Notices. Extension of a currently approved collection: Request for Comments

19,110 words·~87 min read·/register/2007/02/12/07-611·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 8230-01-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce

(DOC)will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). *Title:* License Exception TMP: Special Requirements. *Agency Form Number:* N/A. *OMB Approval Number:* 0694-0029. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection of information. *Burden:* 1 hour. *Average Time Per Response:* 20 minutes. *Number of Respondents:* 4. *Needs and Uses:* If commodities shipped under License Exception TMP are for news-gathering purposes, the exporter must send BIS a copy of the packing list or similar documentation. Also, a TMP exporter must send BIS an explanatory letter if commodities shipped must be detained abroad beyond the 12 month limit. The information is used to determine whether or not an extension should be granted. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for-profit institutions. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, email address, *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov,* or fax number,

(202)395-7285. Dated: February 6, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2300 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Southeast Region Office Socioeconomic Survey of Gulf Shrimp Fishermen. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0476. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 450. *Number of Respondents:* 600. *Average Hours Per Response:* 45 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA)proposes to collect socioeconomic data from commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery who hold a permit for shrimp fishing in federal waters (U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone). Information about variable and fixed costs, capital investment and other economic information will be collected. This data complements other data already collected and is needed to conduct analyses that will improve the management of the shrimp fishery and to satisfy legal requirements. The data will be used to assess how fishermen will be impacted by and respond to federal regulation likely to be considered by fishery managers. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number

(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: February 6, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2301 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket No. 4-2007] Foreign-Trade Zone 121 - Albany, New York, Application for Subzone, MPM Silicones, LLC, (Silicone-Based Products and Intermediaries), Waterford, New York An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Capital District Regional Planning Commission, grantee of FTZ 121, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the manufacturing and warehousing facilities of MPM Silicones, LLC, an affiliate of Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. (Momentive), located in Waterford, New York. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on February 2, 2007. The Momentive facility (1,000 employees, 581 acres) is located at 260 Hudson River Road, in Waterford, New York. The facility is used for the manufacturing and warehousing of methyl chloride, organo functional silanes, silicone fluids, plastics additives, anti-fog coating and primers, pressure sensitive adhesives, abrasion resistant coatings, adhesive sealants, architectural coatings, urethane foam additives, encapsulants, uncured silicone rubber, liquid injection molding components, paper release coatings, personal care silicone fluids and gels, textile coatings, flurosilicones and phenylsilicones. Components and materials sourced from abroad, representing some 25-35%% of all parts consumed in manufacturing, include: light oils; silicon; silicon dioxide; platinum; raw trichlorosilane; methyl chloride; raw trifluropropene; methanol; isopropyl alcohol; *n* -butyl alcohol; monomethyl ethers; ether-phenols; ether-alcohol-phenols; aromatic additives; acyclic monocarboxylic acids; oleic, linoleic and linolenic acids; cyclic monocarboxylic acids; polycarboxylic acids; carboxylic acids; inorganic acid esters; acyclic monoamines; amine function compounds; cyclanic, cyclenic, or cycloterpenic mono- or polyamines; aromatic polyamines; other organo-inorganic compounds; heterocyclic compounds; organic surface-active agents; lubricating preparations; waxes; glues; adhesives; activated carbon; insecticides; finishing agents; compound plasticizers; antioxidizing preparations; reaction initiators; additives for cements, mortars or concrete; binders for foundry molds or cores; polyethers; epoxide resins; polyurethanes; silicones; carboxymethylcellulose; articles of plastic; gaskets, washers and other seals; articles of precious metal; and, copper-zinc base alloys (duty rates range from duty-free to 7%%). The application indicates that any inputs subject to antidumping or countervailing duties, such as silicon, and inputs that fall under Chapter 32 of the HTSUS will be admitted to the subzone in privileged foreign

(PF)status (19 CFR 146.41). FTZ procedures would exempt Momentive from customs duty payments on the foreign components used in export production. Some 20 percent of the plant's shipments are exported. On its domestic sales, Momentive would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to the finished products (duty rates range from duty-free to 6.5%%) for the foreign inputs noted above (except for inputs in PF status). The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 13, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 30, 2007. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 707 Westchester Ave., Suite 209, White Plains, NY 10604. Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2814B, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230. For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at Elizabeth_Whiteman@ita.doc.gov or

(202)482-0473. Dated: February 2, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-2347 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Written Assurances for Exports of Technical Data Under License Exception TSR ACTION: Extension of a currently approved collection: Request for Comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230, (or via the internet at *dHynek@doc.gov).* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6622, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Abstract U.S. exporters are required to receive letters of assurance from their foreign importers stating that they will not export or reexport technical data to destinations outlined in the E.A.R. unless they have received prior authorization from BIS. II. Method of Collection Submitted in written form. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0023. *Form Number:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 200. *Estimated Time per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 104. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* No start-up capital expenditures. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide suggestions on how to reduce and/or consolidate the current frequency of reporting. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: February 6, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2298 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Delivery Verification Procedure ACTION: Extension of a currently approved collection: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, (or via the internet at *DHynek@doc.gov.).* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6622, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Foreign governments sometimes require U.S. importers of strategic commodities to furnish their foreign supplier with a U.S. Delivery Verification Certificate validating that the commodities shipped to the U.S. were in fact received. This procedure increases the effectiveness of controls over exports of strategic commodities. II. Method of Collection Submitted on forms. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0016. *Form Number:* BIS-647P. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 100. *Estimated Time per Response:* 31 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 56. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* No start-up capital expenditures. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(CVD)orders on certain steel products from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, and Sweden 1 ; the antidumping duty

(AD)orders on cut-to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; and the antidumping

(AD)finding on carbon steel plate from Taiwan, would not be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseable time, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is publishing this notice of revocation of these CVD and AD orders and AD finding pursuant to Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (the Act). 1 Each of these countervailing duty orders on certain steel products covered certain cut-to-length plate only. *See, e.g., Countervailing Duty Order and Amendment to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products From Belgium* 58 FR 43749 (August 17, 1993). EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott, Jacqueline Arrowsmith, or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2657,

(202)482-5255;

(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 15, 2000, the Department published the continuation of the countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, and Sweden; the antidumping duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; and the antidumping finding on carbon steel plate from Taiwan. *See Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom* , 65 FR 78469 (December 15, 2000)( *Continuation Notice* ). 2 On November 1, 2005, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218, the Department initiated, and the Commission instituted, the sunset reviews of these countervailing and antidumping duty orders, and antidumping finding, by publishing the respective notices of initiation in the **Federal Register** . *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005) and *Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United Kingdom* , 70 FR 62324 (October 31, 2005). 2 In addition to the continuations of the CTL plate orders, this notice included in the continuations of orders on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products, which are not subject to the instant revocation notice. As a result of the sunset reviews, the Department found that revocation of the countervailing duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies, and notified the Commission of the countervailing duty rates likely to prevail were the orders revoked. *See Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil: Final Results of Expedited Five-year (“Sunset”) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order* , 71 FR 32522 (June 6, 2006); *Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Final Results of Expedited Five-year (“Sunset”) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order* , 71 FR 32521 (June 6, 2006); *Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from Spain: Final Results of Expedited Five-year (“Sunset”) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order* , 71 FR 32523 (June 6, 2006). *See also Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium: Final Results of Full Sunset Review,* 71 FR 58585 (October 4, 2006); *Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden* , 71 FR 58587 (October 4, 2006). The Department also found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders and finding would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the Commission of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the orders and finding to be revoked. *See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and Carbon Steel Plate from Taiwan; Second Five-year (Sunset) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders and Antidumping Finding; Final Results* , 71 FR 11577 (March 8, 2006). On December 14, 2006, the Commission determined that revocation of these countervailing and antidumping duty orders, and of the antidumping finding on carbon steel plate from Taiwan, 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, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Commission notified the Department and published its decision on January 31, 2007. *See Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom* , 72 FR 4529 (January 31, 2007) and USITC Publication 3899 entitled *Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom: Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review)* (January 2007). Scope of the Countervailing Duty Orders (CTL Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Spain and Sweden) and Antidumping Duty Orders (CTL Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) The products covered by these countervailing and antidumping duty orders include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”) -- for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade X-70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. As a result of changed circumstances reviews with respect to Finland, Germany, and the United Kingdom, 3 the antidumping duty orders on all three countries and the countervailing duty order on the United Kingdom 4 were partially revoked with respect to certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. 3 ” * See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews, and Revocation of Orders in Part * , 64 FR 46343 (August 25, 1999). 4 The Department found that revocation would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and revoked the order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the United Kingdom. *See Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from the United Kingdom: Final Results of Full Sunset Review* , 71 FR 58587 (October 4, 2006). As a result of a decision by the Court of International Trade, 5 cut-to-length floor plate “with patterns in relief derived directly from the rolling process” was excluded from the scope of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate from Belgium. 5 *See Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States* , 26 CIT 1241 (October 17, 2002). Scope of the Antidumping Finding (Carbon Steel Plate from Taiwan) The merchandise covered by this antidumping finding is hot-rolled carbon steel plate, 0.1875 inch or more in thickness, over 8 inches in width, not in coils, not pickled, not coated or plated with metal, not clad, other than black plate, and not pressed or stamped to nonrectangular shape. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under items 7208.40.30.30, 7208.40.30.60, 7208.51.00.30, 7208.51.00.45, 7208.51.00.60, 7208.52.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.13.00.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.45, 7211.90.00.00, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Determination As a result of the determination by the Commission that revocation of these countervailing and antidumping duty orders, and antidumping finding, is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is revoking the countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Spain and Sweden; the antidumping duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; and the antidumping finding on carbon steel plate from Taiwan, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 751(d) of the Act. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is December 15, 2005 ( *i.e.* , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the *Continuation Notice* ). The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after December 15, 2005, the effective date of revocation of these countervailing and antidumping duty orders, and antidumping finding. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders or finding 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 notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions. These revocations pursuant to five-year sunset reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and are published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-2220 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-805] Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V (“Mueller”), a Mexican manufacturer of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe, and Southland Pipe Nipples Co., Inc. (“Southland”), an interested party, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 2006). This administrative review covered the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. We are now rescinding this review due to requests by parties to withdraw from the review. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Stephen Bailey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0195 or

(202)482-0193, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published an antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico on November 2, 1992. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), Mexico, and Venezuela and Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea* , 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992). The Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order for the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006, on November 1, 2006. See 71 FR 64240. Respondents Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (“Hylsa”), Mueller, and interested party Southland requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico on November 30, 2006. Hylsa withdrew its request for review on December 20, 2006. In response to the requests from Mueller and Southland, the Department published the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico on December 27, 2005. See 70 FR 77720. The Department received requests for withdrawal from the administrative review from Mueller and Southland on December 29, 2006. Rescission of the Administrative Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Mueller, Southland and Hylsa have withdrawn their requests in a timely manner. Therefore, we are rescinding this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 41 days after the date of publication of this rescission of administrative review. See section 356.8(a) of the Department's regulations. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: February 6, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-2348 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-485-803) Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Partial Rescission: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“cut-to-length plate”) from Romania. The review covers Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (“MS Galati”) a Romanian producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. This administrative review also covers Metalexportimport SA (“MEI”), an unaffiliated exporter for which the Department is rescinding this review. The period of review is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2007 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or John Drury, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3362 or

(202)482-0195, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 11, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length plate from Romania. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission* , 71 FR 53377 (September 11, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On October 11, 2006, we received case briefs from MS Galati and the domestic interested party IPSCO Steel Inc. (“IPSCO”). Additionally, on October 11, 2006, we received a letter from petitioner, Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), stating its support for the case brief filed by IPSCO. We received rebuttal briefs from IPSCO, Nucor, and MS Galati on October 18, 2006. On October 11, 2006, MS Galati requested a public hearing in this review, but withdrew its request on October 20, 2006. Therefore, no public hearing was held. Final Partial Rescission We preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to MEI because we found during verification that MEI is not the producer of subject merchandise, MEI does not take title to the merchandise which MS Galati exports through MEI, and MS Galati has knowledge of the destination of its subject merchandise exports. *See Preliminary Results* . No parties commented on this issue. Therefore, we have received no new information or evidence of changed circumstances that would cause the Department to reconsider that determination. Thus, we are finally rescinding the administrative review with respect to MEI. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included under this order are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Use of Facts Available As further discussed below, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department finds that the use of facts available (“FA”) is appropriate with regard to MS Galati's inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation expenses for its U.S. sales. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party:

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department must inform the interested party of the nature of any deficiency in its response and, to the extent practicable, allow the interested party to remedy or explain such deficiency. We find that pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the application of FA is warranted for the calculation of MS Galati's inland freight expense because MS Galati provided information that could not be fully verified. In MS Galati's section C questionnaire response, it provided data for its inland freight to port expenses (field DINLFTP1U in the U.S. market sales database). Prior to verification, the Department requested, at page 13 of its verification outline, that MS Galati be prepared to provide documentation to support its inland freight to port calculation. During verification, MS Galati stated that it was unable to segregate the freight charges for one of its transportation providers because the provider issued invoices to MS Galati that were not itemized. *See* Memorandum to the File from John Drury and Dena Crossland, Case Analysts, Regarding Verification of the Home Market and U.S. Sales Responses of Mittal Steel Galati S.A. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated August 31, 2006, at 37 (“MS Galati Verification Report”). MS Galati submitted tables showing a schedule of expected rates but could not confirm that it paid those rates as reported in the U.S. sales database. At verification, MS Galati explained that the freight rates charged by its transportation companies vary by distance to the delivery point, and are also based on various discounts from the base price. MS Galati stated that rail shipments contain multiple products and go to multiple destinations. Therefore, unless the transportation company itemizes the bill, MS Galati cannot determine the actual rate paid for freight. While we were able to verify the freight rates for one transportation company, we were unable to verify the freight rates for another transportation company that issued invoices to MS Galati without segregating the charges. In the *Preliminary Results* , we applied the base freight rate for the transportation company that did not provide itemized invoices to MS Galati. In its October 11, 2006, case brief, MS Galati argued that it was not charged the base freight rate, as shown in Verification Exhibit 33, which the Department used in the *Preliminary Results* . In its case brief, MS Galati demonstrated that it had paid a certain discounted rate. Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, we determine that this discounted rate is the appropriate FA rate to calculate DINLFTP1U for sales involving MS Galati's second transportation company. Based on the above, we find that MS Galati did not provide information pertaining to its inland freight to port expenses that could be fully verified, within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Additionally, MS Galati has not met the requirements of section 782(d) because it did not provide information to the Department to indicate that its inland freight expenses might be deficient until verification. Because the Department did not find that there were any deficiencies until verification, it was too late to notify MS Galati of these errors, obtain new data, and examine such methodologies and data for deficiencies. Since MS Galati provided information that could not be fully verified, the Department determines that the application of FA is warranted. However, we cannot conclude that MS Galati did not cooperate to the best of its ability. As such, the Department determines that adverse FA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act is not warranted. Even though information provided by MS Galati regarding transportation expenses was unverifiable because one of MS Galati's transportation companies did not provide itemized invoices, MS Galati did provide all the information it possessed as it related to transportation expenses, *i.e.* , it acted to the best of its ability. Therefore, we are applying the only discounted rate that could be verified for one of MS Galati's transportation companies as the FA rate for calculating the inland freight to port expense for MS Galati's U.S. sales. For a detailed analysis of the Department's decision to apply FA, *see* the Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated January 9, 2007 (“Final Analysis Memo”). Final Results of Review: As a result of our review, we determine that the following margin exists for the period of August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005: Producer Margin (Percentage) Mittal Steel Galati S.A. 0.05 percent ( *de minimis* ) Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the rate indicated above. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (“ *Assessment-Policy Notice* ”). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by MS Galati for which MS Galati did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 75.04 percent all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See* the *Assessment-Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of cut-to-length plate from Romania entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act:

(1)for the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be zero;

(2)for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from the final determination;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise for the most recent period; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 75.04 percent, the “Romania-wide” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 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: February 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Issues in the Decision Memorandum Issue I. Date of Sale Issue II. Application of Facts Available for Inland Freight to Port Rate Issue III. Provisions for Contingent Liabilities Issue IV. Short-term Interest Income Offset Issue V. Clerical Error Regarding the Constructed Export Price Offset Issue VI. Assessment Rate Methodology [FR Doc. E7-2216 Filed 2-9-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-337-806 Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Determination to Revoke the Order In Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile. The review covers seven producers/exporters of subject merchandise. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. We have noted the changes made since the preliminary results below in the “Changes Since the Preliminary Results” section. The final results are listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Nair or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3813 or

(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published *Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* , 71 FR 45000 (August 8, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”) in the **Federal Register** . On September 28, 2006, we extended the deadline for parties to submit comments on the *Preliminary Results* until October 17, 2006, and we extended the deadline for parties to submit rebuttal comments until October 23, 2006. *See* Memorandum from Yasmin Bordas to File, “ *3rd Administrative Review of Individually Quick Frozen Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated September 28, 2006. We also informed the parties that the Department would accept comments relating to verification findings for Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda. (“Valle Frio”) and its affiliated processor, Agricola Framparque (“Framparque”), seven days after issuance of the verification report, and that the Department would accept rebuttals to those comments five days later. On October 17, 2006, the Department received case briefs from the petitioners, Pacific Northwest Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and each of its individual members, Curt Maberry Farm; Enfield Farms, Inc.; Maberry Packing; and Rader Farms, Inc., and respondents, Arlavan S.A. (“Arlavan”), Fruticola Olmue S.A. (“Olmue”), Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones S.A. (“SANCO”), Valle Frio/Framparque, Valles Andinos S.A. (“Valles Andinos”), Vital Berry Marketing S.A. (“VBM”), and Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A. (“Vitafoods”). On October 23, 2006, the petitioners, Arlavan, Olmue, VBM, Valle Frio/Framparque, and Valles Andinos filed rebuttal briefs. On December 26, 2006, Valle Frio/ Framparque filed comments relating to their verification. We did not receive rebuttals to the December 26, 2006 comments. On October 25, 2006, we extended the deadline for the final results to February 5, 2007. *See Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Extension of the Time Limit for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 64244 (November 1, 2006). Scope of the Order 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. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), during October 2006, we verified the cost information provided by Valle Frio and Framparque in Chile using standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant financial records and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. The Department reported its findings on December 18, 2006. *See* Memorandum from Angela S. Strom and Heidi K. Schriefer to the File, “ *Verification of the Cost Response of Valle Frio in the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated December 18, 2006 (“ *Cost Verification Report - Valle Frio* ”), which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Department building. As explained in the *Preliminary Results* , during March to April 2006, we verified the sales and cost information provided by Olmue and SANCO in Chile using standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. The Department reported its findings on July 5, July 6, and July 27, 2006. *See* Memorandum to the File, “ *Verification of the Sales Response of Santiago Comercio Exterior S.A. in the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated July 5, 2006; Memorandum to the File, “ *Verification of the Cost Response of Santiago Comercio Exterior S.A. in the Antidumping Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated July 6, 2006; and Memorandum to the File, “ *Verification of the Sales and Cost of Production Responses of Fruticola Olmué S.A. in the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated July 27, 2006. These reports are on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. Determination to Revoke In Part The Department “may revoke, in whole or part” an antidumping order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). In determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the Secretary will consider:

(A)whether one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than normal value (“NV”) for a period of at least three consecutive years;

(B)whether, for any exporter or producer that the Secretary previously has determined to have sold the subject merchandise at less than NV, the exporter or producer agrees in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; and

(C)whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. The Department's regulations require, *inter alia* , that a company requesting revocation submit the following:

(1)a certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future;

(2)a certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the receipt of such a request; and

(3)an agreement that the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(i)-(iii). *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands* , 65 FR 742, 743 (January 6, 2000). On July 29, 2005, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), SANCO requested revocation of the antidumping duty order as it pertains to that company. With its request for revocation, SANCO provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e). Consistent with the *Preliminary Results* , we continue to find that the request from SANCO meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). As explained in the preliminary and these final results, our calculations show that SANCO sold IQF red raspberries at not less than NV during the current review period. In addition, SANCO sold IQF red raspberries at not less than NV during the 2003-2004 and 2001-2003 review periods ( *i.e.* , SANCO's dumping margin was zero or *de minimis* ). *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile* , 70 FR 6618, 6620 (Feb. 8, 2005), covering the period December 31, 2001, through June 30, 2003; *see also Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 72788 (Dec. 7, 2005), covering the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Moreover, based on our examination of the sales data submitted by SANCO, we find that SANCO sold the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years cited by SANCO to support its request for revocation. *See* Memorandum from Yasmin Bordas to Stephen J. Claeys, “ *Preliminary Determination to Revoke in Part the Antidumping Duty Order on Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile for Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Sociedad Anonima* ,” dated July 31, 2006, which is on file in room B-099 of the CRU. Finally, we find that application of the antidumping order to SANCO is no longer warranted for the following reasons:

(1)as noted above, the company had zero or *de minimis* margins for a period of at least three consecutive years;

(2)the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; and

(3)the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we determine that SANCO qualifies for revocation of the order on IQF red raspberries pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and that the order, with respect to subject merchandise exported by SANCO, should be revoked. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we are terminating the suspension of liquidation for subject merchandise exported by SANCO that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 1, 2005, and will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to refund with interest any cash deposits for such entries. Collapsing Determination As explained in the *Preliminary Results* , we have determined that Framparque should be collapsed with Valle Frio for the purposes of this review. *See* Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, “ *Collapsing of Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda.* ,” dated July 31, 2006. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the February 5, 2007, *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile (“Decision Memorandum”)* , which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's CRU. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. For SANCO, Vitafoods, and Valles Andinos, we made no changes to the calculations from the *Preliminary Results* . *See* Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Sociedad Anonima,* ” dated July 31, 2006; Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A.* ,” dated July 31, 2006; Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Valles Andinos, S.A.* ,” dated July 31, 2006; which are on file in the Department's CRU. Use of Facts Otherwise Available Pursuant to section 776 of the Act, and for the reasons explained in the *Preliminary Results* , we have continued to apply adverse facts available (“AFA”) for the cost of production (“COP”) of the merchandise under review that was supplied by Arlavan's non-responsive supplier, DICAF Exportaciones Ltd. (“DICAF”). 1 However, for the final results, we have changed the calculation methodology for this COP. *See Changes Since the Preliminary Results: Arlavan* , below. 1 We note that in the Preliminary Results, we stated that we were applying AFA pursuant to section 776(a)(1)(D), which is the provision for application of facts available when information cannot be verified. Our analysis, however, is based on section 776(a)(1)(A), the provision for application of facts available when an interested party withholds requested information, and section 776(b) and (c). For the reasons explained in the *Preliminary Results* , we have continued to apply neutral facts available to one of Olmue's reported control numbers for which it did not provide COP information. *See* Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Fruticola Olmué S.A.* ,” dated July 31, 2006. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments received, for Arlavan, Olmue, Valle Frio/Framparque, and VBM, we have made adjustments to the preliminary results calculation methodologies in calculating the final dumping margins in these proceedings. Brief descriptions of the company-specific changes are discussed below. Arlavan We modified our methodology for calculating the COP of the merchandise that was supplied to Arlavan by DICAF Exportaciones Ltd. (“DICAF”)/Agroindustrial del Maule (“Agromaule”). 2 Because DICAF/Agromaule did not respond to our questionnaire, we based DICAF/Agromaule's cost on AFA. In the preliminary results, for each form of the merchandise under review, we calculated the simple average of the three highest COPs among all producers and used this as the DICAF/Agromaule COP. For the final results, we have used a weighted average of the COPs of the two producers who had the highest COPs of whole and non-whole finished IQF red raspberries. *See* Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, “ *Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Arlavan S.A.* ,” dated February 5, 2007. 2 Although DICAF and Agromaule are legally two separate entities, the products, services, and personnel, as well as contact information, were the same. Although separately incorporated, Agromaule has the same familial ownership as DICAF. We refer in the remainder of this memorandum to “DICAF/Agromaule.” For additional explanation of company ownership, see *Preliminary Results* at 45004. Olmue We corrected a clerical error in the comparison market and margin programs. Specifically, we placed parentheses around the summation of the gross unit price and billing adjustment variables in the recalculation of certain credit expenses, as necessary. *See* Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, “ *Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Fruticola Olmue S.A.* ,” dated February 5, 2007. Valle Frio/Framparque For the final results, we used Valle Frio/Framparque's revised comparison market packing expenses as a result of errors discovered at verification. *See* Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, “ *Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda./Agricola Framparque* ,” dated February 5, 2007. We made the following adjustments to Valle Frio's costs used in the *Preliminary Results* . • We adjusted direct material, variable overhead and fixed overhead costs based on the information obtained at verification. • We reclassified a portion of the reported indirect selling expenses as general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses based on the corrections to the allocation criteria discovered at verification. • We adjusted the cost of sales denominator used to compute the G&A and financial expense ratios in accordance with the specific adjustments made to cost of manufacturing (“COM”). We made the following adjustments to Framparque's costs used in the *Preliminary Results* . • We used Framparque's cost buildup that was corrected at verification to calculate the costs of merchandise sold to the third country market. Using this cost buildup, we made additional adjustments to the direct material costs and have recalculated direct labor, variable overhead and fixed overhead costs. • Consistent with the Preliminary Results, we removed all G&A and financial expense items from the variable overhead cost calculation, included these amounts in the numerator of the G&A and financial expense ratios, and computed the G&A and financial expense ratios for the fiscal year. • We adjusted the cost of sales denominator used to compute the G&A and financial expense ratios in accordance with the specific adjustments made to COM. *See* Memorandum from Angela Strom to Neal Halper, “ *Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results - Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda./Agricola Framparque* ,” dated February 5, 2007 (“ *Valle Frio/Framparque Cost Calculation Memorandum”); see also Cost Verification Report - Valle Frio* . VBM • We revised the freight costs for two home market sales, pursuant to a clerical error correction letter submitted by VBM on October 12, 2006, and additional supporting documentation submitted by VBM on November 27, 2006. *See* Letter submitted to the Department by VBM, “ *Clarification of Information on the Record* ,” dated October 12, 2006; *see also VBM's Supplemental Questionnaire Response* , dated November 27, 2006. For additional discussion of this change, *see Decision Memorandum* at Comment 15. • In the computer program used to calculate NV, we have corrected a currency conversion error for VBM's warehousing expenses. *See* Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, “ *Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Vital Berry Marketing S.A.* ,” dated February 5, 2007. For additional discussion of this change, *see Decision Memorandum* at Comment 16. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” *See* section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. For Olmue, Valles Andinos, VBM, and Vitafoods, we found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period of July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A. 0.00 Arlavan S.A. 3.39 Fruticola Olmue S.A. 0.01 ( *de minimis* ) Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones S.A. ( *de minimis* ) Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda./Agricola Framparque 2.59 Valles Andinos S.A. 6.42 Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. 0.10 ( *de minimis* ) Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by respondents for which they have reported the importer of record and the entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondents did not report the entered value for U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). 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 respondent for which it did not know its 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(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 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 We are revoking the order in part, with respect to SANCO. Therefore, no future cash deposits will be required for the subject merchandise exported by SANCO. For all other exporters/manufacturers, the following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all shipments of IQF red raspberries from Chile entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, effective on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)the cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent);

(2)for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original 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, the cash deposit rate will be 6.33 percent, the “all others” rate established in *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile* , 67 FR 40270 (June 12, 2002). Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a 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 the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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 terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX I List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum General Comments *Comment 1:* Direct Material Valuation *Comment 2:* Treatment of Sales Made Above Normal Value Comments Relating to Santiago Comercio Exportaciones Exterior S.A. *Comment 3:* Valuation of IQF-Quality Fresh Raspberries Used to Produce Non-whole Frozen Raspberry Products *Comment 4:* By-product Cost Treatment for Other Non-whole Raspberry Products *Comment 5:* Affiliated Processor's General and Administrative Expenses and Interest Expenses *Comment 6:* General and Administrative Expenses Rate Calculation *Comment 7:* Gain on Revaluation of Non-monetary Assets and Liabilities Comments Relating to Arlavan S.A. *Comment 8:* Application of Adverse Facts Available for Cost of Production of Arlavan's Non-Responsive Supplier Comments Relating to Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda. *Comment 9:* Valle Frio's Packing Expenses *Comment 10:* Valle Frio's Indirect Selling Expense Ratio *Comment 11:* Wages and Professional Fees in Agricola Framparque's General and Administrative Expense Ratio *Comment 12:* Valle Frio's Production Quantities *Comment 13:* General and Administrative Expense Ratio Calculation Comments Relating to Fruticola Olmue S.A. *Comment 14:* Clerical Error Concerning Certain of Olmue's Credit Expenses Comments Relating to Vital Berry Marketing S.A. *Comment 15:* Clerical Errors Made by VBM *Comment 16:* Clerical Error Made by the Department [FR Doc. E7-2371 Filed 2-9-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-580-829 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod

(SSWR)from the Republic of Korea. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and an examination of our calculations, we have made certain changes for the final results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the respondents are listed below in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer at

(202)482-0410 or Richard Rimlinger at

(202)482-4477, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published *Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 59739 (October 11, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ), in the **Federal Register** . The period of review is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. We have conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . On November 13, 2006, Carpenter Technology Corporation, Dunkirk Specialty Steel, LLC (a subsidiary of Universal Stainless & Alloy Products), and North American Stainless (collectively, the petitioners), and respondents Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd., and Dongbang Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. (collectively, the respondent), 1 filed case briefs. On November 20, 2006, the petitioners and the respondent filed rebuttal briefs. Although the respondent requested a hearing on November 13, 2006, it withdrew its request on November 17, 2006. Because no other interested party requested a hearing, we did not hold one. 1 We collapsed the two respondents into a single entity because we concluded they had a close supplier relationship. See *Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 59739. Scope of Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are those SSWR that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter. Two stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the order. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as follows: SF20T Carbon 0.05 max Manganese 2.00 max Phosphorous 0.05 max Sulfur 0.15 max Silicon 1.00 max Chromium 19.00/21.00 Molybdenum 1.50/2.50 Lead-added (0.10/0.30) Tellurium-added (0.03 min) K-M35FL Carbon 0.015 max Silicon 0.70/1.00 Manganese 0.40 max Phosphorous 0.04 max Sulfur 0.03 max Nickel 0.30 max Chromium 12.50/14.00 Lead 0.10/0.30 Aluminum 0.20/0.35 The products subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the February 1, 2007, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea for the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005 ( *Decision Memorandum* ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.* The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results We have made the following changes to the margin we calculated for the respondent in the *Preliminary Results* : 1) We corrected a ministerial error to match models by grade properly. 2) We included the respondent's loss on inventory obsolescence in the calculation of general and administrative expenses. Results of the Cost Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the cost of production (COP), we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the period of review were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire period of review. In such cases, because we compared prices to average costs for the period of review, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the comparison-market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities by the respondent. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining normal value, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Final Results of the Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following percentage weighted-average dumping margin exists on SSWR from the Republic of Korea for the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005: Company Margin (percent) Changwon/Dongbang 9.06 Assessment Rates The Department will determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer/customer-specific assessment rate or per-unit value for subject merchandise. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation, codified at 19 CFR 351.212(c), on May 6, 2003. See *Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( *Assessment-Policy Notice* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by the companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) 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 intermediary involved in the transaction. See *Assessment-Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. a. Export Price With respect to export-price sales, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and the export price) for the respondent's importer or customer by the total number of units the respondent sold to that importer or customer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise on each of that importer's or customer's entries during the review period. b. Constructed Export Price For constructed export-price sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Cash-Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)the cash-deposit rates for the reviewed company will be the rate shown above;

(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 original 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;

(4)the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.19 percent, the “All Others” rate from the amended final determination of the LTFV investigation published on September 15, 1998. See *Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea* , 63 FR 49331 (September 15, 1998). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or 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 final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: February 1, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Comments and Responses 1. Offsetting of Negative Margins 2. Model Match 3. Inland-Freight Expenses 4. Affiliated-Party Inputs 5. General and Administrative Expenses [FR Doc. E7-2227 Filed 2-9-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-533-825) Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 8, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET-Film) from India for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. *See Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* , 71 FR 45037 (August 8, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ). Based on the results of our verification and our analysis of the comments received, the Department has revised the net subsidy rates for the respondents: Jindal Polyester Limited/Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex). The final net subsidy rates for the reviewed companies are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum, Nicholas Czajkowski, or Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0197,

(202)482-1395, or

(202)482-1398, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Since the publication of the *Preliminary Results* , the following events have occurred. As provided in 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department conducted a verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the Government of India (GOI), Polyplex, and Jindal from October 3 through October 13, 2006. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site examination of relevant records and original source documents. Our verification results are outlined in the public and proprietary versions of the verification memoranda, which are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. *See* “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by the Government of India (GOI)”(December 13, 2006) ( *GOI Verification Report* ); “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex)” (December 13, 2006) ( *Polyplex Verification Report* ); and “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Jindal Polyester Ltd. (Jindal)” (December 13, 2006) ( *Jindal Verification Report* ). On December 28, 2006, Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (collectively, the Petitioners), Polyplex and Jindal, filed case briefs. Polyplex, Jindal, and Petitioners filed rebuttal briefs on January 4, 2006. Scope of the Order For purposes of the order, the products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our *Preliminary Results* following the release of our verification reports for the GOI, Polyplex, and Jindal. The issues raised in all case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2004 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* , from Stephen J. Claeys to David M. Spooner, dated February 5, 2007 ( *Issues and Decision Memorandum* ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The *Issues and Decision Memorandum* also contains a complete analysis of the programs covered by this review and the methodologies used to calculate the subsidy rates. A list of the comments raised in the briefs and addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* is appended to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is on file in the CRU, and can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov* . Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our verification and analysis of comments received, we have made some adjustments in the methodology that was used in the *Preliminary Results* for calculating both Jindal's and Polyplex's subsidy rates under several programs, and adjusted the cash deposit rate to reflect the termination of the 80HHC Program. All changes are discussed in detail in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* . In addition, the Department finds that the 80HHC Tax Exemption program was terminated in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 351.526. Therefore, the Department will include the subsidy rate from the 80HHC Tax Exemption program in the assessment rate but exclude it from the cash deposit rate. Final Results of Review In accordance with sections 777A(e)(1) and 751(a)(I)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual *ad valorem* subsidy rates for the producers/exporters, Jindal and Polyplex, the only producers/exporters subject to this review for the calendar year 2004, which is the POR for this administrative review. Manufacturer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate Cash Deposit Rate Jindal 14.28 %% 13.99 %% Polyplex 9.20 %% 7.60 %% Assessment and Cash Deposit Instructions The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties as detailed above, based upon the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from the producers/exporters under review, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. We will also instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rate that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the investigation. *See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) From India* , 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002). The “all others” rate shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate is requested. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of 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. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List Of Issues Addressed In The Issues And Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Inclusion of Deemed Export Sales in the Total Value of Export Sales *Comment 2:* Inclusion of Non-Subject Merchandise in the Subsidy Calculations *Comment 3:* Countervailibility of the Advance License Program(ALP) *Comment 4:* Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme Calculations *Comment 5:* Sale of the DFRC License *Comment 6:* Loans from Government-Owned Special Purpose Banks *Comment 7:* State Sales Tax Incentive Programs *Comment 8:* Target Plus Scheme(TPS) [FR Doc. E7-2367 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 013007B] Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U. S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of a permit application; request for comments. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NOAA Fisheries has received an application for a permit to conduct research for scientific purposes from Freddy Otte, City of San Luis Obispo, California. The requested permit would affect the South Central California Coast Distinct Population Segment of threatened steelhead trout ( *Oncorhynchus mykiss* ). The public is hereby notified of the availability of the permit application for review and comment before NOAA Fisheries either approves or disapproves the application. DATES: Written comments on the permit application must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) on or before March 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the permit application should be sent to Matt McGoogan, Protected Resources Division, NOAA Fisheries, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, California 90802. Comments may also be sent using email ( *FRNpermits.lb@noaa.gov* ) or fax (562.980.4027). The permit application is available for review, by appointment only, at the foregoing address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt McGoogan at phone number

(562)980-4026 or e-mail: *matthew.mcgoogan@noaa.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority Issuance of permits, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531B1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits:

(1)are applied for in good faith;

(2)would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and

(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NOAA Fisheries regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should provide the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA Fisheries. Permit Application Received Freddy Otte has applied for a permit to take the South Central California Coast Distinct Population Segment of threatened steelhead trout ( *Oncorhynchus mykiss* ) and tissue collection from this species during a two-year study (2007 and 2008) of the abundance and distribution of juvenile steelhead in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed, San Luis Obispo County, California. Freddy Otte proposes electrofishing and direct underwater observation using mask and snorkel as the methods for estimating abundance and distribution of juvenile steelhead, and has requested an annual non-lethal take of 1620 juvenile steelhead, and annual collection and possession of up to 100 juvenile steelhead tissue samples, with the total possession for both years not exceeding 200 tissue samples. The proposed research would conclude October 31, 2008. Dated: February 6, 2007. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-2339 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 013107E] Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Washington through the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office

(GSRO)has submitted a Habitat Restoration Program

(HRP)pursuant to protective regulations promulgated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The HRP would affect ten Evolutionarily Significant Units

(ESUs)of threatened salmonids in Washington State. This document serves to notify the public of the availability of the HRP for review and comment before a final approval or disapproval is made by NMFS. DATES: Written comments on the draft HRP must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time March 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Matthew Longenbaugh, Habitat Conservation Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 510 Desmond Drive, Suite 103, Lacey, Washington 98503. Comments may also be faxed to 360-753-9517. Copies of the entire HRP are available on the *http://www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/* or from the address posted on that site. Comments will be accepted via email at *HRP-WA-GSRO-comment@noaa.gov* or the Internet. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Longenbaugh at phone number 360-753-7761, or e-mail: *Matthew.Longenbaugh@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is relevant to the following ten threatened salmonid ESUs: Puget Sound, Lower Columbia River, and Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon ( *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* ); Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River chum salmon ( *O. keta* ); Lower Columbia River coho salmon ( *O. kisutch* ); Snake River Basin, Lower Columbia River, Middle Columbia River, and Upper Columbia River steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ). Background The GSRO submitted the HRP for habitat restoration activities that might affect certain salmonid ESUs listed as threatened in Washington State. The HRP was designed so that habitat restoration activities would be protective of salmonids and their habitat. The HRP defines what activities are habitat restorations. These consist of restoration activities that are funded by the WA Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), specifically address a major limiting factor identified in a watershed-based salmon recovery plan, are consistent with approved Washington State technical guidance, are identified in a salmon recovery implementation plan, have proceeded through a process that ensures technical suitability and public participation, and would not result in significant negative effects. Finally, the HRP is being analyzed by NMFS for possible biological effects of implementing habitat restoration activities. The biological opinion will analyze the effects of the HRP on listed salmonids and their habitat statewide. Before NMFS can decide whether to approve the HRP, the biological opinion must conclude that the identified habitat restoration activities conducted throughout Washington State under the HRP will not jeopardize listed salmonids or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. In addition, approval or disapproval of the HRP will depend on NMFS' findings after public review and comment. As specified in the July 10, 2000, ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422), NMFS may approve a habitat restoration program of the state, provided that NMFS finds the activities to be consistent with the conservation of listed salmonids' habitat (50 CFR 223.203(b)(8). Prior to final approval of a habitat restoration program, NMFS must publish notification in the **Federal Register** announcing the program's availability for public review and comment, hence this notice. Authority Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. The rule further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph

(a)of the rule do not apply to activities associated with SRFB-funded habitat restoration provided that the state program has been approved by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000). Dated: February 6, 2007. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-2340 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 020507B] Marine Mammals; File No. 731-1774 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for amendment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Robin Baird, Ph.D., Cascadia Research, 218 1/2 W. 4 th Avenue, Olympia, WA 98501, has requested an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 731-1774. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before March 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: The amendment request and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment: (See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this request should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular amendment request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 731-1774. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject amendment to Permit No. 731-1774, issued on September 16, 2005, and most recently amended on December 29, 2006, is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). Permit No. 731-1774, issued to Robin Baird, Ph.D. (Cascadia Research) authorizes vessel approaches, aerial over-flights, photo-identification, video and audio recording and suction cup tagging of cetacean species in all U.S. and international waters in the Pacific, including Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, and other U.S. territories. The objectives of the research are to assess cetacean populations and to study diving and night-time behavior, social organization, and inter-specific interactions. The purpose of the modification is to enhance the examination of movements (for stock structure assessment) and habitat use of: Blainville's ( *Mesoplodon densirostris* ), Cuvier's ( *Ziphius cavirostris* ), Longman's ( *Indopacetus pacificus* ), and Baird's ( *Berardius bairdii* ) beaked whales, short-finned pilot ( *Globicephala macrorhynchus* ), non-Southern Resident killer ( *Orcinus orca* ), pygmy killer ( *Feresa attenuata* ), melon-headed ( *Peponocephala electra* ), and false killer ( *Pseudorca crassidens* ) whales, bottlenose ( *Tursiops truncatus* ), rough-toothed ( *Steno bredanensis* ), and Risso's ( *Grampus griseus* ) dolphins, and dwarf ( *Kogia sima* ) and pygmy ( *Kogia breviceps* ) sperm whales using satellite tagging with dart tags. For each species, up to 20 individuals may be dart tagged per year for the duration of the permit. Incidental harassment of non-target animals is already authorized no additional harassment takes are requested. Dart tagging would occur concurrently with already permitted activities, primarily in Hawaiian waters, though some species may be tagged opportunistically elsewhere where activities are authorized. No takes by dart tagging or additional incidental takes of ESA listed species are requested. The amended permit, if issued, would be valid until the permit expires on August 31, 2010. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Documents may be reviewed in the following locations: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426; Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7221; fax (907)586-7249; Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018; and Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)973-2935; fax (808)973-2941. Dated: February 6, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-2338 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Collection of Information; Proposed Extension of Approval; Comment Request—Recordkeeping Requirements Under the Safety Regulations for Full-Size Cribs AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission requests comments on a proposed three year extension of approval of information collection requirements in the safety regulations for full-size cribs codified at 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(13) and Part 1508. These regulations were issued to reduce hazards of strangulation, suffocation, pinching, bruising, laceration, and other injuries associated with full-size cribs. (A full-size crib is a crib having an interior length ranging from 49 3/4 inches to 55 inches and an interior width ranging from 25 to 30 inches.) The regulations prescribe performance, design, and labeling requirements for full-size cribs. They also require manufacturers and importers of those products to maintain sales records for a period of three years after the manufacture or importation of full-size cribs. If any full-size cribs subject to provisions of 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(13) and Part 1508 fail to comply in a manner severe enough to warrant a recall, the required records can be used by the manufacturer or importer and by the Commission to identify those persons and firms who should be notified of the recall. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting approval of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget. DATES: Written comments must be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than April 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be captioned “Collection of Information—Requirements Under the Safety Regulations for Full-Size Cribs” and e-mailed to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.* Comments may also be sent by facsimile to

(301)504-0127, or by mail to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the proposed renewal of this collection of information, or to obtain a copy of the pertinent regulations, call or write Linda L. Glatz, Division of Policy and Planning, Office of Information Technology and Technology Services, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814;

(301)504-7671, or by e-mail to *lglatz@cpsc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Estimated Burden The Commission staff estimates that there are approximately 75 firms required to annually maintain sales records of full-size cribs. The staff further estimates that the average burden per respondent is five hours per year, for a total of 375 hours and an annual cost of $17,000. (375 hrs. × $44.82/hr. based on total compensation of all civilian workers in management and professional positions in the U.S., July 2006, Bureau of labor Statistics.) B. Request for Comments The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics: —Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility; —Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate; —Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and —Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Dated: February 7, 2007. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E7-2313 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Proposed Extension of Approval; Comment Request—Procedures for Export of Noncomplying Products AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission requests comments on a proposed three year extension of approval of information collection requirements in regulations codified at 16 CFR part 1019, which establish procedures for export of noncomplying products. These regulations implement provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, and the Flammable Fabrics Act that require persons and firms to notify the Commission before exporting any product that fails to comply with an applicable standard or regulation enforced under provisions of those laws. The Commission is required by law to transmit the information relating to the proposed exportation to the government of the country of intended destination. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting approval of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget. DATES: Written comments must be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than April 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be captioned “Collection of Information—Procedures for Export of Noncomplying Products” and e-mailed to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.* Comments may also be sent by facsimile to

(301)504-7671, or by e-mail to *lglatz@cpsc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Estimated Burden Based on a review of the number of export requests received by the CPSC during the last three years, the Commission staff estimates that approximately 75 notifications will be received from an estimated 35 firms per year. The staff further estimates that the average time for each response is one hour, for a total of 75 hours of annual burden. The annualized cost to respondents would be approximately $3,400.00. (75 hours at $44.82/hour based on total compensation for all civilian workers in the U.S., July 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics.) B. Request for Comments The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics: —Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility; —Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate; —Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and —Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Dated: February 7, 2007. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E7-2314 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Collection of Information; Proposed Extension of Approval; Comment Request —Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information from manufacturers and importers of bicycle helmets. The collection of information is in regulations implementing the Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets. 16 CFR Part 1203. These regulations establish testing and recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers and importers of bicycle helmets subject to the standard. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget. DATES: Written comments must be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than April 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be captioned “Bicycle Helmets” and e-mailed to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.* Comments may also be sent by facsimile to

(301)504-7671, or by e-mail to *lglatz@cpsc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1994, Congress passed the “Child Safety Protection Act,” which, among other things, included the “Children's Bicycle Helmet Safety Act of 1994” Public Law 103-267, 108 Stat. 726. This law directed the Commission to issue a final standard applicable to bicycle helmets that would replace several existing voluntary standards with a single uniform standard that would include provisions to protect against the risk of helmets coming off the heads of bicycle riders, address the risk of injury to children, and cover other issues as appropriate. The Commission issued the final bicycle helmet standard in 1998. It is codified at 16 CFR Part 1203. The standard requires all bicycle helmets manufactured after March 10, 1999, to meet impact-attenuation and other requirements. The standard also contains testing and recordkeeping requirements to ensure that bicycle helmets meet the standard's requirements. Certification regulations implementing the standard require manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of bicycle helmets subject to the standard to

(1)Perform tests to demonstrate that those products meet the requirements of the standard,

(2)maintain records of those tests, and

(3)affix durable labels to the helmets stating that the helmet complies with the applicable standard. The certification regulations are codified at 16 CFR Part 1203, Subpart B. The Commission uses the information compiled and maintained by manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of bicycle helmets subject to the standard to help protect the public from risks of injury or death associated with head injury associated with bicycle riding. More specifically, this information helps the Commission determine whether bicycle helmets subject to the standard comply with all applicable requirements. The Commission also uses this information to obtain corrective actions if bicycle helmets fail to comply with the standard in a manner that creates a substantial risk of injury to the public. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approved the collection of information in the certification regulations under control number 3041-0127. The Commission now proposes to request an extension of approval for the collection of information in the certification regulations. A. Estimated Burden The Commission staff estimates that approximately 30 firms manufacture or import bicycle helmets subject to the standard. There are an estimated 200 different models of bicycle helmets currently marketed in the U.S. The Commission staff estimates that the time required to comply with the collection of information requirements is approximately 100 to 150 hours per model per year. The total amount of time estimated for compliance with these requirements will be 20,000 to 30,000 hours per year (200 models × 100-150 hours/model = 20,000-30,000 hours). The annualized cost to respondents for the hour burden for collection of information is $896,000-$1,345,000 based on 20,000-30,000 hours times $44.82/hour (based on total compensation of all civilian workers in managerial and professional positions in the U.S., July 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics). B. Request for Comments The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics: —Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility; —Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate; —Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and —Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Dated: February 7, 2007. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E7-2316 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Collection of Information; Proposed Extension of Approval; Comment Request—Recordkeeping Requirements Under the Safety Regulations for Non-Full-Size Cribs AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission requests comments on a proposed three year extension of approval of information collection requirements in the safety regulations for non-full-size cribs codified at 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(14) and Part 1509. These regulations were issued to reduce hazards of strangulation, suffocation, pinching, bruising, laceration, and other injuries associated with non-full-size cribs. (A non-full-size crib is a crib having an interior length greater than 55 inches or smaller than 49 3/4 inches; or an interior width greater than 30 inches or smaller than 25 inches; or both.) The regulations prescribe performance, design, and labeling requirements for non-full-size cribs. They also require manufacturers and importers of those products to maintain sales records for a period of three years after the manufacture or importation of non-full-size cribs. If any non-full-size cribs subject to provisions of 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(14) and Part 1509 fail to comply in a manner severe enough to warrant a recall, the required records can be used by the manufacturer or importer and by the Commission to identify those persons and firms who should be notified of the recall. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting approval of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget. DATES: Written comments must be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than April 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be captioned “Collection of Information—Requirements Under the Safety Regulations for Non-Full-Size Cribs” and e-mailed to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.* Comments may also be sent by facsimile to

(301)504-7671, or by e-mail to *lglatz@cpsc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Estimated Burden The Commission staff currently estimates that there are approximately 16 firms required to annually maintain sales records of non-full-size cribs. The staff further estimates that the average number of hours per respondent is five per year, for a total of 80 hours and an annual cost of $3,600. (80 hrs. × $44.82/hr. based on total compensation of all civilian workers in managerial and professional positions in the U.S., July 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics.) B. Request for Comments The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed renewal of this collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics: —Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility; —Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate; —Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and —Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Dated: February 7, 2007. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E7-2332 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Meeting of the DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

(AGED)announces a closed session meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held at 9 a.m., Tuesday, February 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at ITS Noesis Business Unit, 4100 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22203. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Vicki Schneider, ITS Noesis Business Unit, 4100 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22203, 703-741-0300. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices. The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and development efforts in electronics and photonics with a focus on benefits to national defense. These reviews may form the basis for research and development programs initiated by the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to be conducted by industry, universities or in government laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include programs on molecular electronics, microelectronics, electro-optics, and electronic materials. In accordance with Section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public. Dated: February 6, 2007. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 07-611 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

CFR