Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 55131 

4Elwell, D. 2007. Personal communication with 

D. Verhey, letter dated March 6. U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 

5Sierra Club. Independent Review: Study for 

Grand Canyon Working Group (MITRE report 

critique). 2007. September. 

6Abrahamsen, T.R., G.F. Marani, and R. Bearer. 

2006. Impact on Restricting Flights from Grand 

Canyon Airspace. The MITRE Corporation CAASD 

for the Federal Aviation Administration and 

National Park Service, Report No. F063–B06–050, 

presented to the Grand Canyon Working Group, 

September. 

not possible today without severe 

airspace impacts.4

3. Several commentors disagreed with 

including or excluding flights above 

17,999 feet MSL in the clarification or 

implied that the Notice misstates and 

overstates the consideration of high 

altitude overflights in the 1995 Report to 

Congress. One said that clarification on 

high-altitude flights is needed from 

Congress rather than from the NPS; 

another stated that rerouting 

commercial overflights (nonsightseeing) above 17,999 feet MSL is 

not covered by the Overflights Act and 

is an otherwise impractical solution for 

reducing aviation noise. 

NPS Response: Consistent with the 

Overflights Act and a 2002 U.S. Court of 

Appeals decision, the impacts of all 

aircraft overflights need to be analyzed. 

This clarification does not dismiss the 

impacts of any type of overflight, but it 

does remove flights above 17,999 feet 

MSL from consideration when 

determining the percentage of the park 

achieving substantial restoration of 

natural quiet. The Grand Canyon 

Working Group (GCWG) recommended 

that the FAA and NPS work together to 

address these high altitude issues in a 

manner consistent with the proposed 

clarification to allow the EIS to proceed. 

All aircraft noise will be considered in 

the EIS analysis. The primary effect of 

the clarification is that aircraft noise 

from above 17,999 feet MSL will be 

analyzed in the EIS as part of 

cumulative effects, while the aircraft 

noise at and below that level will be 

analyzed as part of the direct effects of 

the actions proposed in the EIS 

alternatives. 

4. Two comments were received 

suggesting that Congress did not intend 

for the NPS or the FAA to impose 

regulations on high-altitude flights in 

order to achieve substantial restoration 

of natural quiet. 

NPS Response: The Overflights Act 

required a study of all aircraft 

overflights at GCNP in part to 

distinguish between the noise impacts 

produced by various types of aircraft, 

including commercial aviation. The 

study resulted in the 1995 Report to 

Congress which recommended an 

analysis of how to reduce other adverse 

impacts from overflights, such as 

protection of the park experience and 

public health and safety. Because high 

altitude commercial aviation overflights 

make noise and cause impacts to park 

resources such as the natural 

soundscape and visitor experience, the 

GCWG recommended that the FAA and 

NPS work together to address the high 

altitude noise separately from low-level 

air tour, air tour-related, military, and 

general aviation aircraft overflights (at 

and below 17,999 feet MSL). The NPS 

determined that addressing aircraft 

noise in this manner is consistent with 

the law, and allows the EIS to proceed. 

The FAA has jurisdiction over highaltitude flights and has committed to the 

management actions described above in 

the NPS Response to Comment #1. In 

addition, the NPS has the responsibility 

to manage all park resources, including 

the natural soundscape. 

5. Ten comments were received 

suggesting that the minimum of 50% of 

the park that will achieve restoration of 

natural quiet was too low and should be 

increased. Additional comments suggest 

that NPS should maintain the original 

definition for substantial restoration of 

natural quiet. Several commentors 

appeared to be under the impression 

that NPS was changing the definition of 

substantial restoration of natural quiet. 

NPS Response: NPS is not changing 

the definition, but merely clarifying it in 

the Notice. In addition to the 

clarification related to 17,999 feet MSL, 

the Notice also clarifies that 50% of the 

park is a minimum in the restoration 

goal. The definition of substantial 

restoration of natural quiet remains as 

defined in the 1995 NPS Report to 

Congress. The Notice simply clarifies 

how the definition will be applied in 

environmental analysis related to FAA 

rulemaking actions at GCNP. 

6. One comment was received stating 

that the Notice did not discuss, cite or 

otherwise disclose the professionally 

prepared September 2007 analysis/ 

critique of the MITRE Report.5

NPS Response: The MITRE report 6

was a key factor in requiring the NPS to 

clarify the definition to address flights 

above 17,999 feet MSL, as discussed at 

73 FR 19246–19248. The conclusion of 

the report was that it was unsafe, at the 

time, to modify national airspace over 

the park or divert commercial jet traffic 

off of existing routes that cross over the 

park and the Special Flight Rules Area 

(SFRA). FAA made the decision to 

accept the MITRE report outcome, and 

to maintain existing national airspace 

structure and operation over the park 

and the SFRA. Though the critique and 

the report itself arrived at different 

conclusions, the NPS deferred to the 

FAA as the jurisdictional authority and 

their decision to support the MITRE 

study conclusions, and to continue 

FAA’s airspace policies. 

7. One comment was received that a 

change in the definition with regard to 

high-altitude aircraft noise was 

unwarranted and imprudent given the 

current issues facing the aviation 

industry (i.e., rising fuel prices, climate 

change concerns). 

NPS Response: The NPS is 

implementing a clarification to the 

existing definition. Although the larger 

aviation industry issues are beyond the 

scope of the Federal Register Notice, if 

appropriate, they will be considered in 

the EIS impact analysis. 

Conclusion 

The NPS is not changing the 

definition of substantial restoration of 

natural quiet, but merely clarifying the 

scope and intent of the original 

definition. This clarification is 

necessary for the NPS and the FAA to 

meet the goals of the Overflights Act, 

and to proceed with assessing aircraft 

noise impacts in the EIS. 

As discussed above, the National Park 

Service has carefully considered and 

responded to the comments received. 

Based on this consideration, the NPS 

decision is to adopt the clarification of 

the NPS definition of substantial 

restoration of natural quiet at Grand 

Canyon National Park as published at 73 

FR 19246–19248. 

Dated: July 31, 2008. 

Anthony J. Schetzsle, 

Deputy Director, Intermountain Region, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–22343 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–622] 

In the Matter of Certain Base Plugs; 

Notice of Commission Decision Not to 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review the presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55132 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Notices 

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

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun recused 

herself to avoid any conflict of interest or 

appearance of a conflict. 

(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 6) granting a joint 

motion to terminate the above-captioned 

investigation as to all Respondents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan J. Engler, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3112. Copies of the ALJ’s IDs and 

all other non-confidential documents 

filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 19, 2007, the Commission 

instituted this investigation, based on a 

complaint filed by Anchor Sports I, Inc. 

of Richardson, Texas (‘‘Anchor’’). The 

complaint, as supplemented, alleges 

violations of section 337 in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain base plugs by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,142,882. The complaint, as 

supplemented, further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. The complaint named two firms as 

respondents, Schutt Sports, Inc. of 

Litchfield, Illinois (‘‘Schutt’’), and East 

Texas Sports Center, Inc. (‘‘East Texas’’) 

of Marshall, Texas. The complainant 

requested that the Commission issue a 

limited exclusion order and cease and 

desist orders. 

On August 7, 2008, Anchor, Schutt 

and East Texas filed a joint motion 

seeking termination of this investigation 

based upon a settlement agreement. On 

August 27, 2008, the ALJ issued an 

initial determination, Order No. 6, 

terminating the investigation on the 

basis of the settlement agreement. The 

ALJ found no indication that 

termination of the investigation on the 

basis of the settlement agreement would 

adversely affect the public interest, and 

that the procedural requirements for 

terminating the investigation had been 

met. No petitions for review were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the subject ID. The authority 

for the Commission’s determination is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 

1337), and in section 210.42 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 18, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–22302 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–458 and 731– 

TA–1154 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From China 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 

1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured by reason of imports from China 

of certain kitchen appliance shelving 

and racks, provided for in subheadings 

7321.90.50, 7321.90.60, 8418.99.80, and 

8516.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be subsidized by the 

Government of China and sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV).2

Commencement of Final Phase 

Investigations 

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

also gives notice of the commencement 

of the final phase of its investigations. 

The Commission will issue a final phase 

notice of scheduling, which will be 

published in the Federal Register as 

provided in section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules, upon notice from 

the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) of affirmative preliminary 

determinations in these investigations 

under sections 703(b) and 733(b) of the 

Act, or, if the preliminary 

determinations are negative, upon 

notice of affirmative final 

determinations in these investigations 

under sections 705(a) and 735(a) of the 

Act. Parties that filed entries of 

appearance in the preliminary phase of 

the investigations need not enter a 

separate appearance for the final phase 

of the investigations. Industrial users, 

and, if the merchandise under 

investigations is sold at the retail level, 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the investigations. 

Background 

On July 31, 2008, a petition was filed 

with the Commission and Commerce by 

Nashville Wire Products Inc., Nashville, 

TN, SSW Holding Company, Inc., 

Elizabethtown, KY, and the United 

Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, AlliedIndustrial and Service Workers 

International Union, and the 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers, District Loge 6, 

Clinton, IA., alleging that an industry in 

the United States is materially injured 

and threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports of certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks from 

China allegedly subsidized by the 

government of China and sold at less 

than fair value. Accordingly, effective 

July 31, 2008, the Commission 

instituted countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–458 

(Preliminary) and antidumping duty 

investigation No. 731–TA–1154 

(Preliminary). 

Notice of the institution of the 

Commission’s investigations and of a 

public conference 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 of August 7, 2008 (73 

FR 46033). The conference was held in 

Washington, DC, on August 21, 2008, 

and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these investigations to 

the Secretary of Commerce on 

September 15, 2008. The views of the 

Commission are contained in USITC 

Publication 4035 (September 2008), 

entitled Certain Kitchen Appliance 

Shelving and Racks from China: 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–458 and 

731–TA–1154 (Preliminary). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES