The purpose of the RACNAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the management and conservation of roadless areas, including, but not limited to, petitions by the States to the Secretary, or his designee, under the authority of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 7 CFR 1.28). The RACNAC reviews submitted petitions and provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary. The RACNAC also provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary on any subsequent State-specific rulemakings.

The RACNAC consists of up to 15 members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Officers or employees of the Forest Service may not serve as members of the Committee. The Committee chair shall be elected by the members. The RACNAC shall be composed of a balanced group of representatives of diverse national organizations who can provide insights into the major contemporary issues associated with the conservation and management of inventoried roadless areas. Members operate in a manner designed to establish a consensus of opinion in order to develop recommendations that reflect relevant needs and perspectives. Members seek to reach mutual agreement on a course of action on issues. Collectively, the members should represent a diversity of organizations and perspectives. Members will work together to draft recommendations that are representative of the diverse values and interests represented in the Committee.

Appointment to the RACNAC will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the RACNAC. To ensure the recommendations of the RACNAC have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership will include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women and persons with disabilities.

The Decision Area is located approximately 15 miles northwest of Eureka, Montana, and contains approximately 37,900 acres of land within the Kootenai National Forest. Proposed activities include all or portions of the following areas: T.37N R.28W and part of T.37N R.29W, PMM, Lincoln County, Montana.

All proposed activities are outside the boundaries of any areas considered for inclusion to the National Wilderness System as recommended by the Kootenai National Forest Plan or by any past or present legislative wilderness proposals. A prescribed burn is proposed within the boundary of the Robinson Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area.

The purpose and need for the project is to: (1) Reduce fuel accumulations, both inside and outside the Wildland-Urban Interface, to decrease the likelihood that fires would become stand-replacing wildfires; (2) Restore historical vegetation species and stand structure; and (3) Restore historical patch sizes. Other consideration are: (4) Identify the minimum transportation system necessary to provide safe, reasonable, and efficient access for Forest Service administrative activities and fire suppression, recreation use and public access, and private land owners and utility companies; (5) Manage the transportation system to reduce effects to threatened, endangered, sensitive, and management indicator species habitat and security; streams, riparian areas, and wetlands; big game winter range; and old growth habitat, and to minimize road maintenance costs; (6) Evaluate recreation facilities and opportunities to meet growing and anticipated demand; and (7) Evaluate existing and proposed Special Use Permits.

The Forest Service proposes to use regeneration harvest (shelterwood and seedtree prescriptions) on approximately 2,000 acres, and commercial thinning on approximately 1,120 acres.

The Proposed Action would result in 26 openings over 40 acres, ranging from 41 to 1,121 acres. A 60-day public review period and approval by the Regional Forester for exceeding the 40-acre limitation for regeneration harvest would be required prior to the signing of the Record of Decision. This 60-day period is initiated with this Notice of Intent.

The Proposed Action includes approximately 2,660 acres of underburning following timber harvest, 460 acres of excavator piling and burning, and approximately 2,050 acres of prescribed burning without timber harvest. Approximately 1,650 acres will be mechanically pre-treated followed by prescribed burning. Additionally, the Proposed Action includes 31 acres of post and pole harvest, 366 acres of roadside salvage, and up to 200 acres of salvage of incidental mortality associated with prescribed burning.

The Proposed Action includes maintenance activities on portions of approximately 70 miles of road to meet Best Management Practices; decommissioning approximately 12 miles of roads currently restricted year-long to motorized vehicles; placing approximately 26 miles of roads, which are currently restrict year-long to motor vehicles, in intermittent stored service; placing seasonal restrictions on motorized vehicle use on approximately 6 miles of roads; adding approximately 9 miles of “unauthorized” roads to the National Forest Road System; and realigning and reconstructing approximately .25 miles of a road which is of poor standard and receiving heavy use.

The Proposed Action includes the construction of a boat ramp and installation of a rest room, and improvements to a trail.

The Proposed Action also includes a number of special use permits which will expire during the period this project will be implemented, and two proposed special use permits for utility lines.

The Proposed Action may require several project-specific Forest Plan amendments to meet the project's objectives:

An amendment to allow harvest in units adjacent to existing openings in Management Area (MA) 12 (Big Game Summer Range). The amendment would be needed to suspend Wildlife and Fish Standard #7 and Timber Standard #2 for this area. These standards state the movement corridors and adjacent hiding cover be retained.

The resulting opening sizes more closely correlate to natural disturbance patterns. Snags and down woody material would be left to provide wildlife habitat and maintain soil productivity.

A third amendment to allow the open road density in MA 12 to be managed at greater than 0.75 miles/square mile during project implementation may be required. The amendment would be necessary to suspend Facilities Standard #3, which states that open road density should be maintained at 0.75 miles/square mile.

The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of these will be the “no action” alternative, in which none of the proposed activities will be implemented. Additional alternatives will be considered to achieve the project's purpose and need for action, and to respond to specific resource issues and public concerns.

Paul Bradford, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 1101 Highway 2 West, Libby, MT 59923.

This project will provide approximately 10 MMBF of commercial forest products, reduce hazardous fuels within and outside the wildland-urban interface, provide for recreation facilities, and evaluate special-use permits.

In March 2007, efforts were made to involve the public in considering management opportunities within the Decision Area. Open houses were held on March 14 and 15, 2007. A scoping package was mailed for public review on May 4, 2007. An open house was held on May 16, 2007, and field trips were held on May 17, 2007 and June 28, 2007. The proposal will be included in the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. Comments received prior to this notice will be included in the documentation for the EIS.

A preliminary issue identified reflects concern over the amount of regeneration harvest (approximately 2,000 acres) proposed in watersheds were logging has occurred and grizzly bears and lynx may be present.

This Notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environment impact statement. At this stage of the planning process, site-specific public comments are being requested to determine the scope of the analysis, and identify significant issues and alternatives to the Proposed Action.

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency published the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participating in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of DEIS' must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage may be waived or dismissed by the Courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803, F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1339 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statements. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of The National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following products and service are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

The following product and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On May 25, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 8149; 29295-29296) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following product and services are added to the Procurement List:

On February 23, and May 25, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 8149; 29296) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and services are deleted from the Procurement List:

Background

On June 22, 2007, the Department published the Final Results and corresponding issues and decision memorandum. See “Memorandum from Stephen J. Caleys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Subject: Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews” (“Final Decision Memo”).

On June 18, 2007, Fresh Garlic Producers Association and its individual members, Christopher Ranch L.L.C., the Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, (“Petitioners”) submitted a letter requesting a two-day extension to submit ministerial error comments. Accordingly, the Department extended the deadline by two days to June 20, 2007, to submit any ministerial error allegations with respect to the Final Results. On June 20, 2007, Shanyang filed timely clerical error allegations with respect to the Department's antidumping duty margin calculation in the Final Results. On June 25, 2007, Petitioners filed timely rebuttal comments to Shanyang's clerical error allegations.

The products covered by this antidumping duty order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) Garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. the subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is: (1) Mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to that effect.

A ministerial error is defined in section 751(h) of the Act and further clarified in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.”

After analyzing all interested parties’ comments, we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that ministerial errors existed in certain calculations for Shanyang in the Final Results. Correction of these errors results in a change to Shanyang’s final antidumping duty margin. Additionally, the rate change for Shanyang also affects the deposit rates for the companies subject to the administrative review which are receiving a separate rate. 1 The rate for the PRC-wide entity remains unchanged. For a detailed discussion of these ministerial errors, as well as the Department's analysis, see “Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, Import Administration, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, Import Administration, from Irene Gorelik, Case Analyst, Office 9, Subject: Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations,” (July 12, 2007) (“Ministerial Error Allegation Memorandum”). the Ministerial Error Allegation Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 in the main Department building.

Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results of the administrative review of fresh garlic from the PRC. The revised weighted-average dumping margins are detailed below. For company-specific calculation, see “Memorandum from Irene Gorelik, Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, to the File, Subject: Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results for Shanyang,” (July 12, 2007). The revised final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries based on the amended final results. For details on the assessment of antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, see Final Results .

These amended final results are published in accordance with section 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On August 30, 1988, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Italy. See Antidumping Duty Order; Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy , 53 FR 33163 (August 30, 1988). On August 1, 2005, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review , 71 FR 43441-43443 (August 1, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Solvay requested an administrative review. On September 29, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006 (the period of review, or POR). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006).

On September 29, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Solvay, specifying that the responses to Section A and Sections B-E would be due on October 20, 2006, and November 6, 2006, respectively. 1 The Department received timely responses to Sections A-D of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated supplemental questionnaires.

On May 1, 2007, the Department published a notice of a 71-day extension of the preliminary results of this administrative review. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 23802. This notice extended the deadline for the preliminary results to July 13, 2007.

The product covered by this order is granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. This order also covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from Italy to the United States. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Final Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order , 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). This order excludes PTFE dispersions in water and fine powders. During the period covered by this review, such merchandise was classified under item number 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). We are providing this HTSUS number for convenience and CBP purposes only. The written description of the scope remains dispositive.

We compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we compared the CEPs of individual transactions to contemporaneous monthly weighted-average prices of sales of the foreign like product.

We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and the comparison market that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: type, filler, percentage of filler, and grade. Where we were unable to compare sales of identical merchandise, we compared U.S. sales with comparison market sales of the most similar merchandise.

For all sales to the United States, we calculated CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because all sales to unaffiliated parties were made after importation of the subject merchandise into the United States through the respondent's affiliate, Solvay Solexis, Inc. We based CEP on the packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, net of billing adjustments. We adjusted these prices for movement expenses, including international freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling in the United States, U.S. inland freight, U.S. warehousing, and U.S. customs duties, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses incurred by the affiliated reseller. These expenses include credit, inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses incurred by Solvay Solexis, Inc. See Memorandum from Salim Bhabhrawala, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Nancy Decker, Program Manager, Re: Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated July 13, 2007 (Analysis Memo).

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of granular PTFE resin in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Solvay's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provided a viable basis for calculating NV. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the calculation of the final results of the 2000-2001 administrative review, the most recently completed review of PTFE at the time of initiation of this review, with respect to Solvay, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by Solvay had been made at prices below the cost of production (COP) during the period of this review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation regarding home market sales. Solvay calculated its model-specific costs of production on a POR basis.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the model-specific, weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses, interest expenses, selling expenses, and packing costs.

We compared the weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any rebates, discounts, applicable movement charges, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

We relied on the COP data submitted by Solvay in its cost questionnaire response except for general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We adjusted Solvay's G&A expenses to be based on its normal books and records, in accordance with Italian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. See Analysis Memo.

We disregarded below-cost sales where: (1) 20 percent or more of Solvay's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, because such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that Solvay made sales below cost, and we disregarded such sales where appropriate.

We determined home market prices net of price adjustments (e.g., early payment discounts and rebates). Where applicable, we made adjustments for packing and movement expenses, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. In order to adjust for differences in packing between the two markets, we deducted home market packing costs from NV and added U.S. packing costs. We also made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for other differences in the circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act ( i.e. , differences in credit expenses). Finally, we made a CEP-offset adjustment to the NV for indirect selling expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as discussed in the Level of Trade/CEP Offset section below.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales at the same level of trade in the comparison market as the level of trade of the U.S. sales. The comparison market level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP sales, such as those made by Solvay in this review, the U.S. level of trade is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different level of trade than that of the U.S. sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See, e.g., Industrial Nitrocellulose From the United Kingdom; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 65 FR 6148, 6151 (February 8, 2000) ( Industrial Nitrocellulose ).

For purpose of this review, we obtained information from Solvay about the marketing involved in the reported U.S. sales and in the home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Solvay for each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for CEP and for home market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the CEP, after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act, and those reflected in the home market starting price before making any adjustments. We expect that, if claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar.

The record evidence in this review indicates that the home market and the CEP levels of trade for Solvay have not changed from the 2004-2005 review, 2 the most recently completed review in this case. As explained below, we determined in this review that, as in the prior 2004-2005 administrative review, there was one home market level of trade and one U.S. level of trade ( i.e. , the CEP level of trade).

In the home market, Solvay sold directly to fabricators. These sales primarily entailed selling activities such as technical assistance, engineering services, research and development, technical programs, and delivery services. Given this fact pattern, we found that all home market sales were made at a single level of trade. In determining the level of trade for the U.S. sales, we only considered the selling activities reflected in the price after making the appropriate adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act. See, e.g., Industrial Nitrocellulose , 65 FR at 6150. The CEP level of trade involves minimal selling functions such as invoicing and the occasional exchange of personnel between Solvay and its U.S. affiliate. Given this fact pattern, we found that all U.S. sales were made at a single level of trade.

Based on a comparison of the home market level of trade and this CEP level of trade, we find the home market sales to be at a different level of trade from, and more remote from the factory than, the CEP sales. Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act directs us to make an adjustment for difference in levels of trade where such differences affect price comparability. However, we were unable to quantify such price differences from information on the record. Because we have determined that the home-market level of trade is more remote from the factory than the CEP level of trade, and because the data necessary to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment are unavailable, we made a CEP-offset adjustment to NV pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose its weighted average antidumping margin calculations within 10 days of public announcement of these preliminary results. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Further, the parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.

The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of the sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results for which the reviewed company did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction.

The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of PTFE from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate listed above for Solvay will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore de minimis , the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 46.46 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See 53 FR 26096 (July 11, 1988). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entities during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On July 9, 2002, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on IQF red raspberries from Chile. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile , 67 FR 45460 (July 9, 2002). On June 1, 2007, the Department initiated a sunset review of this order. See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews , 72 FR 30544, 30545 (June 1, 2007).

We did not receive a notice of intent to participate from domestic interested parties in this sunset review by the deadline date. As a result, the Department determined that no domestic interested party intends to participate in the sunset review, and on June 21, 2007, we notified the International Trade Commission, in writing, that we intended to issue a final determination revoking this antidumping duty order. See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(1) and (B)(2).

The products covered by this order are imports of IQF whole or broken red raspberries from Chile, with or without the addition of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety, grade, size or horticulture method ( e.g. , organic or not), the size of the container in which packed, or the method of packing. The scope of the order excludes fresh red raspberries and block frozen red raspberries ( i.e. , puree, straight pack, juice stock, and juice concentrate).

The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheading 0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party files a notice of intent to participate, the Department shall, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, issue a final determination revoking the order. Because the domestic interested parties did not file a notice of intent to participate in this sunset review, the Department finds that no domestic interested party is participating in this sunset review. Therefore, we are revoking this antidumping duty order. The effective date of revocation is July 9, 2007, the fifth anniversary of the date the Department published this antidumping duty order. See 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i).

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after July 9, 2007. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.

This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Addresses: Please submit nominations to Mr. Marc Stanley, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4700, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4700. Nominations may also be submitted via Fax to 301-869-1150. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter and current membership list may be found on its electronic home page at: http://www.atp.nist.gov/adv_com/ac_menu.htm.

For Further Information Contact: Mr. Marc G. Stanley, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4700, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4700; telephone 301-975-262; fax 301-869-1150; or via e-mail at marc.stanley@nist.gov.

Committee Information: The Committee will advise the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on ATP programs, plans, and policies.

The Committee will consist of not fewer than six nor more than thirteen members appointed by the Director of NIST, and its membership will be balanced to reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines and industrial sectors represented in ATP projects.

The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Addresses: Please submit nominations to Harry Hertz, Director, Baldrige National Quality Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via Fax to 301-975-4967. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on its electronic home page at: http://www.baldrige.nist.gov.

For Further Information Contact: Harry Hertz, Director, Baldrige National Quality Program and Designated Federal Officer, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-2361; Fax 301-948-4967; or via e-mail at harry.hertz@nist.gov.

Committee Information: The Board was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

1. The Board shall review the work of the private sector contractor(s), which assists the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in administering the Award. The Board will make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as it deems necessary.

2. The Board shall provide a written annual report on the results of Award activities to the Secretary of Commerce, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process.

3. The Board will function solely as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

4. The Board will report to the Director of NIST and the Secretary of Commerce.

1. The Board will consist of approximately eleven members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance and for their preeminence in the field of organizational performance management. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, education, health care industries, and the nonprofit sector.

2. The Board will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Board member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year.

1. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.

2. The Board will meet twice annually, except that additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are one day in duration.

3. Board meetings are open to the public. Board members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties.

Nomination Information:

1. Nominations are sought from the private and public sector as described above.

2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, health care, and nonprofits. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Board, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Board. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seven days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth, in furtherance of their Board duties.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Board membership.

Addresses: Please submit nominations to Harry Hertz, Director, Baldrige National Quality Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via Fax to 301-975-4967. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on its electronic home page at: http://www.baldrige.nist.gov.

For Further Information Contact: Harry Hertz, Director, Baldrige National Quality Program and Designated Federal Official, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-2361; Fax 301-975-4967; or via e-mail at harry.hertz@nist.gov.

Committee Information: The Judges Panel was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 101-107).

1. The Judges Panel will ensure the integrity of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award selection process by reviewing the results of examiners' scoring of written applications, and then voting on which applicants merit site visits by examiners to verify the accuracy of claims made by applicants.

2. The Judges Panel will ensure that individuals on site visit teams for the Award finalists have no conflict of interest with respect to the applicants. The Panel will also review recommendations from site visits and recommend Award recipients.

3. The Judges Panel will function solely as an advisory body, and will comply with the Provision of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

4. The Panel will report to the Director of NIST.

1. The Judges Panel is composed of at least nine, and not more than twelve, members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education, health care, and nonprofits and will include members familiar with performance improvement in their area of business.

2. The Judges Panel will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Panel member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year.

1. Members of the Judges Panel shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.

2. The Judges Panel will meet three times per year. Additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are one to four days in duration. In addition, each Judge must attend an annual three-day Examiner training course.

3. Committee meetings are closed to the public pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,. 5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, and in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code. Since the members of the Judges Panel examine records and discuss Award applicant data, the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that may be privileged or confidential.

1. Nominations are sought from all U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education, health care, and nonprofits as described above.

2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the performance improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, health care, and nonprofit organizations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledge the responsibilities of serving on the Judges Panel, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Judges Panel. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be either developing or researching topics of potential interest, reading Baldrige applications, and so forth, in furtherance of their Committee duties.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Judges Panel membership.

Addresses: Please submit nominations to Pauline Bowen, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-4007, Attn: ISPAB Nominations. Additional information regarding the Board, including its charter and current membership list, may be found on its electronic home page at: http://csrc.nist.gov/ispab/.

For Further Information Contact: Pauline Bowen, ISPAB Designated Federal Official, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930; telephone 301-975-2938; fax: 301-975-8670; or via e-mail at pauline.bowen@nist.gov.

Committee Information: The ISPAB was originally chartered as the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board (CSSPAB) by the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235). As a result of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347), Title III, the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, Section 21 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-4) the Board's charter was amended. This amendment included the name change of the Board.

The objectives and duties of the ISPAB are:

1. To identify emerging managerial, technical, administrative, and physical safeguard issues relative to information security and privacy.

2. To advise the NIST, the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget on information security and privacy issues petaining to Federal Government information systems, including thorough review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST.

3. To annually report its findings to the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Security Agency, and the appropriate committees of the Congress.

4. To function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The ISPAB is comprised of twelve members, in addition to the Chairperson. The membership of the Board includes:

1. Four members from outside the Federal Government eminent in the information technology industry, at least one of whom is representative of small or medium sized companies in such industries.

2. Four members from outside the Federal Government who are eminent in the fields of information technology, or related disciplines, but who are not employed by or representative of a producer of information technology equipment; and

3. Four members from the Federal Government who have information system management experience, including experience in information security and privacy; at least one of these members shall be from the National Security Agency.

Members of the ISPAB are not paid for their service, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses in accordance with Subchapter I of Chapter 57 of Title 5, United States Code, while otherwise performing duties at the request of the Board Chairperson, while away from their homes or a regular place of business.

Meetings of the Board are two to three days in duration and are held quarterly. The meetings primarily take place in the Washington, DC metropolitan area but may be held at such locations and at such time and place as determined by the majority of the Board.

Board meetings are open to the public and members of the press usually attend. Members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties.

Nomination Information: Nominations are being accepted in all three categories described above.

Nominees should have specific experience related to information security or electronic privacy issues, particularly as they pertain to Federal information technology. Letters of nominations should include the category of membership for which the candidate is applying and a summary of the candidate's qualifications for that specific category. Also include (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and any Federal employment. Each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the ISPAB, and that they will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the ISPAB.

Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote a minimum of two days between meetings to developing draft issue papers, researching topics of potential interest, and so forth in furtherance of their Board duties.

Selection of ISPAB members will not be limited to individuals who are nominated. Nominations that are received and meet the requirements will be kept on file to be reviewed as Board vacancies occur.

Nominees must be U.S. citizens.

The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse ISPAB membership.

Addresses: Please submit nominations to Ms. Karen Lellock, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-963-6556. Additional information regarding the Board, including its charter and current membership list may be found on its electronic home page at: http://www.mep.nist.gov/about-mep/advisory-board.html.

For Further Information Contact: Ms. Karen Lellock, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800; telephone 301-975-4269, fax 301-963-6556; or via e-mail at karen.lellock@nist.gov.

Committee Information: The Board will advise the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on MEP programs, plans and policies.

The Board will consist of five to eleven individuals appointed by the Director of the NIST under the advisement of the Director of MEP. Membership on the Board shall be balanced to represent the views and needs of customers, providers, and other involved in industrial extension throughout the United States.

The Board will function solely as an advisory body in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Addresses: Please submit nominations to Stephen Cauffman, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to 301-869-6275.

For Further Information Contact: Stephen Cauffman, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611, telephone 301-975-6051, fax 301-869-6275; or via e-mail at stephen.cauffman@nist.gov.

Committee Information: The Committee was established in accordance with the National Construction Safety Team Act, Public Law 107-231 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

1. The Committee shall advise the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on carrying out the National Construction Safety Team Act (Act), review and provide advice on the procedures developed under section 2(c)(1) of the Act, and review and provide advice on the reports issued under section 8 of the Act.

2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.

4. The Committee shall provide a written annual report, through the Director of the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) and the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce for submission to the Congress, to be due at a date to be agreed upon by the Committee and the Director of NIST. Such report will provide an evaluation of National Construction Safety Team activities, along with recommendations to improve the operation and effectiveness of National Construction Safety Teams, and an assessment of the implementation of the recommendations of the National Construction Safety Teams and of the Committee. In addition, the Committee may provide reports at strategic stages of an investigation, at its discretion or at the request of the Director of NIST, through the Director of the BFRL and the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce.

1. The Committee will be composed of not fewer than five nor more than ten members that reflect a wide balance of the diversity of technical disciplines and competencies involved in the National Construction Safety Teams investigations. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Construction Safety Teams.

2. The Director of the NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.

1. Members of the Committee will not be paid for their services, but will, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq. , while attending meetings of the Committee or of its subcommittees, or while otherwise performing duties at the request of the chairperson, while away from their homes or a regular place of business.

2. The Committee will meet at least once per year at the call of the Chair. Additional meetings may be called whenever one-third or more of the members so request it in writing or whenever the Chair or the Director of NIST requests a meeting.

3. Committee meetings will be open to the public except when a closed session is held in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), because divulging information discussed in those portions of the meetings is likely to reveal information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. All other portions of the meetings are open to the public.

Nomination Information:

1. Nominations are sought from all fields involved in issues affecting National Construction Safety Teams.

2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents he/she is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Committee membership.

Addresses: Please submit nominations to Tina Faecke, Administrative Officer, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8630, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8630. Nominations may also be submitted via Fax to 301-975-5433 or e-mail at tina.faecke@nist.gov. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter and executive summary may be found on its electronic home page at: http://www.nehrp.gov.

For Further Information Contact: Dr. Jack Hayes, Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8610, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610, telephone 301-975-5640, fax 301-975-4032; or via e-mail at jack.hayes@nist.gov.

Committee Information: The Committee was established in accordance with the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-360 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

1. The Committee will assess trends and developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction, effectiveness of the Program in carrying out the activities under section 103(a)(2) of the Act, the need to revise the Program, the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program.

2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.

4. Not later than one year after the first meeting of the Committee, and at least once every two years thereafter, the Committee shall report to the Director of NIST, on its findings of the assessments and its recommendations for ways to improve the Program. In developing recommendations, the Committee shall consider the recommendations of the United States Geological Survey Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee.

1. The Committee will consist of not fewer than 11 not more than 15 members, who reflect a wide diversity of technical disciplines, competencies, and communities involved in earthquake hazards reduction. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.

2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.

3. The term of office of each member of the Committee shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy and that the initial members shall have staggered terms such that the committee will have approximately 1/3 new or reappointed members each year.

4. No committee member may be an “employee” as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 7342(a)(1) of Title 5 of the United States Code.

1. Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services, but will, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq. , while attending meetings of the Committee or of its subcommittees, or while otherwise performing duties at the request of the chairperson, while away from their homes or a regular place of business.

2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees and are required to file an annual Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.

3. The Committee shall meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be called whenever the Director of NIST requests a meeting.

4. Committee meetings are open to the public.

Nomination Information:

1. Nominations are sought from industry and other communities having an interest in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, such as, but not limited to, research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, state and local government bodies, and financial communities, who are qualified to provide advice on earthquake hazards reduction and represent all related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines.

2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Committee membership.

Addresses: Please submit nominations to Janet Brumby, Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1710. Nominations may also be submitted via Fax to 301-926-8091. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on its electronic home page at: http://www.nistgov/director/vcat/vcat.htm

For Further Information Contact: Janet Brumby, Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1710, telephone 301-975-3189, fax 301-926-8091; or via e-mail at janet.brumby@nist.gov.

Committee Information: The VCAT was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

1. The Committee shall review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs, within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress.

2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST.

4. The Committee shall provide a written annual report, through the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce for submission to the Congress on or before January 31 of each year. Such report shall deal essentially, though not necessarily exclusively, with policy issues or matters which affect the Institute, or with which the Committee in its official role as the private sector policy advisor of the Institute is concerned. Each such report shall identify areas of research and research techniques of the Institute of potential importance to the long-term competitiveness of the United States industry, which could be used to assist the United States enterprises and United States industrial joint research and development ventures. The Committee shall submit to the Secretary and Congress such additional reports on specific policy matters as it deems appropriate.

1. The Committee is composed of fifteen members that provide representation of a cross-section of traditional and emerging United States industries. Members shall be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in one or more fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Committee.

2. The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.

1. Members of the VCAT are not paid for their service, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq. , while attending meetings of the Committee or of its subcommittees, or while otherwise performing duties at the request of the chairperson, while away from their homes or a regular place of business.

2. Meetings of the VCAT take place at the NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and once each year at the NIST offices in Boulder, Colorado. Meetings are one or two days in duration and are held quarterly.

3. Committee meetings are open to the public.

Nomination Information:

1. Nominations are sought from all fields described above.

2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment and international relations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the VCAT, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the VCAT. Besides participation in two-day meetings held each quarter, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of two days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth in furtherance of the Committee duties.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse VCAT membership.

The CCSP was established by the President in 2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global change and climate change sponsored by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing information resources that support climate-related discussions and decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that support evaluation of important policy issues. SAP 4.6 addresses the affects of global change on human health, human welfare, and human settlements, and is designed to serve decision makers interested in using science to inform adaptations to the impacts of climate variability and change.

NTIA will host a public meeting to discuss progress in educating the public about the Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Coupon Program. Detailed information about the Coupon Program is available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. The meeting will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring special services, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to indicate this to Francine Jefferson at least two (2) days prior to the meeting. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions at the meeting. The meeting will be recorded, and a transcript will be made available on NTIA's website. Individuals who would like to submit questions in writing should e-mail their questions to Francine Jefferson at: fjefferson@ntia.doc.gov.

Summary of Information Collection

DFAS will conduct a variety of activities, including but not necessarily limited to customer, satisfaction surveys and transaction-based telephone interviews. If the customer feedback activities were not conducted, DFAS would not only be in violation of E.O. 12862, but would also not have the knowledge necessary to provide the best service possible and provide unfiltered feedback from the customer for process improvement activities. The information collected provides information about customer perceptions and can help identify agency operations that need quality improvement, provide early detection of process or systems problems, and focus attention on areas where customer service and functional training or changes in existing operations will improve service delivery.

The Proposed Action and analysis within the DEIS covers those activities required to implement the stationing of the 2/25th SBCT. These activities include garrison construction, training range construction, live-fire training, and maneuver training.

In May 2004, the Army released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Transformation of the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light) to the 2/25th SBCT. The SBCT is a maneuver brigade that includes approximately 4,000 Soldiers (infantry, artillery, engineers, and other Army specialties) and 1,000 vehicles (including about 320 Stryker Combat Vehicles). In July 2004, the Army released a Record of Decision (ROD) documenting its decision to transform the 2/25th from an Infantry brigade to an SBCT and permanently home station it in Hawaii.

The Stryker is an armored infantry wheeled combat vehicle. The Stryker provides Soldiers and commanders with increased firepower, maneuverability, and, most importantly, survivability in a combat environment. The increased speed and maneuver capabilities of the SBCT allow it to conduct operations across much larger areas than the Army's traditional legacy brigades. These capabilities have allowed the SBCT to successfully conduct a broad range of missions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

To be effective when operationally deployed abroad requires that the SBCT have the proper training and support facilities at a home station. Such facilities include training ranges, maneuver land, housing, administrative, and quality of life infrastructure for the SBCTs Soldiers, their Families, vehicles and equipment. Without these resources, the SBCT cannot attain the readiness levels needed to ensure the successful accomplishment of its missions and safety of its Soldiers. In addition to these requirements, the SBCT must be stationed in a location from which it can rapidly deploy to support national security requirements.

The 2/25th began its transformation to an SBCT shortly after completion of the 2004 FEIS and signing of the ROD. As of November 2006, the Brigade had completed a majority of its training and equipment fielding in Hawaii and is scheduled to complete its transformation in 2007. By November 2007, the Army requires that the SBCT be ready for deployment to support ongoing operations.

In October 2006, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that the Army had not fully complied with NEPA for the transformation of the 2/25th because it did not adequately address or analyze potentially reasonable alternate locations for the transformation and training of this unit. In particular, the Court concluded that the Army had a duty under NEPA to consider locations other than Hawaii for the permanent stationing of the 2/25th SBCT, and the Court ordered the Army to prepare an EIS to address a broader range of alternatives. The Army has prepared an EIS in accordance with the Court's guidance to examine reasonable alternative locations for the proposed action to permanently station the 2/25th SBCT.

The EIS examines several Army installations capable of supporting the permanent stationing of the 2/25th SBCT. The EIS will provide the Army senior leadership with a hard look at environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action and better inform their decision-making process for selecting the final stationing location. This effort includes analysis of all activities (training, facilities construction, and Soldier and Family support) required to permanently station the 2/25th. This EIS effort will assist the Army in arriving at a decision that can accommodate the Brigade's training, operations, and quality of life requirements while meeting the strategic defense needs of the nation.

After reviewing the full range of potential Army stationing locations, three alternatives for implementing the proposed action have been identified by the Army as reasonable alternatives capable of meeting the Army's need criteria and screening criteria. Alternatives for the proposed action include: (1) Permanently stationing the 2/25th SBCT at Schofield Barracks Military Reservation (SBMR) while conducting required training at military training sites in Hawaii; (2) permanently stationing the 2/25th SBCT at Fort Richardson while conducting required training at military training sites in Alaska; and (3) permanently stationing the 2/25th SBCT at Fort Carson while conducting required training at military training sites in Colorado. In addition to these alternatives, the no action alternative is described and its environmental impacts fully assessed and considered.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action have been considered in the DEIS. The DEIS identifies significant impacts at each of the three alternative locations which would occur as a result of implementing the proposed action. Impacts at alternative sites would result from construction and training activities. Significant impacts to resources would be direct and long term. The No Action Alternative provides the baseline conditions for comparison to the Proposed Alternative. Additional concerns or impacts may be identified as a result of comments received on this DEIS.

The Army invites full public participation to promote open communication and better decision making. All persons and organizations that have an interest in the permanent stationing of the 2/25th SBCT are urged to participate in this NEPA evaluation process. Assistance will be provided upon request to anyone having difficulty understanding how to participate. Public meetings will be held in Hawaii, Alaska, and Colorado. The locations, times, and dates of the public hearing will be announced in advance through notices and media news releases.

The Artillery Rocket Trajectory Correction Kit (TCK) is a completely self-contained retrofit kit that is externally and fixedly mounted as an add-on to the rear (aft of the tailfins) of an existing, unguided rocket. The TCK continuously measures the pitch and yaw of the rocket during the initial seconds of the flight as it is released from the launch tube. A trajectory correction is calculated to allow the rocket to stay on a desired path. Selected thrusters are then activated to make any necessary flight correction. The thrusters are positioned around the circumference of the rocket body so as to correctively steer the rocket. Thus, rocket accuracy is improved and collateral damage is reduced.

1. Authorization. The proposed study is authorized by the Flood Control Act 1936; WRDA 1986, Public Law 99-662: House Resolution dated October 9, 1998, Section 416 of WRDA 2000, which reads as follows:

2. Background. The construction of the San Jacinto levee project in 1961 proved to be effective in preventing flood damages during the 1969 floods on the San Jacinto River. The February 1980 floods were not any greater than the 1969 floods, but caused the San Jacinto River levee to fail resulting in massive flooding in the City of San Jacinto. The levee was repaired by adding toe stone, groins, and extending the Bautista Creek concrete channel by another 1.3 miles to the confluence with San Jacinto Creek around the late 1984 to early 1985 timeframe. The 2-mile reach of the San Jacinto River which is located a mile up from Main Street to a mile past the end of San Jacinto Street, poses damage to aquatic ecosytems from past flooding and types of anthropogenic activities. Ecosystems processes that help maintain groundwater supplies must be protected and restored where degraded. Increasing groundwater recharge is a way to support the ecosystem and improve the habitat for the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. Alternatives to be considered are those that will reduce adverse water quality impacts from runoff; reduce further degradation of the river and the area ecosystem and improve the quality of both ground and surface waters.

3. Scoping Process. a. A scoping meeting is scheduled for August 22, 6 p.m.-8 p.m. at Simpson Center—305 E. Devonshire Ave., Hemet, CA 92543.

For specific dates, times and locations please contact Peter Odencrans, Eastern Municipal Water District, at 951-928-3777 or e-mail at: odencransp@emwd.org. Potential impacts associated with the proposed action will be evaluated. Resource categories that will be analyzed are: physical environment, geology, biological resources, air quality, water quality, recreational usage, aesthetics, cultural resources, transportation, noise, hazardous waste, socioeconomics and safety.

b. Participation of affected Federal, State and local resource agencies, Native American groups and concerned interest groups/individuals is encouraged in the scoping process. Public participation will be especially important in defining the scope of analysis in the Draft EIS/EIR, identifying significant environmental issues and impact analysis of the Draft EIS/EIR and providing useful information such as published and unpublished data, personal knowledge of relevant issues and recommending mitigation measures associated with the proposed action.

c. Those interested in providing information or data relevant to the environmental or social impacts that should be included or considered in the environmental analysis can furnish this information by writing to the points of contact indicated above or by attending the public scoping meeting. A mailing list will also be established so pertinent data may be distributed to interested parties.

The Marine Corp Base Quantico, Virginia proposes development of the Westside of MCBQ, including the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) action at MCBQ. The development would entail construction of new facilities in two undeveloped areas west of Interstate 95. These areas, the Russell Road Area and the MCB-1 Area, would co-locate Military Department Investigative Agency Headquarters with the Counterintelligence Field Activity and Defense Security Service at MCBQ as directed by the 2005 BRAC law. The areas would also provide adequate space for facilities to support Marine Corps units currently at MCBQ, as well as potentially other federal and Marine Corps initiatives that may identify MCBQ as a site for relocation.

This DEIS identifies and evaluates the potential environmental impacts of (1) Alternative A (BRAC Action), the relocation of approximately 3,000 personnel directed to MCBQ by the BRAC Law; (2) Alternative B, the relocation of an additional 2,000 personnel for a total of 5,000 personnel, including those under Alternative A; and (3) the No Action Alternative. Under both Alternatives A and B, two sites for the BRAC action, one located in the southern portion of the Russell Road Area, and the other in the northern portion of the MCB-1 Area, are analyzed as the BRAC site options (BRAC Option 1 (Russell Road) and BRAC Option 2 (MCB-1)).

The Notice of Intent (NOI) published for this EIS in the Federal Register on 3 August 2006 identified five alternatives, including the no action alternative, for analysis in this EIS. In addition to Alternatives A and B, the NOI indicated that a high intensity development alternative would be assessed that would add up to 10,000 personnel, including 3,000 under BRAC, and a medium intensity development alternative would be assessed that would add up to 7,000 personnel, including 3,000 under BRAC. Following a preliminary assessment of the proposed sites west of I-95 and further examination of known requirements, only Alternatives A and B were carried forward for analysis.

At this time, a preferred alternative has not been selected. The DEIS analysis indicate that the increased level of development and personnel under Alternative B compared to Alternative A would be expected to cause a commensurate increase in the level of impacts.

The DEIS finds that traffic impacts at base access points are similar for both alternatives. Major MCBQ access points currently perform unacceptably and regional growth will further degrade intersections unless improvements are made. Alternatives have unacceptable levels of service at U.S. Route 1 and I-95 intersections, and at proposed development sites. The DEIS identifies traffic mitigation measures.

The DEIS also finds that the amount of development from the proposed alternatives is small compared to the amount of undeveloped land that would remain, largely forested, minimizing impacts to natural resources. There would be no effect to threatened and endangered species; however, alternatives could impact a small amount of wetlands. The DEIS finds that potential regional growth from either alternative is not large compared to projected growth already expected for the surrounding region and the resulting socioeconomic impacts from either alternative are less than significant. Potential impacts, such as noise, caused by proximity to military training activities that would remain in the Westside, can be acceptably minimized in the facility design process, and development is a compatible land use at the proposed sites. The sites avoid impacting cultural resources and air emissions are not expected to exceed the thresholds established for general conformity to state implementation plans or to require a new source review.

The DEIS has been distributed to various federal, state, and local agencies, elected officials, special interest groups, and interested parties. The DEIS is also available for public review at the following local libraries: Central Rappahannock Regional Library, Dumfries Neighborhood Library, and the Prince William Public Library System. The DEIS is also available at the following Web site: http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/activities/display.aspx?PID=1814&Section=NREA . The Marine Corps invites the general public, local governments, other federal agencies, and state agencies to submit written comments or suggestions concerning the alternatives and analysis addressed in the DEIS. The public and government agencies are invited to participate in the public meetings where oral and written comments will be received. Two public meetings will be held. The first public meeting will be held on 6 August 2007 from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Stafford County Government Center Board Room, 1300 Courthouse Road, Stafford, VA. The second public meeting will be held on 13 August 2007 from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Doctor A. J. Ferlazzo Building, 15941 Donald Curtis Drive, Prince William, VA. All comments must be received by 4 September 2007.

The Department the Navy systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The Department of Navy proposes to delete a system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of new or altered systems reports.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers created to assist state education agencies with the implementation of the requirements of No Child Left Behind legislation. Four key methods will be used in this study: (1) Site visits conducted to each Center to learn about the Center's relationships with its clients and the types of products and services that are delivered; (2) expert panel review of a sample of projects undertaken by each Center to assess the quality of the technical assistance provided; (3) a survey of Center clients to rate the relevance, usefulness and other aspects of the services they have received; and (4) a survey of senior SEA officials who are responsible for negotiating with the Centers to ensure that the nature of technical assistance provided corresponds to state priorities.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3414. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to: ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to: ICDocketMgr@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

On June 1, 2007, we published a notice in the Federal Register (72 FR 30568-30572), Notice of revision of the Federal Need Analysis Methodology for the 2008-2009 award year. The heading “If the age of the student is” (as published in the three tables on page 30570) is corrected to read, “If the age of the older parent is”. This correction should be made only to the first of the three tables, titled “Dependent Students” on page 30570. The right column of the same table (Dependent Students) is labeled, “And they are”, is corrected to read, “And there are”.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0607, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is 202-566-1752.

Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

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

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES .

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action include recipients of EPA discretionary/project assistance agreements (i.e., grants and cooperative agreements) that perform training and/or education and outreach.

Title: Performance Measurement Reporting for Training and Education/Outreach.

EPA ICR No.: 2255.01.

ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: EPA is developing some generic reporting tools that will supplement the existing performance reports submitted by grant recipients under 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31. The new reporting tools will be designed to collect performance measurement information on two types of activities performed by grantees: Training and education/outreach. Specifically, EPA is creating a “master list” of generic questions and reporting templates, and will make them available to the EPA programs and grant recipients (e.g., on the EPA web site). The questions will be designed to measure the extent to which the grantees are achieving the short-term and intermediate outcomes stated in their work plans for training and/or education/outreach (e.g., the questions will measure changes in trainees' awareness, understanding, and potential or actual changes in behavior). The questions and templates will be flexible enough for use by any of the EPA programs. A grant recipient could review the master list, select the questions appropriate for its needs, and assemble them onto a reporting template. After receiving approval to use the collection instrument, the grant recipient could provide the instrument to its training participants or other audience members to complete. The grantee could then collect, summarize, and report the data to EPA. These reporting tools will be intended specifically for use under the Agency's discretionary/project grants. Use of the forms will not be required, but used at the discretion of the responsible program.

EPA intends to create a generic ICR that would address its reporting tools. Upon OMB approval of the generic ICR, EPA program offices and their grant recipients would be able to modify the forms narrowly for their specific needs and re-submit the revised instruments and supporting material for expedited OMB approval encompassing a 20-day turn-around timeframe.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to range from five minutes to 1.5 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated average annual number of grants affected: between 240 and 480.

Estimated annual frequency of response: Quarterly or less often.

Estimated annual average number of responses for each grant: 4.

Estimated total annual respondent burden hours: 12,820 hours.

Estimated total annual respondent costs: $359,149. This includes an estimated labor cost of $359,149 and $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC agenda or making a presentation at either meeting may contact Heather Drumm, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes.

Proposed agenda items for the meetings include, but are not limited to: Teleconference #1: The objectives of the review; an overview of ORD's EDC research program; a summary of major changes in the EDC research program since 2005; Teleconference #2: An update on the revised EDC Multi-Year Plan; face-to-face meeting: The EDC research program's progress in response to recommendations from its 2005 BOSC review and other activities, subcommittee discussions. The meetings are open to the public.

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Heather Drumm at (202) 564-8239 or drumm.heather@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Heather Drumm, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

To access the draft guide, you may visit http://www.gsa.gov/travelpolicy (click Library). A hard copy of the draft guide is not available.

GSA is interested to learn from Federal, (1) how to improve the draft guide; (2) whether Federal agencies and employees agree that the guide will be a useful tool; (3) what Federal agencies already have related policies in place (and identify a web site)—employees on site in support of an incident of National significance are generally under the effect of a National Response Plan and follow those established guides; (4) what kinds of things need to be added to the guide for governmentwide benefit; and (5) any other related comment/suggestion.

If you comment, please include your name, title, your capacity (i.e., an employee, an official, or an Emergency Response Team), telephone, agency, email and hard addresses. Are you commenting from personal experience as a traveler, a supervisor/manager, or an Emergency Response Team? Have you had a need for emergency guides? If you survived a horrific event or emergency, what help/assistance was needed the most, where did expectations and support fall short, and what would your recommendations be?

If you are a private sector travel or transportation service provider to the Government, we will also welcome your comments.

In the United States, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (the 1990 amendments) (Public Law 101-535) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) to require nutrition labeling on the labels of packaged foods to enable consumers to make more informed and healthier food choices in the context of their daily diet. In 1993, FDA established regulations that implemented the 1990 amendments, including provisions concerning the use of claims on the label or in labeling of a food. Among these regulations, the agency set forth general principles for nutrient content claims (21 CFR 101.13), which are claims that characterize the level of a nutrient in a food (e.g., “low fat,” “good source of fiber”), and for health claims (21 CFR 101.14), which are claims that characterize the relationship of a food substance to a disease or health-related condition (e.g., “calcium may reduce the risk of osteoporosis”).

In recent years, domestic manufacturers and retailers have begun to include symbols that indicate nutritional quality on the label or in labeling of a food. Symbol programs have been instituted by companies to promote their products and provide consumers with easily understandable nutrition information to aid them in their food purchases. Various food manufacturers, grocery stores, trade organizations, and health organizations have developed, or are currently developing, symbols and icons that indicate specific nutritional attributes of food products. Although each symbol intends to indicate that the food product bearing the symbol is a healthful choice, each symbol program has different nutrient requirements. The selected nutrients and the nutrient levels required for eligibility vary among the different symbol programs in use. With the increasingly widespread availability of these symbols from manufacturers, retailers, and third party organizations, it is possible that eligible food products could bear multiple nutrition symbols.

A few countries around the world have already instituted voluntary labeling systems for government-designed front-label 1 nutrition symbols. These symbol systems vary in their format. Some systems have detailed graphic illustrations that indicate the content of a number of selected nutrients, while others simply present a single icon indicating that a food is healthful (with further information available elsewhere, such as in booklets and web sites). Also in use internationally are industry-designed nutrition symbol systems that are available for use in countries that do not have a government-designed symbol program or, in certain countries, that exist as alternatives to the government-designed symbols.

The purpose of the hearing is for FDA to solicit information and comments from interested persons about programs currently in use regarding the use of symbols to communicate nutrition information on food labels.

This notice describes the scope of the hearing. We invite information and comment on the issues and questions in section III of this document. If you are interested in this hearing or this subject, you may address as many of the following questions as you wish. We do not expect you to address all questions. When possible, please provide scientific information and data in support of your comments. In addition, to the extent possible, please provide as specific information as is feasible about the estimated costs and benefits associated with your responses (e.g., the costs and benefits of current practices and/or the cost and benefits of any recommendations you may make).

The following issues and questions will be discussed at the public hearing:

Issue 1 : There are many food label nutrition symbol programs currently in the domestic and international marketplace. Each system uses different nutrition criteria and requirements regarding eligibility for use. The agency would like information on the food products that bear nutrition symbols and the nutrient requirements for those symbols.

Question 1. In what product categories are nutrition symbols used (e.g., packaged foods, fresh produce, meat/poultry, seafood)?

Question 2. Which symbols are nutrient specific, and which are summary symbols based on multiple nutrients?

Question 3. What are the nutritional criteria, including calories, included in a symbol system and how were those particular nutritional criteria chosen for inclusion?

Question 4. What nutrient thresholds and/or algorithms are used to determine if a food product may display a nutrient specific or summary symbol?

Question 5. Are nutrition symbols presented together with front label nutrition claims such as “low fat” or “good source of calcium” and, if so, to what extent and for what types of claims?

Question 6. Are there programs to educate consumers to understand the nutrition symbols or is all information contained in the symbols? When education programs are available, how are they presented?

Issue 2 : The presence of nutrition symbols could affect the food purchasing decisions of consumers. Symbols could help consumers make food choices, but it is also possible that symbols could introduce confusion when making decisions. The agency would like information on consumer research that supported the development of these programs and research that illustrates how these programs are understood and utilized by consumers.

Question 7. What are consumer attitudes toward nutrition symbols?

Question 8. What are consumer attitudes toward products or brands that carry a nutrition symbol compared to other products or brands in the same product category (e.g., cereals) and in other categories that do not carry such a symbol?

Question 9. What are consumer interpretations of symbol-carrying products or brands in terms of their overall healthfulness, specific health benefits, featured nutrition attributes, nonfeatured nutrition attributes, quality, safety, and any other non-nutrition attributes?

Question 10. What is consumer perception of the presence of multiple and different nutrition symbols on front labels of different brands in a given product category, e.g., cereals?

Question 11. What is consumer interpretation of the co-existence on the food label of symbols and/or other nutrition messages, when present, and quantitative nutrition information (e.g., the Nutrition Facts label that appears on foods in the United States)?

Question 12. What is consumer interpretation of the co-existence of front-label nutrition symbols and nutrition symbols present on the tags of supermarket shelves, when available?

Question 13. When do consumers use nutrition symbols and what do they use them for?

Question 14. Do nutrition symbols on food labels direct consumers toward purchase of foods that bear them and, if so, to what extent?

Question 15. Do symbols affect the nutritional quality of the total diet of consumers who use the symbols and, if so, to what extent?

Issue 3 : The availability of a nutrition symbol for use on the food label could have an impact on costs for both industry and for consumers. The agency would like information on possible economic impacts.

Question 16. To what extent, if any, have products been developed or re-formulated to qualify them for a given nutrition symbol?

Question 17. What are the costs associated with product development, re-formulation, or both?

Question 18. What are the costs associated with putting symbols on packages?

Question 19. What, if any, are the price differences between symbol-carrying products and other products within the same category?

Question 20. Has inclusion of nutrition symbols on the labels of food products affected the sales of those products?

By delegation from the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) (Staff Manual Guide 1410.21 paragraph 1.f. (5)), the Assistant Commissioner for Policy finds that it is in the public interest to permit persons to present information and views at a public hearing regarding the use of symbols to communicate nutrition information on food labels and is announcing that the public hearing will be held in accordance with part 15 (21 CFR part 15). The presiding officer will be the Commissioner or his designee. The presiding officer will be accompanied by a panel of FDA employees with relevant expertise.

Persons who wish to participate in the hearing (either by making a presentation or as a member of the audience) must file a notice of participation (see DATES, ADDRESSES, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , and section V of this document). By delegation from the Commissioner (Staff Manual Guide 1410.21 paragraph 1.f. (5)), the Assistant Commissioner for Policy has determined under § 15.20(c) that advance submissions of oral presentations are necessary for the panel to formulate useful questions to be posed at the hearing under § 15.30(e), and that the submission of a comprehensive outline or summary is an acceptable alternative to the submission of the full text of the oral presentation. For efficiency, we request that individuals and organizations with common interests consolidate their requests for oral presentation and request time for a joint presentation through a single representative. After reviewing the notices of participation and accompanying information, we will schedule each oral presentation and notify each participant of the time allotted to the presenter and the approximate time that the presentation is scheduled to begin. If time permits, we may allow interested persons who attend the hearing but did not submit a notice of participation in advance to make an oral presentation at the conclusion of the hearing. The hearing schedule will be available at the hearing.

After the hearing, the schedule and a list of participants will be placed on file in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) under the docket number listed in brackets in the heading of this notice.

To ensure timely handling of any mailed notices of participation, written material associated with presentations, or comments, any outer envelope should be clearly marked with the docket number listed in brackets in the heading of this notice along with the statement “Food Labeling: Use of Symbols to Communicate Nutrition Information, Consideration of Consumer Studies and Nutritional Criteria; Public Hearing.”

Under § 15.30(f), the hearing is informal, and the rules of evidence do not apply. No participant may interrupt the presentation of another participant. Only the presiding officer and panel members may question any person during or at the conclusion of each presentation.

Public hearings under part 15 are subject to FDA's policy and procedures for electronic media coverage of FDA's public administrative proceedings (part 10 (21 CFR part 10, subpart C)). Under § 10.205, representatives of the electronic media may be permitted, subject to the procedures and limitations in § 10.206, to videotape, film, or otherwise record FDA's public administrative proceedings, including presentations by participants. The hearing will be transcribed as stipulated in § 15.30(b). For additional information about transcripts, see section VII in this document.

Any handicapped persons requiring special accommodations to attend the hearing should direct those needs to the appropriate contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

To the extent that the conditions for the hearing, as described in this document, conflict with any provisions set out in part 15, this notice acts as a waiver of these provisions as specified in §§ 10.19 and 15.30(h). In particular, § 15.21(a) states that the notice of hearing will provide persons an opportunity to file a written notice of participation with the Division of Dockets Management within a specified period of time. If the public interest requires, e.g., if a hearing is to be conducted within a short period of time, the notice may name a specific FDA employee and telephone number to whom an oral notice of participation may be given. If the public interest requires, the notice may also provide for submitting notices of participation at the time of the hearing. In this document, the conditions for the hearing specify that notices of participation be submitted electronically to an agency Web site, to a contact person who will accept notices of participation by mail, telephone, fax, or e-mail, or in person on the day of the hearing (as space permits). In addition, the conditions for the hearing specify that written material associated with an oral presentation be provided to a contact person (who will accept it by mail, fax, or e-mail) rather than to the Division of Dockets Management. We are using these procedures to facilitate the exchange of information between participants and the agency. By delegation from the Commissioner (Staff Manual Guide 1410.21 paragraph 1.f. (5)), the Assistant Commissioner for Policy finds under § 10.19 that no participant will be prejudiced, the ends of justice will thereby be served, and the action is in accordance with law if notices of participation are submitted by the procedures listed in this notice rather than to the Division of Dockets Management.

Registration by submission of a notice of participation is necessary to ensure participation and will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. The notice of participation may be submitted electronically, orally, or by fax, mail, or e-mail (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). We encourage you to submit your notice of participation electronically. A single copy of any notice of participation is sufficient.

The notice of participation must include your name, title, business affiliation (if applicable), address, telephone number, fax number (if available), and e-mail address (if available). If you wish to request an opportunity to make an oral presentation during the open public comment period of the hearing, your notice of participation also must include the title of your presentation, the sponsor of the oral presentation (e.g., the organization paying travel expenses or fees), if any; and the approximate amount of time requested for the presentation. Presentations will be limited to the questions and subject matter identified in section III of this document, and, depending on the number of requests received, we may be obliged to limit the time allotted for each presentation (e.g., 5 minutes each).

Under § 15.20(c), if you request an opportunity to make an oral presentation, you must submit your presentation (either as the full text of the presentation, or as a comprehensive outline or summary). You may submit your presentation by e-mail, fax, or mail. A single copy of your presentation is sufficient. See ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for information on where to send your presentation.

Persons who wish to request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit a notice of participation by August 24, 2007, and also must submit either the full text of the oral presentation, or a comprehensive outline or summary of the oral presentation, by August 31, 2007. All other persons wishing to attend the hearing must submit a notice of participation by August 31, 2007. Persons requiring special accommodations due to a disability must submit a notice of participation by August 31, 2007, and should inform the contact person of their request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Individuals who request an opportunity to make an oral presentation will be notified of the scheduled time for their presentation prior to the hearing.

We also will accept notices of participation onsite on a first come, first served basis; however, the anticipated maximum seating capacity is 75 to 100, and registration will be closed when the maximum seating capacity is reached. Requests for an opportunity to make a presentation from individuals or organizations that did not make such a request in advance may be granted if time permits.

Persons who submit a notice of participation in advance of the hearing should check in at the on-site registration desk between 8:30 and 9 a.m. Persons who wish to submit a notice of participation onsite may do so at the registration desk between 8:30 and 9 a.m. on either day of the hearing. We encourage all participants to attend the entire hearing.

All submissions and comments received may be posted without change to http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm , including any personal information provided.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments for consideration at or after the hearing in addition to, or in place of, a request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation (see section V of this document). Submit two paper copies of any written comments, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the agency name and docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Transcripts of the hearing will be available for review at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) and on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets approximately 30 days after the hearing. You may place orders for copies of the transcript through the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857, at a cost of 10 cents per page.

This public workshop is being held in response to the large volume of food safety and food defense concerns from FDA-regulated products in facilities, such as manufacturers, processors, distributors, retailers, and restaurants, originating from the area covered by the FDA, Atlanta District, Southeast Region. The Atlanta District, Southeast Region presents this workshop to help achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393), which include working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the public. This is consistent with the purposes of the Retail Food Specialists and Public Affairs Specialists, which are in part to respond to industry inquiries, develop educational materials, sponsor workshops and conferences to provide firms, particularly small businesses, with firsthand working knowledge of FDA's guidance, requirements, and compliance policies. This workshop is also consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121) as outreach activities by Government agencies to small businesses.

The purpose of this workshop is to increase the knowledge of operators of small, independent, retail and food service establishments relative to food safety and food defense principles and to increase the application of these principles in their respective operations. The workshop will also present information that will enable food facilities, manufacturers, processors, distributors, retailers, and restaurants, to better comply with the regulations authorized by the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act), and with food safety and food defense guidance, especially in light of growing concerns about food defense. Information presented will be based on the agency position as articulated through regulation, guidance, and information previously made available to the public. Topics to be discussed at the workshop include: (1) Pre-Workshop Assessment, (2) The Headline You Don't Want to Make, (3) Tools for Keeping Your Food Safe—Interactive Demonstrations, (4) Be A.L.E.R.T. to Terrorism: Keeping Your Foods Secure, and (5) Making the Commitment (Post-Workshop Assessment), and Q and A.

FDA expects that participation in this public workshop will provide industry with greater understanding of the regulatory and guidance perspectives on food safety and food defense and increase voluntary compliance and food defense awareness.

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration , No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

OMB Control Number: 1018-0022.

Title: Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Migratory Birds and Eagles, 50 CFR 10, 13, 21, and 22.

Service Form Number(s): 3-200-6 through 3-200-18, 3-200-67, 3-200-68, 3-200-77, 3-200-78, 3-200-79, 3-202-1 through 3-202-14, 3-186, and 3-186A.

Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals; zoological parks; museums; universities; scientists; taxidermists; businesses; and Federal, State, tribal, and local governments.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion for applications; annually or on occasion for reports.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 29,844.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 55,674.

Estimated Time per Response: Varies from 15 minutes to 12 hours depending on activity.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 47,331.

Estimated Nonhour Cost Burden: $706,300 for fees associated with permit applications.

Abstract: Our Regional Migratory Bird Permit Offices use information that we collect on permit applications to determine the eligibility of applicants for permits requested in accordance with the criteria in various Federal wildlife conservation laws and international treaties, including:

(1) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.).

(2) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668).

Service regulations implementing these statutes and treaties are in Chapter I, Subchapter B of Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations stipulate general and specific requirements that, when met, allow us to issue permits to authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited.

This revised IC includes migratory bird and eagle permit applications and the reports associated with the permits. We have:

(1) Modified the format and content of the currently approved application forms so that they (a) are easier to understand and complete and (b) accommodate future electronic permitting.

(2) Added six new forms:

(a) FWS Form 3-200-15b (Eagle Parts for Native American Religious Purposes - Reorder Request) will enable Native Americans to send reorders directly to the National Eagle Repository, which distributes the parts, instead of to the Regional permit office.

(b) FWS Form 3-200-77 (Native American Religious Use - Eagle Take), FWS Form 3-200-78 (Native American Religious Use - Live Eagles), and FWS Form 3-200-79 (Special Purpose-Abatement Activities Using Raptors) will provide the public with applications specifically designed to address information necessary to issue permits for these activities.

(c) FWS Form 3-202-13 (Eagle Exhibition Annual Report) will facilitate reporting under Eagle Exhibition permits by clarifying that we need information about eagles only. Currently, permittees use FWS Form 3-202-5 (Special Purpose Possession Live/Dead (Education) Annual Report), which requests information on other migratory birds.

(d) FWS Form 3-202-14 (Native American Religious Use - Live Eagles Annual Report) will facilitate reporting under the permits for Native American religious use.

We have transferred FWS Forms 3-200-69 (CITES Import/Export - Eagle Transport for Scientific or Exhibition Purposes) and 3-200-70 (CITES Import/Export - Eagle Transportation for Indian Religious Purposes), currently approved under this information collection, to OMB Control Number 1018-0093.

Comments: On March 23, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 13815) a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on May 22, 2007. We received one comment. The comment did not address issues surrounding the proposed collection of information or the cost and hour burden estimates, but instead objected to other aspects of our program, such as killing of eagles. We have not made any changes to this collection as a result of the comment.

III. Request for Comments

We again invite comments concerning this IC on:

(1) whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your 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 OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

Endangered Species

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

Applicant: Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx Zoo, Bronx, NY, PRT-158751.

The applicant requests a permit to export one captive born Malayan tapir ( Tapirus indicus ) to the Toronto Zoo, Toronto, Canada for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Applicant: Naples Zoo, Naples, FL, PRT-156539.

The applicant requests a permit to import four captive born ocelots ( Leopardus pardalis mitis ) from the Sbcampo, Bauru, and Casib Zoos, Brazil for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples collected from wild mouse lemurs ( Microcebus griseorufus syn. Microcebus murinus ) in Madagascar for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period.

Applicant: Robert P. Remillard, Croydon, NH, PRT-158683.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

Applicant: NOAA Fisheries/Pacific Islands Regional Office, Honolulu, HI, PRT-022729.

The applicant requests re-issuance of their permit to introduce from the high seas samples and/or whole carcasses of green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ), leatherback sea turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ), hawksbill sea turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), olive ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys olivacea ), Kemp's ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ) and short-tailed albatross ( Diomedea albatrus ) for the purpose of enhancement of the species through scientific research. The applicant has requested to amend their permit to reflect the program's new name and location. This notice covers activities conducted by the applicant over a five-year period.

Applicant: Zoological Society of San Diego, San Diego, CA, PRT-152101.

The applicant requests a permit to import one male and one female captive-born dhole ( Cuon alpinus ) from the Yokohama Zoological Gardens Zoorasia, Yokohama, Japan, for the purpose of enhancement of the species through captive propagation.

Applicant: Hugh C. Kelley, Beaumont, TX, PRT-155653.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Applicant: David J. Lechel, Albuquerque, NM, PRT-155498.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Applicant: Carl W. McKee, Irving, TX, PRT-152980.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Applicant: Douglas E. Hutt, Dallas, TX, PRT-149113.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Applicant: John S. MacDonnell, Arcadia, CA, PRT-151123.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Applicant: Gatti Productions, Inc., Orange, CA, PRT-055424, 055425, 055426 and 673539.

The applicant requests the re-issuance of permits for the re-export and re-import of four wild born Asian elephants ( Elephas maximus ) to and from worldwide locations for the purpose of enhancement of the species through conservation education. The permit numbers and animals are [055424, Tiki; 055425, Queen; 055426, Debbie; 673539, Wanda]. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a three-year period and the import of any potential progeny born while overseas.

The public is invited to comment on the following application for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The application was submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and the regulations governing marine mammals (50 CFR Part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director.

Applicant: David L. Duncan, Oklahoma City, OK, PRT-156814.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use.

Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

On September 14, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., the RAC will be given recreation fee presentations from the BLM's Monticello Field Office and the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry. The U.S. Forest Service will present fee presentations for Mirror Lake, American Fork Canyon, and Flaming Gorge. BLM will provide an overview of its oil and gas leasing process. A public comment period, where members of the public may address the RAC, is scheduled from 4:15 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. Written comments may be sent to the Bureau of Land Management address listed above. All meetings are open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating public.