11054 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Notices 

KANSAS 

Crawford County 

Raymond Community Home, 301 Osage St., 

Girard, 07000255 

Doniphan County 

Highland Christian Church, (Highland, 

Doniphan County, Kansas MPS), 102 E. 

Main St., Highland, 07000250 

Highland Presbyterian Church, (Highland, 

Doniphan County, Kansas MPS), 101 South 

Ave., Highland, 07000248 

Highland Water Tower, (Highland, Doniphan 

County, Kansas MPS), Jct. N. Genesee and 

W. Illinois Sts., Highland, 07000249 

Wynkoop, A.L., House, (Highland, Doniphan 

County, Kansas MPS), 307 West 

Pennsylvania, Highland, 07000251 

Sedgwick County 

Johnson Drug Store Building, 2329 E. Central, 

Wichita, 07000254 

Keep Klean Building, 810 E. Third, Wichita, 

07000252 

Stoner Apartment Building, 938–940 North 

Market, Wichita, 07000253 

OKLAHOMA 

Coal County 

Keel Creek Bridge, OK 31 over Keel Creek, 

Coalgate, 07000257 

Jackson County 

Perryman Ranch Headquarters, 0.2 mi. E. of 

jct. of Cty. Rds. N193 and E159, Duke, 

07000260 

Oklahoma County 

Douglass High School, Old, 600 N. High 

Ave., Oklahoma City, 07000259 

Pontotoc County 

Meaders, F.W., House, 521 South Broadway, 

Ada, 07000258 

OREGON 

Multnomah County 

Baruh—Zell House, 3131 SE Talbot Rd., 

Portland, 07000256 

Goldsmith, Alan and Barbara, House, 4140 

SW Greenleaf Court, Portland, 07000261 

Lane—Miles Standish Company Printing 

Plant, 1539 NW 19th Ave., Portland, 

07000262 

Wilson—Chambers Mortuary, 430 N. 

Killingsworth St., Portland, 07000263 

RHODE ISLAND 

Providence County 

Earnscliffe Woolen—Paragon Worsted 

Company Mill Complex, 25 and 39 Manton 

Ave., Providence, 07000265 

Howard, Ebenezer, House, 1264 Round Top 

Rd., Burrillville, 07000264 

TEXAS 

Bee County 

Beeville Post Office, 111 N. St. Mary’s St., 

Beeville, 07000272 

Cooke County 

Nelson Farmstead, 7729 FM 678, Gainesville, 

07000270 

Johnson County 

Smith Ranch, FM 916, 1 mi. W of TX 174, 

Rio Vista, 07000271 

San Augustine County 

San Augustine Commercial Historic District, 

Roughly bounded by Main St., 

Montgomery St., Congress St., Broadway, 

Columbia St., property lines and Golden 

Way, San Augustine, 07000269 

Tarrant County 

Kress Building, 604 Main St., Fort Worth, 

07000266 

VIRGINIA 

Goochland County 

Tinsley Tavern, 2791 Elk Island Rd., 

Columbia, 07000276 

Isle Of Wight County 

Ivy Hill Cemetery, W. of N. Church St., 

Smithfield, 07000275 

Loudoun County 

Purcellville Historic District, Roughly 

bounded by W&OD Trail, S. 32nd St., W. 

F and E. G Sts., and Maple Ave., 

Purcellville, 07000277 

Louisa County 

Boxley Place, 103 Ellisville Dr., Louisa, 

07000273 

Norfolk Independent City 

Zion Methodist Church, 2729 Bowden’s 

Ferry Rd., Norfolk (Independent City), 

07000274. 

[FR Doc. E7–4317 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–51–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities Under OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice and Request for 

Comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 

announces the following Information 

Collection Request (ICR) has been 

forwarded to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review and 

approval: Recreation Survey, New 

Melones Lake Project, Sonora, CA. The 

ICR describes the nature of the 

information collection and its expected 

cost and hour burden. 

DATES: OMB has up to 60 days to 

approve or disapprove this information 

collection, but may respond after 30 

days; therefore, public comment must 

be received on or before April 11, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Please send your comments 

to the Desk Officer for the Department 

of the Interior at the Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, via 

facsimile to (202) 395–6566 or e-mail to 

OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov. A copy 

of your comments should also be 

directed to the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Attention: E. Vasquez, CC 419, 7794 

Folsom Dam Road, Folsom, CA 95630, 

or directed via e-mail to 

evasquez@mp.usbr.gov. Please reference 

OMB No. 1006–NEW in your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information or a copy of the 

proposed forms contact Ms. Elizabeth 

Vasquez at the above address, or at (916) 

989–7192. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: 

Recreation Survey, New Melones Lake 

Project, Sonora, CA. 

Abstract: The purpose of the on-site 

recreation survey is to characterize 

existing users, characterize their use of 

the New Melones Project, assess their 

satisfaction with their experience and 

the facilities, and find out what other 

opportunities or facilities they would 

like to see developed at the New 

Melones Lake Project. The purpose of 

the regional telephone survey is to 

characterize regional population, their 

outdoor recreation use, the demand for 

various types of outdoor recreation 

activities, trends in outdoor recreation 

use, and the extent to which the 

regional population uses New Melones 

Lake Project, Sonora, CA. The on-site 

survey and the regional telephone 

survey shall describe the recreational 

preferences of visitors to the New 

Melones Lake Project and provide 

guidance on what recreational planning 

objectives should be included in the 

New Melones Lake Project RMP/EIS. 

OMB No. 1006–NEW 

Frequency: One-time voluntary 

survey. 

Respondents for On-site Survey: 

Persons who recreate at New Melones 

Lake Project. 

Respondents for Telephone Survey: 

Residents of Sonora and Tuolumne 

counties. 

Estimated Total Number of 

Respondents: 1,750. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 438 hours. 

Estimate of Burden for Each Form: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Notices 11055 

Form 

Burden 

estimate per 

form 

(in minutes) 

Number of respondents 

Annual burden 

on 

respondents 

(in hours) 

On-site survey .............................................................................................................................. 15 1,250 313 

Telephone survey ........................................................................................................................ 15 500 125 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,750 438 

Comments 

A notice allowing the public a 60-day 

comment period was published in the 

Federal Register on May 2, 2006 (71 FR 

25857, May 2, 2006). No comments were 

received in response to the 60-day 

comment period. The Public now has a 

second chance to comment. 

Comments are Invited on 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

(b) the accuracy of our burden 

estimate for the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on 

respondents. 

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. Reclamation will 

display a valid OMB control number on 

the survey forms. 

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. 

Michael R. Finnegan, 

Area Manager, Central California Area Office, 

Mid-Pacific Region. 

[FR Doc. E7–4406 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 05–22] 

Planet Trading, Inc., d/b/a/ United 

Wholesale Distributors, Inc.; Denial of 

Application 

On February 15, 2005, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Planet Trading, Inc., 

(Respondent) of Orlando, Florida. The 

Show Cause Order proposed to deny 

Respondent’s pending application for a 

DEA Certificate of Registration as a 

distributor of the list I chemicals 

ephedrine and pseudoephedrine on the 

ground that Respondent’s registration 

would be inconsistent with the public 

interest. Show Cause Order at 1, see 

also 21 U.S.C. 823(h). 

More specifically, the Show Cause 

Order alleged that both ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine are ‘‘commonly used 

to illegally manufacture 

methamphetamine, a Schedule II 

controlled substance.’’ Show Cause 

Order at 1. The Show Cause Order 

alleged that ‘‘DEA knows by 

experience’’ that a ‘‘gray market’’ exists 

‘‘in which certain pseudoephedrine and 

ephedrine products are distributed only 

to convenience stores and gas stations, 

from where they have a high incidence 

of diversion’’ into the illicit 

manufacture of methamphetamine. Id. 

at 2. Relatedly, the Show Cause Order 

alleged that only ‘‘[a] very small 

percentage’’ of legitimate sales of list I 

chemical products occur in gray market 

retailers and that the average gray 

market retailer ‘‘could expect to sell 

* * * only about $10.00 to $30.00 

worth of pseudoephedrine products’’ a 

month. Id. at 3. The Show Cause Order 

also alleged that the expected sales for 

combination ephedrine products are 

‘‘only one-fourth of’’ this amount. Id. 

The Show Cause Order alleged that 

during a pre-registration investigation, 

Respondent’s president advised DEA 

investigators that his firm distributes 

sundry items and tobacco products to 

convenience stores, gas stations, and 

small independent groceries, which 

constitute the gray market for list I 

chemical products. Id. at 2. The Show 

Cause Order further alleged that during 

an interview, Respondent stated that he 

had ‘‘little or no background in handling 

list I chemical products.’’ Id. The Show 

Cause Order also alleged that 

Respondent told the investigators that 

he intended to sell list I products that 

were marketed in bottles and not blister 

packs because the latter ‘‘were not good 

sellers.’’ Id. 

The Show Cause Order also alleged 

that Respondent intended to store the 

list I products in a warehouse ‘‘with all 

other items [and] without any additional 

security installed.’’ Id. at 3. The Show 

Cause Order further alleged that 

‘‘[b]ecause [Respondent’s] customers are 

allowed to serve themselves from the 

warehouse shelves, all customers will 

have unescorted access to the list I 

chemicals stored in the warehouse.’’ Id. 

Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged 

that Respondent’s ‘‘proposed sales of 

combination ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine products are 

inconsistent with the known legitimate 

market and known end-user demand for 

products of this type,’’ and thus 

Respondent ‘‘would be serving an 

illegitimate market for [these] 

product[s].’’ Id. The Show Cause Order 

concluded by alleging that because 

Respondent’s owner had ‘‘no experience 

handling list I chemicals’’ and its 

warehouse has ‘‘insufficient security,’’

its ‘‘registration would likely lead to 

increased diversion of list I chemicals.’’

Id. 

Respondent, through its owner Mr. 

Vihang Patel, requested a hearing. The 

case was assigned to Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner, 

who conducted a hearing in Tampa, 

Florida, on November 1, 2005. At the 

hearing, both parties put on witnesses 

and introduced documentary evidence. 

Following the hearing, the Government 

submitted proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. 

On April 25, 2006, the Administrative 

Law Judge submitted her decision 

which recommended that Respondent’s 

application be denied. Neither party 

filed exceptions. The record was then 

forwarded to me for final agency action. 

Having considered the record as a 

whole, I hereby issue this decision and 

final order. I adopt the ALJ’s decision in 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES