Notices. Notice of 90-day and 12-month petition finding

20,548 words·~93 min read·/register/2007/03/06/07-1003

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

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day and 12-Month Findings on a Petition To Revise Critical Habitat for the Indiana Bat AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day and 12-month petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 90-day and 12-month findings on a petition to revise critical habitat for the federally endangered Indiana bat ( *Myotis sodalis* ).

We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific information indicating that revising critical habitat for the Indiana bat may be warranted. However, we have also elected to make a 12-month finding at this time. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on March 6, 2007. You may submit new information concerning this species or its habitat for our consideration at any time. ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Bloomington Ecological Services Field Office, 620 South Walker Street, Bloomington, IN 47403-2121.

New information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species or its habitat may be submitted to us at any time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Pruitt, Field Supervisor of the Bloomington Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ), by telephone at

(812)334-4261, or by facsimile to

(812)334-4273. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 800/877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(D) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to revise critical habitat for a listed species presents substantial scientific information indicating that the revision may be warranted. Our listing regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(c)(2)(i) further require that, in making a finding on a petition to revise critical habitat, we consider whether the petition contains information indicating that areas petitioned to be added to critical habitat contain physical and biological features essential to, and that may require special management to provide for, the conservation of the species involved. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and we must promptly publish our finding in the **Federal Register** . If we find that substantial information is presented, we are required to determine how we intend to proceed with the requested revision, and shall promptly publish notice of such intention in the **Federal Register** . The Act gives us discretion in determining whether to revise critical habitat, stating that the “Secretary may, from time-to-time thereafter as appropriate, revise such designation.” In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioners and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(c). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(D) of the Act and § 424.14(c) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. However, we have also elected to respond as if a positive 90-day finding was made, and to also render a 12-month finding at this time. Previous Federal Action We originally listed the Indiana bat as in danger of extinction under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (32 FR 4001; March 11, 1967). This species is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We designated critical habitat for the Indiana bat on September 24, 1976 (41 FR 41914). On October 18, 2002, we received a petition to revise critical habitat for the endangered Indiana bat from Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Buckeye Forest Council, Kentucky Heartwood, Virginia Forest Watch, Brent Bowker, Shenandoah Ecosystems Defense Group, Indiana Forest Alliance, and Heartwood. The submission clearly identified itself as a petition and included the identification information of the petitioners required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). At that time, we notified the petitioners that we lacked funding to develop a 90-day finding on the petition. We also indicated that funding was not anticipated to be available until Fiscal Year 2004 or later and that we would not be able to process the petition until funding became available. On May 6, 2005, Heartwood, Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Buckeye Forest Council, Kentucky Heartwood, Indiana Forest Alliance, Virginia Forest Watch, National Forest Protection Alliance, and Wild Virginia filed a complaint ( *Heartwood, et al.* v *Norton, et al.* 1:05CV313-SSB-TSH, District of Southern Ohio) that cited our failure to comply with the Act's section 4 petition deadlines and that made various claims of violations under section 7 of the Act. On May 24, 2006, we reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs with regards to the section 4 portion of the complaint. In that settlement we agreed that we would submit to the **Federal Register** by February 28, 2007, a 90-day finding as to whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that a critical habitat revision may be warranted for Indiana bat. We also agreed that if we determined in the 90-day finding that the petition does present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted we would submit to the **Federal Register** by December 15, 2007, a 12-month determination that would explain how the Secretary intends to proceed with the proposed revision pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(D)(ii). Species Information The Indiana bat is a temperate, insectivorous, migratory bat that occurs in 20 States in the eastern half of the United States. The Indiana bat hibernates colonially in caves and mines during winter. In spring, reproductive females migrate and form maternity colonies where they bear and raise their young in wooded areas, specifically behind exfoliating bark of large, usually dead, trees. Both males and females return to hibernacula (i.e., the caves and mines where Indiana bats hibernate) in late summer or early fall to mate and enter hibernation. As of October 2006, the Service had records of extant winter populations of approximately 281 hibernacula in 19 States and 269 maternity colonies in 17 States (King 2007, pp. 2-23). The 2005 winter census estimate of the population was 457,000, which is a 15 percent increase from the 2003 estimate (King 2007, p. 24). Analysis of Background Information Provided in the Petition The petition includes an incomplete list of areas currently designated as Indiana bat critical habitat. Wyandotte Cave and Ray's Cave in Indiana are not, however, included on that list. We clarify that Wyandotte Cave and Ray's Cave in Indiana are currently designated as critical habitat. We assume this omission is simply an oversight on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, when the petitioners reference current critical habitat in the petition we assume that they are referring to Big Wyandotte and Ray's Caves as well as all other designated critical habitat. In addition, the petition states that “In the 1999 draft Indiana Bat ( *Myotis sodalis* ) Revised Recovery Plan the USFWS admitted that “it is evident that these measures have not produced the desired result of the recovery of the species (USFWS 1999a).” We reviewed our 1999 draft Recovery Plan, and while this statement does appear in that document, it does not refer to the failure of critical habitat to promote recovery. In the 1999 draft Recovery Plan, this sentence relates specifically to conservation efforts directed at protection of winter habitat of the Indiana bat (USFWS 1999, p. 19). We listed the Indiana bat as endangered due primarily to human disturbance of hibernating bats, and associated declines in populations. We also recognized that modifications to caves were a major threat. Those modifications altered the internal climates of caves, rendering them unsuitable or less suitable for hibernating bats. Early conservation efforts focused on alleviating threats to the hibernacula, but populations continued to decline. In light of these continued declines, the 1999 draft Recovery Plan recognized that we need to continue and expand restoration and conservation efforts at hibernacula and conserve the known habitats that the species uses throughout its annual cycle. Analysis of Petitioners Assertion That Expanded Critical Habitat Is Necessary Petitioners Assert That the Population Continues to Decline The petition states that “Populations of Indiana bat continue to decline despite the 1976 designation of critical habitat by the USFWS.” The petition states that “The current critical habitat designation for the Indiana bat is having no effect on the species' survival.” Information in our files shows that surveys since 2001 report increases in population numbers. Indiana bat population estimates are based on surveys conducted at Indiana bat hibernacula. During the 1950s, biologists began conducting winter bat surveys at irregular intervals and recording population estimates for a limited number of Indiana bat hibernacula (Hall 1962, pp.19-26). During the 1960s and most of the 1970s, winter surveys of the largest Indiana bat populations known at that time were relatively few, and many medium-sized and large winter populations had not yet been discovered. Since the release of the original Recovery Plan in 1983 (USFWS 1983, 80 pp.), with few exceptions, regular biennial surveys have been conducted in the most populous hibernacula. Rangewide population estimates over the three most recent biennial survey periods do not show the same declining trend seen in estimates spanning 1965 through 2000. There was approximately a 4-percent increase from the 2001 estimate of 381,000 bats to the 2003 estimate of 398,000 bats, and a 15-percent increase from the 2003 estimate of 398,000 bats to the 2005 estimate of 457,000 bats (King 2007, p. 24). The petition states “Even in Priority 1 hibernacula (protected caves with recorded winter populations exceeding 30,000 bats) the species continues to decline.” It is not accurate to state categorically that populations at sites designated as critical habitat have declined. Trends at hibernacula currently designated as critical habitat have not been consistent: some have declined while others have increased. For example, the population at

(Big)Wyandotte Cave in Indiana was estimated at 1,900 Indiana bats in 1974 (the last estimate prior to designation as critical habitat) and the 2005 estimate was 54,913 bats (King 2007, p. 24). In contrast, the estimate at Cave 29 (Great Scott Cave) in Missouri was 81,800 bats at the time of critical habitat designation, and the 2005 estimate was 6,450 Indiana bats (King 2007, p. 25). The same applies to hibernacula not designated as critical habitat; the populations at some individual hibernacula have remained relatively stable or increased, while others have declined. The petitioners provide no new information or evidence to suggest otherwise. Petitioners Assert That Declines Are Linked to Activities Occurring Outside Hibernacula The petition states that “Research demonstrates that the pressure exerted on the survival of the Indiana bat comes from activities occurring outside of protected, wintering hibernacula, and that revision of critical habitat designations is over-due; advances in the study of Indiana bat populations (Murray et al. 1999) and the knowledge of Indiana bat summering habitat (Romme et al. 1995: Humphrey et al. 1997: and USFWS 1999a) provide for revision to the critical habitat designation without delay.” (Note that the above quote cites Humphrey et al. 1997. However, the list of references provided with the petition does not include a citation for Humphrey et al. 1997, but does include a citation for Humphrey et al. 1977. We assume that the reference to the 1997 document in the text is a mistaken reference to the 1977 document.) Based on our review of the literature cited we have found the petitioners' claim to be inaccurate. None of the references cited by the petitioners report on research linking declines in Indiana bat populations to activities occurring outside of the hibernacula. The Murray et al. (1999, pp. 105-112) paper reported on a study comparing mist nets and the Anabat II detector system (an ultrasonic bat detector) for surveying bat communities; the paper did not report on causes of population declines in Indiana bat populations (and, in fact, Indiana bats were infrequently encountered during this study). The other three papers contain references to population declines, but do not report on research linking declines to factors outside of hibernacula. Romme et al. (1995, p. 1) stated: “Although a variety of factors undoubtedly have contributed to population losses, protection of hibernacula has been a management priority. Despite this protection, population declines have continued.” No specific research linking declines to activities outside hibernacula were cited in this paper; rather, the paper urged that factors in addition to hibernacula protection should be considered in Indiana bat conservation efforts. Similarly, USFWS (1999a, p. 19) (which is an agency draft of a revised Indiana Bat Recovery Plan) also pointed out that the emphasis of Indiana bat conservation efforts up to that time had been hibernacula protection, and that populations continued to decline. However, the document stated that “not all causes of Indiana bat population declines have been determined” (USFWS 1999a, p. 15). Humphrey et al. (1977, pp. 334-346) reported on the discovery, in Indiana in 1974, of the first known maternity colony of the Indiana bat. As this was the first known maternity colony, relatively little was known about summer habitat at that point in time. Prior to this discovery, it was not known that the Indiana bat's maternity colonies occur in trees. The authors noted that summer habitat is needed for the reproduction and survival of the Indiana bat and pointed out that the crucial events of gestation, postnatal development, and post-weaning maturation take place during this time. The authors also discussed that suitable summer habitat is destroyed by some human land uses and urged caution in managing those habitats. Humphrey et al. (1977, p. 345) makes the observation that summer habitat does not appear to be limiting to the Indiana bat: Despite the problems sometimes occurring in tree roosts, one great advantage is realized. Suitable foraging habitat occurs over a vast area of the eastern United States, and the bats can roost in a nearby tree so that flying to the feeding area is not costly. This means that *M. sodalis* has much summer habitat available to it; thus a large population size and distribution are possible. In summary, none of the information provided or references cited by the petitioners report on research that demonstrates that factors outside the hibernacula are linked to declines in populations of Indiana bats. Rather, the references suggest that conservation efforts beyond the efforts focused on hibernacula may be appropriate. While they point out that summer habitat is important to Indiana bats, the references do not provide evidence that revising critical habitat to include summer areas may be warranted. Petitioners Assert That Designating Critical Habitat in Summer Range Is Essential for Recovery The petitioners make multiple claims that the current critical habitat designation has failed to promote recovery of the Indiana bat, and that designation of critical habitat in the summer range of the species is needed for recovery. Specifically, the petitioners state that “Because there is no designated critical habitat in the Indiana bat's summer range, the USFWS continues to issue incidental take statements throughout the country, allowing many Indiana bats to be killed. For example, in southern Indiana, the USFWS allowed the permanent destruction of 121 ha (299 ac) of forest habitat in an area that has the highest known concentration of Indiana bat maternity roosts in the world (USFWS 1998). If the current protections fail to protect even this important area, expanded critical habitat is necessary.” Designation of critical habitat would not address the issue of incidental take and the killing of Indiana bats. Take prohibition is addressed under section 9 of the Act, and we evaluate and address incidental take under sections 7 and 10 of the Act. The critical habitat analysis done under section 7 does not include consideration of take of the species itself, only habitat destruction or modification. Furthermore, the example provided by the petitioners refers to Camp Atterbury Army National Guard Training Site. Camp Atterbury provides an excellent conservation example; current efforts at this site have been very effective in conserving the Indiana bat's summer habitat. Camp Atterbury comprises 13,409 ha (33,120 ac) in portions of Bartholomew (11,397 ha) (28,151 ac), Brown (1,609 ha) (3,974 ac), and Johnson (402 ha) (993 ac) Counties, Indiana. Approximately 10,927 ha (26,990 ac) of the site is forested. In August 1997, a mist net survey of 22 sites at Camp Atterbury was conducted to determine whether Indiana bats, as well as other bat species, were present on the installation. A total of 208 bats, representing 8 species, was captured, including 13 Indiana bats. In 1998, the Service and Department of Defense

(DoD)consulted on the construction and operation of a training range at this base; the Service issued a biological opinion (cited by the petitioners as USFWS 1998b) and a subsequent amendment that allowed for the loss of 121 ha (299 ac) of habitat suitable for summering Indiana bats for the development of a training range at the base. DoD incorporated a number of conservation measures into the proposed project, including setting aside 315 ha (778 ac) for Indiana Bat Management Zones, developing a landscape-scale forest management policy for the entire base to ensure long-term conservation of Indiana bat's summer habitat, development of a permanent water source for bats, restrictions on the use of training materials potentially toxic to Indiana bats, and development of bat research and education programs on the facility. DoD has worked closely with the Service to ensure that Indiana bat summer habitat conservation efforts have continued. DoD has continued to fund monitoring of the Indiana bat population, as well as other research efforts, and this monitoring demonstrates that the facility continues to support multiple maternity colonies of Indiana bats. There is no evidence that the long-term viability of Camp Atterbury's bat population has declined as the result of military activities. In fact, consultation between DoD and the Service (under section 7 of the Act) has led to many enhancements of summer habitat that are likely improving the long-term viability of this population. The petitioners also state: “Because in [sic] the change in knowledge concerning the Indiana bat's summer habitat since 1996, it is necessary that the USFWS designate summer habitat for the Indiana bat.” We assume that the reference to 1996 is a mistaken reference to 1976, which is when we designated critical habitat for the Indiana bat. It is true that we have more knowledge of summer habitat than when we designated critical habitat in 1976, but it is not a logical extension that the knowledge necessitates the designation of critical habitat on the summer range of the species. Under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, critical habitat is defined as

(i)the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features

(I)essential to the conservation of the species and

(II)which may require special management considerations or protection; and

(ii)specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. The petitioners do not provide information that can reliably define the features of summer habitat that are essential to the conservation of the species, or information about what special management is required, nor provide evidence that specific areas of summer habitat may be essential to the conservation of the species as a whole. As we gather additional information on summer habitat and the distribution of the Indiana bat, we are finding that the bat is widely distributed in a variety of wooded areas. We agree that summer habitat is needed by the species, and we are successfully applying our expanding knowledge in efforts to conserve summer habitat for the Indiana bat, as demonstrated by the Camp Atterbury example discussed above. The petitioners provide no new information to support their claim that current conservation efforts are failing to conserve the Indiana bat on its summer range or to suggest that critical habitat designation of summer habitat may be warranted. Petitioners Recommendations Regarding Critical Habitat The petitioners note that recommendations in their petition are not complete. The petitioners alternate between requesting designation of specific forested areas and designation of all suitable habitat, but their request for the revision of critical habitat for the Indiana bat includes the following sites:

(1)Areas surrounding hibernacula currently designated as critical habitat.

(2)Suitable habitat in all counties where maternity colonies or “other summering Indiana bats” (which we assume means males and non-reproductive females) have been found in 9 States (Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and North Carolina). In addition, the petitioners request that we designate as critical habitat all optimal summer and fall roosting and foraging habitat throughout those States.

(3)Additional specific sites, including: *Illinois:* Forests surrounding all 51 roost trees discovered by Garner and Gardner in Illinois; all forested areas within Pike and Adams Counties; all or a majority of the Shawnee National Forest; all optimal and suitable habitat in Williamson and Johnson Counties; and Indiana bat habitat in the Georgetown area (along the Little Vermillion River). *Indiana:* Bartholomew, Johnson, and Brown Counties, or at an absolute minimum forested land on Camp Atterbury; all forested areas and woodlots at Newport Chemical Depot and additional areas including Little Raccoon Creek; and Muddy Fork of Silver Creek watershed. *Kentucky:* Federal land in Letcher and Pike Counties. *Missouri:* Fort Leonard Wood; Mark Twain National Forest; and area around St. Lee's Island on the Mississippi River, in St. Genevieve and Jefferson Counties. *Pennsylvania:* Allegheny National Forest. *Virginia and West Virginia:* Cumberland Gap National Historic Park and George Washington and Jefferson National Forests; and the most optimal Indiana bat habitat on private land throughout Virginia. References cited by the petitioners document the presence of Indiana bats at specific sites, but the petitioners provide neither information that can reliably define the features of summer habitat that are essential to the conservation of the species, or what special management may be necessary, nor evidence that specific areas of summer habitat may be essential to the conservation of the species as a whole. There is currently no reliable method for determining or evaluating the relative value of these areas as summer habitat for the Indiana bat. The petitioners define “essential” summer habitat for the Indiana bat as an area with at least 30 percent deciduous forest cover and water within 0.97 kilometers (0.6 miles) and optimal habitat as an area with greater than 60 percent canopy cover. They further describe optimal habitat as having more than 27 trees greater than or equal to 22 centimeters

(cm)(8.7 inches) in diameter per 0.4 ha (ac), and suitable habitat as having as few as one tree greater than or equal to 22 cm (8.7 in) in diameter per 0.4 ha (ac). These definitions are based on a summer habitat model developed by Romme et al. (1995, pp. 27-38) that was based on habitat parameters that had been collected across the range of the species (up to the time the model was developed). The model cited by the petitioners has not been found to be useful in predicting habitat occupancy by Indiana bats (Carter 2005, pp. 83-85). While the limiting factors of this model are unclear, the fact that the species occurs across a large range and in a variety of wooded habitats likely contributes to the difficulty of developing successful models. The petitioners also cite Gardner et al. (1990, pp. 8-9) as documenting that most maternity roost trees are found in areas with more than 80 percent canopy cover. The work by Gardner et al.

(1990)was conducted only in Illinois, and was pioneering research that greatly enhanced our understanding of the summer ecology of Indiana bats. The results, however, cannot be used to describe the characteristics of summer habitat across the range of the species because subsequent research has shown that characteristics of other occupied sites are quite different. For example, mean values of canopy cover surrounding Indiana bat maternity roost trees are highly variable among studies, ranging from less than 20 percent to 88 percent (Kurta 2005, p. 41). Yates and Muzika (2006, pp. 1245-1246) also noted that, across the range of the Indiana bat, the amount of nonforested land in occupied areas varies greatly. The best scientific information available on summer habitat suggests that the species is widely distributed in a variety of wooded habitats, ranging from highly fragmented woodlands in agricultural landscapes to extensively forested areas. The Service has summer records of Indiana bats from 296 counties in 20 States (King 2007, pp. 2-23). In addition to the specific areas identified above, the petitioners request that the Service revise critical habitat for the species to include all suitable habitat in all counties where there are summer records of the species in 9 States (Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and North Carolina); the Service has summer records from 235 counties in those States. As previously discussed, Indiana bats summer in a wide variety of wooded habitats, and the petitioners provide no reliable method to evaluate or measure the relative value of sites or features contained therein as Indiana bat summer habitat. Finding We have reviewed the petition, literature cited in the petition, and information in our files. After this review and evaluation, we find the petition does not present substantial information to indicate that revision of critical habitat to include summer areas for the Indiana bat may be warranted. Nevertheless, we have elected to respond as if a positive 90-day finding has been made and also render a 12-month finding for which we have determined not to proceed with the requested revision to Indiana bat critical habitat. Under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, in order for the Service to consider an area for designation as critical habitat, we must either conclude that a specific area within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, contains those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection, or that a specific area outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed is essential for the conservation of the species. The petitioners do not provide information that adequately defines the features of summer habitat that are essential to the conservation of the species, or provide information about what special management may be necessary, or provide evidence that specific areas of summer habitat may be essential to the conservation of the species. Under the statute, the petition process for revisions to critical habitat varies from that for other petitions. Under the statute were we to make a positive finding, we need only to determine how we intend to proceed with the requested revisions. We have determined that even if a 90-day finding was warranted with respect to this petition, for the reasons stated below, we are not proceeding with revision of the critical habitat. In making this finding we are exercising our discretion, provided under section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act, with respect to revision of critical habitat. We cannot justify exercising our discretion to revise critical habitat for the Indiana bat because considerable time and effort would be needed to conduct new analyses and complete other procedural steps that would be associated with completing this discretionary action. Such an effort would come at the expense of critical habitat designations that the Service is required to make for other species. At the present time we have a backlog of actions involving non-discretionary designations of critical habitat for approximately 33 species. These include actions that are mandated by court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, as well as actions necessary to implement the requirements of the Act pertaining to critical habitat designations. It will take us a number of years to clear this backlog, and during that time we also need to meet non-discretionary requirements to designate critical as additional species are listed. Meeting these requirements, for which we have no discretion, is a higher priority than taking discretionary actions. Based on our need to give priority to funding the large number of outstanding non-discretionary designations and to address new designations that will be required as additional species are listed, we find that the petitioned action to revise critical habitat for the Indiana bat is not warranted. The fact that we are making this finding and exercising our discretion not to revise critical habitat for the Indiana bat does not, however, alter the protection this species and its habitat will continue to receive under the Act. Specifically, it does not alter the requirement of section 7(a)(2) of the Act that all Federal agencies must insure the actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to “jeopardize the continued existence” of a listed species or result in the “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat. Further, the section 9 prohibition of take of the species, which applies regardless of land ownership or whether or not within designated critical habitat, is independent of whether critical habitat is revised to include summer habitat and is unchanged by this finding. Although we will not commence a proposed revision of critical habitat in response to this petition, we will continue to monitor the Indiana bat population status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions that might be important with regard to the conservation of the Indiana bat across its range. We will also be considering the recommendations covered in any final revisions to the recovery plan that is now being developed. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with the conservation of the species. If you wish to provide information regarding the Indiana bat, you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Bloomington Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Bloomington Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary author of this notice is the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: February 28, 2007. H. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-3868 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 72 43 Tuesday, March 6, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-CN-07-0020; CN-07-004] Cotton Research and Promotion Program: Determination of Whether To Conduct a Referendum Regarding 1990 Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the Department's view, based on a review by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), that it is not necessary to conduct a referendum among producers and importers on continuation of the 1990 amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (Act). The 1990 amendments require the Secretary of Agriculture, once every 5 years, to conduct a review to determine whether to hold a referendum. The two major changes to the Cotton Research and Promotion Program made by the 1990 amendments were the elimination of assessment refunds to producers and a new assessment levied on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products. Although USDA is of the view that a referendum is not needed, it will initiate a sign-up period as required by the Act, to allow cotton producers and importers to request a referendum. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shethir Riva, Chief, Cotton Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, STOP 0224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224, Telephone

(202)720-2259, Facsimile

(202)690-1718 or E-mail *Shethir.Riva@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In July 1991, the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)implemented the 1990 amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (Act). These amendments provided for:

(1)Importer representation on the Cotton Board by an appropriate number of persons to be determined by the Secretary who import cotton or cotton products into the United States (U.S.) and are selected by the Secretary from nominations submitted by importer organizations certified by the Secretary of Agriculture;

(2)assessments levied on imported cotton and cotton products at a rate determined in the same manner as for U.S. cotton;

(3)increasing the amount the Secretary can be reimbursed for conducting a referendum from $200,000 to $300,000;

(4)reimbursing government agencies who assist in administering the collection of assessments on imported cotton and cotton products; and

(5)terminating the right of producers to demand a refund of assessments. Results of the initial July 1991 referendum showed that of the 46,220 valid ballots received; 27,879 or 60 percent of the persons voting, favored the amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (Order), and 18,341 or 40 percent opposed the amendments. AMS developed implementing regulations for the import assessment effective August 1, 1992, the elimination of the producer refund effective September 1, 1991, and provided for importer representation on the Cotton Board effective January 1, 1993. In 1996 and 2001, USDA issued the results of its 5-year reviews of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. In both reviews, the Department prepared reports that described the impact of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program on the cotton industry and the views of those receiving its benefits, and in both instances, USDA announced its view not to conduct a referendum regarding the 1991 amendments to the Order (61 FR 52772 and 67 FR 1714) and subsequently held sign-up periods for all eligible persons to request a continuance referendum on the 1990 Act amendments. The results of both respective sign-up periods did not meet the criteria as established by the Act for a continuance referendum and, therefore, referenda were not conducted. In 2006, the Department again prepared a 5-year report that described the impact of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program on the cotton industry. The review report is available upon written request to the Chief of the Cotton Research and Promotion Staff at the address provided above. Comments were solicited from all interested parties including from persons who pay the assessments as well as from organizations representing cotton producers and importers (71 FR 13808; March 17, 2006). Economic data was also reviewed in order to report on the general climate of the cotton industry. Finally, a number of independent sources of information were reviewed to help identify perspectives from outside the program including the results of independent program evaluations assessing the effects of the Cotton Research and Promotion Program activities on demand for Upland cotton, return-on-investment to cotton producers, the benefit-cost ratio to companies who import cotton products and raw cotton, and the overall rate-of-return and qualitative benefits and returns associated with the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. The review report cited that the 1990 amendments to the Act were successfully implemented and are operating as intended. The report also noted that there is a general consensus within the cotton industry that the Cotton Research and Promotion Program and the 1990 amendments to the Act are operating as intended. Written comments, economic data, and results from independent evaluations support this conclusion. Industry comments cited examples of how the additional funding has yielded benefits by increasing the demand and consumption for cotton. Of the 15 comments received, only one commenter, who represents cotton importers, argued for a referendum on the 1990 Act amendments. USDA found no compelling reason to conduct a referendum regarding the 1990 Act amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order although some program participants support a referendum. Therefore, USDA will allow all eligible persons to request the conduct of a continuance referendum on the 1990 amendments through a sign-up period. Eligible producers and importers may sign-up to request such a referendum at the county office of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), or by mailing such a request to FSA. The Secretary will conduct a referendum if requested by 10 percent or more of the number of cotton producers and importers voting in the most recent referendum (July 1991), with not more than 20 percent of such request from producers in one state or importers of cotton. Currently, procedures for the conduct of a sign-up period appear at 7 CFR 1205.10-1205.30. These procedures will be updated as appropriate prior to the beginning of the sign-up period. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2101-2118. Signed: February 28, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-3828 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P 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:* Request for Special Priorities Assistance. *Agency Form Number:* BIS-999. *OMB Approval Number:* 0694-0057. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection of information. *Burden:* 600 hours. *Average Time per Response:* 30 minutes. *Number of Respondents:* 1,200. *Needs and Uses:* The information collected on BIS-999 from defense contractors and suppliers, is required for the enforcement and administration of the Defense Production Act and the Selective Service Act to provide Special Priorities Assistance under the Defense Priorities and Allocation System Regulations. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for-profit organizations. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain 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, e-mail address, *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov,* or fax number,

(202)395-7285. Dated: March 1, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-3875 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P 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:* Defense Priorities and Allocation System. *Agency Form Number:* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0694-0053. *Type of Request:* Renewal of an existing collection of information. *Burden:* 14,477 hours. *Average Time per Response:* 1 to 31.5 minutes. *Number of Respondents:* 700,000 respondents. *Needs and Uses:* The record keeping requirement is necessary for administration and enforcement of delegated authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq.) and the Selective Service Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 468). Any person who receives a priority rated order under the implementing DPAS regulation (15 CFR part 700) must retain records for at least 3 years. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for-profit organizations. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *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)395-7285. Dated: March 1, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-3876 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P 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, Humanitarian Donations. *Agency Form Number:* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0694-0033. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection of information. *Burden:* 10 hours. *Average Time per Response:* 5 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 2. *Needs and Uses:* Section 7(g) of the EAA, as amended by the Export Administration Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-64), exempts from foreign policy controls exports of donations to meet basic human needs. Since the re-write of the Export Administration Regulations, an exporter is permitted to ship humanitarian goods identified in Supplement 2 to Part 740, to embargoed destinations using the new License Exception procedures. This regulation reduces the regulatory burden on the exporters by enabling them to make humanitarian donations with only minimal recordkeeping. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for-profit organizations, and not-for-profit institutions. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain a benefit. *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)395-7285. Dated: March 1, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-3877 Filed 3-5-07; 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 of the following proposal for collection of information under the emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). *Title:* Advanced Technology Program (ATP). *Form Number(s):* NIST-1262 and NIST-1263. *OMB Approval Number:* 0693-0009. *Type of Review:* Emergency. *Burden Hours:* 32,000. *Number of Respondents:* 800. *Average Hours per Response:* 40. *Needs and Uses:* The ATP is a competitive cost sharing program designed to assist United States businesses pursue high-risk, enabling technologies with the potential for significant commercial payoff and widespread benefits for the nation. The ATP provides multi-year funding through the use of cooperative agreements to single companies and to industry-led joint ventures. In order to participate, proposals must be submitted addressing the ATP selection criteria. The information is used to perform the requisite technical, business, and budgetary reviews of the proposals to determine if awards should be granted. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations, educational institutions, not-for-profit institutions, individuals or households. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain a benefit. *OMB Desk Officer:* Jasmeet Seehra,

(202)395-3123. 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 by March 28, 2007 to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number

(202)395-5167 or via the Internet at *Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: March 1, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-3880 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Quarterly Financial Report ACTION: Proposed information collection; comment request. 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 May 7, 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 Yolando M. St. George, U.S. Census Bureau, HQ-6K181, Washington, DC 20233, Telephone

(301)763-6600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Census Bureau is planning to resubmit to the Office of Management and Budget for approval, the Quarterly Financial Report

(QFR)Program information collection forms. In an effort to reduce the reporting burden for the QFR, the Census Bureau has consolidated two of its forms into one and eliminated form QFR 103 (NB). The QFR forms submitted for approval are: QFR 200

(MT)which consolidates the QFR 101

(MG)and QFR 102

(TR)long forms; and QFR 201 (MG), which is the renumbered QFR 101A

(MG)short form. The eliminated form, QFR 103 (NB), was a classification form used to determine the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry of respondents. The QFR is now using other sources available to the Census Bureau for classification. The QFR Program has published up-to-date aggregate statistics on the financial results and position of U.S. corporations since 1947. The QFR is a principal economic indicator that also provides financial data essential to the calculation of key Government measures of national economic performance. The importance of this data collection is reflected by the granting of specific authority to conduct the program in Title 13 of the United States Code, Section 91, which requires that financial statistics of business operations be collected and published quarterly. Public Law 109-79 extended the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to conduct the QFR Program under Section 91 through September 30, 2015. The current scope of the QFR includes corporations in the Mining, Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and Retail Trade sectors. The main purpose of the QFR is to provide timely, accurate data on business financial conditions for use by Government and private-sector organizations and individuals. The primary public users are U.S. Governmental organizations with economic policymaking responsibilities. In turn, these organizations play a major role in providing guidance, advice, and support to the QFR Program. The primary private-sector data users are a diverse group including universities, financial analysts, unions, trade associations, public libraries, banking institutions, and U.S. and foreign corporations. II. Method of Collection The Census Bureau will primarily use mail out/mail back survey forms to collect the QFR data discussed in this notice. Companies will be asked to respond to the survey within 25 days of the end of the quarter for which the data are being requested. Letters and/or telephone calls encouraging participation will be directed to companies in the survey sample that have not responded by the designated time. During the third quarter of 2006, the QFR Program introduced an encrypted Internet Data Collection System (Census Taker) for optional use as a substitute for the paper form mailed to all companies. Census Taker is an electronic version of the data collection instrument. It provides improved quality with automatic data checks and is context-sensitive to assist the data provider in identifying potential reporting problems before submission, thus reducing the need for follow-up. Census Taker is completed via the Internet eliminating the need for downloading software and increasing the integrity and confidentiality of the data. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0607-0432. *Form Number:* QFR 200 (MT), and QFR 201 (MG). *Type of Review:* Regular review. *Affected Public:* Manufacturing corporations with assets of $250 thousand or more and Mining, and Wholesale and Retail Trade corporations with assets of $50 million or more. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* Form QFR 200 (MT)—4,108 per quarter = 16,432 annually Form QFR 201 (MG)—4,543 per quarter = 18,172 annually Total—34,604 annually *Estimated Time per Response:* Form QFR 200 (MT)—Average hours 3.0 Form QFR 201 (MG)—Average hours 1.2 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 71,000. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $1.8 million. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 United States Code, Sections 91 and 224. 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. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 1, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-3879 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-813] Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand; Final Results of the Full Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit (“CPF”) from Thailand (71 FR62994 ) pursuant to section 751

(c)of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received a case brief from respondent interested parties, Pineapple Processors' Group, Thai Food Processors' Association, Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd., Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. (“Malee”), The Siam Agro Industry Pineapples and Others Public Co., Ltd. (“SAICO”), Great Oriental Food Products Co., Ltd., Thai Pineapple Products and Other Fruits Co. Ltd., The Tipco Foods (Thailand) PCL, Pranburi Hotei Co. Ltd., and Siam Fruit Canning

(1988)Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”). We received a rebuttal brief from the domestic interested party, Maui Pineapple Company (“Maui”). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of this order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “ *Final Results of Review* ” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit, Myrna Lobo, or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202-482-5050, 202-482-2371, and 202-482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on CPF, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Preliminary Results of the Full Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order* (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). In our *Preliminary Results* , we determined that revocation of the order would likely result in continuation or recurrence of dumping with a margin of 51.16 percent for SAICO, 41.74 percent for Malee, and 24.64 percent for “all others.” We received a case brief on behalf of Respondents. We did not receive a case brief from Maui. Maui filed a timely rebuttal brief. No hearing was requested. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is CPF, defined as pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar (i.e., juice-packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. There have been no scope rulings for the subject order. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” for *Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Final Results of the Full Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order* , from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 27, 2007 ( *Final Decision Memorandum* ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties may 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 Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the *Final Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at * http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn * . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Final Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Final Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/ Producers Weighted Average Margin (percent) Siam Agro Industry Pineapple and Others Co., Ltd. (SAICO) 51.16 Malee Sampran Factory Public Co., Ltd. (Malee) 41.74 The Thai Pineapple Public Co., Ltd.(TIPCO) Revoked 1 Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Packaged Foods Company, and Dole Thailand, Ltd. (collectively, Dole) Revoked 2 Siam Food Products, Ltd.

(SFP)Revoked 3 Kuibiri Fruit Canning Company, Ltd.

(KFC)Revoked 4 All Others 24.64 1 *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination To Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand* , 69 FR 50164 (August 13, 2004). 2 *Id* . 3 *See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Final Determination to Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand* , 67 FR 76719 (August 13, 2004). 4 *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination To Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand* , 69 FR 50164 (August 13, 2004). This notice serves as the only 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. Timely 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 violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the final results of this full sunset review in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(1)(i) of the Act. Dated: February 27, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-3891 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-274-804] Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 7, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping

(AD)administrative review on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Trinidad and Tobago. The period of review

(POR)is October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005. *See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 65077 (November 7, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited (MSPL), manufacturer of the subject merchandise, and its affiliates Mittal Steel North America Inc.

(MSNA)and Mittal Walker Wire Inc. (collectively, Mittal). Neither the petitioners nor the respondent commented on the preliminary results. The Department has made some minor corrections to the margin program used for the preliminary results. *See Changes Since the Preliminary Results* section below. Although we have made certain changes since the preliminary results, these final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the *Final Results of Review* section. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3692 or

(202)482-5973, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 7, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the AD order on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR 65077. This review covers imports of wire rod from Mittal during the POR, October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005. We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . As noted above, the Department did not receive any comments. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for

(a)stainless steel;

(b)tool steel;

(c)high nickel steel;

(d)ball bearing steel; and

(e)concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are

(f)free machining steel products ( *i.e.* , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as:

(i)grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;

(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);

(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;

(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;

(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm;

(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton; and,

(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of aluminum,

(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,

(4)0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and

(5)not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as:

(i)grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;

(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);

(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;

(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;

(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm;

(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and

(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,

(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,

(4)0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and

(5)either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. *See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 68 FR 64079, 64081 (November 12, 2003). The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Subsequent to the preliminary results, we discovered some minor technical problems with the computer program we used to calculate the margin. We found that several incorrect temporary data sets were used in the preliminary calculations. For the final results, we changed the names of the following temporary data sets in the margin program to correspond to the names in the comparison market program. In the margin program, we changed the names of the weighted-average cost data set, the weighted-average comparison market data set, and the weighted-average comparison market profit and selling expense data set. Correcting these problems does not change the *de minimis* margin from the preliminary results. *See* November 7, 2006, Memorandum to the File from Case Analysts, “Telephone Call Regarding a Technical Clarification of the Preliminary Calculation,” a public document on file in room B-099 of the Central Records Unit (CRU). In addition, in our preliminary calculation, when we calculated the foreign unit price in dollars, we incorrectly converted the gross unit price variable, the credit expense variable, and the indirect selling expense variable, which were already reported in U.S. dollars. We have made the necessary corrections to the margin program as noted in our Final Calculation Memorandum, to the file, dated March 7, 2007, the public version of which is on file in the CRU. Final Results of Review As noted above, there have been no changes from the *Preliminary Results* , except for the minor clarification of temporary databases and the correction of the currency conversion error. Therefore, we are not attaching a Decision Memorandum to this **Federal Register** notice. For further details of the issues addressed in this proceeding, see the *Preliminary Results* . As a result of this review, we find that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005: Producer/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited 0.06%% ( *i.e.* , *de minimis* ) Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Mittal where Mittal 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). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 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 Mittal no cash deposit will be required;

(2)for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate established in the final determination;

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

(4)if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 11.40 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the investigation. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago* , 67 FR 55788 (August 30, 2002). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Reimbursement of Duties 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 and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed. 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(a)(3). 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 that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 27, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-3892 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-825] Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 31, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”), other than drill pipe, from Korea for the period (“POR”) August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 51797 (August 31, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers the following manufacturers/exporters: Husteel Co., Ltd. (“Husteel”) and SeAH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the Preliminary Results. For the final dumping margins see the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay, Nicholas Czajkowski, or Dara Iserson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:

(202)482-0780,

(202)482-1395, or

(202)482-4052, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 31, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Korea. *See Preliminary Results* . Since the *Preliminary Results* , the following events have occurred. We received case briefs on October 2, 2006, and rebuttal briefs on October 10, 2006. On October 24, 2006, the Department sent a letter to the parties informing them that Domestic Interested Parties, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, and Maverick Tube Corporations (collectively, IPSCO Tubulars) as well as the Petitioner, U.S. Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) were being provided an opportunity to submit a rebuttal brief solely in reference to a new issue raised by Respondents in their case brief. The Department received these rebuttal briefs from IPSCO Tubulars on October 30, 2006, and U.S. Steel Corporation on November 1, 2006. On December 22, 2006, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department extended the final results by 60 days to February 27, 2006. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Administrative Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea* , 71 FR 76977 (December 22, 2006). Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products covered by this order are OCTG, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The products subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under sub-headings: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. As a result of recent changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, effective February 2, 2007, the subject merchandise is also classifiable under the following additional HTS item numbers: 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50. The HTSUS sub-headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive of the scope of the order. Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the *Issues and Decisions Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) from Korea* , February 27, 2007 ( *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department of Commerce main building and can be accessed directly at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* are identical in content. A list of the issues addressed in the *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* is appended to this notice. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the calculations for the final dumping margin. The changes are discussed in detail in the *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* and in the *Memorandum from Dara Iserson, Case Analyst, to the File: Analysis of Husteel Corporation (“Husteel”) for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe from Korea* , and *Memorandum from Nicholas Czajkowski, Case Analyst, to the File: Analysis of SeaH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”) for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe from Korea* , dated February 27, 2007, on file in the CRU. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) SeAH Steel Corporation 4.73 Husteel Co., Ltd. 0.39 ( *de minimis* ) Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer- specific duty assessment rates (or, when the importer was unknown by the respondent, customer-specific duty assessment rates) on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales observations involving each importer to the total entered value of the examined sales observations for that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their 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 discussion of this clarification, *see Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following antidumping duty cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of OCTG from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)for SeAH, the cash deposit rate will be the rate shown above,

(2)since the dumping margin for Husteel is *de minimis* (less than 0.50 percent), no cash deposit will be required for Husteel, 3) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period,

(4)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 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 subject merchandise, and

(5)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 12.17 percent. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea* , 60 FR 33561 (June 28, 1995). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice 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 the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). 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 sanctionable violation. These final results of administrative review and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 27, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Issues 1. Adjustments to Husteel's G&A Expense Ratio 2. Husteel's Profit and Selling Expense Ratios for Constructed Value 3. Husteel's CEP Profit 4. Treatment of Inventory Carrying Costs Incurred in Korea for U.S. Sales 5. CEP Offset to SeAH 6. Interest Expenses Associated with U.S. Selling Operations 7. G&A Expense for Further Manufacturing 8. Interest Expense for Further Manufacturing 9. Further Manufacturing Freight Expenses 10. Calculation Issues [FR Doc. E7-3893 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-905] Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Riker or Erin Begnal, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3441 or

(202)482-1442, respectively. Initiation of Investigation The Petition On February 8, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received a petition on imports of sodium hexametaphosphate (“SHMP”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) filed in proper form by ICL Performance Products, LP and Innophos, Inc. (“Petitioners”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), Petitioners alleged that imports of SHMP from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring and threaten to materially injure an industry in the United States. The Department issued supplemental questions to Petitioners on February 12, 2007, and February 21, 2007. Petitioners filed their responses on February 16, 2007, and February 23, 2007. Scope of Investigation The merchandise subject to this investigation is Sodium hexametaphosphate (“SHMP”). SHMP is a water-soluble polyphosphate glass that consists of a distribution of polyphosphate chain lengths. It is a collection of sodium polyphosphate polymers built on repeating NaPO 3 units. SHMP has a P 2 O 5 content from 60 to 71 percent. Alternate names for SHMP include the following: Calgon; Calgon S; Glassy Sodium Phosphate; Sodium Polyphosphate, Glassy; Metaphosphoric Acid; Sodium Salt; Sodium Acid Metaphosphate; Graham's Salt; Sodium Hex; Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt; Glass H; Hexaphos; Sodaphos; Vitrafos; and BAC-N-FOS. SHMP is typically sold as a white powder or granule (crushed) and may also be sold in the form of sheets (glass) or as a liquid solution. It is imported under heading 2835.39.5000, HTSUS. It may also be imported as a blend or mixture under heading 3823.90.3900, HTSUS. The American Chemical Society, Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) has assigned the name “Polyphosphoric Acid, Sodium Salt” to SHMP. The CAS registry number is 68915-31-1. However, SHMP is commonly identified by CAS No. 10124-56-8 in the market. For purposes of the investigation, the narrative description is dispositive, not the tariff heading, CAS registry number or CAS name. The product covered by this investigation includes SHMP in all grades, whether food grade or technical grade. The product covered by this investigation includes SHMP without regard to chain length i.e., whether regular or long chain. The product covered by this investigation includes SHMP without regard to physical form, whether glass, sheet, crushed, granule, powder, fines, or other form. However, the product covered by this investigation does not include SHMP when imported in a blend with other materials in which the SHMP accounts for less than 50 percent by volume of the finished product. Comments on Scope of Investigation During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with Petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication of this initiation notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit in Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed by an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E),

(F)or

(G)of section 771(9) of the Act, by or on behalf of the domestic industry. In order to determine whether a petition has been filed by or on behalf of the domestic industry, the Department, pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, determines whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for:

(i)At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and

(ii)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:

(i)Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or

(ii)if there is a large number of producers in the industry the Department may determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing *Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd.* v. *United States,* 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that SHMP constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) at Attachment I (“Initiation Checklist”), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. Our review of the data provided in the petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support representing at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition, requiring no further action by the Department pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Therefore, the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, the domestic producers who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Thus, the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment I (Industry Support). The Department finds that Petitioners filed the petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are an interested party as defined in sections 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment I (Industry Support). Export Price Petitioners provided numerous U.S. price quotes for SHMP manufactured in the PRC and offered for sale in the United States. However, the Department notes that a number of these prices, as quoted, were prior to the POI. Therefore, the Department has only examined prices within the POI or more contemporaneous. These prices were for SHMP within the scope of this Petition, for delivery to the U.S. customer within the POI. Petitioners deducted the costs associated with exporting and delivering the product, including ocean freight and insurance charges, foreign inland freight costs, and foreign brokerage and handling from the prices. See Initiation Checklist at 6-7. In addition, while Petitioners also calculated margins using a U.S. price based on the average unit values (“AUVs”) of imports during the POI available from the International Trade Commission for HTSUS subheading 2835.39.5000, because adequate pricing information is available using the above-detailed price quotations, the Department need not address the AUV margin calculations for this initiation, consistent with the Department's prior practice. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 42686 (July 18, 2003). However, should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determinations, we may re-examine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate. Normal Value Petitioners stated that the PRC is a non-market economy (“NME”) and no determination to the contrary has been made by the Department to date. Recently, the Department examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC. See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding The People's Republic of China Status as a Non-Market Economy (May 15, 2006). In addition, in a recent antidumping duty investigation, the Department also determined that the PRC is a NME. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the normal value of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. Petitioners selected India as the surrogate country. Petitioners argued that, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, India is an appropriate surrogate because it is a market-economy country that is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC and is a significant producer of SHMP. Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we believe that its use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this investigation. After the initiation of the investigation, we will solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Petitioners provided dumping margin calculations using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners calculated normal values based on consumption rates for producing SHMP experienced by U.S. producers for producing SHMP in an integrated facility and a non-integrated facility. See Initiation Checklist. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, Petitioners valued factors of production, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate country data. To value certain factors of production, Petitioners used official Indian government import statistics, excluding those values from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries and excluding imports into India from Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Thailand, because the Department has previously excluded prices from these countries because they maintain broadly-available, non-industry specific export subsidies. See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. For valuing other factors of production, Petitioners used the same sources, where appropriate, recently used in the Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 77373 (December 26, 2006), and inflated these values to be contemporaneous with the POI where necessary. For inputs valued in Indian rupees and not contemporaneous with the POI, Petitioners used information from the wholesale price indices (“WPI”) in India as published by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) for input prices during the period preceding the POI. In addition, Petitioners made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POI, as reported on the Department's Web site. See *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.* For the normal value calculations, Petitioners derived the figures for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit from the financial ratios of two Indian producers of SHMP or comparable merchandise. 1 Petitioners derived these financial ratios from Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. for the integrated production process and from the Aditya Birla Group for the non-integrated production process. 1 For a description of the comparable merchandise, as described by Petitioners, see Petition at 23-24. Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of SHMP from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based upon comparisons of supported export prices to the two normal values, calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated calculated dumping margins for SHMP from the PRC range from 76.69 percent to 103.62 percent. See Initiation Checklist at 9-10 for these calculations. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the decline in customer base, market share, domestic shipments, prices and financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Separate Rates Application The Department recently modified the process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries (Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin), (April 5, 2005), available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf* (“Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin”). The process requires the submission of a separate-rate status application. Based on our experience in processing the separate rates applications in, for example, the antidumping duty investigations of Certain Lined Paper products from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, we have modified the application for this investigation to make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 58374, 58379 (October 6, 2005) (“Lined Paper Initiation”), Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, 70 FR 35625, 35629 (June 21, 2005) (“Sawblades Initiation”), and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005) (“Artist Canvas Initiation”). The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rates application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the **Federal Register** . The separate rates application is due no later than May 4, 2007. NME Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value Questionnaire For NME investigations, it is the Department's practice to request quantity and value information from all known exporters identified in the petition. Although many NME exporters respond to the quantity and value information request, at times some exporters may not have received the quantity and value questionnaire or may not have received it in time to respond by the specified deadline. Therefore, in addition, the Department typically requests the assistance of the NME government in transmitting the Department's quantity and value questionnaire to all companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, as well as to manufacturers who produce the subject merchandise for companies who were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters is used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents. The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rates application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Appendix I of this notice contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters no later than April 4, 2007. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Import Administration's Web site, *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html.* The Department will also send the quantity and value questionnaire to those exporters identified in Exhibit AD-3 of the petition and the NME government. Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, states: {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question *and* produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, at page 6. Initiation of Antidumping Investigation Based upon our examination of the petition on SHMP from the PRC, we find that this petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether imports of SHMP from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of these initiations. See section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the government of the PRC. International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of SHMP from the PRC are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 733(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise because of the large number of exporters or producers included in the investigation, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) permits us to investigate

(1)a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection, or

(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total value of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation ( *see* scope section of this notice), produced in the PRC, and exported/shipped to the United States during the period July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Market Total quantity Terms of sale Total value United States 1. Export Price Sales 2. a. Exporter name b. Address c. Contact d. Phone No. e. Fax No. 3. Constructed Export Price Sales 4. Further Manufactured Total Sales Total Quantity: • Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. Terms of Sales: • Please report all sales on the same terms ( *e.g.* , free on board). Total Value: • All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars. Please indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before importation into the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please do not include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Constructed Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please do not include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Further Manufactured: • Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry to the further manufacturer. [FR Doc. E7-3890 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-801] Solid Urea from Russia: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2007. SUMMARY: On January 25, 2007, the Department of Commerce received a request to conduct a new-shipper review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from Russia. In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(d) (2005), we are initiating an antidumping duty new-shipper review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Minoo Hatten at

(202)482-0410 and

(202)482-1690, respectively, Office 5, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 26, 1987, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its final determination in the investigation of solid urea from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union), finding dumping margins of 68.26 percent for Soyuzpromexport, 53.23 percent for Phillip Brothers, and 68.26 as the country-wide rate (52 FR 19557). On July 14, 1987, following an affirmative injury determination by the International Trade Commission, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on solid urea from the Soviet Union. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the antidumping duty order on solid urea from the Soviet Union was transferred to the individual members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. See *Solid Urea from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Transfer of the AD Order on Solid Urea from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic States and Opportunity to Comment* , 57 FR 28828 (June 29, 1992). The rates established in the most recently completed administrative review for the Soviet Union (which, because there were no shipments of urea during the review period, remained the same as those found in the investigation) were applied to each new independent state, including Russia. On September 3, 1999, the Department published the final results of the first sunset review of solid urea from Russia finding likelihood of continued or recurring dumping at the rates established in the original investigation. See *Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Solid Urea from Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan* , 64 FR 48357 (September 3, 1999). On January 5, 2006, the Department published the final results of the second sunset review of solid urea from Russia finding likelihood of continued or recurring dumping at the rates established in the original investigation. See *Notice of Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders: Solid Urea from the Russian Federation and Ukraine* , 71 FR 581 (January 5, 2006). There have been no administrative reviews since the issuance of the antidumping duty order. On January 25, 2007, the Department received a timely request for a new-shipper review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from Russia from MCC EuroChem (EuroChem). On January 31, 2007, EuroChem submitted additional certifications to supplement its request for a new-shipper review in response to our telephone call of the same. See memorandum to file dated January 31, 2007. EuroChem certified that it is both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise upon which the request for a new-shipper review is based. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), EuroChem certified that it did not export solid urea to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), EuroChem certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any Russian exporter or producer who exported solid urea to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), EuroChem submitted documentation establishing the date on which EuroChem first shipped solid urea for export to the United States and the date on which the solid urea was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, the volume of its first shipment, and the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department conducted a query of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)database to confirm that EuroChem's shipment of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and had been suspended for antidumping duties. The Department also corroborated EuroChem's assertion that it made no subsequent shipments to the United States by reviewing CBP data. On February 16, 2007, the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen Producers (the petitioner) submitted a letter arguing that the respondent was not eligible for a new-shipper review because the producer of the subject merchandise to be reviewed, OJSC Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinka), was affiliated with the exporter and producers during the POI. The petitioner also argued that the request was incomplete because EuroChem did not also file a certification from Nevinka certifying that it never shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Initiation of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that EuroChem's request meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a new- shipper review for the shipment of solid urea from Russia it produced and exported. See Memorandum to the File from Thomas Schauer, Senior Analyst, through Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 5: New-Shipper Review Initiation Checklist, dated February 26, 2007. Also, please refer to this memorandum for our response to the arguments the petitioner raised in its February 16, 2007, letter. As we stated in that memorandum, we intend to examine these arguments in greater detail during the course of the review and, if we determine that the producer of the subject merchandise subject to the review was indeed an affiliate of the exporter or producers in the original investigation, we may rescind the new-shipper review as provided in section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214. The period of review for this new-shipper review is July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. See 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(ii)(A). The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this review no later than 180 days from the date of initiation and final results of this review no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new-shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by EuroChem must continue to pay a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current all-others rate of 68.26 percent. Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this new-shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: February 27, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-3896 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board (MEPNAB), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will meet Wednesday, March 21, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The MEPNAB is composed of six members appointed by the Director of NIST who were selected for their expertise in the area of industrial extension and their work on behalf of smaller manufacturers. The Board was established to fill a need for outside input on MEP. MEP is a unique program consisting of centers across the United States and Puerto Rico, with partnerships at the State, Federal, and local levels. The Board works closely with MEP to provide input and advice on MEP's programs, plans, and policies. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the board with the latest program developments including NIST Update, MEP Overview, presentations on MEP Partnerships and Program Evaluation. The agenda may change to accommodate Board business. DATES: The meeting will convene March 21, 2007 at 9 a.m. and will adjourn at 4:30 p.m. on March 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Atrium Court Hotel, 3 Research Court, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting should contact NIST MEP by March 14, 2007. Please submit your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Susan Hayduk no later than Monday, March 19, 2007. Ms. Hayduk's e-mail address is *susan.hayduk@nist.gov* and her phone number is

(301)975-5614. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Lellock, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, telephone number

(301)975-4269. Dated: March 1, 2007. James E. Hill, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E7-3874 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030107D] Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeastern Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Gulf of Mexico gag grouper; South Atlantic gag grouper; Gulf of Mexico red grouper; Public Meetings. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of SEDAR Workshops for Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic gag grouper and Gulf of Mexico red grouper. SUMMARY: The SEDAR assessments of the Gulf of Mexico stock of gag grouper, the South Atlantic stock of gag grouper, and the Gulf of Mexico stock of red grouper will receive additional scientific scrutiny through a supplemental SEDAR Review Workshop and Evaluation Workshop. DATES: The Evaluation Workshop will take place March 19 - 22, 2007. The Review Workshop will take place May 8 - 10, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The Evaluation Workshop will be held at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami Laboratory, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149. The Review Workshop will be held in the Tampa, FL area at a location to be provided in a later notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Carmichael, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone:

(843)571-4366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the SEDAR process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR assessments are developed through an open workshop process that involves a variety of participants. Participants for SEDAR Workshops, appointed by the regional Fishery Management Councils, the Southeast Regional Office (SERO), and the Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC), include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organization (NGO's); International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and Federal agencies. Assessments of Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic stocks of gag grouper were developed through SEDAR 10, completed in July 2006. The assessment of Gulf of Mexico red grouper was developed through SEDAR 12, completed in February 2007. It is acknowledged that methods of assessing Southeastern fish stocks and addressing issues within available datasets improve with each SEDAR assessment, and recent assessment updates have allowed incorporation of such changes. There are similarities in the data sources used to develop SEDAR 10 and 12 assessments, potential similarities in basic species biology, and considerable overlap in fisheries that harvest these species within the respective Council areas of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Steering Committee has determined that a special review of these recent grouper assessments is required to ensure that uncertainties are treated appropriately and that any potential differences in methods or data treatments are thoroughly justified. This special inquiry will be prepared through 2 SEDAR workshops: an evaluation workshop and review workshop. The evaluation workshop will consist of SEFSC and Council appointees familiar with the assessments and the fisheries which will be convened to review the assessments and possibly recommend additional sensitivity analyses. The Review Workshop will consist of an SEFSC appointed Chair, two independent reviewers appointed through the Center for Independent Experts (CIE), and up to two additional representatives appointed by the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils. The product of the Evaluation Workshop will be a report addressing key assessment uncertainties and recommending potential additional assessment analyses for consideration by the Review panel. The product of the Review Panel will be an independent evaluation of the recommendations and conclusions of the Evaluation Panel and any subsequent assessment analyses. SEDAR Grouper Review Schedule: March 19 - 22, 2007: Grouper Evaluation Workshop March 19, 2007: 1 p.m. - 6 p.m.; March 20 - 21, 2007: 8 a.m. - 6 p.m.; March 22, 2007: 8 a.m. - 12 noon. An appointed panel will review the SEDAR 10 assessments of Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic gag grouper and the SEDAR 12 assessment of Gulf of Mexico red grouper. Participants will evaluate key data and methodological decisions and the justifications of those decisions as provided in the SEDAR 10 and 12 assessment reports. The panel will prepare a written report addressing Terms of Reference approved by the SEDAR Steering Committee. May 8 - 10, 2007: SEDAR Grouper Review Workshop May 8, 2007: 1 p.m. - 6 p.m.; May 9, 2007: 8 a.m. - 6 p.m.; May 10, 2007: 8 a.m. - 1 p.m. The Review Workshop is an independent peer review of the recommendations of the Evaluation Panel and any subsequent analyses recommended by the Evaluation Panel. Workshop Panelists will review the SEDAR 10 and 12 assessments and the findings of the Evaluation Panel and document their comments and recommendations in a Consensus Summary Report. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 10 business days prior to each workshop. Dated: March 1, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-3849 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. PTO-T-2007-0003] Notice of the Removal of the Paper Search Collection of Registered Word-Only Marks From Trademark Search Library in Arlington, VA AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) hereby provides sixty

(60)days notice of the microfilming and removal of the paper search collection of registered marks consisting only of words from the USPTO's Trademark Search Facility in Arlington, VA. This Notice does not concern the paper search collection of registered marks that consist of or include design elements. DATES: Removal of the paper search collection of registered word-only marks shall be effected beginning sixty

(60)days from the date of this Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Chicoski, Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, 571-272-8943. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 35 U.S.C. 41(i), the USPTO must maintain a collection of United States trademark applications and registrations for use by the public in paper, microform, or electronic form. The provision authorizing an electronic search collection was added by § 4804(d)(1) of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (“AIPA”), Title IV, Subtitle B, of Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-589. The USPTO currently maintains a searchable electronic database of registered marks and marks in pending applications, as well as text and images of marks in abandoned, cancelled and expired records dating back to 1984. Government insignia protected by U.S. law or by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, and insignia that various federally and state recognized Native American tribes have identified as their official tribal insignia are also included. Trademark examining attorneys have relied exclusively on the electronic search system since before 1990. Section 4804(d)(2) of the AIPA provides that the USPTO can eliminate the paper or microform search collection only pursuant to notice and opportunity for public comment, and only after submitting a report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives detailing its plan for removal, and certifying that the implementation of such plan will not negatively impact the public. On May 9, 2003, the USPTO certified to Congress that the USPTO could cease to maintain a paper search collection of marks that consist only of words, without harm to the public. The 2003 report and certification are currently available on the USPTO Web site at *http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/comments/epubsearch/crtpapr.pdf.* While the 2003 report and certification remain effective, the United States subsequently entered a stipulated settlement in *National Intellectual Property Researchers Association, Inc.* v. *Rogan,* Civ. A. No. 03-808-A. Among other terms, the settlement required that the USPTO continue to maintain its paper search collection through at least January 1, 2006, to publish a **Federal Register** notice sixty

(60)days prior to ceasing maintenance, and to create microform copies of all paper trademark registrations and expired trademark registrations prior to disposing of them. In a June 23, 2006, **Federal Register** Notice, the USPTO announced that it “has determined that a paper collection of registered word marks is no longer necessary, and has met the requirements of the AIPA with respect to their removal. All papers will be microfilmed prior to removal and the microform collection will be available to the public in the Public Search Facility at 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.” 71 FR 36065, 36067 (June 23, 2006). The Notice provided that “[b]ecause the USPTO will continue to maintain all existing word marks in non-electronic form, i.e., on microfilm, the certification requirements of AIPA § 4804(d)(2) are not applicable to such marks.” *Id.* The Notice further indicated that the USPTO would issue a notice sixty

(60)days prior to the removal of the paper collection of registered word-only marks. *Id.* Accordingly, the USPTO hereby gives notice that beginning sixty

(60)days from the date of this Notice, the USPTO will begin removing the paper collection of active and expired trademark registrations that consist only of words. All papers will be microfilmed before being discarded, and the microform collection will be available to the public in the Public Search Facility at 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. This will ensure that all information currently available in the paper search collection remains available to the public. Dated: February 28, 2007. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E7-3853 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Notice of Meeting The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 15 March 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion affecting the appearance of Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials. Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: *http://www.cfa.gov.* Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting. Dated in Washington, DC, February 28, 2007. Thomas Luebke, AIA, Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-1003 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

U.S. Code

CFR