Notices. Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal

31,532 words·~143 min read·/register/2007/05/15/07-2382

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

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07-06-011] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Little River (S-20) Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Mile 347.3, Horry County, SC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the proposed change to the regulation of the Little River (S-20) Bridge. The requested change was to place a twenty minute regulation on the bridge in lieu of “on demand”.

The withdrawal is based on limited vessel openings, comments received from the public, and the addition of a new high level fixed bridge within close proximity of the draw bridge which should help alleviate traffic congestion. DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking is withdrawn on May 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Project Officer, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at

(305)415-6743. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 3, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Little River (S-20) Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Mile 347.3, Horry County, SC” in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 16527). The rulemaking concerned changing the current “on demand” schedule to an on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes pass the hour schedule. Withdrawal A new high level fixed bridge was constructed within close proximity of the moveable bridge, thereby providing an alternative for existing traffic and allowing for a reduction of vehicular traffic on the moveable bridge. The Little-River Bridge crosses the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and has an average of fewer than two openings per hour. Additionally, all of the comments received during the comment period of the notice of proposed rulemaking were in favor of keeping the current “on demand” schedule. Authority: This action is taken under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. Dated: September 19, 2006. J.A. Watson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on May 10, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-9267 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0840; FRL-8314-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Lancaster 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Lancaster ozone nonattainment area (“Lancaster Area” or “Area”) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Area is comprised of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. EPA is proposing to approve the ozone redesignation request for the Lancaster Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 11 years after redesignation. EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based upon three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for 2003-2005. EPA's proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its determination that the Lancaster Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Lancaster Area, and EPA is proposing to approve that inventory for the Lancaster Area as a SIP revision. EPA is also providing information on the status of its adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area for purposes of transportation conformity, and is also proposing to approve those MVEBs. EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request and of the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory SIP revisions in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0840 by one of the following methods: A. *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail:* *miller.linda@epa.gov* . C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0840, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0840. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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. *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 during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth,

(215)814-2034, or by e-mail at *wentworth.ellen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing to Take? II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions? III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions? VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request? VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster Area Adequate and Approvable? VIII. Proposed Actions IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Are the Actions EPA Is Proposing To Take? On September 20, 2006, as supplemented on November 8, 2006, the PADEP formally submitted a request to redesignate the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Concurrently, Pennsylvania submitted a maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment in the Area for at least 11 years after redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Lancaster Area as a SIP revision. The Lancaster Area is comprised of the County of Lancaster. It is currently designated a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and that it has met the requirements for redesignation pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the redesignation request to change the designation of the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the Lancaster maintenance plan as a SIP revision for the Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment in the Lancaster Area for the next 11 years. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Lancaster Area as a SIP revision. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the adequacy process for the MVEBs identified in the Lancaster Area maintenance plan, and proposing to approve the MVEBs identified for volatile organic compounds

(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) for the Lancaster Area for transportation conformity purposes. II. What Is the Background for These Proposed Actions? A. General Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of NO X and VOC react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. The air pollutants NO X and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the attainment and maintenance of 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 standard. EPA designated, as nonattainment, any area violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the air quality data for the three years of 2001-2003. These were the most recent three years of data at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas. The Lancaster Area was designated a moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in a **Federal Register** notice signed on April 15, 2004 and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the 8-hour health-based standard for ozone during the years 2001-2003. In July 2004, Pennsylvania requested that the EPA reclassify the Lancaster Area to a “marginal” 8-hour ozone nonattainment Area in accordance with section 181(a)(4) of the CAA, which allows a state to request reclassification if the design value in the nonattainment area is five percent greater or five percent less than the level on which the classification is based. The Lancaster Area was reclassified by EPA as a “marginal” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on September 22, 2004 (69 FR 56697). On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951, 23996) to revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Lancaster Area (as well as most other areas of the country) effective June 15, 2005. *See* 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard, (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). *See South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (hereafter “ *South Coast* .”). The Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Rule were inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. 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 Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:

(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review

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

(2)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 Act, 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)the certain conformity requirements for certain types of federal actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions. Elsewhere in this document, mainly in section VI.B, “The Lancaster Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA,” EPA discusses its rationale why the decision in *South Coast* is not an impediment to redesignating the Lancaster Area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CAA, title I, part D, contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which 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 EPA refers to as “classified” nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value ( *i.e.* , the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in the CAA for subpart 2 requirements). All other areas were covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour design values. In 2004, the Lancaster Area was classified a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003. Therefore, the Lancaster Area is subject to the requirements of subpart 2 of part D. Under 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 data completeness requirements. The data completeness requirements are 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 40 CFR part 50. The ozone monitoring data indicates that the Lancaster Area has a design value of 0.083 ppm for the 3-year period of 2003-2005, using complete, quality-assured data. Therefore, the ambient ozone data for the Lancaster Area indicates no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard. B. The Lancaster Area The Lancaster Area consists of the County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Lancaster Area was a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment Area, and therefore was subject to requirements for marginal nonattainment areas pursuant to section 182(a) of the CAA. *See* 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). On September 20, 2006 and supplemented on November 8, 2006, the PADEP requested that the Lancaster Area be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2003-2005, indicating that the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved in the Lancaster Area. The data satisfies the CAA requirements that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (commonly referred to as the area's design value), must be less than or equal to 0.08 ppm ( *i.e.* , 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). Under the CAA, a nonattainment area may be redesignated if sufficient complete, quality-assured data is available to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment? 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)EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;

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

(3)EPA 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)EPA 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. EPA provided guidance on redesignations 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: • “Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,” Memorandum from Bill Laxton, June, 18, 1990; • “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; • “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

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

(SIP)Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act

(Act)Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; • “Technical Support Documents

(TSDs)for Redesignation Ozone and Carbon Monoxide •

(CO)Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; • “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; • Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,” dated November 30, 1993; • “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 • “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 Taking These Actions? On September 20, 2006, the PADEP requested redesignation of the Lancaster Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On September 20, 2006, as supplemented on November 8, 2006, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment at least 11 years after redesignation. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory concurrently with its maintenance plan as a SIP revision, which is an applicable requirement for the Lancaster Area for purposes of redesignation. EPA has determined that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard and has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). V. What Would Be the Effect of These Actions? Approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Pennsylvania SIP a 2002 base-year inventory and a maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Lancaster Area for the next 11 years. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS (should they occur), and identifies the NO X and VOC MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2009 and 2018. These MVEBs are displayed in the following table: Table 1.—Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day

(tpd)Year VOC NO X 2009 14.3 22.3 2018 7.8 9.0 VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Commonwealth's Request? EPA is proposing to determine that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard, and that all other redesignation criteria have been met. The following is a description of how the PADEP's September 20, 2006 and November 8, 2006 submittals satisfy the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. A. The Lancaster Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS EPA is proposing to determine that the Lancaster 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 design value, which is the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor, within the area, over each year must not exceed the ozone standard of 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 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. In the Lancaster Area, there is one ozone monitor, located in Lancaster County that measures air quality with respect to ozone. As part of its redesignation request, Pennsylvania referenced ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005 for the Lancaster Area. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in the AQS. The fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations, along with the three-year average are summarized in Table 2. Table 2.—Lancaster Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Average Values Lancaster County Monitor/AQS ID 42-071-0007 Year Annual 4th highest reading

(ppm)2003 0.083 2004 0.081 2005 0.085 The average for the 3-year period 2003-2005 is 0.083 ppm. The air quality data for 2003-2005 show that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm. The data collected at the Lancaster Area monitor satisfies the CAA requirement that 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. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the available 2006 data because the design value for 2004-2006 would be 0.083 ppm. The PADEP's request for redesignation for the Lancaster Area indicates that the data is complete and was quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The PADEP uses the AQS as the permanent database to maintain its data and quality assures the data transfers and content for accuracy. In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, PADEP has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and data taken from AQS indicate that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. B. The Lancaster Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA EPA has determined that the Lancaster Area has met all SIP requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Lancaster Area and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements. The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to the timing of applicable requirements. Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. *See also,* Michael Shapiro memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). Requirements of the CAA that are applicable 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. Section 175A(c) of the CAA. *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). *See also,* 68 FR at 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). This section also sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the Court's ruling in *South Coast* on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with the redesignation of this Area to attainment, because in either circumstance, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. 1. Section 110 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, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2) 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)); • Provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for 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 transport of air pollutants in accordance with the NO X SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NO X SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). 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 these 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 Lancaster Area will still be subject to these requirements after it 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 policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity ( *i.e.* , for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. *See* Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). *See also* , the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR at 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001). Similarly, with respect to the NO X SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NO X SIP Call rules are not “an” ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of section 110(1) because the NO X rules apply regardless of an area's attainment or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 69 FR 23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004). EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. As explained later in this notice, two part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to the submission of the redesignation request. 2. Part D Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard Pursuant to an April 30, 2004, final rule (69 FR 23951), the Lancaster Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area under subpart 2 for the 8-hour ozone standard. 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. With respect to the 8-hour standard, we do not believe that any part of the court's opinion in *South Coast* would require that this subpart 2 classification be changed upon remand to EPA. However, even assuming for present purposes that the Lancaster Area would become subject to a different classification under a classification scheme created in a future role in response to the court's decision, that would not prevent EPA from finalizing a redesignation for this area. For the reasons set forth below, we believe that any additional requirements that might apply based on that different classification would not be applicable for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request. This belief is based upon

(1)EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating redesignation requests in accordance only with the requirements due at the time the request was submitted; and

(2)consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that might be applied in the future. First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Lancaster Area was classified under subpart 2 and was required to meet the subpart 2 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, 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. September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); *Sierra Club v. EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) (which upheld this interpretation); 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was submitted, but which might later become applicable. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such retroactive rulemaking. *See, Sierra Club* v. *Whitman* , 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the D.C. Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling refusing 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. The Court stated: “Although 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, here it would be unfair to penalize the Area by applying to it for purposes of redesignation any additional requirements that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation request, but that might apply in the future. With respect to the 8-hour standard, two part D subpart 2 requirements became due for the Lancaster Area under section 182(a) of the CAA prior to redesignation—a 2002 base-year inventory, and the emissions statement requirement pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B). Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP an emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard that covers all portions of the designated 8-hour nonattainment area, and that satisfies the emissions statement requirement for the 8-hour standard. *See* , 25 Pa. Code 135.21(a)(1) codified at 40 CFR 52.2020; 60 FR 2881, January 12, 1995. EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Lancaster Area, which was submitted on September 30, 2006, and supplemented on November 8, 2006, concurrently with its maintenance plan, into the Pennsylvania SIP. A detailed evaluation of Pennsylvania's 2002 base-year inventory for the Lancaster Area can be found in a Technical Support Document

(TSD)prepared by EPA for this rulemaking. EPA has determined that the emission inventory and emissions statement requirements for the Lancaster Area have been satisfied. EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general conformity and NSR requirements of part D as not requiring approval prior to redesignation. With respect to 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 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) since State conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State rules have not been approved. *See, Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F. 3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). In the case of the Lancaster Area, which is located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), nonattainment NSR requirements will continue to be applicable after redesignation. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision for the Lancaster Area. This revision imposes the OTR NSR requirements in marginal and incomplete data ozone nonattainment areas and ozone attainment areas within the Commonwealth. The OTR requirements are more stringent than those required in marginal ozone nonattainment areas because a lower threshold for what constitutes a major stationary source of VOC emissions is required and a higher offset ratio is required. Pennsylvania's NSR SIP also imposes the NSR requirements on major sources of NO X emissions as required by section 182(f) of the CAA. EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. The rationale for this is based on two considerations. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as well as reasonably available control technology (RACT), and Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance programs even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to Lancaster by virtue of the Area's designation and classification. *See* , 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830-32 (May 7, 1997). 3. Part D Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard In its December 22, 2006 decision in *South Coast* , the Court also addressed EPA's revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard. The current status of the revocation and associated anti-backsliding rules is dependent on whether the Court's decision stands as originally issued or is modified in response to any petition for rehearing or request for clarification that has been filed. As described more fully below, EPA believes that the Area has attained the 1-hour standard and has met all of the requirements under the 1-hour standard that would apply even if the 1-hour standard is deemed to be reinstated and, those requirements are viewed as applying under the statute itself. Thus, the Court's decision, as it currently stands, imposes no impediment to moving forward with the redesignation of this Area to attainment of the 8-hour standard. Further, even if the court's decision were modified based upon any petition for rehearing that has been filed, such that the ultimate decision requires something less than compliance with all applicable 1-hour requirements, since the area meets all such requirements as explained below, it would certainly meet any lesser requirements and thus similarly redesignation could proceed. The conformity portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the Lancaster Area because there are no conformity requirements that are relevant to a redesignation request for any standard, including the requirement to submit a transportation conformity SIP. 1 As we have previously noted, under longstanding EPA policy, EPA believes 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. 40 CFR 51.390. *See, Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. *See, also* , 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida redesignation). 1 The Clean Air Act section 176(c )(4)(E) currently 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. With respect to the requirement for submission of contingency measures for the 1-hour standard, section 182(a) does not require contingency measures for marginal areas, and, therefore, that portion of the Court's ruling does not impact the redesignation request for the Lancaster Area. Prior to its designation as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Lancaster Area was designated a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour standard. With respect to the 1-hour standard, the applicable requirements of subpart 1 and of subpart 2 of part D (section 182) for the Lancaster Area are discussed in the following paragraphs: Section 182(a)(2)(A) required SIP revisions to correct or amend RACT for sources in marginal areas, such as the Lancaster Area, that were subject to control technique guidelines

(CTGs)issued before November 15, 1990 pursuant to CAA section 108. On December 22, 1994, EPA fully approved into the Pennsylvania SIP all corrections required under section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (59 FR 65971, December 22, 1994). EPA believes that this requirement applies only to marginal and higher classified areas under the 1-hour NAAQS pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the CAA; therefore, this is a one-time requirement. After an area has fulfilled the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement for the 1-hour NAAQS, there is no requirement under the 8-hour NAAQS. Section 182(a)(2)(B) relates to the savings clause for vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M). It requires marginal areas to adopt vehicle I/M programs. This provision was not applicable to the Lancaster Area because this area did not have and was not required to have an I/M program before November 15, 1990. Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires a triennial Periodic Emissions Inventory for the nonattainment area. The most recent inventory for the Lancaster Area was compiled for 2002 and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision with the maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area. Section 182(a)(2)(C) required Pennsylvania to adopt a NSR Permit Program or to correct its existing program to meet EPA guidance requirements issued prior to 1990. As discussed previously, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the NSR requirements of part D as not requiring approval prior to redesignation. However, as noted previously, EPA has fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR program for the Lancaster Area. Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires sources of VOCs and NO X in the nonattainment area to submit Emissions Statements regarding the quantity of emissions from the previous year. As discussed previously, Pennsylvania already has in its approved SIP a previously approved emissions statement rule for the 1-hour standard which applies to the Lancaster Area. Section 182(a)(1) provides for the submission of a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources, as described in section 172(c)(3), in accordance with guidance provided by the Administrator. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to approve a 2002 base-year emissions inventory for the Lancaster Area as meeting the requirement of section 182(a)(1). While EPA generally required that the base-year inventory for the 1-hour standard be for calendar year 1990, EPA believes that Pennsylvania's 2002 inventory fulfills this requirement because it meets EPA's guidance and because it is more up to date than 1990. EPA also proposes to determine that, if the 1-hour standard is deemed to be reinstated, the 2002 base-year inventory for the 8-hour standard will provide an acceptable substitute for the base-year inventory for the 1-hour standard. As noted previously, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the general conformity requirements of part D as not requiring approval prior to redesignation. EPA has previously determined that the Lancaster Area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the November 15, 1993 attainment date (60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995), and we further believe that the Lancaster Area is still in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the ozone monitoring data for the years 2003-2005. To demonstrate attainment, *i.e.* , compliance with this standard, the annual average of the number of expected exceedances of the 1-hour standard over a three-year period must be less than or equal to 1. Table 3 provides a summary of the number of expected exceedances for each of the years 2003 through 2005 and three-year annual average. Table 3.—Lancaster Nonattainment Area Number of Expected Exceedances of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard; Lancaster County Monitor/AQS ID 42-071-0007 Year Number of expected exceedances 2003 1.0 2004 0.0 2005 0.0 The average number of expected exceedances for the 3-year period 2003 through 2005 is 0.3. In summary, EPA has determined that the data submitted by Pennsylvania and taken from AQS indicates that the Lancaster Area is maintaining air quality that conforms to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes this conclusion remains valid after review of the available 2006 data because no exceedances were recorded in the Lancaster Area in 2006. 4. Transport Region Requirements All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), both attainment and nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under section 184 for the purpose of reducing interstate transport of emissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The section 184 requirements include RACT, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance, and Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable measure. In the case of the Lancaster Area, which is located in the OTR, nonattainment NSR will be applicable after redesignation. On October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094), EPA fully approved Pennsylvania's NSR SIP revision consisting of Pennsylvania's Chapter 127 part D NSR regulations that cover the Lancaster Area. The Chapter 127 part D NSR regulations in the Pennsylvania SIP explicitly apply the requirements for NSR of section 184 of the CAA to attainment areas within the OTR. EPA has also interpreted the section 184 OTR requirements, including the NSR program, as not being applicable for purposes of redesignation. *See* , 61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997 (Reading, Pennsylvania Redesignation). The rationale for this is based on two considerations. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184 requirements continues to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, and I/M even after redesignation. Second, the section 184 control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Area by virtue of the Area's designation and classification. *See,* 61 FR 53174 at 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 at 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997). 5. Lancaster Has a Fully Approved SIP for Purposes of Redesignation EPA has fully approved the Pennsylvania SIP for the purposes of this redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request, Calcagni Memo, p.3; * Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance * v. *Browner* , 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. *See* , 68 FR at 25425 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. The Lancaster Area was a 1-hour ozone marginal nonattainment area at the time of its designation as a marginal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on September 22, 2004 (69 FR 56697). As stated previously, two subpart 2 part D requirements became due for the Lancaster Area prior to redesignation—a 2002 base-year inventory, and the emissions statement requirement. PADEP has submitted concurrently with its maintenance plan, a 2002 base-year inventory as a SIP revision. In this action, EPA is proposing approval of this inventory. The emissions statement requirement for Lancaster was fulfilled under the 1-hour standard. Because there are no outstanding SIP submission requirements applicable for the purposes of the redesignation of Lancaster, the applicable implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements. C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Lancaster 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 the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Lancaster Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures. Emissions reductions attributable to these rules are shown in Table 4. Table 4.—Total VOC and NO X Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in Tons per Day

(tpd)Year Point * Area Nonroad Mobile Total Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC)2002 8.5 24.5 17.4 23.4 73.8 2004 8.1 24.4 17.3 19.8 69.6 Diff. (02-04) 0.4 0.1 0.1 3.6 4.2 Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) 2002 3.6 2.6 13.7 36.9 56.8 2004 3.9 2.6 13.2 32.3 52.0 Diff (02-04) −03 0.0 0.5 4.6 4.8 * The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include banked emission credits of 3.7 tpd of VOC and 11 tpd of NO X as indicated in Technical Appendix A-4 to Pennsylvania's SIP submission. Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions decreased by 5.7 percent from 73.8 tpd to 69.6 tpd; NO X emissions decreased by 8.4 percent from 56.8 tpd to 52.0 tpd. These reductions, and anticipated future reductions, are due to the following permanent and enforceable measures. 1. Stationary Point Sources Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001) 2. Stationary Area Sources Solvent Cleaning (68 FR 2206, January 16, 2003) Portable Fuel Containers (69 FR 70893, December 8, 2004) 3. Highway Vehicle Sources Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP) —Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991) —Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000) Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Standards (62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997, and 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000) National Low Emission Vehicle

(NLEV)Program (64 FR 72564, December 28, 1999) Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance Program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005) 4. Non-Road Sources Nonroad Diesel Engine and Fuel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004) EPA believes that permanent and enforceable emissions reductions are the cause of the long-term improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of the area achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. D. The Lancaster Area Has a Fully Approvable Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Lancaster Area to attainment status, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Lancaster Area for at least 11 years after redesignation. Pennsylvania is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will ensure that the SIP for the Lancaster Area meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the applicable 8-hour ozone standard. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan? Section 175 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 approval of a redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the next 10-year period 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 memo provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the following provisions:

(a)An attainment emissions inventory;

(b)A maintenance demonstration;

(c)A monitoring network;

(d)Verification of continued attainment; and

(e)A contingency plan. Analysis of the Lancaster Area Maintenance Plan

(a)Attainment inventory—An attainment inventory includes the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. An attainment year of 2004 was used for the Lancaster Area since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year block of 2003-2005 and accounts for reductions attributable to implementation of the CAA requirements to date. The 2002 and 2004 point source data was compiled from actual sources. Pennsylvania requires owners and operators of larger facilities to submit annual production figures and emission calculations each year. Throughput data are multiplied by emission factors from Factor Information Retrieval

(FIRE)Data Systems and EPA's publication series AP-42, and are based on Source Classification Codes (SCC). The 2002 area source data was compiled using county-level activity data, from census numbers, from county numbers, etc. The 2004 area source data was projected from the 2002 inventory using temporal allocations provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA). The on-road mobile source inventories for 2002 and 2004 were compiled using MOBILE6.2 and PENNDOT estimates for VMT. The PADEP has provided detailed data summaries to document the calculations of mobile on-road VOC and NO X emissions for 2002, as well as for the projection years of 2004, 2009, and 2018 (shown in Tables 4 and 5 below). The 2002 and 2004 emissions for the majority of non-road emission source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model calculates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled non-road equipment types and includes growth factors. The NONROAD model does not estimate emissions from locomotives or aircraft. For 2002 and 2004 locomotive emissions, the PADEP projected emissions from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption information and EPA emission and conversion factors. There are no commercial aircraft operations in Lancaster County. For 2002 and 2004 aircraft emissions, PADEP estimated emissions using small airport operations statistics and emission factors and operational characteristics in the EPA-approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). More detailed information on the compilation of the 2002, 2004, 2009, and 2018 inventories can be found in the Technical Appendices which are part of this submittal.

(b)Maintenance Demonstration—On September 20, 2006, and supplemented on November 8, 2006, the PADEP submitted a maintenance plan as a SIP revision as required by section 175A of the CAA. The Lancaster Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of VOC and NO X remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions levels throughout the Lancaster Area through the year 2018. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. *See, Wall* v. *EPA, supra; Sierra Club* v. *EPA, supra. See also,* 66 FR at 53099-53100; 68 FR at 25430-25432. Tables 5 and 6 specify the VOC and NO X emissions for the Lancaster Area for 2004, 2009, and 2018. The PADEP chose 2009 as an interim year in the maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the VOC and NO X emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment level during the time of the maintenance period. Table 5.—Total VOC Emissions for 2004-2018

(tpd)Source category 2004 VOC emissions 2009 VOC emissions 2018 VOC emissions Point * 8.1 8.7 11.0 Area 24.4 24.2 27.2 Mobile 19.8 14.3 7.8 Nonroad 17.3 15.0 11.9 Total 69.6 62.2 57.9 * The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A-4 submitted with the maintenance plan. Table 6.—Total NO X Emissions for 2004-2018

(tpd)Source category 2004 NO X emissions 2009 NO X emissions 2018 NO X emissions Point * 3.9 4.1 4.6 Area 2.6 2.8 2.9 Mobile 32.3 22.3 9.0 Non-road 13.2 10.8 6.8 Total 52.0 39.9 23.2 * The stationary point source emissions shown here do not include available banked emission credits as indicated in Appendix A-4. The following programs are permanent and enforceable control measures to ensure emissions during the maintenance period are equal to or less than the emissions in the attainment year: • The Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)(71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006) • The Federal NO X SIP Call (66 FR 43795, August 21, 2001) • Pennsylvania's Portable Fuel Containers (December 8, 2004, 69 FR 70893) • Pennsylvania's Consumer Products (December 8, 2004, 69 FR 70895) • Pennsylvania's Architectural and Industrial Maintenance

(AIM)Coatings (November 23, 2004, 69 FR 68080) Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or due to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS: • FMVCP for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and cleaner gasoline (2009 and 2018 fleet)—Tier 1 (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991) and Tier 2 (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000) • Federal NLEV (64 FR 72564, December 28, 1999) • PA Clean Vehicle Program (December 9, 2006)-Pennsylvania will implement this program in car model year 2008. • Heavy-duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road

(2006)(66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001) • Non-road emissions standards

(2008)and off-road diesel fuel (2007/2010) (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004) • Vehicle emission/inspection/maintenance program (70 FR 58313, October 6, 2005) • Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program. (May 11, 2002) Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard should be maintained in the Lancaster Areas.

(c)Monitoring Network—There is currently one monitor measuring ozone in the Lancaster Area. PADEP will continue to operate its current air quality monitor (located in Lancaster County), in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

(d)Verification of Continued Attainment—The Commonwealth will track the attainment status of the ozone NAAQS in the Lancaster Area by reviewing air quality and emissions during the maintenance period. The Commonwealth will perform an annual evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled

(VMT)data and emissions reported from stationary sources, and compare them to the assumptions about these factors used in the maintenance plan. The Commonwealth will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR 51, subpart A) to see if the Area exceeds the attainment year inventory

(2004)by more than 10 percent. Based on these evaluations, the Commonwealth will consider whether any further emission control measures should be implemented.

(e)The Maintenance Plan's Contingency Measures—The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). The ability of the Lancaster Area to stay in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NO X emissions in the Area remaining at or below 2004 levels. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan projects VOC and NO X emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels through the year 2018. The Commonwealth's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce emissions should a violation occur. Contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the Lancaster monitor are above 84 ppb. If this trigger point occurs, the Commonwealth will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented in order to prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will also analyze the conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate which measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of Federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of implementing any selected measures. Contingency measures will be considered in the event that a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs at the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania monitor. In the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard, contingency measures will be adopted in order to return the Area to attainment with the standard. Contingency measures to be considered for the Lancaster Area will include, but not be limited to the following: *Regulatory measures:* —Additional controls on consumer products. —Additional controls on portable fuel containers *Non-Regulatory measures:* —Voluntary diesel engine “chip reflash”—installation software to correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel engines. —Diesel retrofit, including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel use, for public or private local on-road or off-road fleets. —Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives. —Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops, warehouses and other freight-handling facilities. —Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment. —Additional promotion of alternative fuel ( *e.g.* , biodiesel) for home heating and agricultural use. The plan lays out a process to have any regulatory contingency measures in effect within 19 months of the trigger. The plan also lays out a process to implement the non-regulatory contingency measures within 12-24 months of the trigger. VII. Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established and Identified in the Lancaster Maintenance Plan Adequate and Approvable? A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets? Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPs (i.e., RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from on-road mobile sources. In the maintenance plan, the MVEBs are termed “on-road mobile source emission budgets.” Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and § 51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance plan. A MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. A 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 and revise the MVEBs in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. 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 or reasonable progress towards 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 ensuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein “adequate” for use in determining transportation conformity. After 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 a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA's process for determining “adequacy” consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” This guidance was finalized in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA consults this guidance and follows this rulemaking in making its adequacy determinations. The MVEB for the Lancaster Area are listed in Table 1 of this document for the 2009 and 2018 years, and are the projected emissions for the on-road mobile sources plus any portion of the safety margin allocated to the MVEBs. These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must be used for transportation conformity determinations. B. What Is a Safety Margin? 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 plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The safety margin is the extra emissions that can be allocated as long as the total attainment level of emissions is maintained. The credit, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any of the source categories. PADEP is at this time preserving the entire difference between attainment and projected maintenance year emissions to ensure continued maintenance of the standard. C. Why Are the MVEBs Approvable? The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for the Lancaster Area are approvable because the MVEBs for NO X and VOCs continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation conformity regulations. D. What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the Lancaster Maintenance Plan? The MVEBs for the Lancaster Area maintenance plan are being posted to EPA's conformity Web site concurrently with this proposal. The public comment period will end at the same time as the public comment period for this proposed rule. In this case, EPA is concurrently processing the action on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the MVEBs contained therein. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to find the MVEBs adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part of the maintenance plan. The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation conformity until the maintenance plan and associated MVEBs are approved in a final **Federal Register** notice, or EPA otherwise finds the budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period. If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed approval of the Lancaster MVEBs, or any other aspect of our proposed approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond to the comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the adequacy process as a separate action. Our action on the Lancaster Area MVEBs will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm* (once there, click on “Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions”). VIII. Proposed Actions EPA is proposing to determine that the Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the redesignation of the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request and 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 Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request would change the designation of the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the associated maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area, submitted on September 20, 2006, and supplemented on November 8, 2006, as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area because it meets the requirements of section 175A as described previously in this notice. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2002 base-year inventory for the Lancaster Area, and the MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Lancaster Area in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IX. 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 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 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 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), nor will it 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), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a 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 Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule, proposing to approve the redesignation of the Lancaster Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and the MVEB identified in the maintenance plan, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: May 4, 2007. James W. Newsom, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-9296 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 061219338-6338-01; I.D. 120806A] RIN 0648-AU69 Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Amendment 15 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) requests public comments on a proposed rule to implement Amendment 15 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries Management Plan

(Plan)in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This Amendment was approved by NMFS on March 22, 2007, and in accordance with the notification procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act the Pacific Fishery Management Council

(PFMC)was notified of this approval. This action is intended to provide management flexibility in times of low Klamath River fall-run Chinook

(KRFC)abundance, while preserving the long-term productive capacity of the stock and thereby ensuring it continues to contribute meaningfully to ocean and river fisheries in the future. DATES: A notice of availability

(NOA)of Amendment 15 was published on December 20, 2006 under the RIN 0648-AV07. Written comments on the amendment's NOA were due February 20, 2007. Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by June 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by “I.D. 120806A” by an of the following methods: • Email: *salmon2006amend15@noaa.gov* • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments, and include “I.D. 120806A” in the subject line of the message. • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or to Rodney R. McInnis, Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. • Fax: 206-526-6426 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah McAvinchey by phone at 206- 526-6140, fax 206-526-6736 and email at *sarah.mcavinchey@noaa.gov* , or Eric Chavez by phone at 508-980-4064, email at *eric.chavez@noaa.gov* , fax 508-908-4047 or contact Pacific Fishery Management Council by phone at 503-820-2290 or by fax at 503-820-2299. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)was developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC or Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* , and approved by the Secretary in 1978. Since then, the FMP has been amended 14 times, with implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR part 660, subpart H. From 1979 to 1983, the FMP was amended annually. In 1984, a framework amendment was implemented that provided the mechanism for making preseason and inseason adjustments in the regulations without annual amendments. Amendment 9 to the FMP was approved in 1988 and implemented in ocean fishing regulations effective May 1, 1989. This Salmon FMP amendment codified the harvest rate management approach developed by the Klamath River Salmon Management Group (KRSMG)and approved by the Klamath Fishery Management Council and the Council. It called for the regulation of ocean fisheries to meet a spawner reduction rate of up to 65 percent (later increased to 67 percent) of each brood of KRFC except that 35,000 naturally spawning adults would be protected in all years, creating a conservation floor. In the Klamath Basin, “natural” spawners refers to spawning location, not to parental origin; i.e., hatchery origin fish spawning in a natural stream are counted as natural spawners. Various allowable ocean and river harvest rate combinations were specified in the Salmon FMP. The tribal and non-tribal harvest sharing agreement in effect at the time allowed for ocean and river harvest rates of up to 35 percent and 50 percent, respectively, based on age-4 fish. The harvest rate approach was adopted because of uncertainty in the capacity of the Basin for fall-run Chinook salmon. The harvest rate plan recommended by the Klamath River Technical Team was subsequently adopted as part of Salmon Plan Amendment 9. The Council concluded that inclusion of the conservation floor protected the stock by reducing the risk of prolonged depressed production, provided greater long term yield, and resulted in a high probability of attaining sufficient escapement for hatchery production. When the escapement floor was adopted into the Salmon FMP through Amendment 9, the Council required that modification of the floor could only occur by Plan amendment. Under the FMP a conservation alert is triggered when the projected stock abundance is less than 35,000 natural spawners. When a conservation alert is triggered, the FMP requires closure of all salmon fisheries within the Council's jurisdiction that impact the stock. The Council prepared Amendment 15 to the FMP under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and submitted it for review by the Secretary. A NOA for Amendment 15 was filed with the Office of the Federal Register on December 19, 2006, announcing a public comment period. The impetus for this initiative began in 2005 because management measures adopted to protect Klamath River fall-run Chinook salmon

(KRFC)reduced access to a projected high ocean abundance of Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon. The need was elevated in 2006 when projected low abundance of KRFC led the Council and NMFS to conclude that even more restrictive management measures were needed. NMFS' implementing rules do not allow for any level of minimal or limited catch of KRFC when the projected stock abundance is less than 35,000 natural spawners (Conservation Alert Standard); the only option to allow for such fishing is to amend the FMP following the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures or to implement an emergency rule. In 2006, the status of KRFC included a failure to meet the 35,000 natural spawner escapement floor for the stock for the past two years, and a projected natural spawner escapement of less than 35,000 natural spawners. After reviewing the available data on the stock during its March and April meetings, and in collaboration with NMFS, the states, tribes, and ocean fishermen, the Council determined that conditions in 2006 met the criteria to temporarily amend the Salmon FMP KRFC conservation objective to allow a limited fishery that would allow a projected natural escapement of 21,100 natural adult spawners. This increase in impacts to KRFC was determined to be acceptable in terms of maintaining the long-term productivity of the stock while minimizing to the extent practicable the economic impacts on the fishing community and states. NMFS concurred with the Council assessment and implemented emergency regulations effective May 1, 2006. Emergency action was taken to allow minimal impact on KRFC in directed ocean salmon fisheries between Cape Falcon, Oregon and Point Sur, California in 2006 (71 FR 26254, May 4, 2006). The purpose of Amendment 15 is two-fold:

(1)to give more flexibility to the management process when the escapement floor of 35,000 natural spawners for KRFC is projected not to be met; and

(ESA)considerations; and f. Other considerations as appropriate. When considering these items, the Council shall determine that the final ocean impact rate will not jeopardize the capacity of the fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. Implementation of de minimis fisheries will depend on year specific estimates of ocean abundance and age composition, which will be determined by the STT prior to the March Council meeting. Ocean fishery impacts to the returning brood incurred during the previous fall/winter fisheries will be counted against the allowable age-4 ocean impact rate. Amendment 15 does not require that a de minimis fishery be implemented if the natural spawner floor is not met. The provisions of Amendment 15 allow the Council to consider implementing a de minimis fishery that would be limited to no more than 10 percent age-4 ocean impact rate based on the above described criteria. Allowing limited opportunity for harvest when fisheries would otherwise be closed should lessen severe economic consequences to local communities and states. Historically, KRFC was a primary contributor to marine fisheries off the coasts of Oregon and California. While this amendment seeks to provide additional management flexibility in times of low KRFC abundance, the overriding purpose of the FMP remains to preserve the long-term productive capacity of the stock and thereby ensure it continues to contribute meaningfully to ocean and river fisheries in the future. This amendment does not change the 35,000 natural spawner conservation floor. Annual estimates of fishery catches, spawner escapements, spawner age composition and coded wire tag contributions are usually available by early to mid-January each year for use by the Salmon Technical Team

(STT)and the KRTAT in updating KRFC fishery resource estimates, models, and forecasts. Amendment 15 Approval Approval of this amendment by NMFS is conditioned upon its understanding of the particular meaning and intention of the amendment. In its March 22, 2007 letter to the PFMC, NMFS expressed the following understanding, which will be used by NMFS in applying Amendment 15: As you know, the purpose of Amendment 15 is to provide limited opportunity for harvest when fisheries would otherwise be closed to mitigate, to the degree possible, severe economic consequences to local communities and states. Historically, Klamath River fall Chinook

(KRFC)was a primary contributor to marine fisheries off the coasts of Oregon and California. While this amendment seeks to provide additional management flexibility in times of low KRFC abundance, the overriding purpose remains to preserve the long-term productive capacity of the stock and thereby ensure it continues to contribute meaningfully to ocean and river fisheries in the future. The Council prepared Amendment 15 to the FMP under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and submitted it for review by the Secretary on December 13, 2006. A notice of availability for Amendment 15 was published in the **Federal Register** on December 20, 2006 announcing a public comment period, this comment period closed on February 20, 2007. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 15 is currently under review, and we expect to have the final rule effective for the 2008 fishing season. Regulations implementing Amendment 15 will include an amended Federal regulation at 50 CFR 660.410. It should be clearly understood that we do not interpret Amendment 15 to set a fixed schedule of allowable salmon harvest whenever the forecasted abundance of natural spawners falls within the range of 35,000 to 12,000. Rather, we understand Amendment 15 to allow the Council to entertain, without emergency rulemaking, the possibility of some de minimis harvest of KRFC in order to allow mixed stock ocean fisheries to occur when the preseason forecast of naturally-spawning KRFC falls below 35,000. Nothing in this Amendment automatically predetermines that a particular level of harvest of Klamath fall Chinook will be acceptable or allowed. The extent of the harvest actually allowed in a particular year will be limited by the general requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to maintain maximum sustainable fisheries on a continuing basis, by the specific factors listed in Amendment 15, and by the requirement to meet our trust responsibilities to affected Indian tribes. The factors for consideration listed in the Amendment are important and need to be weighed based on the specific circumstances of each applicable future harvest season, and using the best available scientific information, which will continue to develop in the future. We anticipate that the maximum allowable 10 percent ocean impact rate will be implemented only when the anticipated escapement is near the 35,000 natural spawner floor. As escapement falls below approximately 30,000 the impact rate will need to decline substantially. There may be some opportunity for harvest when projected escapements are in the range of 12,000 to 22,000, but the opportunity would be limited at best, and justified only to the degree that there are mitigating year specific circumstances. We acknowledge that, in 2006, Klamath fall Chinook harvests were approved down to a projected escapement of 22,000. However, this determination was based on the unique circumstances of that year and should not be understood as a precedent that harvest at that level will be regularly acceptable. In addition, although the Amendment allows for harvest if escapement is projected below 12,000, when we take into account the considerations stated in Amendment 15, we see little or no prospect for harvest when projected escapement is at that level. We will continue to work with the Council to support the best possible fishery management decisions. While we hope that the Klamath runs will rebuild to the point that it will not be necessary to even consider harvest questions at the levels described in Amendment 15, should it become necessary to do so, we will work closely with you to develop an appropriate evaluation and sound decision based on what we know at that time. Classification NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP amendment and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, details of each are as follows. The Council prepared an environmental assessment for this FMP amendment that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the environmental assessment is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES ). This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA)was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). 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 summary of the analysis follows. Commercial salmon harvesting vessels buyers/processors, and charter/party boats are expected to be the only type of small entities directly impacted by the proposed action. Section 603 (b)(1)-(5) of the RFA identifies the elements that should be included in the IRFA. These elements are bulleted below, followed by information that addresses each element. • Description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered: This action is needed to prevent fishery restrictions that impose severe economic consequences to local communities and states. Historically, KRFC was a primary contributor to marine fisheries off the coasts of Oregon and California. While the FMP amendment seeks to provide management flexibility in times of scarcity, there is an overriding purpose to preserve the long-term productive capacity of the stock to ensure meaningful contributions to ocean and river fisheries in the future. • Statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule: The Salmon FMP directs ocean salmon fishery management actions relative to the exclusive economic zone(EEZ) off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Under the existing Salmon FMP, a preseason projection that the conservation floor for KRFC will not be met triggers a Conservation Alert, which provides the Council and NMFS only one option: to close all salmon fisheries within its jurisdiction that impact the stock. These fisheries include ocean salmon fisheries between Cape Falcon, Oregon and Point Sur, California. Currently, any other option can only be addressed through the emergency regulation process as provided in the Magnuson-Steven Act and implemented by NMFS. The purpose of Amendment 15 is two-fold:

(1)to give more flexibility to the management process when the escapement floor of 35,000 natural spawners for KRFC is projected not to be met; and

(2)to provide for appropriate opportunities to access more robust Chinook salmon stocks that are typically available in the Council managed area. This amendment would, in appropriate circumstances, allow for the Council to develop and recommend fisheries, and NMFS to implement fisheries without the need for an emergency rule in years when the abundance of KRFC are low. • Description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply: The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that compose the California and Oregon commercial salmon troll fleet and buyers/processors, the charter/party boat fleet between Cape Falcon, Oregon, and Point Sur, California, and other fishery dependent businesses. In years with sufficient surplus, the Yurok and Hoopa Valley tribes sell salmon in excess of their subsistence needs. The generally acknowledged minimum tribal subsistence need is about 12,000 KRFC. In years that a Conservation Alert is triggered, it is unlikely the tribal share would exceed 12,000 KRFC; therefore there would be no difference in economic impact to tribal businesses between the Status Quo and Preferred alternative. Therefore, no analysis of the tribal fishery in included in the IRFA. Salmon Troll Fleet The financial impacts analysis focuses on the ex-vessel revenue effects of each alternative on salmon troll vessels. Financial impacts were evaluated based only on changes in salmon ex-vessel revenues relative to the Status Quo Alternative. Vessel counts are based on unique vessel identifiers. However, it is known that in many cases a single firm may own more than one vessel; therefore, the counts should be considered upper bound estimates. Additionally, businesses owning vessels may have revenue from fisheries in other geographic areas, such as Alaska, or from non-salmon fishing activities. Therefore, it is likely that when all operations of a firm are aggregated, some of the small entities identified here are actually larger than indicated. Approximately 2,718 vessels were permitted to operate in the commercial salmon troll fisheries in Oregon and/or California in 2005, although the active fleet was considerably smaller, with an average of approximately 1,068 vessels participating in 2003-2005. In addition, only about 13-19 percent of the active fleet landed 50 percent of the catch, and 52-55 percent of the fleet landed 90 percent of the catch in those years (STT 2006a). Of the 1,068 vessels, 40 percent participated only in salmon fisheries, while the other 60 percent participated in multiple fisheries. All of these vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards. The active fleet participation is dynamic with respect to annual opportunity in the salmon fishery. In years with less opportunity, some salmon vessels choose not to participate, and either engage in other fisheries or sell out. In years with more opportunity, previously inactive vessels may choose to participate, or may be sold to more active fishermen. Under the Status Quo Alternative, there would be no participation in the commercial salmon fishery between Cape Falcon, Oregon and Point Sur, California during years that a Conservation Alert was triggered. Under the fixed cap alternatives, the active fleet was projected to be approximately 268 to 354. The 2003-2005 average salmon related revenue per troll vessel was estimated at $20,900. For salmon only troll vessels the average was $14,300 and for multiple species troll vessels the average was $25,200. Under the fixed cap alternatives, the average salmon-related revenue was projected at $1.6 million to 3.1 million in a Conservation Alert Year and applying a medium troller success rate scenario. Processors/Buyers A relatively small number of large processor/buyer firms handle most of the ocean salmon catch on the West Coast. There were 464 firms with state processor/buyer licenses that sold salmon in Oregon and California in 2004 (PFMC and NMFS 2006). These firms include both operators of processing plants and buyers that may do little more than hold the fish prior to their shipment to a processor or market. In some cases, the buyers may be owners of vessels who also own licenses allowing them to sell fish directly to the public or retail markets. Most larger salmon buying firms acquire fish from sites in more than one port. The largest salmon buyers tend to buy salmon from many vessels landing and buy fish in several ports. The top ocean caught salmon buying firms include some firms that are not among the top fish buyers when all species are counted. Larger processing firms are more likely to handle ocean caught salmon than smaller firms. However, there are many small buyers that specialize in salmon, only handle small amounts of product, and receive product from one or two vessels. It is likely that most of these buyers are vessels that also have licenses allowing them to sell directly to the public or other retail outlets(e.g., restaurants). A thorough analysis of the effects of the Preferred Alternative would include estimates of the numbers of vessels acting as buyers/processors, as well as other buyer/processor sectors, the recent history of revenue generated by the various classes of buyer/processors, and a projection of revenue generated under the Status Quo and Preferred alternatives in Conservation Alert years. However, because many of the small business buyer/processors include vessel ownership, and because most buyer/processors deal in multiple fisheries, it is likely the effects of the Preferred Alternative are proportional to those estimated and projected for the salmon troll fleet above. Charter/Party Boats Approximately 103 charter boats participated in California recreational ocean salmon fisheries in 2003-2005 (STT 2006a). In Oregon, there was an average of 211 licensed charter vessels during these same years. An estimated 6 percent of the Oregon charter effort occurred in the Astoria area during 2003-2005 (STT 2006a). In Oregon there was an average of 211 licensed charter vessels. There was no information available for port of operation for Oregon charter vessels, but an average of 18 percent of Oregon charter based salmon trips originated in the Astoria area. There was also no information available on fishery participation for Oregon vessels, and some may not have engaged in salmon fishing. Conversely, it is likely that most of the Charter fleet in both states participated in fisheries other than salmon, such as California halibut, Pacific Halibut, bottomfish, and albacore. Separate economic impact estimates were not available for charter and private boat salmon fishing sectors; however during 2003-2005, Oregon and California recreational salmon fishing effort averaged 297,200 angler trips for both boat types, with charter boat fishing averaging 31 percent of the total during. Based on this assumption the projected state level income impact of the de minimis fishery alternatives under the fixed cap alternatives in a Conservation Alert Year ranged from $6.2 million to $6.8 million dollars. For the Status Quo Alternative the economic impact was about $322,000. Based on an assumed fleet of 314 vessels, the average economic impact per vessel was about $3,200 for the Status Quo Alternative and $19,700 to $21,700 annually for the fixed cap alternatives. Other Small Businesses In addition to commercial fishing vessels, other fishery-dependent businesses that may be affected include suppliers, buyers who act as intermediaries between vessels and consumers, processors who purchase raw materials from commercial vessels to produce seafood products, and charter or party vessels that provide recreational fishing experience for paying customers, among others. A thorough accounting of net benefits would include measurement of producer surpluses accruing to these business sectors as well as to fishing vessels. • A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirements of the report or record: There were no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements that are proposed as part of this action. • An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules, which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule: No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the alternatives. Public comment is hereby solicited, identifying such rules. • A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities: The decision to set the de minimis harvest rate cap at 10 percent was determined through the consideration of ecological, fishery, and economic effects of each alternative. It should be noted that modification of the current 35,000 naturally spawning adult floor to some other value would not address the issue of de minimis fishing opportunity in low abundance years, which is a primary reason for the current FMP amendment effort. The Council was presented with modeling results from the Salmon Amendment Committee

(SAC)at its September meeting which examined each of the alternatives. These results showed little difference in long term effects on the stock size between each of the proposed alternatives. Differences among the de minimis alternatives (status quo, 5 percent, 10 percent, 13 percent) in terms of aggregate salmon troll revenues and associated income impacts indicated little difference among the alternatives in terms of long-term economic effects. The alternatives, however, indicated more substantial differences when the analysis focused on fishery outcomes in Conservation Alert years. The 13 percent alternative showed a higher probability of the age-4 ocean harvest rate going above 16 percent, which is the ESA Consultation Standard for threatened California Coastal Chinook. The 13 percent alternative also showed a higher probability of reducing the tributary spawning escapement below 720, which is considered to be a crucial genetic threshold. The 5 percent and the status quo alternatives were also examined and while they would both be a lower catch limit than the 10 percent and 13 percent alternatives they would provide little in the way of economic benefit to the fishery. The 10 percent alternative was chosen because it will not impact the long term productivity of the stock, especially when provisions are set to reduce the cap as needed and it provides some economic relief to the fishery. The model projections showed that the 10 percent alternative would allow for more fishing days, a higher catch of KRFC and a higher revenue than the 5 percent alternative. This rule provides authority under certain circumstances for de minimis fisheries. The specific impacts of annual measures will be assessed annually during the development of annual measures. Additionally, the specific impacts of any de minimis fisheries pursuant to the authority of Amendment 15 will be assessed at that time. Since 1989, NMFS has listed 27 ESUs of salmonids on the West Coast. As the listings have occurred, NMFS has conducted formal ESA section 7 consultations and issued biological opinions, and made determinations under section 4(d) of the ESA, that consider the impacts to listed salmonid species resulting from proposed implementation of the Salmon FMP, or in some cases, from proposed implementation of the annual management measures. Associated with the biological opinions are incidental take statements that specify the level of take that is expected. Some of the biological opinions have concluded that implementation of the Salmon FMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of certain listed salmonid ESUs and provide incidental take statements. Other biological opinions have found that implementation of the Salmon FMP is likely to jeopardize certain listed ESUs and have identified reasonable and prudent alternatives (consultation standards) that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the ESU under consideration, and provided an incidental take statement for the reasonable and prudent alternative. NMFS has determined that fishing activities conducted pursuant to this rule will affect endangered and threatened species and critical habitat under the ESA but will not jeopardize the continued existence of those species. NMFS will continue to assess the impact of the fishery each year during the development of annual measures. All alternatives would meet NMFS ESA consultation standards for listed salmon stocks. The West Coast ocean salmon fisheries are considered a Category III fishery under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, indicating a remote likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals, in the annual list of fisheries published in the **Federal Register** . Based on its Category III status, the incidental take of marine mammals in the West Coast salmon fisheries does not significantly impact marine mammal stocks. Klamath River tribes with federally recognized fishing rights may be impacted by Council-area fisheries. Accordingly the FMP amendment was developed with consideration of tribal fishing rights. The Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe were both represented on the Council's Ad Hoc Salmon Amendment Committee, which was responsible for development of this FMP amendment. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act there is a tribal representative on the Council. A copy of the Environmental Assessment is available from the Council. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 9, 2007. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reason set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 660 as follows: PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2.In § 660.410 revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: § 660.410 Conservation objectives.

(b)* * *

(1)A comprehensive technical review of the best scientific information available provides conclusive evidence that, in the view of the Council, the Scientific and Statistical Committee, and the Salmon Technical Team, justifies modification of a conservation objective: except that the 35,000 natural spawner floor and the de minimis fishing provisions for Klamath River fall Chinook may be changed only by amendment. [FR Doc. E7-9329 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 93 Tuesday, May 15, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Forestry Research Advisory Council AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. ACTION: Notice; solicitation for membership to the Forestry Research Advisory Council. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app., the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)announces solicitation for nominations to fill eleven vacancies on the Forestry Research Advisory Council. DATES: Nominations must be received on or before July 16, 2007. Send completed nomination packages to Daina Dravnieks Apple, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Forest Service; Research and Development, Forestry Research Advisory Council; U. S. Department of Agriculture; Mail Stop 1120; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1120, if sending by U.S Postal Service. For Express mail use 201 14th St. SW., Mail Stop 1120; Washington, DC 20024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daina Dravnieks Apple, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Forest Service; Research and Development, Forestry Research Advisory Council; 202-205-1665; facsimile 202-205-1530, or contact Catalino Blanche, Program Leader, Natural Resources and Environment, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 202-401-4190; facsimile 202-401-1706. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1441(c) of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 requires the establishment of the Forestry Research Advisory Council to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on accomplishing efficiently the purposes of the Act of October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a, *et seq.* ), known as the McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962. The Council also provides advice related to the Forest Service research program, authorized by the Forest and Rangeland Resources Research Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-307, 92 Stat. 353, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1600 (note)). The Council is composed of 20 voting members from the following membership categories:

(1)Federal and State agencies concerned with developing and utilizing the Nation's forest resources, in particular committee membership, will include representation from the National Forest System and Forest and Range Experiment Station leaders, Forest Service;

(2)The forest industries. These are organizations involved in the management of forest lands for which timber production is a component;

(3)The forestry schools of the State certified eligible institutions, and State agricultural experiment stations; and

(4)Volunteer public groups concerned with forests and related natural resources. The initial Council membership was appointed with staggered terms of 1, 2, and 3 years. As a result of the staggered appointments, the terms of 11 members will expire during November 2007. Nominations for a 3-year appointment for all of the 11 vacant positions are sought. Nominees will be carefully reviewed for their broad expertise, leadership and relevancy to a membership category. Geographic balance and a balanced distribution among the categories are also important. Vacancies are as follows: Federal and State—3; Industry—1; Academic—3; and Voluntary organizations—4. Nominations for one individual who fits several of the categories or for more than one person who fits one category will be accepted. Please indicate the specific membership category for each nominee. Nominations are open to all individuals without regard for race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. Nominations are being solicited from universities, organizations, associations, societies, councils, federations, groups, and companies that represent a wide variety of forestry research interests throughout the country. Appointments will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Each nominee must complete Form AD-755, Advisory Committee Membership Background Information (which can be obtained electronically from the USDA Chief Information Office at *http://www.ocio.usda.gov/forms/ocio_forms.html* , or from the contact persons listed in the Further Information Contact section of this notice) and will be vetted before selection. Send nominee's name, resume, and the completed Form AD-755 by mail to: Forest Service Research and Development, Forestry Research Advisory Council; Mail Stop 1120; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1120. Nominations delivered by express mail or overnight courier service should be sent to: USDA Forest Service; Research and Development, Forestry Research Advisory Council; 201 14th St. SW., Washington, DC 20024. Dated: May 8, 2007. Boyd K. Rutherford, Assistant Secretary for Administration. [FR Doc. E7-9232 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Publication Comment Cards AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension of a currently approved information collection, Request for Comments; Publication Comment Cards (0596-0163). DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before July 16, 2007 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Science Delivery Group, Southern Research Station, Forest Service, USDA, 200 W.T. Weaver Boulevard, Asheville, NC 28804-3454. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 828-257-4313 or by e-mail to: *carolwhitlock@fs.fed.us.* The public may inspect comments received at 200 W.T. Weaver Boulevard, Asheville, NC 28804-3454, Room 243 during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 828-257-4389 to facilitate entry to the building. Additionally the public may inspect comments received on the World Wide Web, *www.srs.fs.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Whitlock, Science Delivery Group, 828-257-4389. Individuals who use TDD may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Publication Comment Card. *OMB Number:* 0596-0163. *Expiration Date of Approval:* November 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Executive Order 12862, issued September 11, 1993, directed Federal agencies to change the way they do business, to reform their management practices, and to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In response to this Executive Order, the Forest Service, Southern Research Station, developed a Publication Comment Card for inclusion when distributing scientific research publications. Since the early 1920s, the Forest Service scientists have published the results of their studies about national forests and forest resources and products, in addition to their conclusions about the dynamics of natural timber stands and plantations, watershed and wildlife management, and recreational activities. These studies have provided long-term data that have become increasingly valuable to landowners and others involved in natural resource and land management. Data from the Publication Comment Card help Forest Service research stations determine if publications meet customers' expectations and address customers' needs. The collected information also helps scientists and authors provide relevant information on effective, efficient, responsible land management. The Government Printing Office binds the cards into all general technical reports, research papers, research notes, resource bulletins, and other technical publications printed for the Forest Service. Respondents complete comment cards and return them to the Forest Service in person, via surface mail, or using the Internet. Data gathered in this information collection are not available from other sources. The Forest Service's Science Delivery Group collects and analyzes the data, providing feedback to individual scientists and authors with the purpose of improving future products. Curtailing this information collection would deprive customers of a convenient mechanism for providing detailed and constructive criticism of research publications. *Estimate of Annual Burden:* 5 minutes. *Type of Respondents:* Individuals; businesses; landowners; non-profit organizations; local, state, and foreign governments. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 22,000. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 1,833. *Comment is invited on:*

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

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

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. Dated: May 8, 2007. Ann Bartuska, Deputy Chief. [FR Doc. E7-9233 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Southwestern Region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and Oklahoma: Proposed Surface Management of Natural Gas Resource Development on Jicarilla Ranger District, Carson National Forest, Rio Arriba County, NM; Additional Filings AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service published a Notice of Intent (69 FR 59881-59883, October 6, 2004) to prepare an environmental impact statement for a proposed forest plan amendment for surface management of gas leasing and development on the Jicarilla Ranger District, Carson National Forest. In addition, the proposal includes a leasing analysis for approximately 3,800 unleased acres on the Jicarilla Ranger District. A draft environmental impact statement has been completed and the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)published a Notice of Availability

(NOA)in the **Federal Register** on February 16, 2007 (72 FR 54900). The end of the comment period presented in the NOA was incorrect and subsequently rectified in an amended notice (72 FR 9521, March 2, 2007). CORRECTED DATES: The Notice of Intent

(NOI)stated the final environmental impact statement

(FEIS)was scheduled for completion in early summer of 2005. This Notice corrects the estimated filing date of the FEIS from early summer 2005, to the fall 2007. When completed, EPA will publish a NOA of the FEIS in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Kuykendall, Forest Environmental Coordinator, Carson National Forest, at

(505)758-6212. Dated: May 15, 2007. Martin D. Chavez, Jr., Forest Supervisor, Carson National Forest. [FR Doc. E7-9271 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Southwestern Region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and Oklahoma: Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Valle Vidal, Carson National Forest, Taos and Colfax Counties, NM; Additional Filings AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service published a Notice of Intent (70 FR 34441-34442, June 14, 2005) to prepare an environmental impact statement for a proposed forest plan amendment to incorporate standards and guidelines for the management of the Valle Vidal Unit of the Questa Ranger District, Carson National Forest. CORRECTED DATES: The Notice of Intent

(NOI)states the draft environmental impact statement

(DEIS)is expected to be available for public review sometime in February or March 2006. This Notice corrects the estimated filing date of the DEIS from spring 2006 to summer 2007. At that time, the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)will publish a Notice of Availability

(NOA)of the DEIS in the **Federal Register** . Additionally, the 2005 NOI states the comment period would be for 90 days. This Notice changes the length of the comment period to 60 days from the date the NOA is published in the **Federal Register** . Completion date for the final environmental impact statement

(FEIS)is subsequently corrected to reflect these changes. The NOI states the FEIS would be completed in September 2006. This Notice corrects the estimated completion date of the FEIS from September 2006 to winter 2007. When completed, EPA will publish a NOA of the FEIS in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Kuykendall, Forest Environmental Coordinator, Carson National Forest, at

(505)758-6212. Dated: May 8, 2007. Martin D. Chavez, Jr., Forest Supervisor, Carson National Forest. [FR Doc. E7-9283 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS)to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Agricultural Surveys Program. Revision to burden hours may be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 16, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0213, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: gmcbride@nass.usda.gov* . Include docket number above in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*

(202)720-6396. • *Mail:* Mail any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Hand deliver to: Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

(202)720-4333. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Agricultural Surveys Program. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0213. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* To revise and extend a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, farm numbers, land values, on-farm pesticide usage, and pest crop management practices. The Agricultural Surveys Program contains a series of surveys that obtains basic agricultural data from farmers and ranchers throughout the Nation for preparing agricultural estimates and forecasts of crop acreage, yield, and production; stocks of grains and soybeans; hog and pig numbers; sheep inventory and lamb crop; cattle inventory; and cattle on feed. Grazing fees, land values, pesticide usage, and pest management practices data are also collected. Uses of the statistical information are extensive and varied. Producers, farm organizations, agribusinesses, State and national farm policy makers, and government agencies are important users of these statistics. Agricultural statistics are used to plan and administer other related Federal and State programs in such areas as consumer protection, conservation, foreign trade, education, and recreation. The Agricultural Surveys Program had approval from OMB for a 3-year period. NASS intends to request that the program be approved for another 3 years. *Authority:* These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995). *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. *Respondents:* Farms and Ranches. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 650,000. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 162,500 hours. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, at

(202)720-5778. *Comments:* 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval. Signed at Washington, DC, April 24, 2007. Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-9237 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS)to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Cotton Ginnings Survey. Revision to burden hours may be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 16, 2007 to be considered. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0220, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: gmcbride@nass.usda.gov* . Include docket number above in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*

(202)720-6396. • *Mail or Hand Delivery:* Mail or deliver any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

(202)720-4333. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Cotton Ginning Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0220. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* To revise and extend a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition. NASS's Cotton Ginnings survey reports provide cotton ginnings statistics from August through February by State to aid in forecasting cotton production. Data collected consists of bales of cotton ginned to date, cotton to be ginned, lint cotton produced, cottonseed produced, cottonseed sold to oil mills, cottonseed used for other uses, number of gins by type, bales produced by county of origin, and cottonseed prices received by producers. The forecasting procedure involves calculating a weighted percent ginned to date as well as an allowance for cross-state movement and bale weight adjustments. Production by State allows adjustments for year-end State and county estimates. Total pounds of lint cotton produced is used to derive an actual bale weight which increases the precision of production estimates. *Authority:* These data will be collected under authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978). *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6 minutes per response. *Respondents:* Cotton Ginners. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 10,000. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 1,000 hours. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, at

(202)720-5778. *Comments:* 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval. Signed at Washington, DC, April 20, 2007. Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-9238 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS)to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection comprising the Nursery and Christmas Tree Production Survey and the Nursery and Floriculture Chemical Use Survey. Revision to burden hours may be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 16, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0244, by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *gmcbride@nass.usda.gov* . Include docket number above in the subject line of the message. • Fax:

(202)720-6396. • Mail: Mail any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Hand deliver to: Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

(202)720-4333. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Nursery and Christmas Tree Production Survey and Nursery and Floriculture Chemical Use Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0244. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* To revise and extend a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition, as well as environmental statistics. This includes estimates of production and value of key nursery products and chemical use by nursery and floriculture production operations. • As nursery production continues to be one of the fastest growing segments of American agriculture, the Nursery Production and Christmas Tree Survey will update the production and economic contribution of the nursery industry to U.S. agriculture every 3 years by conducting a census of nursery and greenhouse operations with sales over $10,000 in the 17 major producing States. These operations will receive the production questionnaire by mail with telephone and personal interview follow-up for non-response. • The Nursery and Floriculture Chemical Use Survey, also conducted every 3 years, measures chemical use related to the production of nursery and floriculture crops in six major producing States. The resulting publication, part of the NASS series on Agricultural Chemical Usage, summarizes rates of application, total amount of active ingredients applied, and use of pest management practices. NASS collects on-farm chemical use data to enhance the quality of information used in the evaluation of issues related to agricultural chemicals, including pesticide registrations. Pest management data are used to measure integrated pest management adoption levels and evaluate the impact of alternative pesticide regulations, policies, and practices. A sample of nursery and floriculture operations with sales over $10,000 in the major States will be personally interviewed, since chemical use data are not accurately collected by telephone or mail. • A separate nursery production survey is conducted every year only in Oregon. *Authority:* These data will be collected under authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995). *Estimate of Burden:* Based on previous data collected, the Nursery and Christmas Tree Production Survey questionnaire is expected to average 35 minutes per respondent. Based on previous data, the Nursery and Floriculture Chemical Use Survey questionnaire is estimated questionnaire average 45 minutes per respondent. *Respondents:* Producers of nursery, greenhouse, and floriculture products. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* (Nursery Production Survey at 13,000 respondents × annual frequency of 1/3) + (Chemical Use Survey at 4,200 × frequency of 1/3) + (Oregon Production Survey at 700 × frequency of 1.0) = approximately 6,500. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 4,000 hours. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, at

(202)720-5778. *Comments:* 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be included in the request for OMB approval. Signed at Washington, DC, April 20, 2007. Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-9240 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS)to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Aquaculture Surveys. Revision to burden hours may be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 16, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0150, by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *gmcbride@nass.usda.gov* . Include docket number above in the subject line of the message. • Fax:

(202)720-6396. • Mail or Hand Deliver: Mail deliver any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

(202)720-4333. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Aquaculture Surveys. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0150. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2007. *Type of Request:* To revise and extend a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition. The Aquaculture Surveys collect information on trout and catfish; trout surveys include water surface acreage and sales, and catfish surveys include inventory, water surface acreage, sales, catfish processed, and catfish feed. Survey results are used by government agencies in planning farm programs. • Twenty States are in the trout growers survey. In January, previous year trout sales data are collected from farmers, and distributed fish data are collected from State and federal hatcheries. • Eleven States are in the catfish growers survey. Data are collected from farmers in January for January inventory, water surface acreage, and previous year sales. In addition, farmers in the four major catfish producing States are surveyed in July for mid-year inventory and water surface acreage. • All twenty catfish processing plants across the nation are in the catfish processing survey. Plants are surveyed monthly for amount purchased, prices paid, amount sold, prices received, and end-of-month inventories. • Fourteen catfish millers are surveyed monthly for the amount of feed delivered for food-size fish and fingerlings and broodfish. *Authority:* These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978). *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response with 1.5 responses per respondent. *Respondents:* Farms, feed mills and processors. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,200. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 825 hours. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, at

(202)720-5778. *Comments:* 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval. Signed at Washington, DC, April 20, 2007. Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-9241 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [T-1-2007] Foreign-Trade Zone 38 - Spartanburg County, SC, Application for Temporary/Interim Manufacturing Authority, Kittel Supplier USA, Inc. (Automotive Door Trim Components), Notice of Approval On March 12, 2007, an application was filed by the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones

(FTZ)Board submitted by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting temporary/interim manufacturing (T/IM) authority on behalf of Kittel Supplier USA, Inc., to assemble automotive door trim components under FTZ procedures within FTZ 38-Site 3, Duncan, South Carolina. The application has been processed in accordance with T/IM procedures, as authorized by FTZ Board Orders 1347 (69 FR 52857, 8-30-2004) and 1480 (71 FR 55422, 9-22-2006), including notice in the **Federal Register** inviting public comment (72 FR 13081, 3-20-2007). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval under T/IM procedures. The foreign-origin components approved for this activity are: window frames (HTSUS 8708.29); B, C and D-pillar trim (8708.29); division bars (8708.29); metal clips (8302.30); and, rubber seals (4016.93). Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary in the above-referenced Board Orders, the application is approved, effective this date, until May 4, 2009, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Dated: May 4, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-9326 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-838, A-331-802, A-533-840, A-570-893, A-552-802, A-549-822] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the People's Republic of China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Thailand; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Administrative and New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson at

(202)482-4929 (Brazil), David Goldberger at

(202)482-4136 (Ecuador), Elizabeth Eastwood at

(202)482-3874 (India), Christopher Riker at

(202)482-3441 (People's Republic of China), Alex Villanueva at

(202)482-3208 (Socialist Republic of Vietnam) and Irina Itkin at

(202)482-0656 (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Offices 2 and 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the first antidumping duty administrative reviews of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the People's Republic of China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Thailand, covering the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. 1 *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10680 (March 9, 2007); *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10698 (March 9, 2007); *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10658 (March 9, 2007); *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2006 Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind 2004/2006 New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 10645 (March 9, 2007); *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 10689 (March 9, 2007); and *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10669 (March 9, 2007). The final results for these administrative and aligned new shipper reviews are currently due no later than July 9, 2007, the next business day after 120 days from the date of publication of the preliminary results of review. 1 Aligned with the above-referenced administrative reviews are the new shipper reviews of Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhao An, Fujian (People's Republic of China) and Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (Socialist Republic of Vietnam). Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the final results of an administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline for the final results to a maximum of 180 days. The Department requires additional time to complete these reviews in order to properly consider the numerous and complex issues raised by interested parties in their case briefs. Thus, it is not practicable to complete these reviews within the original time limit. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results of these reviews by 60 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results are now due no later than September 5, 2007. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 9, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-9328 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-891] Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning; AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5831 or

(202)482-5253, respectively. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (“hand trucks”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on January 9, 2007. *See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 937 (January 9, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The period of review (“POR”) is December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. We invited interested parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC for the period May 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006). On February 3, 2006, the Department also published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the initiation of the new shipper review of Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Since Hardware”). *See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 5810 (February 3, 2006). The Department published the preliminary results of these reviews on January 9, 2007. *See Preliminary Results* . We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 946-947. Forecarry Corporation and Formost Plastics & Metalworks (Jiaxing) Co., Ltd. (“Forecarry and Formost”) submitted their response to the Department's December 19, 2006, supplemental section D questionnaire on January 18, 2007. Forecarry and Formost submitted a case brief on February 14, 2007; Since Hardware submitted a case brief on February 15, 2007; and on February 16, 2007, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., and Precision Products, Inc. (collectively, “the petitioner”) submitted a case brief. On February 20, 2007, the petitioner filed allegations that the case briefs submitted by Forecarry and Formost, and Since Hardware contained new information. Forecarry and Formost, and True Potential Co., Ltd. (“True Potential”) submitted rebuttal briefs on February 20, 2007, Since Hardware submitted a rebuttal brief on February 21, 2007, and the petitioner submitted a rebuttal brief on February 22, 2007. On March 7, 2007, the Department notified Forecarry and Formost that their case brief contained new information and requested that Forecarry and Formost resubmit their case brief, redacting factual information submitted after the deadline for new factual information, and not solicited by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). Regarding the allegation of new information in Since Hardware's case brief, the Department has reviewed this allegation and examined the information contained in Since Hardware's prior submission. Based upon our analysis, the Department disagrees with the petitioner that Since Hardware's case brief contained new information. *See* Comment 18 of the Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decisions for the Final Results of Administrative and New Shipper Reviews,” dated May 9, 2007 (“Decision Memorandum”), for a complete discussion of this issue. On March 16, 2007, Forecarry and Formost resubmitted their case brief. On March 28, 2007, the Department held a public hearing concerning this issues raised by the parties in these reviews. Scope of Antidumping Duty Order 1 1 *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004). The product covered by this order consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof. A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load. That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), although they may also be imported under heading 8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope is dispositive. Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material measuring less than 5/8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks. Separate Rates Forecarry and Formost, Since Hardware, and True Potential requested separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. In the *Preliminary Results* , we found that Forecarry and Formost, and Since Hardware are owned wholly by entities located in market-economy countries. Thus, the Department preliminarily granted a separate rate to these two exporters. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 943-944. For the final results, the Department continues to grant Forecarry and Formost, and Since Hardware, separate rates for this review period because no party submitted comments on this issue, and no evidence was placed on the record that questions the appropriateness of this determination. Regarding True Potential, which is a privately owned company in the PRC, the Department conducted a separate rate analysis in the *Preliminary Results* . Based upon our analysis, we preliminarily granted True Potential a separate rate. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 944. For the final results, the Department did not receive any comments on True Potential's separate rate, and no evidence was placed on the record that would warrant reconsideration of our separate rate analysis for True Potential. Therefore, the Department continues to find that True Potential has met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate for this review period. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties in these reviews are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Decision Memorandum is a public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-099 in the main Department building, and is accessible on the Web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations for Since Hardware and True Potential. For a list of these changes, *see* Decision Memorandum, at the section titled “Changes Since the Preliminary Results.” Adverse Facts Available 1. Forecarry and Formost Sections 776(a)(1) and

(2)of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“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,

(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. 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. 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. In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department found that Forecarry and Formost failed to provide usable factors of production (“FOPs”). Further, the Department found that Forecarry and Formost

(A)withheld information regarding Formost's FOPs that had been requested,

(B)failed to provide the FOP information in the form and manner requested by the Department, and

(C)due to the absence of this information, Forecarry and Formost significantly impeded the proceeding because the Department could not tie the reported FOP database to appropriate source documentation. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 940-941. Thus, in the absence of a usable FOP database, the Department applied total facts available, according to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and

(C)of the Act. *Id* . at 941. Nonetheless, the Department provided Forecarry and Formost with a final opportunity to substantiate their reported FOPs by:

(1)reconciling the reported FOPs to Formost's normal books and records; and

(2)demonstrating how the reported FOPs were calculated. *See* Supplemental Section D questionnaire, dated December 19, 2006. The Department has reviewed Forecarry and Formost's response to the December 19, 2006, supplemental questionnaire, and the comments submitted by the parties regarding this issue. Based upon our analysis, for the final results, the Department finds that the information necessary to calculate an accurate and otherwise reliable margin is not available on the record with respect to Forecarry and Formost. Specifically, in its January 18, 2007, response to the Department's December 19, 2006, supplemental questionnaire, Forecarry and Formost failed to

(1)reconcile the reported FOPs to Formost's normal books and records, and

(2)demonstrate how the reported FOPs were calculated. *See* Comment 26 of the Decision Memorandum for a complete discussion of this issue. The Department continues to find that Forecarry and Formost withheld information, failed to provide information requested by the Department in the form and manner required, and significantly impeded the Department's ability to calculate an accurate margin. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B) and

(C)of the Act, the Department is resorting to facts otherwise available. In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department found that it is reasonable to assume that Forecarry and Formost possessed the records necessary for this administrative review and that, by not supplying the information the Department requested, Forecarry and Formost failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 944. Therefore, the Department preliminarily applied an adverse inference. *Id* . For the final results, the Department continues to find that, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, it is appropriate to apply an adverse inference in selecting the facts available rate as it has determined that Forecarry and Formost did not act to the best of their ability to cooperate with the Department in this administrative review, because information placed on the record by Forecarry and Formost indicates that Forecarry and Formost reasonably could have responded to the Department's requests for information. As a result, we are continuing to apply the highest rate from the history of this proceeding, 383.60 percent, the PRC-wide rate from the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) amended final determination. *See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 65410, 65411 (November 12, 2004) (“ *Final Amended Determination* ”). 2. Future Tool and Shandong Machinery In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department determined that it was not appropriate to grant Qingdao Future Tool, Inc. (“Future Tool”), and Shandong Machinery Import & Export Group Corporation (“Shandong Machinery”), a separate rate because both of these companies failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. *See* 72 FR at 942. For this reason, we considered Future Tool and Shandong Machinery as part of the PRC-wide entity. Moreover, since the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information, we applied total facts available to the PRC-wide entity pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(C)of the Act. *Id* . For the final results, since no new information has been placed on the record regarding Future Tool, Shandong Machinery, or the PRC-wide entity, we continue to apply total facts available. As we stated in the *Preliminary Results* , it is reasonable to assume that the PRC-wide entity (including Shandong Machinery and Future Tool) possessed the records necessary for this administrative review and that, by not supplying the information the Department requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 944. Accordingly, because the PRC-wide entity (including Future Tool and Shandong Machinery) failed to respond to the Department's requests for information, we continue to find that these companies have not acted to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available. As a result, we are continuing to apply the highest rate from the history of this proceeding, 383.60 percent, the PRC-wide rate from the LTFV final determination, to the PRC-wide entity (including Future Tool and Shandong Machinery). *See Final Amended Determination* . 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* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *Id* . 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; * see also 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 the final results). 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 instant investigation or review.” *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870; *see also 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, 35629 (June 16, 2003) (where the Department reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition) (unchanged in final determination); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada* , 70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 2005) (where the Department compared the normal values and U.S. prices submitted by the petitioners to data submitted by the respondents for whom the Department calculated a margin). The reliability of the AFA rate was determined in the final determination of the investigation when the Department compared the U.S. prices from the price quotations in the petition to prices of comparable products sold by a mandatory respondent in the LTFV investigation, and found them to be comparable. *See Final Amended Determination* . The Department applied this rate as AFA to Qingdao Xinghua Group Co., Ltd. (“Xinghua”) in the *Final Amended Determination* . 2 The Department also compared the surrogate values used in the petition to the surrogate values selected for the final determination, and then adjusted and replaced certain values to make them more accurate. Finally, the Department replaced the surrogate value ratios in the petition with those used in the final investigation. Therefore, in the investigation, the Department found this margin to be reliable. *Id* . Further, the application of this rate was subject to comment from interested parties in the instant proceeding. 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). Since no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information, the Department finds the selected rate reliable. 2 In the final determination, the Department applied total AFA to Xinghua, and assigned Xinghua the PRC-wide rate of 386.75 percent. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 60980, 60984 (October 14, 2004). The Department revised the PRC-wide rate in the amended final determination from 386.75 percent to 383.60 percent. *See Final Amended Determination* , 69 FR at 65411. 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 Duty 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) where the Court ruled 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 Amended Determination* continues to be relevant for use in this administrative review. As the recalculated *Final Amended Determination* rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. As a result, the Department determines that the *Final Amended Determination* rate is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to Forecarry and Formost, and the PRC-wide entity, as AFA. Accordingly, we determine that the *Final Amended Determination* rate of 383.60 percent, which is the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, meets the corroboration criteria established in section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information have probative value. Final Results of Review We determine that the following percentage margins exist for the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Forecarry Corp. and Formost Plastics & Metalworks (Jianxing) Co., Ltd. 383.6 Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd 0 True Potential Co., Ltd. 17.59 PRC-wide Rate 383.6 Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for hand trucks from the PRC via *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. However, as noted in the *Preliminary Results* , we calculated importer-specific per-unit assessment instructions because True Potential was unable to provide the entered value of its reported sales. *See Preliminary Results* at 72 FR at 947. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of hand trucks from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)for Forecarry and Formost, Since Hardware, and True Potential, which each have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate shown above;

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

(3)the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 383.60 percent, the current PRC-wide rate; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 9, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I. General Issues *Comment 1:* Whether the Department Should Use an Electricity-Specific Inflation Index to Adjust the Electricity Surrogate Value. *Comment 2:* Whether the Department Should Include Packing Materials and Packing Labor in the Application Bases for Surrogate Financial Ratios. *Comment 3:* Whether the Department Should Correct Clerical Errors in the Application of the Surrogate Values for Inland Freight Expenses. *Comment 4:* Whether the Department Should Correct Clerical Errors in the Application of the Surrogate Values for Domestic Brokerage and Handling Expenses. *Comment 5:* Whether the Department Should Select Different Financial Statements to Value Factory Overhead, Selling, General & Administrative Expenses, and Profit. *Comment 6:* Whether the Department Should Use the 2004-2005 or the 2005-2006 Financial Statements of Jay Equipment to Calculate Overhead, Selling, General & Administrative Expenses and Profit. *Comment 7:* Whether the Department Should Correct Its Calculation of the Surrogate Financial Ratios for Rexello Castors Private Ltd. *Comment 8:* Whether the Department Should Correct Its Application of the Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid. *Comment 9:* Whether the Department Should Apply an Updated Surrogate Value for Brokerage and Handling Expenses. *Comment 10:* Whether the Department Should Apply the Most Recently Calculated Non-Market Economy Wage Rate for the PRC. II. Company-Specific Issues A. Since Hardware Issues *Comment 11:* Whether the Department Should Accept Since Hardware's Reported Factors of Production Methodology. *Comment 12:* Whether the Department Should Reject Since Hardware's Market Economy Purchases of Steel Inputs. *Comment 13:* Whether the Department Should Assign a Surrogate Value to Plastic Bags. *Comment 14:* Whether the Department Should Assign Bungee Cable a Different HTS Classification. *Comment 15:* Whether the Department Should Assign a Surrogate Value to the Input for Petrolatum. *Comment 16:* Whether the Inclusion of South Korea in the Calculation of the Surrogate Value for Muriate of Potash is Warranted. *Comment 17:* Whether the Calculation of the Surrogate Value for Welding Rod is Correct. *Comment 18:* Whether the Department Should Assign Bearings a Different HTS Classification. *Comment 19:* Whether the Inclusion of Packing-Related Inputs in Cost of Manufacturing is Valid. B. True Potential Issues *Comment 20:* Whether the Department Should Add Trading Company Factors for Selling, General and Administrative Expenses and Profit to its Calculation of True Potential's Normal Value. *Comment 21:* Whether the Department Should Correct its Application of a Surrogate Value for Certain Ball Bearings. *Comment 22:* Whether the Department Should Correct Its Surrogate Value Calculation for Carbon Dioxide to Include Imports from Hong Kong. *Comment 23:* Whether the Department Should Correct its Surrogate Value Calculation for Welding Solder to Include Imports from Austria and the Netherlands. C. Future Tool's Issue *Comment 24:* Whether the Department Should Continue to Apply Adverse Facts Available to Future Tool. D. Shangdong Machinery's Issue *Comment 25:* Whether the Department Should Continue to Apply Adverse Facts Available to Shandong Machinery. E. Forecarry and Formost's Issues *Comment 26:* Whether to Apply Facts Available to Forecarry and Formost. *Comment 27:* Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available to Forecarry and Formost. [FR Doc. E7-9324 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 042707A] Marine Mammals; File No. 486-1919 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Brent Stewart, Ph.D, J.D, Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute, 2595 Ingraham Street, San Diego, CA, 92109, has applied for a permit to conduct reseach on crabeater ( *Lobodon carcinophaga* ), Ross ( *Ommatophoca rossii* ), leopard ( *Hydruga leptonyx* ), and Weddell ( *Leptonychotes weddellii* ) seals in Antarctica. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before June 14, 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 Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018. 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. 486-1919. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Tammy Adams, (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.* ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The purpose of the proposed research is to collect basic information on the breeding behavior, health and diseases, foraging ecology, migratory patterns, and population genetics of ice-associated Antarctic pinnipeds. Up to 50 seals of each of the four species would be captured, weighed, measured, biologically sampled (skin, blubber, blood, fecal), flipper tagged, satellite tagged, microbiological swabbed, and released. Up to 100 seals of each of the four species would be incidentally disturbed as a result of observational studies, scat collection, and capture and sampling activities. No mortality is requested and the permit would be issued for one year. 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: May 10, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9325 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 0648-XA31] Marine Mammals; File No. 1032-1917 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Robert A. Garrott, Ecology Department, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on Weddell seals ( *Leptonychotes weddellii* ). DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before June 14, 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 Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018. 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. 1032-1917. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Tammy Adams, (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.* ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The purpose of the research would be to evaluate how temporal variation in the marine environment affects a long-lived mammal's population dynamics. The applicant proposes to continue long-term studies of the Weddell seal population in the Erebus Bay, McMurdo Sound, Ross Sea and White Island areas of Antarctica. Up to 325 adults and 800 pups would be captured annually. Animals would be weighed, tissued sampled, flipper tagged, and released. Annually up to 2000 Weddell, 50 crabeater ( *Lobodon carcinophagus* ), and 50 leopard ( *Hydrurga leptonyx* ) seals may be incidentally disturbed as a result of the research activities. The applicant requests authorization for up to 4 (2 adults and 2 pups) Weddell seal research-related mortalities annually. The permit would be valid for five years from the date of issuance. 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: May 10, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9341 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XA27] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held June 4 - 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the W New Orleans, 333 Poydras St., New Orleans, LA 70130; telephone:

(504)525-9444. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Council Wednesday, June 6, 2007 *11 a.m.* - The Council meeting will begin with a review the agenda and minutes. Public testimony on exempted fishing permits (EFPs), if any, Final Reef Fish Amendment 27/Shrimp 14, and Final Vermilion Snapper Regulatory Amendment 14 and Open Public Comment Period regarding any fishery issue or concern will be from *11:15 a.m. - 12 p.m.* and *1:30 - 5:30 p.m.* People wishing to speak before the Council should complete a public comment card prior to the comment period. Thursday, June 7, 2007 The Council will review and discuss reports from the previous two days' committee meetings as follows: *8:30 a.m. - 8:45 a.m.* - Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum; *8:45 a.m. - 9:15 a.m.* - Administrative Policy; *9:15 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.* - Mackerel Management; *9:45 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.* - Data Collection; *10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.* - Budget/Personnel; *10:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.* - Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management; *2 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.* - Reef Fish Management; *3:30 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.* - Report of the Closed Council Meeting Conference Call; *3:45 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.* - The Council will conclude its meeting by discussing Other Business items. Committees Monday, June 4, 2007 *1 p.m. - 3 p.m.* - The Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum Management Committee will meet to approve a public hearing draft of the Generic Offshore Aquaculture Amendment. *3 p.m. - 5 p.m.* - The Administrative Policy Committee will meet to consider NMFS recommendations for Annual Catch Limits (ACL), Accountability Measures (AM), and the Scientific and Statistical Commitee

(SSC)charges in Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA). Tuesday June 5, 2007 *8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.* - The Mackerel Management Committee will meet to consider actions recommended by the Joint Special Mackerel Group. *9:30 a.m. - 11 a.m.* - The Data Collection Committee will meet to hear a report on the progress of the National Committee on Recreational Data Surveys. *11 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.* - The Budget/Personnel Committee will meet to consider the issue of increasing the liaison grant to the states. *1 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.* - The Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management Committee will meet to hear summaries of public hearings and reports of SSC and Advisory Panels

(APs)on draft Reef Fish 27/Shrimp 14 Amendment and to develop their recommendations to the Council. *4:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* - The Reef Fish Management Committee will meet to recommend actions on Reef Fish Amendment 30, Part A and B, addressing overfishing of Reef Fish stocks and the Regulatory Amendment for Vermilion Snapper. *6 p.m. - 8 p.m.* - NOAA Fisheries Service and Gulf Council staff will hold an open public forum/question and answer session on Gulf Reef Fish. This forum, while not a public hearing, will provide the public an opportunity to ask questions and discuss Gulf Reef Fish science and management issues in a less formal setting intended to increase dialogue between constituents and fishery managers. Wednesday, June 6, 2007 *8:30 a.m. - 11 a.m.* - The Reef Fish Management Committee continues to meet. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: May 10, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9254 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XA26] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Research Steering Committee (Committee) in March, 2007 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 30, 2007, at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone:

(508)339-2200; fax:

(508)256-2550. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will: review several final cooperative research project reports and develop management advice for use by the Council; address the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's report on the impacts of fishing on groundfish spawning activities and related follow-up activities concerning the Northeast Region's Experimental Fishing Permit Program; develop recommendations concerning the peer review of the recently concluded study fleet pilot project; discuss data archiving and data access for cooperative research project results; and other outstanding business related to cooperative research. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at

(978)465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 10, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9252 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XA28] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Habitat/Marine Protected Area (MPA)/Ecosystem Advisory Panel and its Habitat/MPA/Ecosystem Committee, in June, 2007, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from these groups will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: These meetings will be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2007, at 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. respectively. ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held at the Hilton Mystic Hotel, 20 Coogan Boulevard, Mystic, CT 06355; telephone:

(860)572-0731; fax:

(860)572-0328. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The panel's schedule and agenda for the following meeting is as follows: 1. *Tuesday, June 5, 2007, from 9 a.m. - 12 p.m.* ; The Advisory Panel will meet to review the formal public comments received on Phase 1 of the Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH)Omnibus Amendment and consider making recommendations to the Habitat/MPA/Ecosystem Oversight Committee on the alternatives contained therein. 2. *Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 1 p.m.* ; As directed by the Council and with the assistance of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), the Committee will begin discussions on the delineation of sub-ecoregions for use in ecosystem approaches to fisheries management. The committee will also review the formal public comments received on Phase 1 of the EFH Omnibus Amendment and the alternatives contained therein and will make recommendations to the Council on Phase 1 final actions for consideration at the June 19-21, 2007 Council meeting in Portland, ME. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at

(978)465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 10, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-9253 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information on spectrum management matters. DATES: The meeting will be held on May 30, 2007, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. Public comments may be mailed to Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, 1401 Constitution Ave. N.W., Room 4725, Washington, D.C. 20230 or emailed to spectrumadvisory@ntia.doc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Baker, Designated Federal Official, at

(202)482-1830 or mbaker@ntia.doc.gov; Joe Gattuso at

(202)482-0977 or jgattuso@ntia.doc.gov; and/or visit NTIA's web site at www.ntia.doc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background* : The Secretary of Commerce established the Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee) to implement a recommendation of the President's Initiative on Spectrum Management pursuant to the President's November 29, 2004 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the subject of “Spectrum Management for the 21st Century.” 1 This Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2 and is consistent with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act, 47 U.S.C. § 904(b). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information on needed reforms to domestic spectrum policies and management to enable the introduction of new spectrum-dependent technologies and services, including policy reforms for expediting the American public's access to broadband services, public safety, digital television, and long-range spectrum planning. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the FACA. 1 *President's Memorandum on Improving Spectrum Management for the 21st Century,* 49 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 2875 (Nov. 29, 2004) (Executive Memorandum). *Matters to Be Considered* : The Committee will receive recommendations from its Subcommittee on Technical Sharing Efficiencies and provide advice to NTIA on its Spectrum Sharing Test-Bed Proposal; will receive a status report from its Subcommittee on Operational Sharing Efficiencies, and will hear public comment. *Time and Date* : The meeting will be held on May 30, 2007, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. These times and the agenda topics are subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov, for the most up-to-date meeting agenda. *Place* : U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. The meeting will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. When arriving for the meeting, attendees must present photo or passport identification or a U.S. Government building pass, if applicable, and should arrive at least one-half hour prior to the start time of the meeting. The meeting will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring special services, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids are asked to contact Joe Gattuso at

(202)482-0977 or jgattuso@ntia.doc.gov at least two

(2)business days prior to the meeting. *Status* : Interested parties are invited to attend and to submit written comments. Written comments should be sent to the above listed address and received by close of business on May 24, 2007 to provide sufficient time for review. Comments received after May 24, 2007, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting. It would be helpful if paper submissions also include a three and one-half inch computer diskette in HTML, ASCII, Word or WordPerfect format (please specify version). Diskettes should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the filer, and the name of the word processing program used to create the document. Alternatively, comments may be submitted electronically to spectrumadvisory@ntia.doc.gov. Comments provided via electronic mail may also be submitted in one or more of the formats specified above. *Records* : NTIA is keeping records of all Committee proceedings, which will be available for public inspection at NTIA's office at the address above. Documents including the Committee's charter, membership, agendas, minutes, and any reports are or will be available on NTIA's web site. Dated: May 9, 2007 Kathy Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. [FR Doc. E7-9239 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Meeting of the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a), Public Law 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), The purpose of the Committee meeting is to begin work on the 2007 report topics to include military women's health care in the theater of operations and spouses employment opportunities. The meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space. Interested person may submit a written statement for consideration by the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the Point of Contact listed below at the address detailed below, NLT 5 p.m. May 24, 2007. If a written statement is not received by May 24, 2007 prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provide to or considered by the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services until its next open meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services Chairperson and ensure they are provided to the members of the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement, a written statement must be submitted as above, After reviewing the written comments, the Chairperson and the Designated Federal Officer will allow the submitter of the comments to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting permitting time allows and the topics are relevant to the Committee's activities. Two minutes will be allotted to persons desiring to make an oral presentation. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on Wednesday, 30 May from 4:30 p.m. to 5p.m. before the full Committee. Number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public. DATES: 30 May 2007 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.; 31 May 2007, 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. *Location:* Double Tree Hotel Crystal City National Airport, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CPT Arnalda Magloire, USA, DACOWITS, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 2C548A, Washington, DC 20301-4000. *arnalda.magloire@osd.mil* Telephone

(703)697-2122. Fax

(703)614-6233. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting agenda. Wednesday 30 May 2007 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. Welcome and Administrative Remarks 2007 Report briefings on military women's health care in the theater of operations and Service members' spouses' employment opportunities. Public Forum Thursday 31 May 2007 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Welcome and Administrative Remarks 2007 Report briefings on military women's health care in the theater of operations and Service members' spouses' employment opportunites. Note: Exact order may vary. Dated: May 9, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. [FR Doc. 07-2382 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 30

Traces to 30 documents

U.S. Code