Rules and Regulations. Notice

18,592 words·~85 min read·/register/2007/07/18/07-3488

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

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 07-2845] Notice of Suspension and of Proposed Debarment Proceedings; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (the “Commission”) debars Mr. Federowicz from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism for a period of three years. DATES: Debarment commences on the date Mr. Scott A.

Federowicz receives the debarment letter or July 18, 2007, whichever date come first, for a period of three years. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at

(202)418-0843 or e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov* . If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at

(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission debarred Mr. Federowicz from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism for a period of three years pursuant to 47 CFR 521 and 47 CFR 0.111(a)(14). Attached is the debarment letter, Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings, DA 07-2845, which was mailed to Mr. Federowicz and released on June 27, 2007. The complete text of the notice of suspension and initiation of debarment proceedings, is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC. 20554, In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov* . The text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B420, Washington, DC 20554, telephone

(202)488-5300 or

(800)378-3160, facsimile

(202)488-5563, or via e-mail *http://www.bcpiweb.com* . Federal Communications Commission. Trent B. Harkrader, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. The suspension letter follows: June 27, 2007 DA 07-2845 Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and E-Mail Mr. Scott A. Federowicz, c/o Paul H.D. Stoughton, Conway & Stoughton, LLP, 818 Farmington Ave., West Hartford, CT 06119. Re: Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings, File No. EB-07-IH-5171 Dear Mr. Federowicz: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your conviction for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 in connection with your participation in the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (“E-Rate program”). 1 Consequently, pursuant to 47 CFR 54.521, this letter constitutes official notice of your suspension from the E-Rate program. In addition, the Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) hereby notifies you that we are commencing debarment proceedings against you. 2 1 Any further reference in this letter to “your conviction” refers to your July 28, 2006 guilty plea and subsequent conviction of two counts of mail fraud. *United States* v. *Scott A. Federowicz* , Criminal Docket No. 3:06-CR-06-222 (RNC), Plea Agreement (D.Conn. filed and entered Jul. 28, 2006); *United States* v. *Scott A. Federowicz* , 3:06-CR-06-222 (RNC), Judgment (D.Conn. filed and entered May 9, 2007) (“ *Federowicz Judgment* ”). 2 47 CFR 54.521; 47 CFR 0.111(a)(14) (delegating to the Enforcement Bureau authority to resolve universal service suspension and debarment proceedings pursuant to 47 CFR 54.521). I. Notice of Suspension The Commission has established procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program. 3 You pled guilty to mail fraud for activities in connection with your participation in the E-Rate program involving telecommunications upgrade projects in four Connecticut school districts. 4 Specifically, you admitted that, as manager of an E-Rate first-tier subcontractor serving these school districts, you approved for payment approximately $452,203 of fictitious invoices for non-existent E-Rate work purportedly performed to upgrade the school districts' telecommunications capabilities. 5 These fictitious expenses ultimately were submitted to the Universal Service Administrative Company for reimbursement from E-Rate funds. 6 3 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, ¶ 66. The Commission's debarment rules define a “person” as “[a]ny individual, group of individuals, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government or legal entity, however, organized.” 47 CFR 54.521(a)(6). 4 *See United States* v. *Scott A. Federowicz* , Criminal Docket No. 3:06-CR-06-222 (RNC), Information, 2-3 (D.Conn. filed and entered Jul. 28, 2006) (“ *Information* ”); *Federowicz Judgment* at 1. 5 *See Information* at 3. 6 *See http://newhaven.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/2006/nh072806a.htm* (Department of Justice Press Release dated July 28, 2006) (last accessed May 15, 2007). Pursuant to section 54.521(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 7 your conviction requires the Bureau to suspend you from participating in any activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries fund mechanism, including the receipt of funds or discounted services through the schools and libraries fund mechanism, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the schools and libraries support mechanism. 8 Your suspension becomes effective upon the earlier of your receipt of this letter or publication of notice in the **Federal Register** . 9 7 47 CFR 54.521(a)(4). *See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism* , Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202, 9225-9227, ¶¶ 67-74

(2003)(“ *Second Report and Order* ”). 8 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, ¶ 67; 47 U.S.C. 254; 47 CFR 54.502-54.503; 47 CFR 54.521(a)(4). 9 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, ¶ 69; 47 CFR 54.521(e)(1). Suspension is immediate pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments in opposition to the suspension, with any relevant documentation. Your request must be received within 30 days after you receive this letter or after notice is published in the **Federal Register** , whichever comes first. 10 Such requests, however, will not ordinarily be granted. 11 The Bureau may reverse or limit the scope of suspension only upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances. 12 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will decide any request for reversal or modification of suspension within 90 days of its receipt of such request. 13 10 S *econd Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, ¶ 70; 47 CFR 54.521(e)(4). 11 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, ¶ 70. 12 47 CFR 54.521(e)(5). 13 *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, ¶ 70; 47 CFR 54.521(e)(5), 54.521(f). II. Initiation of Debarment Proceedings Your guilty plea to criminal conduct in connection with the E-Rate program, in addition to serving as a basis for immediate suspension from the program, also serves as a basis for the initiation of debarment proceedings against you. Your conviction falls within the categories of causes for debarment defined in section 54.521(c) of the Commission's rules. 14 Therefore, pursuant to section 54.521(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, your conviction requires the Bureau to commence debarment proceedings against you. 14 “Causes for suspension and debarment are the conviction of or civil judgment for attempt or commission of criminal fraud, theft, embezzlement, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, receiving stolen property, making false claims, obstruction of justice and other fraud or criminal offense arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism.” 47 CFR 54.521(c). Such activities “include the receipt of funds or discounted services through the schools and libraries support mechanism, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding schools and libraries support mechanism described in this section ([47 CFR] 54.500 *et seq.* ).” 47 CFR 54.521(a)(1). As with your suspension, you may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the **Federal Register** . 15 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will debar you. 16 Within 90 days of receipt of any opposition to your suspension and proposed debarment, the Bureau, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, will provide you with notice of its decision to debar. 17 If the Bureau decides to debar you, its decision will become effective upon the earlier of your receipt of a debarment notice or publication of the decision in the **Federal Register** . 18 15 *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, ¶ 70; 47 CFR 54.521(e)(2)(i), 54.521(e)(3). 16 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9227, ¶ 74. 17 *See id.* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, ¶ 70; 47 CFR 54.521(e)(5). 18 *Id.* The Commission may reverse a debarment, or may limit the scope or period of debarment upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances, following the filing of a petition by you or an interested party or upon motion by the Commission. 47 CFR 54.521(f). If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for three years from the date of debarment. 19 The Bureau may, if necessary to protect the public interest, extend the debarment period. 20 19 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, ¶ 67; 47 CFR 54.521(d), 54.521(g). 20 *Id.* Please direct any response, if by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002, to the attention of Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, Federal Communications Commission. If sent by commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail), the response should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743. If sent by first-class, Express, or Priority mail, the response should be sent to Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554. You shall also transmit a copy of the response via e-mail to *diana.lee@fcc.gov* and to *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov.* If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lee via mail, by telephone at

(202)418-1420 or by e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov* . If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at

(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . Sincerely yours, Hillary S. DeNigro, *Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau.* cc: Calvin B. Kurimai, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Kristy Carroll, Esq., Universal Service Administrative Company (via e-mail) [FR Doc. E7-13831 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION [6714-01] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). ACTION: Notice of information collections to be submitted to OMB for review and approval; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the FDIC hereby gives notice that it plans to submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request for OMB review and approval of the following information collection systems: Certified Statement (3064-0057); (3064-0137); and Insurance Sales Consumer Protections (3064-0140). DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. All comments should refer to the name and number of the collection: • *http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html* . • *E-mail: comments@fdic.gov* . Include the name and number of the collection in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Steve Hanft (202-898-3907), Clearance Officer, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. • *Hand Delivery:* Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer for the FDIC, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Hanft (address above). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. *Title:* Certified Statement for Deposit Insurance Assessment. *OMB Number:* 3064-0057. *Frequency of Response:* Quarterly. *Affected Public:* Insured financial institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 8,681. *Estimated Time per Response:* 20 minutes. *Total Annual Burden:* 11,575 hours. *General Description of Collection:* The FDIC collects deposit insurance assessments quarterly by means of direct debits through the Automated Clearing House network. 2. *Title:* Student Educational Employment Program. *OMB Number:* 3064-0147. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* Students seeking employment with the FDIC. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 700. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.33 hours. *Total Annual Burden:* 231 hours. *General Description of Collection:* The application form used in this collection ensures that students seeking employment with FDIC as participants in either one of the two components of the Student Educational Employment Program (i.e., the Student Temporary Employment Program

(STEP)or the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP)) meet the government-wide eligibility criteria established by the Office of Personnel Management as well as the internal eligibility criteria established by the FDIC. The information collected will include information on the applicant's coursework, grade point averages, and relationship to any FDIC employee. 3. *Title:* Complex Structured Finance Transactions. *OMB Number:* 3064-0148. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* State nonmember banks actively involved in complex structured finance transactions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5. *Estimated Time per Response:* 25 hours. *Total Annual Burden:* 125 hours. *General Description of Collection:* Institutions verify and update their policies and procedures regarding complex structured finance transactions periodically to ensure that they are adequate and current. Request for Comment *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether these collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, 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 information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the collections should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. Comments submitted in response to this notice also will be summarized or included in the FDIC's requests to OMB for renewal of these collections. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated at Washington, DC, this 12th day of July, 2007. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13877 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or *http://tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 012006. *Title:* HMM/ELJSA Suez Slot Exchange Agreement. *Parties:* Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd. and Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement. *Filing Party:* Eliot J. Halperin, Esq., Manelli Denison & Selter, PLLC, 2000 M Street, NW., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3307. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes the parties to exchange slots in the trade between the U.S. East Coast and Asia via the Suez Canal. *Agreement No.:* 012007. *Title:* APL/CMA CGM South East Asia and Sri Lanka/U.S. East Coast via Suez Slot Charter Agreement. *Parties:* APL Co. Pte. Ltd/American President Lines, Ltd. (“APL”) and CMA CGM S.A (“CMA”). *Filing Party:* Eric C. Jeffrey, Esq., Goodwin Procter, LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes APL to charter space to CMA on vessels in the trade between the U.S. East Coast, and South East Asia, Sri Lanka, and the United Arab Emirates, via the Suez Canal. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Dated: July 13, 2007. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13930 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515, effective on the corresponding date shown below: *License Number:* 019355F. *Name:* Abad Air, Inc. *Address:* 2685 Northwest 105th Avenue, Miami, FL 33178. *Date Revoked:* June 28, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 002766F. *Name:* ABB Intertrade Inc. *Address:* 3628 Harden Blvd., Lakeland, FL 33803. *Date Revoked:* June 29, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 001769F. *Name:* Aid Forwarding Co., Inc. *Address:* 2363 Carlton Pl., Ste. A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. *Date Revoked:* June 22, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 019319N. *Name:* All American Logistics Inc. *Address:* 145-32/34 157th Street, Jamaica, NY 11434. *Date Revoked:* June 29, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 018197F. *Name:* Cargozone, Inc. *Address:* 1490 Beachey Pl., Carson, CA 90746. *Date Revoked:* June 20, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 018772NF *Name:* 1 Cross Island Plaza, Ste. 220, Rosedale, NY 11422. *Date Revoked:* June 20, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain valid bonds. *License Number:* 017783N. *Name:* International Frontier Forwarders, Inc. *Address:* 17101 Kuykendahl Rd., Ste. 255, Houston, TX 77068. *Date Revoked:* June 22, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 016149F. *Name:* Mid West Orient (New York) Ltd. *Address:* 151 Summer Ave., Kenilworth, NJ 07033. *Date Revoked:* June 21, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 003849F. *Name:* Rock International Transport, Inc. *Address:* 140 Eastern Avenue, Chelsea, MA 02150. *Date Revoked:* June 30, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 017609N. *Name:* Societe Monegasque De Transports Maritimes. (Somotransma) Dba Uni Container Line. *Address:* 14 Ave., Crovetto, MC 98000 Monaco. *Date Revoked:* June 30, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. *License Number:* 003989N. *Name:* Time Definite Services, Inc. *Address:* 2551 Allan Drive, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007. *Date Revoked:* June 22, 2007. *Reason:* Failed to maintain a valid bond. Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification, and Licensing. [FR Doc. E7-13929 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License: Applicants Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR part 515). Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants Sapphire Cargo Movers, Incorporated, Sapphire Logistics Center, Multinational Access Road, Multinational Village, Paranaque City, 1700, Philippines, Officers: Ernesto S. Levanza, President (Qualifying Individual); Angelo S. Levanza, Jr., Vice President. Larimar Envios & Cargo Express, Inc., 80 West 49th Street, Hialeah, FL 33012, Officers: Jose V. Garcia, President (Qualifying Individual); Diana A. Ruiz, Director. Blue Ocean Shipping, Inc., 814 N. Central Avenue, Wood Dale, IL 60191, Officer: Bong Sub Kim, President (Qualifying Individual). Infinity Trans Inc., 117 N. 3rd Street, New Hyde Park, NY 11040, Officers: Wing Fei Ng, President (Qualifying Individual), Cham Lim, Vice President. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicants Mentfield Logistics Corp., 39 Avenue of the Commons, Suite 200, Shrewsbury, NJ 07302, Officers: Arik Yochai, CEO/President (Qualifying Individual), Silvester Colona, Secretary. Catania CHB Inc. dba International, Inc., 10 Buckingham Lane, Bohemia, NY 11716, Officer: Joseph S. Catania, President (Qualifying Individual). World Logistics Consulting Inc., 665 Perry Lane, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169-3128, Officer: Keun Taeg Kwon, President (Qualifying Individual). PK Road Logistics, Inc., 18039 Crenshaw Blvd., #307, Torrance, CA 90504, Officers: Kevin Hoon Kim, CFO (Qualifying Individual), Peter Park, President. EZ Cruise, Inc., 1209 67th Street, Baltimore, MD 21237, Officer: Akbar Omar, President (Qualifying Individual). Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant CJC Logistics LLC dba CJC Logistics, 186 Alps Road, Wayne, NJ 07470, Officers: Oliver Rosca, President (Qualifying Individual), Maria L. Rosca, CFO. Dated: July 13, 2007. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13939 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System SUMMARY: Background On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Request for comment on information collection proposals The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following: a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility; b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by FR 2070: 7100-0171; or FR 2081a,b,c: 7100-0134, by any of the following methods: • Agency Web Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Include docket number in the subject line of the message. • FAX: 202/452-3819 or 202/452-3102. • Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, N.W.) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Additionally, commenters should send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed form and instructions, the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statement, and other documents that will be placed into OMB's public docket files once approved may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below. Michelle Shore, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD)users may contact (202-263-4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the extension for three years, with revision, of the following report: *Report title:* Interagency Bank Merger Act Application *Agency form number:* FR 2070 *OMB control number:* 7100-0171 *Frequency:* On occasion *Reporters:* State member banks *Annual reporting hours:* Nonaffiliate Transactions: 1,560; Affiliate Transactions: 234 *Estimated average hours per response:* Nonaffiliate Transactions: 30; Affiliate Transactions: 18 *Number of respondents:* Nonaffiliate Transactions: 52; Affiliate Transactions: 13 *General description of report:* This information collection is mandatory (12 U.S.C. 1828(c)) and is not given confidential treatment. However, applicants may request that parts of a submitted application be kept confidential. In such cases, the burden is on the applicant to justify the exemption by demonstrating that disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm or result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or would otherwise qualify for an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The confidentiality status of the information submitted will be judged on a case-by-case basis. *Abstract:* The Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(FDIC)and the Office of Thrift Supervision

(OTS)(the agencies) each use this application form to collect information for bank merger proposals that require prior approval under the Bank Merger Act. Prior approval is required for every merger transaction involving affiliated or nonaffiliated institutions and must be sought from the regulatory agency of the depository institution that would survive the proposed transaction. A merger transaction may include a merger, consolidation, assumption of deposit liabilities, or certain asset-transfers between or among two or more institutions. The Federal Reserve collects this information so that it may meet its statutory obligation to evaluate the competitive, financial, managerial, future prospects, and convenience and needs aspects of each state member bank merger proposal. *Current Actions:* The Federal Reserve proposes to update the General Information and Instructions to reflect passage of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, which was enacted on February 8, 2006. Provisions of this legislation directed the merger of the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund into a new Deposit Insurance Fund. The formation of the single insurance fund eliminated the need for two types of insurance-related applications that had been required for certain bank merger transactions. The proposed revisions relate entirely to the eliminated filing requirements. The OCC, FDIC, and the OTS will publish a separate **Federal Register** notice requesting public comment on these revisions. Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report: *Report title:* Interagency Notice of Change in Control, Interagency Notice of Change in Director or Senior Executive Officer, and Interagency Biographical and Financial Report. *Agency form number:* FR 2081a, FR 2081b, and FR 2081c *OMB control number:* 7100-0134 *Frequency:* On occasion *Reporters:* Financial institutions and certain of their officers and shareholders *Annual reporting hours:* FR 2081a: 3,150; FR 2081b: 142; FR 2081c: 2,464 *Estimated average hours per response:* FR 2081a: 30; FR 2081b: 2; FR 2081c: 4 *Number of respondents:* FR 2081a: 105; FR 2081b: 71; FR 2081c: 616 *General description of report:* This information collection is mandatory (12 U.S.C. 1817(j) and 12 U.S.C. 1831(i)) and is not given confidential treatment. However, applicants may request that parts of a submitted application be kept confidential. In such cases, the burden is on the applicant to justify the exemption by demonstrating that disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm or result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or would otherwise qualify for an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The confidentiality status of the information submitted will be judged on a case-by-case basis. *Abstract:* The information collected assists the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(FDIC)and the Office of Thrift Supervision

(OTS)(the agencies) in fulfilling their statutory responsibilities as supervisors. Each of these forms is used to collect information in connection with applications and notices filed prior to proposed changes in the ownership or management of banking organizations. The agencies use the information to evaluate the controlling owners, senior officers, and directors of the insured depository institutions subject to their oversight. The OCC, FDIC, and OTS will publish a separate **Federal Register** notice requesting public comment on the extension. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2007. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-13899 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB SUMMARY: Background. Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer -- Michelle Shore -- Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202-452-3829) OMB Desk Officer -- Alexander T. Hunt -- Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following reports: *1. Report title:* Report of Selected Balance Sheet Items for Discount Window Borrowers *Agency form number:* FR 2046 *OMB Control number:* 7100-0289 *Frequency:* On occasion *Reporters:* Depository institutions *Annual reporting hours:* 894 hours *Estimated average hours per response:* Primary and Secondary Credit, 0.75 hour; Seasonal Credit, 0.25 hour *Number of respondents:* 171 *General description of report:* This information collection is required to obtain or retain a benefit pursuant to section 10B of the Federal Reserve Act [12 U.S.C. § 347b] and is given confidential treatment [5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4)]. *Abstract:* The Federal Reserve(s Regulation A, Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks, requires that the Federal Reserve review balance sheet data in determining whether to extend credit and to help ascertain whether undue use is made of such credit. Borrowers report certain balance sheet data for a period that encompasses the dates of borrowing. There are no proposed changes to the FR 2046; however, the Federal Reserve is clarifying the instructions. *Current Actions:* On May 8, 2007, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 26116) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR 2046. The comment period for this notice expired on July 9, 2007. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments. 2. Report title: Request for Extension of Time to Dispose of Assets Acquired in Satisfaction of Debts Previously Contracted *Agency form number:* FR 4006 *OMB Control number:* 7100-0129 *Frequency:* Annual *Reporters:* Bank holding companies *Annual reporting hours:* 180 hours *Estimated average hours per response:* 5 hours *Number of respondents:* 36 *General description of report:* This information collection is required to obtain a benefit pursuant to section 4(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act [12 U.S.C. § 1843(c)(2)] and may be given confidential treatment upon request. The Federal Reserve has established a procedure for requesting an extension in its Regulation Y [12 C.F.R. § 225.22(d)(1)(ii)]. *Abstract:* A bank holding company that acquired voting securities or assets through foreclosure in the ordinary course of collecting a debt previously contracted may not retain ownership of those shares or assets for more than two years without prior Federal Reserve approval. There is no formal reporting form, and each request for extension must be filed at the appropriate Reserve Bank of the bank holding company. The Federal Reserve uses the information provided in the request to fulfill its statutory obligation to supervise bank holding companies. *Current Actions:* On May 8, 2007, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 26116) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR 4006. The comment period for this notice expired on July 9, 2007. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2007. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-13900 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 13, 2007. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis** (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034: *1. Cross County Bancshares, Inc.* , Wynne, Arkansas; to retain control of shares of Pinnacle Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain control of shares of Pinnacle Bank, both of Bentonville, Arkansas. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-13883 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage *de novo* , or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 2, 2007. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago** (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: *1. NCB Holdings, Inc.* ; to engage *de novo* through its subsidiary, Kingsbury Capital, L.L.C., both of Chicago, Illinois, in securities brokerage activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(7)(i) of Regulation Y. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2007. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E7-13884 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1712-DR] Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1712-DR), dated July 7, 2007, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 7, 2007, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Oklahoma resulting from severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes beginning on June 10, 2007, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Oklahoma. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses. You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later requested and warranted, Federal funds provided under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act. The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration. The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Philip E. Parr, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster. I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Oklahoma to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster: Ottawa and Washington Counties for Individual Assistance. All counties within the State of Oklahoma are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective measures), limited to direct Federal assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 7, 2007. Comanche and Pottawatomie Counties for emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance under the Public Assistance program. Ottawa and Washington Counties for emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance under the Public Assistance program (already designated for Individual Assistance.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 29, 2007. Archer, Bell, Burnet, Eastland, Hood, Parker, Starr, Victoria, Webb, Wichita, and Williamson Counties for Individual Assistance. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective measures), limited to direct Federal assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 29, 2007. Cooke, Coryell, Denton, Grayson, Lampasas, and Tarrant Counties for Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective measures), limited to direct Federal assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this declared disaster is now June 16, 2007, and continuing. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-13917 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5136-N-01] Report of HUD Review of the Fair Housing Accessibility Requirements in the 2006 International Building Code AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice publishes a report of a review by the Department of Housing and Urban Development of certain accessibility provisions of the International Building Code, 2006 edition (2006 IBC), published by the International Code Council (ICC). 1 This report has already been posted on HUD's Web site and is unchanged in the publication of this report in today's **Federal Register** . 1 The 2003 International Building Code© is a copyrighted work owned by the International Code Council, Inc. This report pertains to a request to the Department by the ICC to review of the accessibility provisions of the 2006 IBC to determine whether those provisions are consistent with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act (the Act), the Department's regulations implementing the 1988 Amendments to the Act (regulations), and the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines (the Guidelines) so that the 2006 IBC could be recognized by the Department as a safe harbor for compliance with the law. The Department's report is intended to provide technical assistance to ICC and other interested parties. The Department is not promulgating any new technical requirements or standards by way of this report, nor is this report an endorsement of a model building code. The Department is not shifting its responsibility to enforce the accessibility requirements of the Act to state or local building code jurisdictions. Further, the Department's report is not intended to limit or invalidate any law of a State or local government that requires dwellings to be designed and constructed in a manner that affords persons with disabilities greater access than is required by the Act. The Department recognizes, however, that one important way to increase compliance with the Act's design and construction requirements is to encourage incorporation of those requirements into state and local building codes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Kent, Special Advisor for Disability Policy, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5240, Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone

(202)708-2333, extension 7058 (voice). (This is not a toll free number.) Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (TTY). This Notice is located at: *http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/modelcodes/.* The Fair Housing Act, the Fair Housing Act regulations, and the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines can also be obtained through links provided at this Web site. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. The Fair Housing Act Accessibility Provisions Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act (the Fair Housing Act) (42 U.S.C. 3601 *et seq.* ) prohibits discrimination in housing and housing-related transactions based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability. 2 In its 1988 Amendments to the Fair Housing Act (the Act), Congress provided that all covered multifamily dwellings built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 shall be designed and constructed so that: “(1) The public and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities;

(2)All the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within such dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by disabled persons in wheelchairs; and

(3)All premises within such dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design:

(a)An accessible route into and through the dwelling;

(b)Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations;

(c)Reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and

(d)Usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.” These basic accessibility requirements are known as the Act's design and construction requirements. 2 The Fair Housing Act refers to people with “handicaps.” Subsequently, in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and other legislation, Congress adopted the term “persons with disabilities,” or “disability,” which is the preferred usage. Accordingly, this Report hereinafter uses the terms “persons with disabilities,” “disability,” or “disabled.” The Act does not set forth specific technical design criteria that have to be followed in order to comply with the design and construction requirements. It does provide, however, that compliance with the appropriate requirements of the “American National Standard for buildings and facilities providing accessibility and usability for physically handicapped people,” commonly referred to as ANSI A117.1, satisfies the Act's design and construction requirements for the interiors of dwelling units. On January 23, 1989 (54 FR 3232), HUD published its final regulations implementing the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. In the final regulation, HUD adopted the 1986 edition of ANSI A117.1, which was the most recent edition in effect at that time, as the appropriate edition for acceptable compliance with the Act. HUD's regulation adopting the ANSI A117.1 standard is located at 24 CFR 100.201. HUD's regulations implementing the design and construction requirements are located at 24 CFR 100.205. The Department's regulations specify that compliance with the appropriate requirements of ANSI A117.1-1986 satisfies the technical requirements of the Act relating to dwelling units. In addition, the Department's regulations reference the requirements of ANSI A117.1-1986 as a means of compliance with respect to the following features of covered multifamily dwellings:

(a)Public and common use areas,

(b)accessible routes, and

(c)building entrances on an accessible route. Elsewhere in today's edition of the **Federal Register** , the Department is publishing a proposed rule to adopt the current edition of ANSI A117.1, which is the 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1. The proposed rule will also stipulate that compliance with the appropriate requirements of the 1986, 1992 and 1998 editions remain sufficient to satisfy the Act's design and construction requirements. Congress directed the Secretary of HUD to “provide technical assistance to states and units of local government and other persons to implement [the design and construction requirements].” On March 6, 1991 (56 FR 9472), the Department published the “Final Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines” which set forth specific technical guidance for designing covered multifamily dwellings to be consistent with the Act. Section I of the Guidelines states: “These guidelines are intended to provide a safe harbor for compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act.” On June 24, 1994 (59 FR 33362), the Department published its “Supplement to Notice of Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines: Questions and Answers about the Guidelines.” The Department published a Fair Housing Act Design Manual (Design Manual) in 1996 that was reissued in 1998 with minor changes. The Design Manual is also a safe harbor for compliance with the Act. The Department also provides training and technical guidance through its Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST program: ( *http:www.fairhousingfirst.org* ). The Act states that Congress did not intend the Department to *require* states and units of local government to include the Act's accessibility requirements in their state and local procedures for the review and approval of newly constructed covered multifamily dwellings. However, Congress authorized the Department to *encourage* inclusion of these requirements into their state and local procedures. The Department's review of model codes falls within its mandate to provide technical assistance to state and local governments to incorporate the design and construction requirements of the Act into their laws and procedures for review and approval of newly constructed multifamily dwellings. 3 In the course of its review of model codes over the past several years, the Department has made every effort to ensure that any code or version of a code it deems a safe harbor provides at least the same level of accessibility that is required under the Act. 3 The Act also makes it clear that it does not invalidate or limit any other state or federal laws that require dwellings to be designed or constructed in a manner that affords persons with disabilities greater access than that required under the Act. Further, federally funded facilities and dwelling units covered by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), must comply with the regulatory requirements of those laws in addition to the requirements of the Act, when applicable. For Section 504, regulatory requirements may be found at 24 CFR part 8; for the ABA, 24 CFR part 40; and for the ADA, 28 CFR parts 35 and/or 36, as applicable. B. Prior HUD Reviews of Model Building Codes In 1999 and 2004, HUD reviewed certain model building codes to determine if the accessibility provisions in these model codes met the design and construction requirements set forth in the Act, the regulations, and the Guidelines. In conjunction with these reviews, HUD reviewed the 1992 and 1998 editions of ANSI A117.1. On March 23, 2000 (65 FR 15740), HUD published its Final Report of HUD Review of Model Building Codes. In this report, HUD stated that it reviewed the 1992 CABO/ANSI A117.1 and the 1998 ICC/ANSI A117.1 and determined that these editions provide at least the same level of accessibility as the 1986 edition of ANSI A117.1. HUD reiterated this view in its February 28, 2005 (70 FR 9738), Final Report of HUD Review of the Fair Housing Accessibility Requirements in the 2003 International Building Code, which uses the 1998 edition of ICC/ANSI A117.1. Both of these reports are available at: *http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/modelcodes/.* These reports point out that because the ANSI A117.1 standard contains only technical criteria, designers and builders relying on the ANSI A117.1 standard also need to consult the Act, the Department's regulations, and the Guidelines for the scoping criteria. Scoping criteria define when a building, element or space must be accessible. Designers and builders also have the option of following one of the other HUD-recognized safe harbors which include scoping requirements. C. Background on the International Building Code The International Code Council was formed in an effort to bring national uniformity to building codes. Representatives of three former national model code bodies joined together to develop what are now called the International Codes, or I-Codes. The International Building Code is a major volume of the I-Codes, and contains provisions for accessibility designed to reflect the intent of the Act, the regulations, and the Guidelines. Unlike the Act, the IBC is a model building code and not a law. It provides minimum standards for public safety, health, and welfare as they are affected by building construction. Compliance with the IBC or any other model code is not required unless adopted by a state or local jurisdiction's governing body. A jurisdiction may adopt a model building code in its entirety or with modifications. With respect to housing, the IBC contains requirements for three different types of accessible units, which include sleeping units when such units are used as a residence. The most accessible of these three types is an “Accessible Unit,” which is wheelchair accessible and may be found in numerous types of buildings, and not just residential buildings. A second level of accessibility is set forth in the requirements for “Type A” dwelling units. Under the IBC, a percentage of “Type A” units must be provided containing a high level of accessibility, especially in kitchens and bathrooms, but will also have some features of adaptability. The third level of accessibility is a “Type B” dwelling unit, which is a unit that is intended to comply with those features of accessible and adaptable design required under the Act. Like the Act, the requirements set forth for Type B dwelling units apply to a greater number of dwelling units in a building but do not require as great a level of accessibility as Type A dwelling units, and instead provide a basic degree of accessibility. II. HUD Review of the 2006 International Building Code A. 2006 IBC In July 2006, ICC contacted the Department to request that HUD review the accessibility requirements contained in the 2006 IBC to make a determination as to whether the 2006 IBC would be deemed a safe harbor for compliance with the Act's design and construction requirements. ICC provided HUD with a side-by-side matrix of the 2003 and 2006 provisions in the IBC and related code documents which are intended to address the Act's design and construction requirements. ICC also provided copies of the 2006 International Codes and the 2006 Code Commentary. During its review of the 2003 IBC, HUD determined that there was one section of that code which could be interpreted in a manner which would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act and a second section that needed further clarification. These sections related to accessible routes and site arrival points, as well as the circumstances under which it was permissible to use a vehicular route instead of an accessible pedestrian route between exterior public and common use areas. HUD advised ICC that approval of the 2003 IBC as a safe harbor was contingent upon ICC publishing and distributing a statement to jurisdictions and past and future purchasers of the 2003 IBC stating, “ICC interprets Section 1104.1, and specifically, the Exception to Section 1104.1, to be read together with Section 1107.4, and that the Code requires an accessible pedestrian route from site arrival points to accessible building entrances, unless site impracticality applies. Exception 1 to Section 1107.4 is not applicable to site arrival points for any Type B dwelling units because site impracticality is addressed under Section 1107.7.” In addition, in its Final Report on the 2003 IBC (70 FR 9738, published February 28, 2005), the Department stated: “During the next code change cycle, if ICC seeks to have the 2006 edition of the IBC declared a safe harbor, ICC must modify the IBC to clearly state, in a manner acceptable to the Department, that an accessible pedestrian route must be provided from site arrival points to accessible building entrances of buildings required to provide Type B dwelling units, unless site impracticality applies.” The Department's concerns with the two sections in the IBC 2003 were addressed through the following code changes that appear in the 2006 IBC (to aid the public's review, changes are shown with deletions in brackets and additions in *italic* ): **1104.1 Site arrival points.** Accessible routes within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance served. **Exception:** Other than in *buildings or* facilities *containing or serving Type B units* [complying with Section 1107.3], an accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access. **1107.4 Accessible route.** At least one accessible route shall connect accessible building or facility entrances with the primary entrance of each Accessible unit, Type A unit and Type B unit within the building or facility and with those exterior and interior spaces and facilities that serve the units. **Exceptions:** 1. If *due to circumstances outside the control of the owner, either* the slope of the finished ground level between accessible facilities and buildings exceeds one unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (1:12), or where physical barriers *or legal restrictions,* prevent the installation of an accessible route, a vehicular route with parking that complies with Section 1106 at each public or common use facility or building is permitted in place of the accessible route. 2. Exterior decks * * * (no change in text). B. Missing Text—Section 1107.7.5 Design Flood Elevation During its review of the 2006 IBC, the Department noted that text is missing from Section 1107.7.5, Design Flood Elevation, which appears in the 2003 edition. The missing text is shown below, in **bold.** **1107.7.5 Design Flood Elevation.** The required number of Type A and Type B units shall not apply to a site where the required elevation of the lowest floor or the lowest horizontal structural building members of nonelevator buildings are at or above the design flood elevation resulting in: 1. A difference in elevation between the minimum required floor elevation at the primary entrances and vehicular and pedestrian arrival points within 50 feet (15 240 mm) exceeding 30 inches (762 mm); and 2. A slope exceeding 10 percent between the minimum required floor elevation at the primary entrances and vehicular and pedestrian arrival points within 50 feet (15 240 mm). **Where no such arrival points are within 50 feet (15 240 mm) of the primary entrances, the closest arrival point shall be used.** The Department contacted ICC and learned that the text was erroneously left out when the 2006 IBC was published. ICC published an erratum on its Web site at: *http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/errata/2006IBC.html* on January 31, 2007. Therefore, the Department is not making a finding of inconsistency, but is alerting users of the code to the missing text and the need to obtain the January 31, 2007 erratum. C. Commentary for 2006 IBC Section 1107.4 In Fall, 2005, at ICC's request, the Department provided ICC with commentary to aid code officials in properly interpreting situations that would qualify as circumstances that are beyond the control of the owner. The Department's commentary appears below. ICC included this commentary in the 2006 IBC Commentary, Volume I, Pages 11-18 through 11-20. ICC made some editorial changes to HUD's language; however, HUD has determined that the changes do not change the substance of the commentary. HUD Commentary for Section 1107.4 of 2006 IBC The intent of this section is to ensure that there will be at least one accessible route that connects all accessible building and facility entrances with the entrance of all Accessible, Type A and Type B units. To qualify as an accessible route, a route must serve pedestrians (i.e., sidewalk or other walkway). People with disabilities who need the features of an Accessible, Type A or Type B dwelling or sleeping unit cannot use them if accessible routes are not provided from the entrances of buildings or facilities to the primary entrance to their dwelling or sleeping unit. There also must be accessible routes connecting accessible building or facility entrances with all interior and exterior spaces and facilities that serve such dwelling or sleeping units. For example, if a development has a recreational facility such as a community center, persons with disabilities who need the features of an Accessible, Type A or Type B unit need an accessible route from their dwelling unit to that community center. Exception 1 is intended to provide consistency with the federal Fair Housing Act, which recognizes that, in very rare circumstances, an accessible pedestrian route between an accessible entrance to a Type B dwelling unit or an accessible entrance to a building containing Type B units and an exterior public use or common use facility may be impractical because of factors outside the control of the owner. Section 1107.4 requires an accessible pedestrian route between covered dwelling units and public use or common use areas and facilities that are required to be accessible except in rare circumstances outside the control of the owner where extreme terrain or impractical site characteristics result in a finished grade exceeding 8.33 percent or physical barriers or legal restrictions prevent the installation of an accessible pedestrian route. In these cases, Exception 1 allows access to be provided by means of a vehicular route leading from the accessible parking serving the Type B dwelling unit to the accessible parking serving the public use or common use facility. Accessible parking complying with IBC Section 1106 must be provided in each parking area. If a building containing Type B units also contains units with accessible features that are required by other code provisions or federal, state or local laws, then Exception 1 may not apply at all. It is important to understand that compliance with the accessible design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act is a legal obligation applicable to *all* architects, engineers, builders, developers, and others involved in the design and construction of housing that is required to meet the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act. HUD's regulations implementing the Fair Housing Act make it clear that the burden of showing the applicability of exceptions is the responsibility of those individuals and entities involved in the design and construction of such housing. In order to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act, architects, engineers, developers, builders, and others who use the IBC must make accessibility a priority at the planning and design phase of Group I and Group R developments, including the siting of housing and public use or common use areas. To do this, at the initial stage of site planning and design for all sites, before considering whether Exception 1 applies, persons and entities involved in the design of covered residential occupancies must have determined whether and how the exceptions at Sections 1107.7.4 and 1107.7.5 apply. After careful site planning and design has been completed, the following factors may then be considered to determine whether it is outside the control of the owner to provide an accessible pedestrian route between a building/Type B dwelling unit entrance and a given public use or common use facility. Each such route must be analyzed individually. Exception 1 will only apply when at least one of the following factors is present: Factors: 1. Legal restrictions outside the control of the owner. These include setback requirements, tree-save ordinances, easements, environmental restrictions, and other limitations that prevent installation of an accessible pedestrian route without violating the law. 2. Physical barriers outside the control of the owner. These include physical characteristics of the site, which are outside the control of the owner, that prevent the installation of an accessible pedestrian route. 3. On sites that qualify for the exceptions at 1107.7.4 and 1107.7.5, the presence of extreme terrain or other unusual site characteristics (e.g., flood plain, wetlands) outside the control of the owner that would require substantial additional grading to achieve a slope that will allow for an accessible pedestrian route. In considering whether the additional grading is substantial enough to qualify for Exception 1, one must consider the extent to which the builder has elected to grade the site for other purposes unassociated with accessibility. If grading for those other purposes is extensive, then substantial additional grading would be required to provide the required accessible pedestrian route. If grading for other purposes is not extensive, and substantial additional grading is necessary to provide an accessible pedestrian route, then reliance on Exception 1 would be appropriate. Note: In determining whether the additional grading is substantial, one may not consider the grading that the builder must perform to provide accessible pedestrian routes from site arrival points to the accessible entrances of Type B dwelling or sleeping units. If none of the factors above are present, Exception 1 does not apply. If one or more of these factors is present, then the next step in determining whether Exception 1 applies (i.e., the vehicular route is the only feasible option), is to consider alternative locations and designs for buildings, facilities, and accessible pedestrian routes connecting each accessible building/Type B dwelling unit entrance and each public use or common use area required to be accessible to ensure that there is no other way to provide the required accessible pedestrian routes. It is important to recognize that if a road sloping 8.33 percent or less can be provided, then an accessible pedestrian route would also be feasible and must be provided. Following are some examples to illustrate the proper application of Exception 1: **Example 1:** An undisturbed site has slopes of 8.33 percent or less between planned accessible entrances to Type B dwelling units and public use or common use areas and no legal restrictions or other unique characteristics preventing the construction of accessible routes. For aesthetic reasons, the developer would like to create some hills or decorative berms on the site. Because there are no extreme site conditions (severe terrain or unusual site characteristics such as floodplains), and no legal barriers that prevent installation of an accessible pedestrian route between the buildings/Type B dwelling units and any planned public use or common use facilities, the developer will still be obligated to provide accessible pedestrian routes. Exception 1 to Section 1107.4 is inapplicable in this circumstance. **Example 2:** A developer plans to build several buildings with Type B units clustered in a level area of a site that has some slopes of 10 percent. A swimming pool and tennis court will be added on the two opposing sides of the site. The builder plans grading that will result in a finished grade exceeding a slope of 8.33 percent along the route between the Type B units and the swimming pool and tennis court. There are no physical barriers or legal restrictions outside the control of the owner or builder that prevent the builder from reducing the existing grade to provide an accessible pedestrian route between the Type B units and the pool and tennis courts. Therefore, the builder's building plan would not be approved under the IBC because it is within the owner's control to assure that the final grading falls below 8.33 percent and meets the slope and other requirements for an accessible pedestrian route. Accessible pedestrian routes between the Type B units, pool and tennis court must be provided. **Example 3:** A multi-family housing complex is built on two sections of a large piece of property, which is divided by a wide stream running through protected wetlands. Both sections of the property are at the same relative elevation and have dwelling units with accessible routes from site arrival points. However, a combination clubhouse and swimming pool is located on one section of the property. Access to each section is provided by an existing public road outside the boundary of the site, which includes a bridge over the stream. Environmental restrictions prevent construction of any type of paved surface between the two sections within the boundary of the site. If environmental restrictions do not prevent the construction of an accessible pedestrian route such as a boardwalk through the wetlands connecting the two sections, then the accessible pedestrian route must be provided even if a road cannot be provided. If construction of any type of pedestrian route is prohibited, then a vehicular route that utilizes the public road and bridge is permitted with parking complying with IBC 1106 located at the clubhouse/swimming pool, even though the vehicular route relies on a public road instead of a road through the development. **Example 4:** A narrow and deep site has a level section in the front taking up most of the site and another level section at the back that is located up a steep incline. The developer will place all of the buildings/Type B dwelling units on the front section, assuring accessible routes from site arrival points to building entrances. After considering all options for siting buildings and facilities in different locations, including the priority of accessibility, the only feasible location for a planned swimming pool is at the top of the higher section to the rear of the property. Because of the narrowness of the site and the relative elevation of the upper level at the rear of the property, it is not possible to construct an accessible pedestrian route to the pool. However, a road that slopes more than 8.33 percent can be provided. Under these circumstances, Exception 1 is applicable and access to the swimming pool on the upper level of the site may be provided by means of a vehicular route with parking complying with Section 1106 provided at the pool. **Example 5:** A developer plans to build a multi-family housing complex with non-elevator buildings on a site with hilly terrain. All of these buildings will have some Type B dwelling units. The developer plans to locate tennis courts on the site. There are gentle slopes exceeding 8.33 percent with existing trees between the entrances to the Type B units and the tennis courts. There is also a tree-save ordinance in place. If the builder can grade the site to allow for an accessible pedestrian route to the tennis courts without disturbing the trees in violation of the tree-save ordinance, then an accessible pedestrian route between the Type B units and the planned location of the tennis courts must be provided. If however, the grading necessary to reduce the slope of the site near the trees to provide an accessible route would cause tree loss or damage in violation of the ordinance, then the developer cannot grade without violating the tree-save ordinance. The developer must then consider whether the tennis courts can be relocated so they are served by an accessible pedestrian route and if yes, the tennis courts must be relocated. If the tennis courts cannot be relocated so they can be served by an accessible pedestrian route, then the developer may provide a vehicular route from the Type B dwelling units to the tennis court with parking complying with Section 1106 at the tennis courts. Note, however, that if the developer can provide an accessible pedestrian route from some of the buildings without violating the ordinance, the developer must do so, even if it is necessary to provide a vehicular route from other buildings. Additionally, if the grading and construction of the proposed vehicular route can be limited to 8.33 percent by design and would not violate the tree-save ordinance, it is likely that an additional accessible walkway adjacent to the vehicular route would also fall under the scope of work that would not violate the tree-save ordinance and, therefore, must be provided, eliminating the use of Exception 1. D. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Edition The 2006 IBC requires buildings and facilities to be accessible in accordance with the code and ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003, Accessible Buildings and Facilities. With respect to the design and construction of Type B dwelling units, the 2006 IBC references the requirements of Chapter 10 of 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1. The Department has reviewed the technical standards of the 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1, particularly the technical criteria for the Type B dwelling unit in Chapter 10, to determine if these technical criteria provide at least the same level of accessibility as the 1986 edition of ANSI A117.1, which is the edition that was in effect at the time the Act was passed. Having completed this review, the Department believes that the technical criteria of the 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1 are consistent with the Act and constitute a safe harbor when used together with the Act, HUD's regulations and the Guidelines for the scoping requirements. Similarly, the technical criteria of the 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1 constitute a safe harbor when used together with one of the other HUD-recognized safe harbors that provide scoping requirements. ANSI A117.1 is a technical standard on how to make buildings, elements or spaces accessible. Since it lacks specific details on scoping requirements, it is necessary to consult a safe harbor document that provides scoping information. Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , the Department is publishing a proposed rule proposing to adopt the 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1 accessibility standard, and stipulating that the 1998, 1992 and 1986 editions of ANSI A117.1 continue to be available as safe harbors. In its proposed rule, the Department is seeking comments on the efficacy of continuing to recognize older editions of the ANSI standard. E. HUD Determination of 2006 IBC as a Safe Harbor Through this report, HUD is formally announcing that it has assessed the provisions of the 2006 edition of the International Building Code, with the January 31, 2007 erratum, that relate to facilities covered by the Act. HUD has determined that these provisions, when interpreted in accordance with relevant 2006 IBC Commentary, are consistent with the Act, HUD's regulations, and the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines. Therefore, the 2006 IBC, with the 2007 erratum, constitute a safe harbor for compliance with the design and construction requirements of the Act, HUD's regulations and the Guidelines, when used in accordance with HUD policy, as discussed below. The 2006 IBC is a publication of the International Code Council. The Department is not promulgating any new regulatory, legal or technical requirements or standards by way of this report, nor is this report an endorsement of a model building code. Further, the Department is not shifting its responsibility for enforcement of the Act's accessibility requirements. The Department's report explains under what conditions the 2006 IBC will serve as a safe harbor for compliance with the design and construction requirements of the Act, and provides guidance on the Department's enforcement policies concerning the requirements of the Act and HUD-recognized safe harbor documents. III. HUD Recognized Safe Harbors and HUD Policy With its review of the 2006 International Building Code and the 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1 as safe harbors, the Department currently recognizes ten safe harbors for compliance with the design and construction requirements of the Act. These documents are: 1. Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, March 6, 1991 ( *http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/fhefhag.cfm* ), in conjunction with the June 28, 1994 Supplement to Notice of Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines: Questions and Answers About the Guidelines ( *http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/fhefhasp.cfm* ); 2. Fair Housing Act Design Manual ( *http://www.huduser.org/publications/destech/fairhousing.html* ), published by HUD in 1996, updated in 1998; 3. ANSI A117.1-1986, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, in conjunction with the Fair Housing Act (available from Global Engineering Documents, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, Colorado 90112), HUD's regulations, and the Guidelines for the scoping requirements; 4. CABO/ANSI A117.1-1992, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, in conjunction with the Fair Housing Act ( *http://www.iccsafe.org* ), HUD's regulations, and the Guidelines for the scoping requirements; 5. ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, in conjunction with the Fair Housing Act ( *http://www.iccsafe.org* ), HUD's regulations, and the Guidelines for the scoping requirements; 6. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities ( *http://www.iccsafe.org* ), in conjunction with the Fair Housing Act, HUD's regulations, and the Guidelines for the scoping requirements; 7. 2000 ICC Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility (CRHA), published by the International Code Council (ICC), October 2000 ( *http://www.iccsafe.org* ) (ICC has issued an errata sheet to the CRHA); 8. 2000 International Building Code (IBC), as amended by the 2001 Supplement to the International Building Code (2001 IBC Supplement); 9. 2003 International Building Code

(IBC)( *http://www.iccsafe.org* ), 4 published by ICC December 2002, with one condition: Effective February 28, 2005, HUD determined that the IBC 2003 is a safe harbor, conditioned upon ICC publishing and distributing a statement to jurisdictions and past and future purchasers of the 2003 IBC stating, “ICC interprets Section 1104.1, and specifically, the Exception to Section 1104.1, to be read together with Section 1107.4, and that the Code requires an accessible pedestrian route from site arrival points to accessible building entrances, unless site impracticality applies. Exception 1 to Section 1107.4 is not applicable to site arrival points for any Type B dwelling units because site impracticality is addressed under Section 1107.7”; and 4 ICC's website includes information about the condition on the 2003 IBC at the following links: *http://www.iccsafe.org/news/nr/2005/index.html; http://www.iccsafe.org/government/news/; http://www.iccsafe.org/news/ePeriodicals/eNews/archive/ICCeNews_0305.html.* 10. 2006 International Building Code ( *http://www.iccsafe.org* ), published by ICC, January 2006, with the 2007 erratum (to correct the text missing from Section 1107.7.5), and interpreted in accordance with relevant 2006 IBC Commentary. HUD's March 23, 2000 Final Report addresses HUD's policy with respect to the above safe harbors. If a state or locality has adopted one of the above documents without modification to the provisions that address the Act's design and construction requirements, a building that is subject to these requirements will be deemed compliant provided the building is designed and constructed in accordance with construction documents approved during the building permitting process and the building code official does not waive, incorrectly interpret, or misapply one or more of those requirements. However, neither the fact that a jurisdiction has adopted a code that conforms with the accessibility requirements of the Act, nor that construction of a building subject to the Act was approved under such a code, changes HUD's statutory responsibility to conduct an investigation, following receipt of a complaint from an aggrieved person, to determine whether the requirements of the Act have been met. Nor does either fact prohibit the Department of Justice from investigating whether violations of the Act's design and construction provisions may have occurred. The Act provides that: “determinations by a State or unit of general local government under paragraphs 5(A) and

(B)shall not be conclusive in enforcement proceedings under this title.” HUD's investigation of an accessibility discrimination complaint under the Act typically involves a review of building permits, certificates of occupancy, and construction documents showing the design of the buildings and the site, and an on-site survey of the buildings and property. During the investigation, HUD investigators take measurements of relevant interior and exterior elements on the property. All parties to the complaint have an opportunity to present evidence concerning whether HUD has jurisdiction over the complaint, and whether the Act has been violated, as alleged. In enforcing the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act, a prima facie case may be established by proving a violation of HUD's Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines. This prima facie case may be rebutted by demonstrating compliance with a recognized, comparable, objective measure of accessibility. See Order on Secretarial Review, *U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Montana Fair Housing, Inc.* v. *Brent Nelson,* HUD ALJ 05-068FH (September 21, 2006) (2006 WL 4540542). In making a determination as to whether the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act have been violated, HUD uses the Fair Housing Act, the regulations, and the Guidelines, which reference the technical standards found in ANSI A117.1-1986. It is the Department's position that the above-named documents represent safe harbors only when used in their entirety; that is, once a specific safe harbor document has been selected, the building in question should comply with all of the provisions in that document that address the Fair Housing Act design and construction requirements to ensure the full benefit of the safe harbor. The benefit of safe harbor status may be lost if, for example, a designer or builder chooses to select provisions from more than one of the above safe harbor documents or from a variety of sources, and will be lost if waivers of provisions are requested and received. A designer or builder taking this approach runs the risk of building an inaccessible property. While this does not necessarily mean that failure to meet all of the respective provisions of a specific safe harbor will result in unlawful discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, designers and builders that choose to depart from the provisions of a specific safe harbor bear the burden of demonstrating that their actions result in compliance with the Act's design and construction requirements. HUD's purpose in recognizing a number of safe harbors for compliance with the Fair Housing Act's design and construction requirements is to provide a range of options that, if followed in their entirety during the design and construction phase, will result in residential buildings that comply with the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act, so long as they are applied without modification or waiver. IV. Conclusion Through this report, the Department is formally announcing that it has assessed the provisions of the 2006 International Building Code, as corrected by the January 31, 2007 erratum, that relate to facilities covered by the Act. HUD has determined that these provisions, when interpreted in accordance with relevant 2006 IBC commentary, are consistent with the Act, HUD's regulations, and the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines. Therefore, the 2006 IBC, as corrected by the January 31, 2007 erratum to the IBC, if adopted without modification and without waiver of any of the provisions intended to address the Fair Housing Act's design and construction requirements, constitute a safe harbor for compliance with the design and construction requirements of the Act, HUD's regulations and the Guidelines, and interpreted in accordance with relevant 2006 IBC commentary. The Department looks forward to continuing to work with members of the housing industry, persons with disabilities and advocacy organizations, model code officials, state and local governments, fair housing organizations and all other interested parties on our common goal of eliminating discrimination against persons with disabilities and eliminating structural barriers to housing choice for persons with disabilities. Environmental Impact This report is a policy document that sets out fair housing and nondiscrimination standards. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(3), this report is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321). Dated: May 31, 2007. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. [FR Doc. E7-13885 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge, AK AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of extension of time to review draft revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge. SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published FR Doc. E7-9281 in the **Federal Register** on May 15, 2007, announcing availability of the Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge. The document identified a review period ending on July 16, 2007. Because summer is such a busy time in Alaska, we are concerned that many people will not be able to meet our deadline; therefore we announce extension of the review period until September 15, 2007. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before September 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: To provide written comments or to request a paper copy or compact disk of the Draft CCP/EA, contact: Peter Wikoff, Planning Team Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Rd., MS. 231, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, or at *fw7_kanuti_planning@fws.gov,* or at 907-786-3837. You may view or download a copy of the Draft CCP/EA at: *alaska.fws.gov/nwr/planning/plans.htm.* Copies of the Draft CCP/EA may be viewed at the Kanuti Refuge Office in Fairbanks, Alaska; at local libraries; and at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office in Anchorage, Alaska. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Wikoff at the above address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), requires each refuge to develop and implement a CCP. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published FR Doc. E7-9281 in the **Federal Register** on May 15, 2007, announcing availability of the Draft Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge. The document identified a review period ending on July 16, 2007. Because summer is such a busy time in Alaska, we are concerned that many people would not be able to meet our deadline; therefore we announce extension of the review period until September 15, 2007. *Public availability of comments:* Before including your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: July 12, 2007. Thomas O. Melius, Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. [FR Doc. E7-13942 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Final Environmental Impact Statement on Light Goose Management AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability of final environmental impact statement on light goose management. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)on light goose management. The FEIS follows publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)and a proposed rule, each of which had extensive public comments periods. The FEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of several management alternatives for addressing problems associated with overabundant light goose populations. The FEIS analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts related to several management alternatives and provides the public with responses to comments received on the DEIS. DATES: The public review period for the FEIS will end August 13, 2007. After that date, we will publish a Record of Decision and a final rule. ADDRESSES: You can obtain a copy of the FEIS by writing to the Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MBSP-4107, Arlington, VA 22203; by e-mailing us at: *LightGooseEIS@fws.gov* ; or by calling us at

(703)358-1714. We will also post the FEIS on our Web site at: *http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/snowgse/tblcont.html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Blohm, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management,

(703)358-1714; or James Kelley

(612)713-5409. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 13, 1999, we published a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing our intent to prepare an EIS to address population expansion by light goose populations (64 FR 26268). On September 28, 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)published a notice of availability of our DEIS on light goose management (66 FR 49668). We followed the EPA notice with our own notice of availability of the DEIS on October 5, 2001, and provided for a public comment period that ended on November 28, 2001 (66 FR 51274). On December 10, 2001, we published a notice extending the public comment period to January 25, 2002 (66 FR 63723). On July 13, 2007, EPA published a notice of availability of our FEIS (72 FR 38576). The DEIS evaluated four management alternatives to address habitat destruction and agricultural depredations caused by light geese on various breeding, migration, and wintering areas:

(1)Take no Action, or a continuation to manage light goose populations through existing wildlife management policies and practices (Alternative A);

(2)Modify harvest regulation options and refuge management (Alternative B) (proposed action);

(3)Implement direct agency control of light goose populations on migration and wintering areas in the U.S. (Alternative C); or

(4)Seek direct light goose population control on breeding grounds in Canada (Alternative D). Our proposed alternative (Alternative B) would modify existing light goose hunting regulations to expand methods of take during normal hunting season frameworks. In addition, we proposed to create a conservation order to allow take of light geese outside of normal hunting season frameworks. We would also modify management practices on certain National Wildlife Refuges to alter the availability of food and sanctuary to light geese. On October 12, 2001, we published a proposed rule that summarized these alternatives in more detail, and outlined how we proposed to amend parts 20 and 21 of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (66 FR 52077). In response to public comments that the alternatives we analyzed in the DEIS were mutually exclusive and did not represent a comprehensive management approach, we created a new alternative (Alternative E) in the FEIS that combined Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative E would achieve light goose control using an integrated, two-phased approach involving increased harvest resulting from new regulatory tools (e.g. conservation order), changes in refuge management, and direct agency control. Phase 1 of Alternative E is identical to Alternative B, whereas phase 2 includes elements of Alternatives C and D. We envision that no more than 5 years would elapse in phase 1 before we evaluate the effectiveness of the light goose management program and assess the potential need for proceeding to phase 2. Because we have no jurisdiction over management actions in Canada (Alternative D), we would begin phase 2 with the actions outlined in Alternative C. If additional population control actions are required to achieve management goals, we would approach the Canadian Wildlife Service and urge implementation of actions outlined in Alternative D. The FEIS describes Alternatives A-E in more detail and analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts related to each alternative. The FEIS also provides the public with responses to comments received on the DEIS. Dated: June 4, 2007. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director. [FR Doc. E7-13935 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, We) announces that the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP)and Environmental Assessment

(EA)for the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District (WMD, District) is available. This draft CCP/EA describes how the Service intends to manage this District for the next 15 years. We request public comment. DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments on the draft CCP/EA by August 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Please provide written comments to Bernardo Garza, Planning Team Leader, Division of Refuge Planning, Branch of Comprehensive Conservation Planning, Mountain-Prairie Region, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0486; via facsimile at 303-236-4792; or electronically to *bernardo_garza@fws.gov.* A copy of the CCP/EA may be obtained by writing to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Planning, 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, Colorado 80228; or by download from *http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernardo Garza, 303-236-4377 or John Esperance, 303-236-4369. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Rainwater Basin WMD was established in 1963 when the Service began acquiring critical migratory waterfowl habitat in south-central and southeast Nebraska with Duck Stamp dollars. This WMD was established for the following purposes:

(1)“* * * To assure the long-term viability of the breeding waterfowl population and production through the acquisition and management of Waterfowl Production Areas, while considering the needs of other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species and other wildlife.” (purpose statement developed for all WMDs in Region 6 in June 2004);

(2)“* * * to acquire * * * small wetland and pothole areas * * * to be designated as ‘Waterfowl Production Areas’ * * * as an inviolate sanctuary or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds * * * and to restore and develop adequate wildlife habitat” under the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act [16 U.S.C. 715d (2), 715i(a) & 718 (c)];

(3)“for conservation purposes” under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act [7 U.S.C. 2002(a)];

(4)“promote * * * the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations in various migratory bird treaties and conventions with Canada, Mexico, Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and with various countries in the Western Hemisphere” under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act [16 U.S.C. 3901(b)]; and

(5)“to protect waterfowl production areas” under Public Land Orders 6979 [May 25, 1993], and 7206 [June 24, 1996]. Today, the District manages approximately 23,500 acres in 61 individual tracts of land within the geographic area called the Rainwater Basin. This District encompasses a complex of wetlands scattered throughout a 17-county area. Current public use opportunities at this WMD include hunting, wildlife observation and photography. This draft CCP/EA identifies and evaluates two alternatives for managing the District for the next 15 years. Alternative A, the No Action alternative, reflects the current management of the District. It provides the baseline against which to compare the other alternative. District habitats would continue to be managed on an opportunistic schedule that may maintain, or most likely would result in further decline in, the diversity of vegetation and water quality and quantity in the wetlands. District staff would continue to perform only limited research and would monitor only long-term vegetation change. Partnerships and priority public uses such as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and wildlife photography would continue at present levels. Other priority public uses such as environmental education and interpretation would only be available on an informal basis. Outreach efforts would not be attainable due to the staff's inability to support them. The District would continue to support and work cooperatively to further the goals of the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture. Alternative B is the Service's proposed action and basis for the draft CCP. Under this alternative the staff would continue to pursue the same goals and activities as in Alternative A but the emphasis would be to address all aspects in a holistic manner. The WMD would work with formal and informal partnerships, including landowners, to improve waterfowl production areas at a landscape level. Actions would strive to build a “neighborly interaction” between privately-owned, State and WMD lands within each watershed. The WMD would work with partners to complete the engineering and funding and would continue to support and work cooperatively to further the goals of the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture. The proposed action (Alternative B) was selected because it best meets the purposes and goals of the District, as well as the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The proposed action will also benefit federally listed species, shore birds, migrating and nesting waterfowl, neotropical migrants and resident wildlife. Environmental education and partnerships will result in improved wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Cultural and historical resources as well as federally listed species will be protected. Opportunity for public input will be provided at public meetings to be scheduled soon. The specific date and time for the public meeting is yet to be determined, but will be announced via local media and a planning update. All information provided voluntarily by mail, by phone, or at public meetings (e.g., names, addresses, letters of comment, input recorded during meetings) becomes part of the official public record. If requested under the Freedom of Information Act by a private citizen or organization, the Service may provide copies of such information. The environmental review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); other appropriate Federal laws and regulations; Executive Order 12996; the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; and Service policies and procedures for compliance with those laws and regulations. Dated: March 30, 2007. Elliott Sutta, Acting Regional Director, Region 6, Denver, Colorado. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on July 13, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-13887 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CO-160-1430-EU; COC-69635] Notice of Realty Action: (Non-Competitive) Direct Sale of Public Lands, Hinsdale County, CO AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Realty Action. SUMMARY: The following described 0.76-acre public land parcel near Lake City, Hinsdale County, Colorado, has been examined and found suitable for title transfer by (non-competitive) direct sale to Patsie and Michael DeHuff. The sale will be conducted under the authority of section 203(f)(2) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* (FLPMA) and CFR 2711.3-3(a), and will take place according to procedures governing direct sale of public land. DATES: On or before September 4, 2007, interested parties may submit comments concerning the proposed sale to the BLM Field Office Manager at the below address. Only written comments will be accepted. ADDRESSES: Address all written comments concerning this notice to the Field Manager, BLM Gunnison Field Office, 216 N. Colorado St., Gunnison, Colorado 81230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marnie Medina, Realty Specialist, at the above address, or call:

(970)642-4457. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 0.76-acre parcel is approximately 5 miles west of Lake City, in Hinsdale County, Colorado. It is offered on a non-competitive (direct) sale basis to Patsie and Michael DeHuff in accordance with Section 203(f)(2) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and 43 CFR 2711.3-3(a). The BLM Gunnison Field Manager has determined that a non-competitive (direct) sale will be in the best interest of the public. In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-3(a)(5), this parcel is being offered by (non-competitive) direct sale to Patsie and Michael DeHuff at not less than the appraised fair market value

(FMV)as determined by the authorized officer after appraisal. An appraisal report has been prepared by a State-certified appraiser for the purpose of establishing FMV. Direct sale is based on the DeHuff's inadvertent occupancy of the parcel and value of added improvements consisting of a log cabin residence, solar panels, a battery and generator shed, buried electric lines from the solar panels to the shed and to the cabin, a 165-foot deep domestic water well, a septic system, a buried 500-gallon propane tank, a parking pad, a driveway, and other personal property. The parcel is described as follows: New Mexico Principal Meridian Colorado T. 44 N., R. 5 W., Tract 37. The area described contains 0.76 acre, more or less, in Hinsdale County. The market value for this land, utilizing direct sale procedures, at not less than the current appraised fair market value, is determined to be $7,000.00. This 0.76-acre parcel is not required for any Federal purposes. It has been determined that this parcel is impractical to manage as part of the public lands. BLM has determined that resource values will not be adversely affected by title transfer of this 0.76-acre parcel to non-Federal ownership. Sale of the parcel conforms to criteria of the BLM Gunnison Resource Area Resource Management Plan

(RMP)approved in February 1993. The patent, when issued, will contain the following reservations, covenants, terms and conditions: 1. The parcel will be conveyed with a reservation of a right-of-way to the United States for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945). 2. The patentee, by accepting the patent, agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and judgments of any kind arising from the past, present, or future acts or omissions of the grantor, its employees, agents, contractor, or lessees, or a third party arising out of, or in connection with, the grantor's use and/or occupancy of the deeded real property resulting in: Violations of Federal, State and local laws and regulations that are now, or in the future become, applicable to the real property:

(1)Judgments, claims, or demands of any kind assessed against the United States;

(2)costs, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States;

(3)releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substance(s) as defined by Federal or State environmental laws, off, on, into, or under land, property, and other interests of the United States;

(4)other activities by which solids or hazardous substances or wastes, as defined by Federal and State environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used, or otherwise disposed of on the deeded real property, and any cleanup response, remedial action, or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substances or wastes; or

(5)natural resource damages as defined by Federal and State law. This covenant shall be construed as running with the deeded real property and may be enforced by the United States in a court of competent jurisdiction. Pursuant to the requirements established by Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1988, (100 Stat. 1670), notice is hereby given that the above-described parcel has been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances have been stored for one year or more, nor had any hazardous substances been disposed of or released on the subject property. Upon publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** the parcel will be segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except the sale provisions of the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976. The segregation will terminate upon issuance of the patent, upon publication in the **Federal Register** of a termination of the segregation, or on July 20, 2009, whichever occurs first unless extended by the BLM State Director, Colorado, in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.1-2(d) prior to the termination date. No warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, is given by the United States as to the title, the parcel's physical condition or potential uses. The conveyance will not be on a contingency basis. It is the buyer's responsibility to be aware of all applicable Federal, State, or local government laws, regulations, or policies that may affect the subject parcel or its future uses. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or prospective uses of nearby properties. The land will not be offered for sale until at least 60 days after the date of publication of this notice in the ** Federal Register ** . In the event of a sale, the unreserved mineral interests will be conveyed simultaneously with the sale of the land. These unreserved mineral interests have been determined to have no known mineral value pursuant to 43 CFR 2720.2(a). Acceptance of the sale offer will constitute an application for conveyance of those unreserved mineral interests. The purchaser will be required to pay a $50.00 non-refundable filing fee for conveyance of the available mineral interests. The purchaser will have 30 days from date of receiving the sale offer to accept the offer and to submit a deposit of 20 percent of the purchase price, the $50.00 filing fee for conveyance of mineral interests, and for payment of publication costs. The purchaser must remit the remainder of the purchase price within 180 days from the date the sale offer is received. Payments must be by certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check payable to the U.S. Department of the Interior—BLM. Failure to meet conditions established for this sale will void the sale and any monies received will be forfeited. Failure or refusal by Patsie and Michael DeHuff to submit the required fair market appraisal amount within 180 days of the sale of the parcel will constitute a waiver of this preference consideration and this parcel may be offered for sale on a competitive or modified competitive basis. Public Comments For a period until September 4, 2007, interested parties and the general public may submit in writing any comments concerning the land being offered for sale, including notification of any encumbrances or other claims relating to the identified land, to the Field Manager, BLM Gunnison Field Office, at the above address. In order to ensure consideration in the environmental analysis of the proposed sale, comments must be in writing and postmarked or delivered within 45 days of the initial date of publication of this Notice. Comments sent via e-mail will not be accepted. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BLM Gunnison Field Office during regular business hours, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Colorado State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any objections or adverse comments, this proposed realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior. (Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1-2) Arden Anderson, Acting Field Manager, Gunnison. [FR Doc. E7-13798 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Flight 93 National Memorial Advisory Commission AGENCY: National Park Service ACTION: Notice of July 28, 2007 Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the date of the July 28, 2007 meeting of the Flight 93 Advisory Commission. DATES: The public meeting of the Advisory Commission will be held on Saturday, July 28, 2007 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. (Eastern). The Commission will meet jointly with the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force. Location: The joint meeting will be held at the Somerset County Courthouse, Courtroom #1; 2nd floor; 111 East Union Street, Somerset, Pennsylvania 15501. Agenda The April 28, 2007 joint Commission and Task Force meeting will consist of:

(1)Opening of Meeting and Pledge of Allegiance.

(2)Review and Approval of Commission Minutes from April 28, 2007.

(3)Reports from the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force and National Park Service. Comments from the public will be received after each report and/or at the end of the meeting.

(4)Old Business.

(5)New Business.

(6)Public Comments.

(7)Closing Remarks. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne M. Hanley, Superintendent, Flight 93 National Memorial, 109 West Main Street, Somerset, PA 15501, 814.443.4557. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement concerning agenda items. Address all statements to: Flight 93 Advisory Commission, 109 West Main Street, Somerset, PA 15501. Dated: June 21, 2007. Joanne M. Hanley, Superintendent, Flight 93 National Memorial. [FR Doc. 07-3488 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 29

Traces to 29 documents

U.S. Code