Notices. Notice of meeting

11,896 words·~54 min read·/register/2007/03/08/07-1072

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC) will meet in Washington, DC. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the status of the state specific rulemaking for inventoried roadless area management in the State of Idaho and to discuss temporary roads and other related issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 28 and March 29, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Forest Service's Yates Building at 201 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Call, RACNAC Coordinator, at *jessicacall@fs.fed.us* or

(202)205-1056, USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mailstop 1104, Washington, DC 20250. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public and interested parties are invited to attend; building security requires you to provide your name to the RACNAC Coordinator (contact information listed above) by March 23, 2007. You will need photo identification to enter the building. While meeting discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members, the public will be allowed to offer written and oral comments for the Committee's consideration. Attendees wishing to comment orally will be allotted a specific amount of time to speak during a public comment period at the end of the first day's agenda. To offer oral comment, please contact the RACNAC Coordinator at the contact number above. Dated: March 2, 2007. Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System. [FR Doc. E7-4143 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Earth Resources Inc.; Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of finding of no significant impact. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency that administers the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Utilities Programs, has made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) with respect to a request from Earth Resources Inc. for assistance from RUS to finance the construction and operation of a twenty

(20)MW power generating station utilizing chicken litter and woody biomass as fuel. The proposal would be constructed on a 140-acre property in Franklin County, Georgia. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie A. Strength, Environmental Protection Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Staff, Stop 1571, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1571, *telephone:*

(202)720-0468 or *e-mail: Stephanie.strength@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Earth Resources Inc. is proposing to install a twenty

(20)MW GE ID # 8287108 and 114939 steam driven turbine generation station and accessory structures, fuel storage and handling areas, traffic circulation and parking areas, waste holding areas, zero discharge system, and stormwater management features. A new 85-foot tall stack will be required. The proposal is located in Franklin County, Georgia. The generating station will be sited on a previously graded five-(5) acre portion of a 139-acre property. The remaining acres will be maintained as natural area buffers. Alternatives considered by the USDA Rural Development and ERI included:

(a)No action,

(b)alternate locations,

(c)alternate methods to provide service,

(d)alternate construction methods and materials,

(e)alternate designs,

(f)load management and energy conservation options, and

(g)alternate generation technologies. Copies of the Environmental Assessment and FONSI are available at, or can be obtained from, RUS at the address provided herein, or from Mr. Billy Jones

(706)384-4933, at Earth Resources Inc.'s headquarters office located at 774 Highway 320, Carnesville, Georgia 30521. Dated: March 2, 2007. James R. Newby, Assistant Administrator—Electric Program, Rural Development—Utilities Programs. [FR Doc. E7-4110 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 070215037-7038-01] Department of Commerce FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan AGENCY: Department of Commerce. ACTION: Request for comment. SUMMARY: The Department is updating its current FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan. As part of this process, the Department is inviting comments on its draft FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. DATES: Public comments on this document must be received at the appropriate mailing or e-mail address (see ADDRESSES ) on or before April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Please send comments to Mr. Stephen Shapiro, Chief, Systems, Policy, and Performance Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 5312, Washington, DC 20230. Comments may be submitted via e-mail to *sshapiro@doc.gov.* Commerce's draft Strategic Plan is posted at *http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Tatter, phone 202-482-5979, fax 202-482-2903, e-mail *btatter@doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, each Federal agency must develop a Strategic Plan describing the agency's mission, strategic goals, and those means and strategies that will be used to achieve the agency's mission for the current and next five years. The plan must, additionally, describe the relationship between annual performance goals and the agency's strategic goal framework. These Strategic Plans must be updated and reviewed at least every three years, a key part of which includes consultation with Congress and other interested and potentially affected parties. The draft FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan updates the key challenges, means, and strategies documented in the FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan. It also revises the goals, objectives, and outcomes to reflect current emphasis and to achieve greater consistency in style and format across the Department. Finally, it updates the measures used to track and report attainment of goals and objectives. Dated: March 2, 2007. Neil K. Shapiro, Deputy Director, Office of Budget. [FR Doc. E7-4116 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. International Trade Administration A-570-831 Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of the 12th Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2007 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Renkey, 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)482-2312. Background On December 27, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 2006). On January 23, 2007, the Fresh Garlic Producers Association (the “Petitioner”) withdrew its request for an administrative review for the following nine companies: Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. (“Jinan Yipin”), Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd., (“Linshu Dading”), Qingdao Titan Shipping LLC (“Qingdao Titan”), Shandong Wonderland Organic Food Co., Ltd. (“Shandong Wonderland”), Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen Xinboda”), Taian Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte Ltd. (“Taian Fook Huat”), Weifang Hongqiao International Logistic Co., Ltd. (“Weifang Hongqiao”), Xuzhou Simple Garlic Industry Co., Ltd. (“Xuzhou Simple”), and Omni Decor China Ltd. (“Omni Decor”). Partial Rescission Pursuant to section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Therefore, because the Petitioner's withdrawal of requests for review was timely and no other party requested a review of the aforementioned companies, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, we are rescinding this review with respect to Jinan Yipin, Linshu Dading, Qingdao Titan, Shandong Wonderland, Shenzhen Xinboda, Taian Fook Huat, Weifang Hongqiao, Xuzhou Simple, and Omni Decor. Assessment Rates The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review has been rescinded and which have a separate rate, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. For those companies for which this review has been rescinded but do not have a separate rate at this time (and thus remain part of the PRC-wide entity), the Department will issue assessment instructions upon the completion of this administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double 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 return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: February 27, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration [FR Doc. E7-4165 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently conducting the 2005-2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles, (heavy forged hand tools) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). We preliminarily determined to apply adverse facts available

(AFA)with respect to four companies which failed to cooperate to the best of their ability and failed to demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate, as follows:

(a)Hammers/Sledges and Bars/Wedges exported by Shandong Machinery Import & Export Company (SMC);

(b)Axes/Adzes, Bars/Wedges, Hammers/Sledges, and Picks/Mattocks (“all four classes or kinds”) exported by Jafsam Metal Products (Jafsam);

(c)Picks/Mattocks exported by Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation (TMC); and

(d)Picks/Mattocks and Hammers/Sledges exported by Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. (Huarong). We are also preliminarily rescinding the following 2005-2006 administrative reviews:

(a)Axes/Adzes and Picks/Mattocks, with regard to SMC;

(b)Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, and Picks/Mattocks, with regard to Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. (Iron Bull); and

(c)all four classes or kinds with regard to Shanghai Xinike Trading Company (Xinike). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review

(POR)for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 8, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6312 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 19, 1991, the Department published in the **Federal Register** four antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from the PRC. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles From the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 6622 (February 19, 1991). Imports covered by these orders comprise the following classes or kinds of merchandise:

(1)Hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (Hammers/Sledges);

(2)bars over 18 inches in length, track tools, and wedges (Bars/Wedges);

(3)Picks/Mattocks; and

(4)Axes/Adzes. *See* “Scope of the Antidumping Duty Orders” section below for the complete description of subject merchandise. On February 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools from the PRC for the POR covering February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,* 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 24, 2006, respondents SMC and TMC requested administrative reviews. On February 27, 2006, respondents Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. (Shanghai Machinery), Huarong, and Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. (Jinma), requested administrative reviews. On February 28, 2006, petitioner Council Tool Company requested administrative reviews of Huarong, SMC, TMC, Xinike, Iron Bull, and Jafsam. Also on February 28, 2006, another petitioner, Ames True Temper, requested administrative reviews of Huarong, SMC, TMC, Iron Bull, and Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. (Truper). On April 5, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty orders listed below covering the POR, February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006, with respect to the listed companies: Axes/Adzes A-570-803 Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinike Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. Bars/Wedges A-570-803 Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinike Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. Hammers/Sledges A-570-803 Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinike Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation Picks/Mattocks A-570-803 Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinike Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews,* 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006) ( *Initiation Notice* ). Partial Rescission of Review During the period specified in the Department's regulations, we received multiple withdrawals of requests for review by petitioners and respondents. *See* Memorandum from Mark Flessner to the Record entitled “Administrative Review (02/01/2005-01/31/2006) of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Adverse Facts Available and Corroboration,” ( *AFA and Corroboration Memo* ), dated February 28, 2007. On September 11, 2006, we published a notice rescinding the administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), with respect to Jinma (all four classes or kinds); Shanghai Machinery (all four classes or kinds); Truper (all four classes or kinds); TMC (Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, and Bars/Wedges); Huarong (Axes/Adzes and Bars/Wedges); and Iron Bull (Bars/Wedges). *See Administrative Review (02/01/2005-01/31/2006) of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,* 71 FR 53403 (September 11, 2006) (Rescission Notice). Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2005-2006 Administrative Review We are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to SMC for Axes/Adzes and Picks/Mattocks. SMC reported that it made no shipments of subject Axes/Adzes or Picks/Mattocks during the POR and the Department was able to review CBP data which support the claim that SMC did not export Axes/Adzes and/or Picks/Mattocks during the POR. Furthermore, no party has placed evidence on the record demonstrating that SMC exported the merchandise identified above during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative reviews on Axes/Adzes and Picks/Mattocks with respect to SMC. In addition, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Iron Bull for Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, and Picks/Mattocks for the same reason described above. The questionnaires sent to Xinike were returned to the Department as undeliverable. Given that petitioners had requested this review, we requested that they provide an alternate address for this company, but they were unable to do so. *See* Memorandum to the File from Mark Flessner entitled, “Administrative Review (02/01/2005-01/31/2006) of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Attempts to Contact Party Shanghai Xinike Trading Company,” dated May 22, 2006. Because the Department was unable to locate Xinike, we are also preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to this company in all four classes or kinds. Scope of Orders The products covered by these orders are heavy forged hand tools from the PRC, comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise:

(1)Hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds);

(2)bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges;

(3)picks and mattocks; and

(4)axes, adzes and similar hewing tools. Heavy forged hand tools include heads for drilling hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles; assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging bars and tampers; and steel wood splitting wedges. Heavy forged hand tools are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the insertion of handles for handled products. Heavy forged hand tools are currently provided for under the following Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00 and 8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from these orders are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and under. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. The Department has issued eight conclusive scope rulings regarding the merchandise covered by these orders:

(1)On August 16, 1993, the Department found the “Max Multi-Purpose Axe,” imported by the Forrest Tool Company, to be within the scope of the Axes/Adzes order;

(2)on March 8, 2001, the Department found “18-inch” and “24-inch” pry bars, produced without dies, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be within the scope of the Bars/Wedges order;

(3)on March 8, 2001, the Department found the “Pulaski” tool, produced without dies by TMC, to be within the scope of the Axes/Adzes order;

(4)on March 8, 2001, the Department found the “skinning axe,” imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be within the scope of the Axes/Adzes order;

(5)on December 9, 2004, the Department found the “MUTT,” imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc., under HTSUS 8205.59.5510, to be within the scope of the Axes/Adzes order;

(6)on May 23, 2005, the Department found 8-inch by 8-inch and 10-inch by 10-inch cast tampers, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to be outside the scope of the orders;

(7)on September 22, 2005, following remand, the U.S. Court of International Trade affirmed the Department's determination that cast picks are outside the scope of the order; and

(8)on October 14, 2005, the Department found the Mean Green Splitting Machine, imported by Avalanche Industries, under HTSUS 8201.40.60, to be within the scope of the Bars/Wedges order. TMC, Jafsam, and Huarong We issued our request for quantity and value data (Q&V), and sections A, C, and D antidumping questionnaire 1 to all respondents for which an administrative review had been requested. Although the Department confirmed delivery of the questionnaires and extended to each company another opportunity to respond, Jafsam did not submit a response. *See* Letter from Robert James, Program Manager, entitled “Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: 02/01/2005-01/31/2006 Administrative Review,” dated May 23, 2006. 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. As noted above, the administrative review with regard to TMC was rescinded for Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, and Bars/Wedges, leaving TMC subject to review for Picks/Mattocks. Nevertheless, TMC failed to submit a questionnaire response with respect to its exports of Picks/Mattocks. *See Rescission Notice.* Likewise, the administrative review with regard to Huarong was rescinded only for Axes/Adzes and Bars/Wedges, leaving Huarong subject to review for Hammers/Sledges and Picks/Mattocks. However, Huarong failed to submit a response with respect to the two remaining classes or kinds of merchandise. *See Rescission Notice.* SMC With respect to SMC, from April 2006 through January 2007, the Department issued its initial and supplemental questionnaires. Responses were received over the course of this period. In addition, parties were invited to submit comments on surrogate country selection and factors of production information. Parties submitted information with respect to these issues as well. Non-Market Economy Country In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy

(NME)country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,* 71 FR 54269 (September 14, 2006) ( *Final Results of 14th Review* ). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Separate Rates As discussed below, SMC (with respect to Hammers/Sledges and Bars/Wedges) failed to adequately respond to the Department's requests for information. TMC (with respect to the class or kind of merchandise Picks/Mattocks), Huarong (with respect to Hammers/Sledges and Picks/Mattocks), and Jafsam (with respect to all four classes or kinds) failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. *See AFA and Corroboration Memo; see also Facts Available* section below. To establish whether a company operating in a NME is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,* 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. In the *Initiation Notice,* the Department stated, “If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part.” *See Initiation Notice,* n.6. By failing to adequately respond to the Department's requests for information, SMC, TMC, Huarong, and Jafsam (pertaining to the classes or kinds identified above) have not demonstrated they are free of government control, are therefore not eligible to receive a separate rate, and are accordingly being treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. *See AFA and Corroboration Memo* . The PRC-wide entity including SMC, TMC, Huarong, and Jafsam (pertaining to the classes or kinds identified above) failed to adequately respond to the Department's requests for information. Because the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, the Department finds it appropriate, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, to use AFA as the basis for these preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide entity. Adverse Facts Available 1. Application of Adverse Facts Available For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts available to the PRC-wide entity, which includes SMC (with respect to Hammers/Sledges and Bars/Wedges), TMC (with respect to Picks/Mattocks), Huarong (with respect to Hammers/Sledges and Picks/Mattocks), and Jafsam (with respect to all four classes or kinds). Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party:

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

(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and

(e)of the Act;

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

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. *See also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,* 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil,* 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); *see also Nippon Steel* Corp. v. *United States,* 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon* ). We preliminarily find that SMC (with respect to Hammers/Sledges and Bars/Wedges), TMC (with respect to Picks/Mattocks), Huarong (with respect to Hammers/Sledges and Picks/Mattocks), and Jafsam (with respect to all four classes or kinds) did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available with respect to these companies. *See Nippon,* 337 F.3d at 1382-83. SMC From the start of this review, SMC has significantly impeded the Department's proceeding. SMC repeatedly either failed to answer, or provided contradictory answers to, many of the questions asked by the Department, calling into question the usability and reliability of the responses as a whole. For example, the May 11, 23, and 30, 2006, section A, C, and D responses were significantly deficient (with regard to all three sections), requiring the Department to issue an extensive first supplemental questionnaire. Likewise, SMC's September 15, 2006, responses were also deficient with regard to all three sections (A, C, and D), requiring the Department to issue another extensive supplemental questionnaire. SMC's January 22 and 24, 2007, responses also failed to provide adequate answers which would enable the Department

(a)to understand the company's structure and ownership,

(b)to compare the prices at which SMC's subject merchandise was sold in or to the United States with a constructed value, and

(c)to value the factors of production necessary to calculate export price, constructed export price, or normal value. *See AFA and Corroboration Memo* . In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. SMC did not adequately answer the questions posed by the Department regarding its eligibility for receiving a separate rate in this proceeding. Under the heading of “Separate Rates” in the original questionnaire, the Department asked SMC, among other things, three questions which are crucial to the separate rates determination. SMC was asked to describe and explain:

(i)Who owns your company,

(ii)who controls your company, and

(iii)your company's relationship with the national, provincial, and local governments. Throughout three separate sets of responses, SMC never clearly answered these questions. *See AFA and Corroboration Memo* . SMC's section D response also had multiple deficiencies which prevented the Department from being able to calculate a surrogate normal value. For example, in the original section D questionnaire response, the entirety of SMC's section D data was based on activity prior to the beginning of the instant POR. *See* SMC's section D response dated May 30, 2006. In the first supplemental questionnaire, SMC was asked to provide a detailed text explanation. SMC stated that all its sales to the United States during this POR were filled from stock from production for the previous POR (2004-2005). *See* SMC's 1st supplemental questionnaire responses dated September 15, 2006. The Department, in its second supplemental questionnaire, asked SMC to provide source documents which would show that the entirety of the stocks of subject merchandise SMC sold during the POR was acquired by SMC during the previous POR. SMC did not provide the requested documentation, rendering its entire section D database unreliable and unusable. *See* SMC's Second Supplemental Questionnaire response, dated January 24, 2007; *see also AFA and Corroboration Memo* . SMC's section C database is also rendered unusable as a result of SMC's continued and repeated failure to provide data on U.S. sales. For example, SMC failed to report any expenses paid in market economy currencies. SMC reported in the original section C questionnaire response that it had incurred some, but not all, of its freight expenses in market economy currencies but failed to provide any details or documentation. *See* SMC's Section C Questionnaire Response, dated May 23, 2006. In its first supplemental questionnaire response, SMC stated it had no market economy expenses on U.S. sales. *See* SMC's Section C Questionnaire Response, dated May 23, 2006. In its second supplemental questionnaire response, SMC stated that it incurred some freight expenses in market economy currencies, but continued to fail to provide any details or documentation. *See* SMC's 2nd supplemental A and C questionnaire responses dated January 22, 2007; *see also AFA and Corroboration Memo* . The Deaprtment was unable to evaluate any of the market economy inputs which are a critical portion of the NME section C questionnaire. As demonstrated above, SMC withheld requested information, failed to provide reliable and usable responses to the Department's questionnaires, and significantly impeded this proceeding, warranting the use of facts available under sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and

(C)of the Act. Given that its own records (which, for example, would at a minimum have reflected any remaining stocks from the previous POR) were reasonably available to SMC, we preliminarily find that SMC has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. Accordingly, we have preliminarily applied adverse facts available. *See* Section 776(b) of the Act. Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong Although the Department confirmed delivery of the questionnaires and extended another opportunity to respond, Jafsam did not submit a response to any section of the Department's questionnaires. *See* Letter from Robert James, Program Manager, entitled “Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: 02/01/2005-01/31/2006 Administrative Review,” dated May 23, 2006. The administrative review with regard to TMC was rescinded only in Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, and Bars/Wedges. *See Rescission Notice* . The administrative review with regard to Huarong was rescinded only with respect to Axes/Adzes and Bars/Wedges. *See Rescission Notice* . Despite having requested these reviews, TMC and Huarong did not submit responses to the Department's Q&V or section A, C, and D questionnaires in their respective classes or kinds. By not responding to the Department's request for information, Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong each withheld information that had been requested by the administering authority ( *i.e.* , the Department), failed to provide such information by the deadline for submission of the information and in the form and manner requested, and significantly impeded the review. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and

(C)of the Tariff Act, the Department shall apply facts available to all three of these companies. Further, as the information was reasonably available to Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong, we preliminarily find that Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. Accordingly, we have preliminarily applied adverse facts available to these three companies. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. 2. Selection of AFA Rate Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as AFA, information derived from:

(1)The petition;

(2)the final determination in the investigation;

(3)any previous review; or

(4)any other information placed on the record. In administrative reviews, the Department normally selects, as AFA, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. *See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003); *see also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 67 FR 5789 (February 7, 2002). The U.S. Court of International Trade

(CIT)and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice in several cases. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc.* v. *United States,* 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ( *Rhone Poulenc* ); *see also NSK Ltd.* v. *United States,* 346 F.Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a LTFV investigation); *see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l* v. *United States,* 24 CIT 678, 689

(2000)(upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); *see also Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd.* v. *United States,* Slip Op. 05-22, at 16 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value,* 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998); *see also Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part,* 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 2006). The Department's practice is to ensure “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870; *see also D&L Supply Co.* v. *United States,* 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ( *D&L Supply* ); *see also Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil,* 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *Rhone Poulenc,* 899 F. 2d at 1190. As AFA, we are preliminarily assigning to the PRC-wide entity's sales of Axes/Adzes, Bars/Wedges, Hammers/Sledges, and Picks/Mattocks the rates of 189.37, 139.31, 45.42, and 98.77 percent, respectively. *See AFA and Corroboration Memo.* 3. Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870; 19 CFR 351.308(d). Under section 776(c) of the Act, the Department is granted a wide discretion in its selection of secondary information, *i.e.* , the AFA rate, as long as the Department can determine, to the extent practicable, that the AFA rate has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. The SAA further provides that the term “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are administrative determinations. The rate selected as AFA for the PRC-wide entity's sales of Axes/Adzes is the highest calculated rate of any segment in this proceeding, which was calculated in the 14th administrative review. *See Final Results of 14th Review.* The rate selected as AFA for Bars/Wedges was calculated during the 1998-1999 administrative review, and was corroborated and used as the PRC-wide and AFA rate in the most recently completed administrative review. *See Final Results of 14th Review.* The AFA rate we are applying for the order on Hammers/Sledges was applied as “best information available” (the predecessor to AFA) during the LTFV investigation for the sole respondent China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, and was again corroborated and used as the PRC-wide and AFA rate in the 14th review. *Id.* The AFA rate we are applying for the order on Picks/Mattocks was calculated in the fifth review, became the PRC-wide and AFA rate in the seventh review, and has been used since. *Id.* These rates are applied to the PRC-wide entity, *i.e.* , those companies not eligible for a separate rate with regard to the individual class or kind of merchandise. No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of the information used for these AFA rates. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,* 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D&L Supply,* 113 F.3d at 1221 (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present with respect to the rates being used here. The 139.31 percent rate for Bars/Wedges calculated in the eighth review was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, and is therefore a final margin. *See Shandong Huarong General Corp* v. *United States,* 159 F.Supp.2d 714 (CIT 2001) (remanding final results); *see also Shandong Huarong General Corp* v. *United States,* 177 F.Supp.2d 1304 (CIT 2001) (sustaining remand), aff'd 60 Fed. Appx. 797 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This rate is also the PRC-wide rate for Bars/Wedges published in the most recently completed administrative review of this antidumping order. *See Final Results of 14th Review.* Thus, this rate is the highest rate in the proceeding and was calculated using verified information provided by TMC during the 8th administrative review of the Bars/Wedges order. Accordingly, we continue to find that this rate, instead of other recently calculated rates, is an appropriate AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity because it offers a more adequate incentive to induce the PRC-wide entity, including SMC, Jafsam, and Huarong, to cooperate in this proceeding. We note that this rate has been applied in the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th reviews as an AFA rate. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Order on Bars and Wedges,* 68 FR 10690 (March 6, 2003); *see also Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part,* 69 FR 55581 (September 15, 2004); *see also Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,* 69 FR 69892 (December 1, 2004); *see also Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,* 70 FR 54897 (September 19, 2005); *see also Final Results of 14th Review* . As stated above, the rates selected for Axes/Adzes, Bars/Wedges, Hammers/Sledges, and Picks/Mattocks are the rates currently applicable to the PRC-wide entity and they are not being applied to companies which have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate. The Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have demonstrated a lower rate, it would have cooperated. *See Rhone Poulenc,* 899 F. 2d at 1190; *cf. Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc.* v. *United States,* 24 CIT 841

(2000)(respondents should not benefit from failure to cooperate). The information used in calculating these margins was based on sales and production data of respondents in a prior review, together with the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department, chosen from submissions by the parties in that review, as well as gathered by the Department itself, or on “best information available” from the LTFV investigation. Furthermore, the calculations were subject to comment from interested parties in the proceeding. *See Final Results of 14th Review* at page 54270. Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that these rates are not appropriate to use as AFA, we determine that these rates have relevance. As these rates are both reliable and relevant, we determine that they have probative value. Accordingly, the selected rates of 189.37 percent for Axes/Adzes, 139.31 percent for Bars/Wedges, 45.42 percent for Hammers/Sledges, and 98.77 percent for Picks/Mattocks, the highest rates from any segment of this administrative proceeding ( *i.e.* , the calculated and current PRC-wide rate for each order) have been corroborated, to the extent practicable and as necessary, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily find that the following margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006: Manufacturer/exporter (percent) Weighted-average margin Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Axes/Adzes PRC-Wide Rate 2 189.37 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Bars/Wedges PRC-Wide Rate 3 139.31 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Hammers/Sledges PRC-Wide Rate 4 45.42 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Picks/Mattocks PRC-Wide Rate 5 98.77 Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue and

(2)a brief summary of the argument not to exceed five pages. Parties are also encouraged to provide a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited, and a diskette containing the electronic version. 2 The PRC-wide entity for Axes/Adzes includes Jafsam. 3 The PRC-wide entity for Bars/Wedges includes SMC and Jafsam. 4 The PRC-wide entity for Hammers/Sledges includes SMC, Jafsam, and Huarong. 5 The PRC-wide entity for Picks/Mattocks includes Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:

(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs. Any hearing will normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). The Department will issue the final results of these reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to these reviews directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of these reviews. However, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , no cash deposit will be required);

(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed review;

(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate for each class or kind of merchandise as follows:

(a)Axes/Adzes, 189.37 percent;

(b)Hammers/Sledges, 45.42 percent;

(c)Picks/Mattocks, 98.77 percent; and

(d)Bars/Wedges, 139.31 percent; and

(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. Dated: February 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4166 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-857, A-201-828] Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Japan and Mexico; Notice of Final Results of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the first sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain welded large diameter line pipe (“welded large diameter pipe”) from Japan and Mexico, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”). On the basis of notices of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and no response from respondent interested parties, the Department has conducted expedited sunset reviews of these antidumping duty orders. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the level indicated in the “Final Results of Reviews” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3362 or

(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2006, the Department initiated the first sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on welded large diameter pipe from Japan and Mexico, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 64242 (November 1, 2006). The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from American Steel Pipe Division of ACIPCO, Berg Steel Pipe Corporation, Dura-Bond Pipe LLC, Oregon Steel Mills, and Stupp Corp. (collectively “domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of the subject merchandise. We received complete substantive responses to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. We received no responses from the respondent interested parties to these proceedings. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews of these orders. Scope of the Orders Japan The product covered by this antidumping order is certain welded carbon and alloy line pipe, of circular cross section and with an outside diameter greater than 16 inches, but less than 64 inches, in diameter, whether or not stencilled. This product is normally produced according to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) specifications, including Grades A25, A, B, and X grades ranging from X42 to X80, but can also be produced to other specifications. Specifically not included within the scope of this investigation is American Water Works Association (“AWWA”) specification water and sewage pipe and the following size/grade combinations; of line pipe: -Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 18 inches and less than or equal to 22 inches, with a wall thickness measuring 0.750 inch or greater, regardless of grade. -Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 24 inches and less than 30 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.875 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.750 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.688 inches in grades X60 or greater. -Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 30 inches and less than 36 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.000 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.875 inches in grades X60 or greater. -Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 36 inches and less than 42 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.375 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.125 inches in grades X60 or greater. -Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 42 inches and less than 64 inches, with a wall thickness measuring greater than 1.500 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.375 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades X60 or greater. -Having an outside diameter equal to 48 inches, with a wall thickness measuring 1.0 inch or greater, in grades X-80 or greater. -Having an outside diameter of 48 inches to and including 52 inches, and with a wall thickness of 0.90 inch or more in grade X-80. -Having an outsides diameter of 48 inches to and including 52 inches, and with a wall thickness of 0.54 inch or more in grade X100. Scope Clarification: On October 26, 2006, the Department determined that large diameter line pipe with an API grade X-80 having an outside diameter of 21 inches and wall thickness of 0.625 inches was excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty order on welded large diameter pipe from Japan. *See Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Japan* , 71 FR 62584 (October 26, 2006). The product currently is classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”) item numbers 7305.11.10.30, 7305.11.10.60, 7305.11.50.00, 7305.12.10.30, 7305.12.10.60, 7305.12.50.00, 7305.19.10.30. 7305.19.10.60, and 7305.19.50.00. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. Mexico The product covered by this order is certain welded carbon and alloy line pipe, of circular cross section and with an outside diameter greater than 16 inches, but less than 64 inches, in diameter, whether or not stenciled. This product is normally produced according to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) specifications, including Grades A25, A, B, and X grades ranging from X42 to X80, but can also be produced to other specifications. Specifically not included within the scope of this investigation is American Water Works Association (“AWWA”) specification water and sewage pipe, and the following size/grade combinations of line pipe: -Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 18 inches and less than or equal to 22 inches, with a wall thickness measuring 0.750 inch or greater, regardless of grade. -Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 24 inches and less than 30 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.875 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.750 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.688 inches in grades X60 or greater. -Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 30 inches and less than 36 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.000 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.875 inches in grades X60 or greater. -Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 36 inches and less than 42 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.375 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.125 inches in grades X60 or greater. -Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 42 inches and less than 64 inches, with a wall thickness measuring greater than 1.500 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.375 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades X60 or greater. -Having an outside diameter equal to 48 inches, with a wall thickness measuring 1.0 inch or greater, in grades X-80 or greater. The product currently is classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”) item numbers 7305.11.10.30, 7305.11.10.60, 7305.11.50.00, 7305.12.10.30, 7305.12.10.60, 7305.12.50.00, 7305.19.10.30, 7305.19.10.60, and 7305.19.50.00. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these cases are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Japan and Mexico, from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 1, 2007 (“Decision Memo”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memo, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html, under the heading “March 2007.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Reviews We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on welded large diameter pipe from Japan and Mexico would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Japan Nippon Steel Corporation 30.80 Kawasaki Steel Corporation 30.80 All Others 30.80 Mexico PMT-Tubacero 49.86 All Others 49.86 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 1, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4164 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Application to Amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review. SUMMARY: Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration,

(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct. Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five

(5)copies, plus two

(2)copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021-B H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 06-A0002.” A summary of the application for an amendment follows. Summary of the Application *Applicant:* Necole Shannon Global, Inc. (“NSG”), 7126 E. King Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115. *Contact:* Darah Thomas, President, Telephone:

(918)834-6277. *Application No.:* 06-A0002. *Date Deemed Submitted:* February 27, 2007. The original NSG Certificate was issued on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 76275, December 20, 2006). *Proposed Amendment:* NSG seeks to amend its Certificate to change its name from “Darah Thomas, doing business as Necole Shannon Global Export Services” to the new listing “Necole Shannon Global, Inc.” Dated: March 2, 2007. Jeffrey C. Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-4148 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Application To Amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review. SUMMARY: Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration,

(5)copies, plus two

(2)copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021-B H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 99-3A005.” A summary of the application for an amendment follows. Summary of the Application *Applicant:* California Almond Export Association, LLC (“CAEA”), 4800 Sisk Road, Modesto, California 95356. *Contact:* Doug Youngdahl, Chairman, Telephone:

(916)446-8595. *Application No.:* 99-3A005. *Date Deemed Submitted:* February 27, 2007. The original CAEA Certificate was issued on December 27, 1999 (65 FR 760, January 6, 2000) and last amended on June 17, 2004 (69 FR 35585, June 25, 2004). *Proposed Amendment:* CAEA seeks to amend its Certificate to: 1. Add each of the following companies as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): Sunny Gem, LLC, Wasco, California; and North Valley Nut, Inc., Chico, California; and 2. Change the listing of the following Member: “Ryan*Parreira Almond Company, Los Banos, California” to the new listing “RPAC, LLC, Los Banos, California”. Dated: March 2, 2007. Jeffrey C. Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-4149 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 022807B] Pre-assessment Workshop and Public Meeting for West Coast Sablefish and Longnose Skate AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: NOAA Fisheries will hold a workshop to discuss the data and models that will be used in the upcoming stock assessments for sablefish and longnose skate. DATES: The Pre-assessment Workshop for West Coast Sablefish and Longnose Skate will be held Tuesday, March 20, 2007, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 5 p.m. The stock assessment authors will be available on Wednesday, March 21, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. until 12 noon p.m. for additional discussion if needed. ADDRESSES: The Pre-Assessment Workshop for West Coast Sablefish and Longnose Skate will be will be held at the Hatfield Marine Science Center, Guin Library Seminar Room, 2030 S.E. Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacey Miller, Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC); telephone:

(206)437-5670; or Dr. Jim Hastie, Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC); telephone: (206)860-3412. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This workshop is intended to initiate dialog between members of the fishing community, stock assessment authors, data managers, and interested members of the public. The specific objectives of the workshop are to:

(1)Discuss the data used in the sablefish and longnose skate stock assessments including details on collections methods, current observed trends, and how the data will be incorporated into the assessment models;

(2)discuss the rationale for making assumptions in the models, especially when data are missing or insufficient;

(3)identify anomalies in the data and provide possible explanations; and

(4)identify data gaps and future research possibilities. All participants are encouraged to pre-register for the workshop by contacting Ms. Stacey Miller, Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) by phone at (206)437-5670 or by email at *Stacey.Miller@noaa.gov* . Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the workshop participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal workshop action during this meeting. Workshop action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the workshop participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Stacey Miller at

(206)437-5670 at least five days prior to the meeting date. Dated: March 1, 2007. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4090 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)for Base Closure and Realignment

(BRAC)Actions at Fort Lee, Virginia, and Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA). SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces the availability of an FEIS which evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with realignment actions directed by the Base Closure and Realignment

(BRAC)Commission at Fort Lee, Virginia. DATES: The waiting period for the FEIS will end 30 days after publication of an NOA in the **Federal Register** by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ADDRESSES: To obtain a copy of the FEIS, please contact: Ms. Carol Anderson (Fort Lee), IMNE-EE-PWE, 1816 Shop Rd., Fort Lee, Virginia 23801-1604, e-mail address: *CRMLee@lee.army.mil.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Anderson at

(804)734-5071, or Ms. Terry Banks, Fort A.P. Hill, at

(804)633-8223, during normal business hours Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the FEIS and the Proposed Action is the construction and renovation activities at both installations, movement of personnel to Fort Lee, and related field training activities at Fort A.P. Hill associated with the BRAC-directed realignment of Fort Lee. To implement the BRAC recommendations, Fort Lee will be receiving personnel, equipment, and missions from various closure and realignment actions within the Department of Defense. To implement the BRAC Commission recommendations, the Army will provide the necessary facilities, buildings, and infrastructure at Fort Lee to support the establishment of a Sustainment Center of Excellence, a Joint Center for Consolidated Transportation Management Training, and a Joint Center of Excellence for Culinary Training; locate various offices of the Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA)Headquarters; and receive all components of the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA). Additionally, facilities will be installed or constructed at Fort A.P. Hill to accommodate field training exercises and leadership skills training for Student Soldiers at Fort Lee. These actions will impact several areas at the installations. Following a rigorous examination of all implementation alternative, those alternatives found not to be viable were dropped from further analysis in the Fort Lee and Fort A.P. Hill FEIS. Alternatives carried forward include the Preferred Alternative and a No Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative includes construction, renovation, and operation of proposed facilities to accommodate incoming military missions at Fort Lee. The FEIS analyses indicate that implementation of the preferred alternative would have long-term, significant adverse impacts on socioeconomic resources (local school districts, and community services), and the transportation network at Fort Lee and its surrounding area, and no long-term significant adverse impacts on any resources at Fort A.P. Hill or its surrounding area. Minor adverse impacts on all other resources at both installations would potentially occur from implementation of the preferred alternative. Construction of new facilities in the cantonment area would have a long-term minor adverse impact on the historic setting of the Petersburg National Battlefield. An electronic version of the FEIS can be viewed or downloaded from the following URL: *http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/nepa_eis_docs.htm.* Dated: March 1, 2007 Addison D. Davis, IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health). [FR Doc. 07-1072 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

CFR