330 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Notices 

Company or Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., 

Ltd. but not imported by one of the 

importers (or sold to one of the 

customers) for which importer–specific 

(or customer–specific) duty assessments 

rates were calculated. In such instances, 

we will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all–others rate 

if there is no rate for an intermediate 

company or companies involved in the 

transaction. For a discussion of this 

clarification, see Notice of Policy 

Concerning Assessment of Antidumping 

Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of these final results 

of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

On March 15, 2006, the United States 

International Trade Commission 

determined that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on structural 

steel beams from Korea would not likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to an industry in the 

United States within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Consequently, the 

Department has revoked this order, 

effective August 18, 2005. See 

Revocation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Structural 

Steel Beams from Japan and South 

Korea, 71 FR 15375 (March 28, 2006). 

Therefore, there is no need to issue new 

cash deposit instructions for this 

administrative review. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred, and in the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also is the only reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: December 27, 2006. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–22556 Filed 1–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Preparation of the Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Permanent Stationing of Stryker 

Brigade Combat Team Number 5 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Army intends to prepare 

a Supplement to the 2004 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Transformation of the 2nd Brigade, 25th 

Infantry Division (Light) (2nd Bde, 25th 

ID(L)) to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team 

(SBCT). The Army has directed the 2nd 

Bde, 25th ID(L) to transform into the 5th 

SBCT. The Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

will assess the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

permanent home stationing of the 5th 

SBCT at its current location in Hawaii 

and at other reasonable locations 

outside of Hawaii. The no action 

alternative is to return the 2–25th Bde, 

25th ID (L) to its original structure as it 

existed prior to its transformation. The 

no-action alternative is no longer 

feasible, however, as the Army 

Campaign Plan (ACP) has directed all 

previously existing Light Brigades to 

transform to the standard expeditionary 

configuration of the Infantry Brigade 

Combat Team (IBCT). Alternatives 

analyzed in the SEIS may also consider 

whether to return an IBCT to replace the 

2–25th Bde, 25th ID (L) or whether not 

to replace the brigade at all. Other 

locations for the permanent stationing of 

the 5th SBCT could include Fort 

Richardson and Donnelly Training Area 

(DTA) in Alaska, Fort Lewis and Yakima 

Training Center (YTC) in Washington, 

Fort Carson and the Pin ̃ on Canyon 

Maneuver site (PCMS) in Colorado, or 

Fort Knox in Kentucky. The PCMS, YTC 

and DTA are separate maneuver training 

facilities that will not be considered for 

the permanent housing and life support 

of the Soldiers and families of the 5th 

SBCT as part of the alternatives 

included in the SEIS for analysis. These 

sites would only be used to support unit 

training requirements of the 5th SBCT 

and not the life support functions 

required by the SBCT’s Soldiers and 

families. The SEIS will include 

evaluation of the different locations 

which could reasonably accommodate, 

support, and sustain the 5th SBCT and 

meet its requirements for range and 

maneuver training; maintenance 

requirements; and Soldier and Family 

Quality of Life requirements (e.g. 

schools, gyms, medical facilities, 

reducing family disruption). The 

proposed action will require the Army 

to balance strategic, sustainment, and 

environmental considerations to 

provide greater flexibility and 

responsiveness to meet today’s evolving 

world conditions and threats to National 

defense and security. The SEIS will 

analyze the proposed action’s impacts 

upon the natural, cultural, and manmade environments at the alternative 

permanent home-stationing sites. 

The SBCT is a maneuver brigade that 

includes, infantry, artillery, engineers, 

and other assets, totaling between 

3,900–4,100 soldiers and 950–1050 

vehicles, including between 310–330 

Stryker vehicles depending on the 

Army’s final determination of the 5th 

BCTs force structure requirements. The 

action may have significant 

environmental impacts from the training 

of the brigade and construction to 

support its training and quality of life 

requirements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please contact Mr. Robert DiMichele, 

Chief, Public Affairs Office, US Army 

Environmental Command, Building 

E4460, 5179 Hoadley Road, Attention: 

IMAE–PA, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD 21010–5401, telephone: 410–436–

2556, facsimile: 410–436–1693, e-mail: 

robert.dimichele@us.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Stryker is an armored, wheeled combat 

vehicle. The increased survivability 

offered by the Stryker vehicle protects 

Soldiers against enemy actions. The 

increased lethality, mobility, and battle 

command capabilities of the SBCT 

allow an SBCT to conduct operations in 

an area of up to 100km by 100km, an 

area that would be formerly under the 

operational command of an entire Army 

division consisting of three brigades. 

The SBCT requires both facilities for 

Soldiers and their vehicles, Soldier’s 

families, as well as the training space 

necessary to support the 5th SBCT. 

The Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) for Transformation of 

the 2nd Bde, 25th ID(L) to a Stryker 

Brigade Combat Team was released in 

May 2004, with the Record of Decision 

(ROD) following in July 2004. The 

selected action was to transform the 2nd 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Notices 331 

Bde, 25th ID(L) to an SBCT and home 

station it in Hawaii. 

The 2nd Bde, 25th ID(L) began its 

transformation to the 5th SBCT shortly 

after completion of the 2004 FEIS and 

ROD. As of November 2006, the Brigade 

has completed about 60% of the training 

required to achieve combat efficiency 

and has received about 70% of its 

equipment. The Brigade is scheduled to 

complete its training and equipment 

fielding in late 2007. The Brigade must 

be available for deployment to meet 

joint force and on-going operational 

requirements in November of 2007. 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. & et seq.) 

and the Army NEPA procedures, 

Environmental Analysis of Army Action 

(32 CFR Part 651) require the Army to 

consider the environmental impacts of 

their actions and alternatives, and to 

solicit the views of the public, so they 

can make an informed final decision 

regarding how to proceed. In particular, 

the Court concluded the Army had a 

duty under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) to consider locations 

other than Hawaii for the 5th SBCT. 

The proposed action would result in 

the permanent home stationing of the 

5th SBCT. Evaluations will include 

strategic military and National defense 

and security considerations. Evaluations 

will include strategy military and 

National defense and security 

consideration, to include which 

locations, if selected, are capable of 

supporting the National Security 

Strategy (2006), the Quadrennial 

Defense Review (QDR, 2006), National 

Military Strategy, and the Army 

Campaign Plan (ACP). These strategic 

guidance documents have been 

incorporated into the Army’s decision 

making process. All of these individual 

components will be considered in the 

5th SBCT stationing SEIS to ensure a 

range of reasonable alternatives are 

carried forward which support the 

National Security Strategy (2006). Based 

on public scoping and factors discussed 

above, the Army will refine its range of 

reasonable alternatives to the extent 

possible to accommodate both mission 

requirements and Soldier and family 

quality of life. In reaching this decision 

the Army will assess and consider 

public concerns. Analysis will focus on 

the Purpose of and Need for the 

Proposed Action. The analysis will 

evaluate each installation’s capability to 

support the stationing and training of 

the 5th SBCT in conjunction with 

meeting the requirements set forth in 

the National Security Strategy (2006) 

and its supporting Army initiatives and 

plans. 

The SEIS will assess, consider, and 

compare the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental effects from 

the permanent stationing of the 5th 

SBCT in Hawaii and reasonable 

alternate locations. These locations 

could include permanent stationing of 

the 5th SBCT in Hawaii, at Fort 

Richardson and Donnelly Training Area 

in Alaska, Fort Lewis and Yakima 

Training Center in Washington, Fort 

Carson and Pin ̃ on Canyon Maneuver 

site in Colorado, or Fort Knox in 

Kentucky. The no action alternative is to 

return the 2–25th BDE(L) to its original 

structure as it existed prior to its 

transformation. Under established Army 

Force Structure the no-action alternative 

is not feasible, as the ACP directed that 

all Brigades be transformed to 

expeditionary modular standardized 

configurations. Only three types of 

expeditionary modular BCTs exist; 

Heavy, Infantry and Stryker. 

The primary environmental issues to 

be analyzed will include those 

identified as the result of the scoping 

process and installation-specific 

considerations. These issues may 

include impacts to soil, water and air 

quality, airspace conflicts, natural and 

cultural resources, land use 

compatibility, noise, socio-economics, 

environmental justice, energy use, 

human health and safety considerations, 

and infrastructure and range/training 

requirements. 

Scoping and Public Comment: All 

interested members of the public, 

including native communities and 

Federally Recognized Indian Tribes (to 

include Alaska Native Tribes), Native 

Hawaiian groups, and Federal, State, 

and local agencies are invited to 

participate in the scoping process for 

the preparation of this SEIS. Written 

comments identifying environmental 

issues, concerns and opportunities to be 

analyzed in the SEIS will be accepted 

following publication of the Notice of 

Intent in the Federal Register. There 

will be a 45-day public comment period 

following publication of the Notice of 

Intent in the Federal Register. Scoping 

meetings will be held at the installations 

identified as potentially reasonable 

alternative home stationing sites. 

Notification of the times and locations 

for the scoping meetings will be 

published in local newspapers. The 

scoping process will help identify 

environmental issues, concerns and 

opportunities to be analyzed in the 

SEIS. 

Dated: December 28, 2006. 

Addison D. Davis, IV, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, 

(Environment, Safety, and Occupational 

Health). 

[FR Doc. 06–9966 Filed 1–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Global Nuclear 

Energy Partnership 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) intends to prepare a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership initiative (GNEP PEIS) 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Council 

on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) and 

DOE’s regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1500–1508 and 10 CFR 

Part 1021, respectively). GNEP would 

encourage expansion of domestic and 

international nuclear energy production 

while reducing nuclear proliferation 

risks, and reduce the volume, thermal 

output, and radiotoxicity of spent 

nuclear fuel (spent fuel or SNF) before 

disposal in a geologic repository. 

Domestically, GNEP involves a 

programmatic proposal as well as 

project-specific proposals. The 

programmatic proposal is to begin to 

recycle spent fuel and destroy the longlived radioactive components of that 

spent fuel. Toward this end, GNEP 

includes project-specific proposals to 

construct and operate three facilities. 

The proposed nuclear fuel recycling 

center would separate the SNF into its 

reusable components and waste 

components and manufacture new 

nuclear fuel using reusable components 

that still have the potential for use in 

nuclear power generation. The proposed 

advanced recycling reactor would 

destroy long-lived radioactive elements 

in the fuel while generating electricity. 

The advanced fuel cycle research 

facility would perform research into 

SNF recycling processes and other 

aspects of advanced nuclear fuel cycles. 

The GNEP PEIS will consider 13 sites as 

possible locations for one or more of 

these facilities, as well as alternative 

technologies to be used in these 

facilities. Internationally, GNEP 

involves two programmatic initiatives. 

First, the United States would cooperate 

with countries that have advanced 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES