exhibits and did not serve these on the petitioner or the Department. Verification is integral to the Department's analysis because it allows the Department to satisfy itself that the information upon which the Department relies in calculating a margin is accurate and, therefore, enables the Department to comply with its mandate to calculate the dumping margin as accurately as possible. By refusing the Department's request for information in the verification agenda, failing to allow the Department to verify the reported data, and not serving the petitioner or Department with the verification exhibits taken in Hong Kong, Myland and Buxin withheld critical information to be used for the Department's separate rate analysis and margin calculation, significantly impeded the review, and provided information that cannot be verified, as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and

(D)of the Act, the Department must apply facts available to Myland and Buxin. By failing to respond to the Department's request for information contained in the verification agenda and by not allowing the Department to conduct verification, Myland and Buxin have not proven they are free of government control and are, therefore, not eligible to receive a separate rate. For this reason, the Department has denied Myland's and Buxin's requests for separate rates. In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department stated that if one of the companies on which we initiated a review does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of NMP fittings from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity of which the named exporter is a part. *See Initiation Notice* at footnote 2. For these preliminary results, Myland and Buxin will be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. As a result, the Department determines that it is necessary to review the single PRC-wide entity, including Myland and Buxin, in this segment of the proceeding. The PRC-wide entity, including Myland and Buxin, withheld information requested in the verification agenda, significantly impeded the review, and did not provide verifiable information to the Department. Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and

(D)of the Act, the Department must resort to the facts otherwise available with respect to the PRC-wide entity. Adverse Inferences Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1

(1994)at 870. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (“AFA”), information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. As explained above, the PRC-wide entity, including Myland and Buxin, refused to provide the Department with verification information and would not permit the Department to verify information placed on the record. Therefore, the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, the Department finds it necessary, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to use an adverse inference in applying facts available as the basis for these preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide entity. In this segment of the proceeding, in accordance with Department practice ( *see, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999)), as AFA, we have assigned to exports of the subject merchandise by the PRC-wide entity (including Myland and Buxin) a rate of 75.50 percent, which is the rate established for the PRC-wide entity in the less than fair value investigation. * See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China * , 68 FR 7765 (February 18, 2003) (“ *Final Determination* ”). The respondents, Myland and Buxin, consented to the assessment of antidumping duties for the period of April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, at the PRC-wide rate. *See* Letter from Myland and Buxin to the Department, “Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China - Administrative Review,” dated March 21, 2007. Corroboration 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, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 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 accompanying the URAA at 870. Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The Department, however, need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *See* SAA at 869. To satisfy itself that the secondary information has probative value the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in final results of review). Independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan* , 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003) (unchanged in final determination); *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada* , 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005). The reliability of the AFA rate was determined in the final determination of the investigation. *See Final Determination* . The Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. *See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 41304, 41307-41308 (July 11, 2003). No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information contained in the investigation is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (ruling that the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). Nothing on the record of this review calls into question the relevance of the margin selected as AFA. Further, the selected margin is currently the PRC-wide rate. Moreover, this rate has not been invalidated judicially. Thus, it is appropriate to use the selected rate as AFA in the instant review. Therefore, we determine that the rate from the *Final Determination* continues to be relevant for use in this administrative review. As the recalculated *Final Determination* rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. As a result, the Department determines that the *Final Determination* rate of 75.50 percent, which is the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, has probative value and, thus, meets the corroboration requirement of section 776(c) of the Act. As noted above, Myland and Buxin consented to the assessment of antidumping duties for the period of April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, at the PRC-wide rate. Weighted-Average Dumping Margin As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006: Manufacturer/Exporter Period Margin (percent) PRC-Wide Entity(including Myland Industrial Co., Ltd., and Buxin Myland (Foundry) Ltd.) 4/1/2005 - 3/31/2006 75.50 Disclosure The Department will disclose all documents relied upon in these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the entered customs value for the subject merchandise on each importer's/customer's entries during the POR. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)the cash deposit rate for Myland and Buxin will be the rate listed in the final results of review;

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

(3)the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 75.50 percent; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash deposit requirements, 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 duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b). Dated: April 23, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8121 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-886) Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor and Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4114 and

(202)482-5831, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). The period of review is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due no later than May 3, 2007. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend the 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. The Department determines that it is not practicable to complete this administrative review within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act because this review involves examining a number of complex issues related to sales information and to factors of production. The Department requires additional time to issue and analyze supplemental questionnaires regarding these issues. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completing the preliminary results of this administrative review until August 31, 2007, which is 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The deadline for the final results of the review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This extension notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: April 23, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8130 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 042307G] Marine Mammals; File No. 814-1899 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 69, Barrow, AK 99723 [Dr. Cheryl Rosa, Principal Investigator] has applied in due form for a permit to obtain and collect marine mammal parts/samples for the purpose of scientific research. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: The application 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. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 814-1899. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226). The North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management is requesting authorization to collect and transport tissues from subsistence-collected and/or stranded

(dead)marine mammals of the following species: bearded seal ( *Erignathus barbatus* ), ringed seal ( *Phoca hispida* ), spotted seal ( *Phoca larga* ), and ribbon seal ( *Phoca fasciata* ), bowhead whale ( *Balaena mysticetus* ), beluga whale ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ), minke whale ( *Balaenoptera acutorostrata* ), and grey whale ( *Eschrichtius robustus* ). These collected tissues would be used to perform a variety of health-related analyses, including (but not limited to): tissue histology, contaminants analyses (elemental analyses, PAH/organochlorine analyses etc.), infectious disease research (culture, PCR analyses), parasitology studies and stable isotope work. Additionally, tissues will be collected to augment the Alaskan Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP). No animals will be killed for the purpose of providing samples under this permit.. Locations of collections will be from the Northwest Arctic Borough (St. Lawrence Island, Diomede, Wales and Kivalina) and the North Slope Borough, Alaska. This effort will provide critical baseline data and will be part of a long-term monitoring project being undertaken by the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management in response to public concerns about the safety and health of their subsistence species. This permit is requested for five years. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: April 24, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-8119 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 070419094-7096-01] Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT): Closing Date AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of funds. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, Pub. L. 110-5, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, announces the solicitation of applications for a grant for the Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) Program. Projects funded pursuant to this Notice are intended to support the PEACESAT Program's acquisition of satellite communications to service Pacific Basin communities and to manage the operations of this network. Applications for the PEACESAT Program grant will compete for funds from the Public Broadcasting, Facilities, Planning and Construction Funds account. DATES: Applications must be received on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, May 29, 2007. Applications submitted by facsimile are not acceptable. NTIA will not accept applications received after the deadline. However, if an application is received after the Closing Date due to

(1)carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the Closing Date and Time, or

(2)significant weather delays or natural disasters, NTIA will, upon receipt of proper documentation, consider the application as having been received by the deadline. ADDRESSES: To obtain a printed application package, submit completed applications, or send any other correspondence, write to: NTIA/PTFP, Room H-4812, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Application materials may be obtained electronically via the Internet at *www.Grants.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Cooperman, Director, Public Broadcasting Division, telephone:

(202)482-5802; fax:

(202)482-2156. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access The full funding opportunity announcement for the PEACESAT Fiscal Year

(FY)2007 grant cycle is available through *www.Grants.gov* or by contacting the PTFP office at the address noted above. Application materials may be obtained electronically via the Internet *www.grants.gov.* Funding Availability Funding for the PEACESAT Program is provided pursuant to Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, Public Law 110-5, and Public Law 106-113, “The Consolidated Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2000.” Public Law 106-113 provides “That, hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) Program is eligible to compete for Public Broadcasting Facilities, Planning and Construction funds.” The Congress has appropriated $20 million for FY 2007 Public Telecommunications Facilities Program

(PTFP)and PEACESAT awards. Of this amount, NTIA anticipates making a single award for approximately $500,000 for the PEACESAT Program in FY 2007. For FY 2006, NTIA issued one award for the PEACESAT project in the amount of $499,440. Statutory and Regulatory Authority The PEACESAT Program was authorized under Public Law 100-584 (102 Stat. 2970) and also Public Law 101-555 (104 Stat. 2758) to acquire satellite communications services to provide educational, medical, and cultural needs of Pacific Basin communities. The PEACESAT Program has been operational since 1971 and has received funding from NTIA for support of the project since 1988. Applications submitted in response to this solicitation for PEACESAT applications are exempt from the PTFP regulations at 15 CFR part 2301. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:* N/A. Eligibility Eligible applicants will include any for-profit or non-profit organization, public or private entity, other than an agency or division of the Federal government. Individuals are not eligible to apply for the PEACESAT Program funds. Evaluation and Selection Process Each eligible application is evaluated by three independent reviewers who have demonstrated expertise in the programmatic and technological aspects of the application. The reviewers will evaluate applications according to the criteria in the following section and provide individual written ratings of each application. No consensus advice will be provided by the reviewers. State Single Point of Contact

(SPOC)offices, per Executive Order 12372, may provide recommendations on applications under consideration. The Public Broadcasting Division

(PBD)administers the PEACESAT Program and places a summary of applications received on the Internet. Listing an application merely acknowledges receipt of an application to compete for funding with other applications. Listing does not preclude subsequent return of the application or disapproval of the application, nor does it assure that the application will be funded. The listing will also include a request for comments on the applications from any interested party. The reviewer's ratings are provided to the PBD staff and a rank order is prepared according to score. The PBD program staff prepares summary recommendations for the Director of the Public Broadcasting Division. These recommendations incorporate the outside reviewers' ratings and incorporate analysis based on the degree to which a proposed project meets the PEACESAT Program purposes and cost eligibility. Staff recommendations also consider

(1)project impact,

(2)the cost/benefit of a project, and

(3)whether the reviewers consistently applied the evaluation criteria. The analysis by program staff is provided to the Director of the Public Broadcasting Division in writing. The Director considers the summary recommendations prepared by program staff in accord with the funding priorities and selection factors referenced in the next section and recommends the funding order of the applications for the PEACESAT Programs in three categories: “Recommended for Funding,” “Recommended for Funding If Funds Are Available,” and “Not Recommended for Funding.” The Director presents recommendations to the Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications (OTIA), for review and approval. Upon review and approval based on the funding priorities and selection factors referenced in the next section by the Associate Administrator of the Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications (OTIA), the Associate Administrator's and the Director's recommendations are presented to the Selecting Official, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, who is the NTIA Administrator. The NTIA Administrator selects the applications to be negotiated for possible grant award, taking into consideration the outside reviewers' ratings, the Director's recommendations, and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the PEACESAT Programs' stated purposes. The selected applications are negotiated between NTIA staff and the applicant. The negotiations are intended to resolve whatever differences might exist between the applicant's original request and what NTIA is considering funding. Negotiation does not ensure that an award will be made. When the negotiations are completed, the Director recommends final selections to the NTIA Administrator, applying the same selection factors described above. The Administrator then makes the final award selections from the negotiated applications taking into consideration the Director's recommendations and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the stated purposes for the PEACESAT Program. Funding Priorities and Selection Factors The PBD Director will consider the summary evaluations prepared by program staff, rank the applications, and present recommendations to the OTIA Associate Administrator for review and approval. The Director's recommendations and the OTIA Associate Administrator's review and approval will take into account the following selection factors:

(1)The program staff evaluations, including the outside reviewers.

(2)Whether the applicant has any current NTIA grants.

(3)The geographic distribution of the proposed grant awards.

(4)The availability of funds. Upon approval by the OTIA Associate Administrator, the Director's recommendations will then be presented to the Selecting Official, the NTIA Administrator. The Administrator makes final award selections taking into consideration the Director's recommendations and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the program's stated purposes. No grant will be awarded until confirmation has been received from the FCC that any necessary authorization will be issued. After final award selections have been made, the Agency will notify the applicant of one of the following actions:

(1)Selection of the application for funding, in whole or in part;

(2)Deferral of the application for subsequent consideration; or

(3)Rejection of the application with an explanation and the reason, if an applicant is not eligible or if the proposed project does not fall within the purposes of the PEACESAT program. Evaluation Criteria Each eligible application that is timely received, is materially complete, and proposes an eligible project will be considered under the evaluation criteria described here. The first three criteria—1. Meeting the Purposes of the PEACESAT Program, 2. Extent of Need for the Project, and 3. Plan of Operation for the Project—are each worth 25 points. Criterion 4, Budget and Cost Effectiveness, is worth 20 points. Criterion 5, Quality of Key Personnel, is worth 5 points. Criterion 1. Meeting the Purposes of the PEACESAT Program, including

(i)how well the proposal meets the objectives of the PEACESAT Program and

(ii)how the objectives of the proposal further the purposes of the PEACESAT Program. Criterion 2. Extent of Need for the Project. The extent to which the project meets the needs of the PEACESAT Program, including consideration of:

(i)The needs addressed by the project;

(ii)how the applicant identifies those needs;

(iii)how those needs will be met by the project; and

(iv)the benefits to be gained by meeting those needs. Criterion 3. Plan of Operation for the Project, including

(i)the quality of the design of the project;

(ii)the extent to which the plan of management is effective and ensures proper and efficient administration of the project;

(iii)how well the objectives of the project relate to the purposes of the PEACESAT Program;

(iv)the quality of the applicant's plan to use its resources and personnel to achieve each objective; and

(v)how the applicant will ensure that project participants who are otherwise eligible to participate are selected without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, or handicapped condition. Criterion 4. Budget and Cost Effectiveness. The extent to which

(i)the budget is adequate to support the project; and

(ii)costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project. Criterion 5. Quality of Key Personnel the applicant plans to use on the project, including

(i)the qualifications of the project director if one is to be used;

(ii)the qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the project;

(iii)the time that each person will commit to the project; and

(iv)how the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, will ensure that its personnel are selected for employment without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, or handicapped condition. In this section, “qualifications” refers to experience and training in fields related to the objectives of the project, and any other qualifications that pertain to the quality of the project. Cost Sharing Requirements Grant recipients under this program will not be required to provide matching funds toward the total project cost. The costs allowable under this Notice are not subject to the limitation on costs contained in the March, 7, 2007 Notice regarding the PTFP Program. Intergovernmental Review PEACESAT applications are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” if the state in which the applicant organization is located participates in the process. Usually submission to the State Single Point of Contact

(SPOC)needs to be only the first two pages of the Application Form, but applicants should contact their own SPOC offices to find out about and comply with its requirements. The names and addresses of the SPOC offices are listed on the PTFP Web site and at the Office of Management and Budget's home page at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.* Universal Identifier All applicants (nonprofit, state, local government, universities, and tribal organizations) will be required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number during the application process. See the October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66177) and April 8, 2003 (68 FR 17000) **Federal Register** notices for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line 1-866-705-5711 or via the Internet ( *www.dunandbradstreet.com* ). The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification of Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) is applicable to this solicitation. Limitation of Liability In no event will the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Paperwork Reduction Act Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)control number. The PEACESAT application package requires the use of the following forms: SF-424, SF-424A, SF-424B, SF-LLL, CD-346,and CD-511. These forms have been approved under OMB Control Nos. 4040-0004, 0348-044, 4040-007, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/ Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Bernadette McGuire-Rivera, Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications. [FR Doc. E7-8113 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Meeting of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Federal Advisory Committee Meeting Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)102-3.140 through 160, the Department of Defense announces the forthcoming public meeting: *Name of Committee:* President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Woun ded Warriors (hereafter referred to as the Commission). *Date of Meeting:* May 14, 2007. *Time of Meeting:* 10 a.m. to (To Be Determined). *Place of Meeting:* Main Conference Center, National Transportation Safety Board, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594. *Purpose of Meeting:* To obtain, review, and evaluate information related to the Commission's mission to examine the care provided to wounded service members. The Commission will receive briefings on topics relating to the care and rehabilitation of wounded service members. *Agenda:* 9 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. Administrative Work Meeting (Not Open to the Public). 10 a.m.—(Public Session). Presentations (May Vary), DC—Veteran Administration System, System Issues, Public Comment. The Commission's May 14, 2007 meeting at the Main Conference Center, National Transportation Safety Board, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594 subject to the availability of seating, is open to the public. Interested persons or organizations may submit written statements for consideration by the Commission at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Persons desiring to make an oral presentation or submit a written statement to the Commission for the May 14, 2007 meeting must notify the point of contact listed below no later than May 9, 2007. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on 14 May at 1 to 1:30 p.m. before the full Commission. Presentations will be limited to 5 minutes. The Executive Director and the Designated Federal Official will select individuals for oral presentations and notify them in advance of the opportunity to make a 5 minute presentation to the Commission. The Number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public. Each person desiring to make an oral presentation must provide the point of contact listed below with one

(1)copy of the presentation by May 9, 2007, 5 p.m. and one copy of any material that is intended for distribution at the meeting. Persons submitting a written statement must submit one copy of the statement to the Commission staff by May 9, 2007, 5 p.m. Point of Contact is Denise Dailey or Adrianne Holloway, toll free 877 588 2035 or Fax statements

(703)588-2046. *For Further Information on Submitting Statements Contact:* Col. Denise Dailey or Adrianne Holloway, toll free 877 588 2035 or Fax statements

(703)558-2046. Dated: April 24, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. [FR Doc. 07-2093 Filed 4-25-07; 12:14 pm]

Connectionstraces to 37

Traces to 37 documents

U.S. Code