Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Notices 42109 

Plan. The National Park Service agreed 

to prepare an ORV management plan as 

part of a settlement agreement 

negotiated in 1995 between the Florida 

Biodiversity Project and several Federal 

agencies and bureaus. The agreement 

settled a lawsuit which alleged failure 

by the agencies to comply with Federal 

statutes, including the Clean Water Act, 

the Endangered Species Act, and the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

The Off-Road Vehicle Management 

Plan, 2000 (p. 29) states ‘‘Under the 

proposed action, the National Park 

Service would establish an advisory 

committee of concerned citizens to 

examine issues and make 

recommendations regarding the 

management of ORVs in the Preserve. 

The establishment of the committee 

would meet the legal requirements of 

the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92–463, 1972, as 

amended). The advisory committee 

would provide access to the extensive 

knowledge available in the public arena 

and would offer advice to the National 

Park Service in the decision-making 

process in a manner consistent with 

FACA. This committee would be an 

element of the adaptive management 

approach that would be used to develop 

best management practices for ORV 

use.’’

As part of the ORV management plan, 

NPS committed to establishing the ORV 

Advisory Committee. In addition, the 

establishment of the Committee fulfills 

the agency’s policy of civic engagement. 

It is envisioned that this committee will 

strengthen the relationship that the NPS 

has with its partners and communities. 

The Committee will be comprised of 

individuals that represent (1) 

Sportsmen/ORV users; (2) landowners; 

(3) academia; (4) environmental 

advocates; (5) the state government, and 

(6) Tribes. 

Certification: I hereby certify that the 

administrative establishment of the Big 

Cypress Off-Road Vehicle Advisory 

Committee is necessary and in the 

public interest in connection with the 

performance of duties imposed on the 

Department of the Interior by the Act of 

August 25, 1916, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq., and 

other statutes relating to the 

administration of the National Park 

System. 

Dated: June 14, 2007. 

Dirk Kempthorne, 

Secretary of the Interior. 

[FR Doc. E7–14890 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–V6–P 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

General Management Plan, Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Saguaro National Park, AZ 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of Draft 

General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Saguaro National Park. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park 

Service announces the availability of a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

and General Management Plan for 

Saguaro National Park, Arizona. 

DATES: The Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement and General Management 

Plan will remain available for public 

review for 60 days after publication of 

this notice by the Environmental 

Protection Agency. Public meetings will 

be announced in the local media. 

ADDRESSES: Information will be 

available for public review and 

comment online at http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov/ 

parkHome.cfm?parkId=96. Copies of the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

and General Management Plan are 

available from the Superintendent Sarah 

Craighead, Saguaro National Park, 

Arizona, 3693 South Old Spanish Trail, 

Tucson, AZ 85730–5601, (520) 733–

5101. Public reading copies of the 

document will be available for review at 

the following locations: 

Office of the Superintendent, Saguaro 

National Park, 3693 South Old 

Spanish Trail, Tucson, AZ 85730–

5601. 

Planning and Environmental Quality, 

Intermountain Regional Office—

Denver, National Park Service, 12795 

W. Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, CO 

80225, Telephone: (303) 987–6671. 

Office of Public Affairs, National Park 

Service, Department of the Interior, 

18th and C Streets, NW., Washington, 

DC 20240, Telephone: (202) 208–

6843. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Superintendent Sarah Craighead, 

Saguaro National Park, at the above 

address and telephone number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you 

wish to comment, you may submit your 

comments by any one of several 

methods. You may mail comments to 

Superintendent Sarah Craighead, Draft 

General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Saguaro National Park, Arizona, 3693 

South Old Spanish Trail, Tucson, AZ 

85730–5601. You may also comment via 

the Internet at http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov/. Please include 

your name and return address in your 

Internet message. If you do not receive 

a confirmation from the system that we 

have received your Internet message, 

contact us directly by calling 

Superintendent Sarah Craighead at 520–

733–5107. Finally, you may handdeliver comments to the Saguaro 

National Park visitor center or the 

Intermountain Region Office—Denver, 

12795 W. Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, 

CO 80225. 

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 us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

This general management plan will 

guide the management of Saguaro 

National Park for the next 15 to 20 

years. The general management plan 

considers three alternatives—a noaction and two action alternatives, 

including the National Park Service 

preferred alternative. Alternative 1, the 

no-action alternative, is a continuation 

of current management trends and 

serves as a basis of comparison with the 

action alternatives. Alternative 2, the 

preferred alternative, would emphasize 

protecting ecological processes and 

biological diversity by connecting 

wildlife and plan habitats with habitat 

corridors. The concept was developed to 

help protect biological and ecological 

diversity from being compromised by 

habitat fragmentation. Alternative 3 

would emphasize providing a wider 

range of opportunities for visitors 

compatible with the preservation of 

park resources and wilderness 

characteristics. The concept was 

developed because the public wanted 

the park to expand programs and 

opportunities for a growing diverse 

visitor population. 

The draft environmental impact 

statement assesses impacts to cultural 

resources (archeological resources, 

historic structures, cultural landscapes, 

ethnographic resources, and museum 

collections); natural resources (soils, 

soundscape, vegetation, wildlife, and 

threatened, endangered, and candidate 

species and species of special concern); 

visitor understanding and experience; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
42110 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Notices 

1The record is defined in section 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner 

Deanna Tanner Okun dissenting with respect to 

Belarus. 

3Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Shara L. Aranoff, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner 

Okun dissenting with respect to Latvia. 

4Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner 

Deanna Tanner Okun dissenting with respect to 

Moldova. 

5Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Shara L. Aranoff, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner 

Okun dissenting with respect to Poland. 

6Chairman Daniel R. Pearson dissenting with 

respect to Ukraine. 

7Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Dean A. 

Pinkert dissenting with respect to Korea. 

remoteness; the park’s socio-economic 

environment; and park operations. 

Dated: July 19, 2007. 

Michael D. Snyder, 

Director, Intermountain Region, National 

Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–3742 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Ellis Island Development Concept 

Plan, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Statue of Liberty National 

Monument and Ellis Island, New York 

and New Jersey 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of a 

Record of Decision on the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Ellis Island Development Concept Plan, 

Statue of Liberty National Monument 

and Ellis Island. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park 

Service announces the availability of the 

Record of Decision for the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Ellis Island Development Concept Plan, 

Statue of Liberty National Monument 

and Ellis Island, New York and New 

Jersey. On May 14, 2007, the Director, 

Northeast Region approved the Record 

of Decision for this undertaking. As 

soon as practicable, the National Park 

Service will begin to implement the 

selected Alternative (i.e., the preferred 

alternative in the FEIS issued on April 

6, 2007). The National Park Service will 

work with its nonprofit partner for the 

project, Save Ellis Island, Inc to develop 

the Ellis Island Institute as the primary 

adaptive reuse of the Island’s remaining 

abandoned buildings. The Institute will 

provide cultural, interpretive, and 

educational programs and activities 

related to the park’s historic themes. An 

associated small conference facility and 

overnight accommodations will be 

developed, financed and managed by a 

professional hospitality business partner 

working with the nonprofit partner. The 

facility would host meetings, retreats, 

and workshops that would primarily 

focus upon issues such as immigration, 

world migration, public health, culture 

and ethnic diversity. In accordance with 

the National Park Service’s Partnership 

Construction Process, additional market 

analysis and feasibility studies will be 

completed to test and confirm the 

economic and programmatic viability of 

the project. The primary purpose of this 

undertaking, having evaluated the full 

range of foreseeable environmental 

consequences of three (3) alternative 

management strategies presented in the 

FEIS, is to rehabilitate and adaptively 

reuse 30 deteriorating buildings on Ellis 

Island, and provide limited vehicular 

service and emergency access, while 

preserving cultural resource values and 

enhancing visitor appreciation of the 

immigration function and history 

pertaining to Ellis Island. 

The Record of Decision includes a 

statement of the decision made, 

synopses of other alternatives 

considered, the basis for the decision, a 

finding on impairment of park resources 

and values, a listing of measures to 

minimize environmental harm, and an 

overview of public involvement in the 

decision-making process. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Superintendent, Statue of Liberty 

National Monument and Ellis Island, 

Ellis Island Receiving Office, Jersey 

City, NJ 07305. (212) 366–3206 (Ext. 

100), Cynthia_garrett@nps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of 

the Record of Decision may be obtained 

from the contact listed above or online 

at http://www.nps.gov/elis/. 

Dated: May 14, 2007. 

Linda Canzanelli, 

Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–3739 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GE–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–873–875, 877–

880, and 882 (Review)] 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From 

Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, 

Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (Commission) determines, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on steel concrete reinforcing bar 

from Belarus,2 China, Indonesia, 

Latvia,3 Moldova,4 Poland,5 and 

Ukraine 6 would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. The Commission further 

determines that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on steel 

concrete reinforcing bar from Korea 

would not be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time.7

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

reviews on August 1, 2006 (71 FR 

43523) and determined on November 6, 

2006 that it would conduct full reviews 

(71 FR 66974, November 17, 2006). 

Notice of the scheduling of the 

Commission’s reviews and of a public 

hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting copies 

of the notice in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register on December 6, 2006 (71 FR 

70786). The hearing was held in 

Washington, DC, on May 10, 2007, and 

all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these reviews to the 

Secretary of Commerce on July 26, 2007. 

The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 3933 

(July 2007), entitled Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bar from Belarus, China, 

Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, 

Poland, and Ukraine: Investigation Nos. 

731–TA–873–875, 877–880, and 882 

(Review). 

Issued: July 26, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–14809 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES