Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-03-19 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice

29,262 words·~133 min read·/register/2007/03/19/07-1316

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 COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-906, A-560-820, and A-580-856] Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Antidumping Duty Investigations of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok (People's Republic of China), Irina Itkin (Indonesia) or Joy Zhang (Republic of Korea), Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4162,
(202)482-0656, or
(202)482-1168, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Postponement of Preliminary Determination On November 20, 2006, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated the antidumping duty investigations of coated free sheet paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC), Indonesia and the Republic of Korea. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 68537 (November 27, 2006). The notice of initiation stated that, unless postponed, the Department would make its preliminary determinations in these antidumping duty investigations no later than 140 days after the date of the initiation. On March 1, and 2, 2007, NewPage Corporation (Petitioner) made timely requests pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a fifty-day postponement of the preliminary determinations in these investigations. Petitioner requested postponement of the preliminary determinations because it needed additional time to evaluate the questionnaire responses filed by respondents, develop surrogate values (in the PRC investigation) and, if warranted, prepare an allegation of targeted dumping. For the reasons identified by the Petitioner, and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department is postponing these preliminary determinations under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), by fifty days to May 29, 2007. The deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless extended. This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). Dated: March 12, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4945 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-822] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
(CORE)from Canada. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 53363 (September 11, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The review covers shipments of this merchandise to the United States for the period August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005, made by Dofasco Inc., Sorevco Inc. (Sorevco), and Do Sol Galva Ltd. (collectively Dofasco), and by Stelco Inc. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of comments, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. For the final dumping margins, see the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Kirby or Joshua Reitze, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3782 or
(202)482-0666, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 11, 2006, the Department published its preliminary results in the antidumping duty administrative review of CORE from Canada. *See Preliminary Results* . The period of review
(POR)is August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. This review covers the following Canadian producers of subject merchandise: Dofasco Inc., Sorevco Inc., and Do Sol Galva Ltd., which have been collapsed into a single entity (collectively, Dofasco) for purposes of calculating a dumping margin, and Stelco Inc. (Stelco). *See* the “Affiliation and Collapsing” section of the *Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 53365. The petitioner is U.S. Steel Corporation (petitioner). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Petitioner submitted case briefs for Dofasco and Stelco on October 11, 2006. Dofasco submitted a rebuttal brief on October 16, 2006. None of the parties requested a hearing. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is certain corrosion-resistant steel, and includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Included in this order are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of non- rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”) -- for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat- rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada* , from Stephen J. Claeys to David M. Spooner, dated March 12, 2007 ( *Issues and Decision 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 comments received, we have made minor adjustments in the methodology that was used in the *Preliminary Results* and corrected certain calculation errors. The adjustments are discussed in detail in the *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* . Final Results of Review As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average Margin Dofasco Inc., Sorevco, Inc., Do Sol Galva Ltd. 5.25 percent Stelco Inc. 1.51 percent Assessment 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 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 Deposits Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department revoked this order and notified U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after December 15, 2005, the effective date of revocation of this AD order. *See Revocation Pursuant to Second Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Canada, Japan, and France* , 72 FR 7010 (February 14, 2007). Certificate on Reimbursement This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders. This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930. Dated: March 12, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Issues 1. Treatment of Dofasco's bad debt allowance 2. Application of the major input rule to Dofasco's purchase of iron ore fluxed pellets from Quebec Cartier Mining
(QCM)3. Treatment of Dofasco's indirect selling expenses incurred in Canada 4. Treatment of Dofasco's inventory carrying costs incurred in Canada 5. Application of the arm's length test 6. Treatment of Dofasco's home market indirect selling expenses in the calculation of the net price used in the sales below cost test 7. Calculation of credit expense for certain of Stelco's U.S. sales [FR Doc. E7-4942 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Notice of Amended Final Results in Accordance With Court Decision: Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Mark Manning; AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3936 or
(202)482-5253, respectively. SUMMARY: On March 10, 2007, the appeals period expired with respect to a decision of the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”), which had sustained the final results in part, and the remand determination in part, of the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) in the administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools (“HFHTs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002. *See Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. v. United States and Ames True Temper* , Slip Op. 07-3 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007) (“ *Shandong Huarong II* ”). As there is now a final court decision, we are amending the final results of the review in this matter. We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate entries subject to these amended final results. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 10, 2003, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the final results of review for the eleventh review of HFHTs from the PRC. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Order on Bars and Wedges* , 68 FR 53347 (September 10, 2003) (“ *Final Results* ”). The period of review (“POR”) was February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002. Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. (“Huarong”) filed a summons on September 18, 2003, and filed a complaint on September 25, 2003, challenging the Department's * Final Results * . Ames True Temper 1 (“Ames”) filed a summons on October 10, 2003, and filed a complaint on November 10, 2003, also challenging the Department's *Final Results* . The Court consolidated the two cases on December 23, 2003. On February 17, 2004, Ames filed, with a supporting brief, a motion for judgment upon the agency record. On February 18, 2004, Huarong filed, with a supporting brief, its motion for judgment upon the agency record. In their briefs, Ames and Huarong challenged several aspects of the Final Results. *See* Ames's February 17, 2004, proposed order and brief in support of motion for judgment upon the agency record (“Ames Motion for Judgment”); *see also* Huarong's February 18, 2004, proposed order and brief in support of motion for judgment upon the agency record (“Huarong Motion for Judgment”). On April 26, 2004, the Department filed its opposition to both the Huarong Motion for Judgment and the Ames Motion for Judgment. Ames filed an opposition to the Huarong Motion for Judgment on April 27, 2004. Huarong filed its reply to the Department's opposition and Ames's opposition on May 21, 2004. The Court issued a remand order on May 2, 2005. 1 Ames True Temper is a domestic interested party to the proceeding, and was the petitioner in the underlying review. In *Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. v. United States* , 2005 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 57, Slip Op. 2005-54 (Ct. Int'l Trade, 2005) (“ *Shandong Huarong I* ”), the CIT remanded the underlying final results to the Department to:
(1)reopen the record in order to afford Huarong a second opportunity to provide a scrap offset in which its scrap sales are allocated to the production of bars/wedges;
(2)explain why its methodology of including distances greater than the distance from the nearest port to the factory, when calculating the weighted-average freight distance for multiple suppliers of one particular factor of production (“FOP”), satisfies the reasoning in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“ *Sigma* ”) and *Lasko Metal Products Inc. v. United States* , 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“ *Lasko* ”), or adjust its methodology;
(3)explain its decision to disregard the effect of subsidies from the United States and other countries, in light of *Fuyao Glass Indus. Group Co. v. United States* , Slip Op. 2003-169 (Ct. Int'l Trade, 2003) (“ *Fuyao I* ”) and *Fuyao Glass Indus. Group Co. v. United States* , Slip Op. 2005-06 (Ct. Int'l Trade, 2005) (“ *Fuyao II* ”);
(4)supply a more complete explanation to support its determination that labor costs and other factor inputs for making steel pallets are included in the cost of brokerage and handling; and
(5)provide a more complete explanation to support its decision that the cost of movement from the truck to the container yard, demurrage and storage charges, and other port charges are included in the brokerage and handling cost. The Department released the Draft Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Draft Redetermination”) to Huarong and Ames for comment on October 7, 2005. The Department received timely filed comments from both Huarong and Ames on October 14, 2005, and rebuttal comments from Huarong on October 19, 2005. The Department filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Final Redetermination”) with the CIT on November 30, 2005. In the Final Redetermination the Department did the following:
(1)reopened the record, and applied a steel scrap offset in its calculation of normal value to adjust for sales of steel scrap that was generated from the production of the subject bars and wedges;
(2)applied the *Sigma* cap in its analysis and capped the distance for each supplier before calculating the weighted-average inland freight distance;
(3)explained its decision in the *Final Results* to not exclude U.S. export data from the Indian import statistics used as the surrogate value because it would have resulted in an insignificant adjustment to normal value;
(4)revised its FOP methodology to include labor costs and other factor inputs for making steel pallets in normal value; and
(5)explained its reasoning for finding that movement expenses incurred at the port of export were included in the calculation of brokerage and handing expenses. The Department recalculated the antidumping duty rate applicable to Huarong, and included the changes noted above. On January 9, 2007, the CIT sustained all aspects of the remand redetermination made by the Department pursuant to the CIT's remand of the *Final Results* . Amended Final Results of Review The time period for appealing the CIT's final decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has expired and no party has appealed this decision. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision with respect to litigation for Huarong, we are amending the final results of review to reflect the findings of the remand results, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The amended weighted-average margin is: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin Shandong Huarong Machinery Co.: Bars/Wedges 31.00 Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* on an *ad valorem* basis, calculated by dividing the dumping margins found on examined subject merchandise by the estimated entered value, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the importer-specific assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent *ad valorem* ). Since the actual entered value of the merchandise was not reported to us, we have divided, where applicable, the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price) for each importer by the total number of units sold to the importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting unit dollar amount against each unit of subject merchandise entered by the importer during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these amended final results of review. These amended final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 12, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4949 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-817] Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Notice of NAFTA Panel Decision Not In Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 16, 2007, a Bi-National Panel (“Panel”) constituted under the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) affirmed the U.S. Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) redetermination on remand of the final results of the fourth antidumping duty administrative review on oil country tubular goods from Mexico. *See In the Matter of: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review and Determination Not to Revoke* , USA-MEX-2001-1904-05 (January 16, 2007) (“ *NAFTA Final Decision* ”). This case arises out of the Department's determination in the final results of administrative review covering the period August 1, 1998, to July 31, 1999. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part* , 66 FR 15832 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“ *Final Results* ”). Consistent with the decision of the *United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Timken Co. v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Timken* ”), the Department is notifying the public that the *NAFTA Final Decision* and the Notice of Final Panel Action are not in harmony with the Department's *Final Results* . EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0195 or
(202)482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For the *Final Results* , the Department reviewed sales to the United States by Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (“Hylsa”) and Tubos de Aceros de Mexico, S.A. (“TAMSA”), both Mexican producers of OCTG. Both TAMSA and Hylsa requested revocation from the Order in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.222(e)(1). The Department declined to revoke the order in part with respect to TAMSA, as it determined that TAMSA “did not sell the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the three years cited by TAMSA to support its request for revocation.” *See Final Results* , Issues and Decision Memorandum at page 10. The Department declined to revoke the order in part with respect to Hylsa due to the finding of a dumping margin in the review. *Id* . at 23. Subsequent to the completion of the fourth administrative review, both Hylsa and TAMSA challenged the Department's findings and requested that a Bi-National Panel review the final determination. The Panel issued a decision on January 27, 2006, upholding the Department's determinations with respect to TAMSA, but remanding the review to the Department with respect to Hylsa (to recalculate Hylsa's packing cost and cost of production on a product-specific basis). *See In the Matter of: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke* , USA-MEX-01-1904-05 (January 27, 2006) (“ *NAFTA First Decision* ”). In accordance with the *NAFTA First Decision* , the Department filed its remand results on April 27, 2006. Based on the instructions of the Panel, the Department recalculated Hylsa's packing and cost of production by product costs and calculated a new antidumping duty margin for Hylsa, resulting in a margin of zero. The Department proceeded to conduct a revocation analysis, but found that Hylsa did not ship in commercial quantities to the U.S. market during the time period under consideration and found that the finding of dumping by Hylsa in the ninth administrative review was relevant to the determination whether the antidumping duty order was otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Based on these factors, the Department declined to revoke the order. *See* Redetermination on Remand, Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Fourth Administrative Review, April 27, 2006. On August 11, 2006, the Panel again remanded the decision to the Department for further consideration. *See In the Matter of: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke* , USA-MEX-01-1904-05 (August 11, 2006) (“ *NAFTA Second Decision* ”). The Panel rejected the Department's reliance on the results of the ninth administrative review and also directed the Department to reexamine its revocation analysis “in light of the issues raised by the Panel.” *Id* . at 21. In accordance with the Second Decision, the Department reexamined Hylsa's request for revocation under 19 CFR § 351.222(e)(1) and determined that Hylsa had not made sales in commercial quantities for the three review periods under analysis. *See* Redetermination on Remand, Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Fourth Administrative Review, October 5, 2006, at 13-16. On January 16, 2007, the Panel affirmed the Department's second remand redetermination. *See NAFTA Final Decision* . The Panel issued its Notice of Final Panel Action on February 2, 2007. In *Timken* , the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. *Timken* , 393 F.2d at 341. Because NAFTA panels step into the shoes of the courts they are replacing, they must apply the law of the national court that would otherwise review the administrative determination. Therefore, we are publishing notice that the Panel's February 2, 2007, Notice of Final Panel Action and its January 16, 2007, *NAFTA Final Decision* are not in harmony with the Department's *Final Results* . This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of *Timken* . Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the Panel's ruling is not appealed, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to revise the liquidation rates covering the subject merchandise. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 8, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4912 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-886] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (“PRCBs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on September 13, 2006. 1 The period of review (“POR”) is January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the *Preliminary Results* . The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. 1 *See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 54021 (September 13, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-4243 or
(202)482-4551, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 28, 2005, the Department initiated this administrative review with respect to Dongguan Nozawa Plastic Products Co. Ltd. and United Power Packaging Ltd. (collectively “Nozawa”), Crown Polyethylene Products (International) Ltd. (“Crown”), Rally Plastics Co., Ltd. (“Rally”), Sea Lake Polyethylene Enterprise Ltd. (“Sea Lake”), Shanghai Glopack, Inc. (“Glopack”), High Den Enterprises Ltd. (“High Den”), and Shanghai New Ai Lian Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“New Ai Lian”). 2 On October 25, 2005, the Department amended its initiation to include Ampac Packaging (Nanjing) Co. (“Ampac”), which was inadvertently omitted from the September 28, 2005 initiation notice. 3 2 *See* , *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631, 56632 (September 28, 2005) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”), which refers to Nozawa with the following names: Dongguan Nozawa Plastics and United Power Packaging (collectively “Nozawa”), Dongguan Nozawa Plastics, Dongguan Nozawa Plastic Co., Ltd., Dong Guan (Dong Wan) Nozawa Plastic Co., Ltd., Dongguan Nozawa Plastic Products Co., Ltd., United Power Packaging, United Power Packaging Limited, United Power Packaging Ltd. 3 *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005). On November 16, 2005, New Ai Lian withdrew its request for an administrative review. On November 22, 2005, Rally withdrew its request for an administrative review. On December 27, 2005, Sea Lake and Glopack withdrew their requests for an administrative review. On February 23, 2006, Ampac withdrew its request for an administrative review. On September 13, 2006, the Department published the *Preliminary Results* in the **Federal Register** . 4 On October 20, 2006, High Den submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response (“3 rd SQR”). The Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags Committee (“the PRCB Committee”), Crown, High Den, and Nozawa each submitted case briefs on October 26, 2006, and rebuttal briefs on November 6, 2006. 4 *See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 54021 (September 13, 2006). On January 10, 2007, the Department determined that it was not practicable to complete the final results of the administrative review of PRCBs from the PRC within the 120-day period due to complex issues the parties have raised regarding the selection of appropriate financial statements for the calculation of surrogate financial ratios. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (“the Act”), the Department extended the time period for completion of the final results until February 12, 2007. 5 5 *See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 1216 (January 10, 2007). On February 2, 2007, the Department published the revised “Expected NME Wages” applicable to 2004 on its website. See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. On February 2, 2007, the Department informed all interested parties of the revised NME wage rate applicable to this review and gave the parties the opportunity to comment on this issue prior to the final results. 6 In order to give parties an opportunity to comment on the Department's revised calculations of expected non-market economy wages, the Department extended the deadline to complete the final results to February 26, 2007. 7 We extended the deadline to complete the final results due to complex issues related to the calculation of surrogate financial ratios to March 12, 2007. 8 6 *See* Memorandum from Matthew Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, To The File, “Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Request for Comments on Revised Expected Non-Market Economy Wages” (February 2, 2007). 7 *See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 7417 (February 15, 2007). 8 *See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 9731 (March 5, 2007). No party provided comments on this issue. Thus, we calculated the surrogate value for labor using the Department's revised expected NME wage rate of $0.83 for the PRC. We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is PRCBs which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, *e.g.* , grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the investigation excludes
(1)polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and
(2)polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, *e.g.* , garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 9 This subheading may also cover products that are outside the scope of this investigation. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. 9 Until July 1, 2005, these products were classifiable under HTSUS 3923.21.0090 (Sacks and bags of polymers of ethylene, other). *See Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2005)- Supplement 1 Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes Change Record - 17th Edition - Supplement 1* , available at http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/0510/0510chgs.pdf. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China,” (March 12, 2007) (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 in the main Department building, and is also accessible on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations for Crown, High Den, and Nozawa . *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comments 1-16. Surrogate Financial Ratios • We excluded Arvind Chemi Synthetics Pvt., Ltd. (“Arvind”) and Jain Raffia Industries, Ltd. (“Jain Raffia”) from the companies used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios because they did not produce merchandise that was identical or comparable to the subject merchandise. *See* Comment 1 of the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China,” (February 12, 2007) (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”). • Of the seven surrogate financial statements provided by the PRCB Committee in its October 3, 2006 surrogate value submission, we based our determination of the surrogate financial ratios on: A.P. Polyplast Private Limited (“A.P. Polyplast”), Kuloday Technopack Pvt. Ltd. (“Kuloday”), Sangeeta Poly Pack Limited (“Sangeeta”), Smitabh Intercon Ltd. (“Smitabh”), Synthetic and Tims Polymers Pvt. Ltd (“Tims”). *See* Comment 2 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. • We made the following changes to the calculations of the surrogate financial ratios provided in the PRCB Committee's case brief: a. We did not allocate “salary and wages” between labor and SG&A based upon industry-wide information published by the Indian government. Rather, we classified “salary and wages” in a manner consistent with each of the surrogate company's audited financial statements.. *See* Comment 3a of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. b. We classified “salaries” as SG&A and “wages” as direct labor for A.P. Polyplast. *See* Comment 3b of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. c. We have classified “consumable stores” for A.P. Polyplast and Sangeeta as an overhead expense. *See* Comment 3c of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. d. We have offset SG&A by the amount of short-term interest reported on Sangeeta's, Smitabh's and Tims' financial statements. *See* Comment 3g of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. e. We decreased material cost by the amount of the increase of stock-in-process for Sangeeta, Smitabh and Tims. *See* Comment 3i of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. f. We did not adjust the audited financial statements for unacknowledged accruals for leave encashment and employee gratuity for A.P. Polyplast, Kuloday, Sangeeta, Smitabh, Synthetic and Tims. *See* Comment 3j of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. g. We offset SG&A by foreign exchange gains and losses for Kuloday, Smitabh and Tims. *See* Comment 3k of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. h. We did not adjust the audited financial statements for subsidies for Tims. See Comment 3l of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Expected NME Wage Rate • We calculated the surrogate value for labor using the Department's revised expected NME wage rate of $0.83 for the PRC. Nozawa • We applied adverse fact available (“AFA”) to those sales of Nozawa where the corresponding control number (“CONNUM”) in the U.S. sales database was not based on the product's physical characteristics ( *e.g.* , those sales lacking factors of production data) rather than to all sales whose corresponding CONNUMs matched to more than one set of physical characteristics. *See* Comment 4b of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. • We made no inland freight adjustment to Nozawa's market-economy (“ME”) material input purchases which Nozawa reported as delivered prices. *See* Comment 7 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. • We adjusted U.S. prices for further manufacturing costs on a transaction-specific basis rather than a CONNUM-specific basis, thereby limiting the adjustment only to sales of product further manufactured in the United States. *See* Comment 8 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. • We treated Nozawa's export price (“EP”) sales as though the entered values were unknown and calculated a per unit assessment for Nozawa's EP sales rather than an *ad valorem* assessment rate. We based these changes on Nozawa's December 23, 2005, original section C questionnaire response which, in response to field 47.0, states that the entered values of Nozawa's EP sales are unknown. Crown • We corrected the ministerial error in the SAS program representing the value of market-economy freight for four transactions. *See* Comment 9 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. • We valued paper cardboard using the value of HTS number 4819.10.10. *See* Comment 12 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. High Den • We recalculated High Den's antidumping duty without regard for international freight. *See* Comment 14 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. • We deducted from the starting price handling charges that were recorded on the commercial invoices of the U.S. sales, but were not reported in the section C databases. *See* Comment 14 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. • We recalculated the value of High Den's market-economy purchases of polyethylene resins, correcting the ministerial errors contained in the Excel chart. *See* Comment 15 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Final Results of Review We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005: Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Percentage Crown 7.68 High Den 14.01 Nozawa 7.36 The PRC-Wide Entity 77.57 Assessment Rates The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of administrative review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PRCBs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by Section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)As the final weight-averaged margins for Crown, High Den, and Nozawa are not less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, not *de minimis* , cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties will be required;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 77.57 percent, the current PRC-wide rate; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 12, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum Issues with Respect to Surrogate Financial Ratios *Comment 1:* Exclude Arvind and Jain Raffia from the Calculation of the Surrogate Financial Ratios *Comment 2:* Determine the Surrogate Financial Ratios Based on the Seven Financial Statements Provided by the PRCB Committee *Comment 3:* Methodological and Clerical Errors in the Surrogate Financial Ratio Calculations Either Used by the Department or Proposed by the PRCB Committee *Comment 3a.* Allocate “Salary and Wages” Between Direct Labor and Selling, General and Administrative (“SG&A”) Expenses Based upon Industry-Wide Information Published by the Indian Government *Comment 3b.* Classify “Salaries” as SG&A and “Wages” as a Part of Direct Labor *Comment 3c.* Reclassify Consumable Stores as Manufacturing Overhead (“MOH”) Rather than Direct Materials *Comment 3d.* Offset the Value of Raw Material by Sales of Scrap *Comment 3e.* Reclassify Depreciation as Factory Overhead *Comment 3f.* Offset Direct Labor Expenses With Job Work Revenue *Comment 3g.* Offset SG&A Expenses by Short-Term Interest Income *Comment 3h.* Reclassify Coolie and Cartage from MOH to Labor Expense *Comment 3i.* Reduce Material Costs by the Increase in Stock of Finished Goods and Scrap *Comment 3j.* Adjust Audited Financial Statements for Leave Encashment and Employee Gratuity Accruals *Comment 3k.* Offset Financial Expenses by Foreign Exchange Gains *Comment 3l.* Adjust Energy, Overhead, SG&A and Profit by the Amount of Subsidy Receivable Comments with Respect to Nozawa: *Comment 4a:* Partial Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”) for Nozawa *Comment 4b:* Should AFA Be Limited Only to Control Numbers (“CONNUMs”) Not Defined by Their Physical Characteristics or to All CONNUMs with More than One Set of Physical Characteristics? *Comment 5:* Appropriate AFA Rate for Nozawa *Comment 6:* Surrogate Value for Colored Ink *Comment 7:* Nozawa's Further Manufacturing *Comment 8:* Freight on Nozawa's Market-Economy (“ME”) Purchases Comments with Respect to Crown: *Comment 9:* International Freight *Comment 10:* Negative Sales Values in the Denominator Used to Calculate Importer-Specific Assessment Rates *Comment 11:* Valuation of Cardboard Paper Inserts *Comment 12:* Valuation of Corrugated Cardboard Carton Comments with Respect to High Den: *Comment 13:* New Factual Information Submitted by High-Den *Comment 14:* International Freight Expenses for Transaction Number 2 *Comment 15:* Calculation of Weighted-Average Value of High Den's ME Purchases of Polyethylene Resins *Comment 16:* Valuation of High Den's Scrap Resin [FR Doc. E7-4946 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-830] Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany manufactured by Schmiedewerke Groditz GmbH (“SWG”). The period of review (“POR”) covers March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. We preliminarily determine that SWG did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”) in the United States during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damian Felton, Audrey R. Twyman, or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-0133,
(202)482-3534, or
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2002, the Department published an antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany* , 67 FR 10382 (March 7, 2002) (“ *Investigation Final* ”). On October 10, 2003, the Department published an amended antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany. *See Notice of Amended Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom* , 68 FR 58660 (October 10, 2003). On March 31, 2006, we received a request for a new shipper review from SWG for the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. We initiated the review on April 26, 2006. *See Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany* , 71 FR 24642 (April 26, 2006). On June 9, 2006, and July 13, 2006, SWG responded to Section A and Sections B and C, respectively, of the antidumping questionnaire. On the extended deadline of October 11, 2006, SWG submitted their supplemental questionnaire response. On December 4, 2006, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this new shipper review to no later than March 15, 2007. *See Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 70363 (December 4, 2006). Scope of the Order For the purposes of this order, the term “stainless steel bar” includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar (“SSB”) includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we intend to verify the information provided by SWG on April 16-18, 2007. Bona Fide Analysis Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated whether the U.S. transaction reported by SWG during the POR was a *bona fide* sale. Among the factors examined was the relationship between SWG and its reported U.S. customer. Petitioners 1 contended that SWG and its customer were affiliated by virtue of a principal/agent relationship. Based on our investigation, we preliminarily determine that SWG and its U.S. customer were not affiliated and that SWG's sale was made on a *bona fide* basis. For a complete discussion of our analysis, see the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, “ *Bona Fide* Nature of Schmiedewerke Groditz GmbH's Sales in the New Shipper Review for Stainless Steel Bar from Germany,” dated March 12, 2007, on file in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. 1 Petitioners are Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., and Electralloy Corporation. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United States by SWG were made at less than NV, we compared the U.S. export price (“EP”) to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to the prices of individual EP transactions. We have used the invoice date as the date of sale in both markets. We describe below our calculation of NV and EP. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products described by the Scope of the Order section, above, which were produced and sold by SWG in the home market, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate comparisons to U.S. sales. We made comparisons using the following five model match characteristics:
(1)Finish;
(2)Grade;
(3)Remelting;
(4)Final Finishing;
(5)Shape; and
(6)Size. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is defined as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export price (“CEP”) is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections
(c)and (d). For SWG's sales to the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because its merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated EP based on the prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We based EP on the packed FOB port prices to the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including domestic inland freight, domestic inland insurance, international freight, U.S. customs duty, and U.S. brokerage and handling. Normal Value A. Viability In order to determine whether there is sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR), we compared SWG's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. *See* section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act. Based on SWG's reported home market and U.S. sales quantities, we determine that the volume of aggregate home market sales during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR. Accordingly, we find that SWG had a viable home market. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Price-to-Price Comparisons We compared U.S. sales with contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in Germany. As noted above, we selected the comparison sales based on the following criteria:
(1)Finish;
(2)Grade;
(3)Remelting;
(4)Final Finishing;
(5)Shape; and
(6)Size. In calculating the net unit price, we used the reported gross unit price. We made adjustments for differences in packing costs between the two markets and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. We deducted early payment discounts and movement expenses (inland freight and inland insurance). We adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale (“COS”) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made these COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. Home market direct selling expenses consisted of imputed credit, administrative charges associated with sales, and financing. U.S. direct selling expenses consisted of imputed credit, bank charges, and administrative charges associated with sales, and financing. Finally, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences between the U.S. models and the home market models to which they were being compared. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as EP or CEP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and administrative expenses and profit. For CEP it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997). In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained information from SWG about the marketing stages involved in its U.S. and home market sales, including a description of its selling activities in the respective markets. Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports differences in levels of trade, the functions and activities should be dissimilar. SWG reported one channel of distribution and one LOT in the home market contending that all home market sales were to end users. *See* SWG's June 9, 2006, Section A submission at A-12. SWG further contends it provided substantially the same level of customer support on its U.S. sale as it provided on its home market sales to end users. We examined the selling activities reported by SWG and determined that they are identical with respect to sales and marketing, inventory maintenance, warranties, and freight and delivery. For example, SWG did not incur freight and delivery or warehousing expenses in either market, and SWG performed similar activities with respect to sales and marketing and warranties. *See* SWG's June 9, 2006, Section A submission at A-13 and Exhibit A-5. The Department has determined that we will find sales to be at the same LOT when the selling functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). We find SWG performed virtually the same level of customer support services on its U.S. EP sale as it did on its home market sales. Therefore, based on our analysis of the selling functions performed on SWG's EP sale in the United States, and its sales in the home market, we determine that the EP and the starting price of home market sales represent the same stage in the marketing process, and are thus at the same LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that no level of trade adjustment is appropriate for SWG. Currency Conversions We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review we preliminarily find that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for SWG for the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of new shipper review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 5 days after the date of submission of case briefs and written comments. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this new shipper review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for the U.S. sale made by the respondent for which they have reported the importer of record and entered value, we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the U.S. sale. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated an importer-specific *ad valorem* rate based on the reported entered value. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by reviewed companies for which these 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 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 cash deposit rate will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for shipments of stainless steel bar from Germany entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. For subject merchandise produced and exported by SWG, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero. This cash deposit requirement, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 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. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: March 12, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4944 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-835] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 19, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of the changed circumstances review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (“SSSS”) from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”). *See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 75937 (December 19, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The Department preliminarily determined that:
(1)Hyundai Steel Company (“Hyundai”) is the successor-in-interest to INI Steel Company (“INI”), formerly Inchon Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.; and
(2)upon publication of these final results of this review, INI's current CVD cash deposit rate shall be applied to entries of subject merchandise made by Hyundai. We did not receive any comments on our preliminary results and have made no revisions to those results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-0395. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 1 , 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. 1 Due to changes to the HTSUS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:
(1)Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). The Department has determined that certain additional specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this order. These excluded products are described below. Flapper valve steel is excluded from the scope of this order. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2 2 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3 3 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (“UNS”) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4 4 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6”. 5 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. Final Results of Review As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the *Preliminary Results* . Therefore, consistent with the *Preliminary Results* , we continue to find that Hyundai is the successor-in-interest to INI and the current cash deposit rate applicable to INI shall be applicable to entries of subject merchandise made by Hyundai, entered on or after the publication date of the final results of this changed circumstances review. As there have been no changes to or comments on the *Preliminary Results* , a decision memorandum was not required and, therefore, none is attached to this **Federal Register** notice. For further details of the issues included in this proceeding, see the *Preliminary Results* . Cash Deposit Rate The cash deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review in which Hyundai participates. Return of Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 12, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4943 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Minority Business Development Agency [Docket No. 0612243002-7057-01] Amendment to the Required Minimum Performance Ratings for Optional Third-Year Funding for the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, Oklahoma City and Honolulu Minority Business Enterprise Centers AGENCY: Minority Business Development Agency, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On August 17, 2004, the Minority Business Development Agency
(MBDA)published a **Federal Register** notice soliciting competitive applications for operators of the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, Oklahoma City and Honolulu Minority Business Enterprise Centers (MBECs) (formerly Minority Business Development Centers). No other MBECs were included as part of this competitive solicitation. The August 17, 2004 notice provides for a two-year award period, with an optional third-year award period available at the sole discretion of MBDA and the Department of Commerce. The notice also provides that only those MBECs achieving “outstanding” performance ratings for each of the two prior program years are eligible to receive funding for the optional third-year of the award. This notice amends the August 17, 2004 notice to change the minimum required performance rating for the optional third-year award period from “outstanding” to “at least commendable” for the first program year. The “outstanding” performance requirement for the second program year continues to apply. MBDA is making this amendment to allow the operators of these three MBECs to be eligible for a third and final year of continuation funding if they achieve at least a “commendable” performance rating for first program year and an “outstanding” performance rating for the second program year. DATES: The optional third-year award period, if approved by the Department of Commerce Grants Officer, will be effective as of January 1, 2007 and will continue through December 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Efrain Gonzalez, Program Manager, Minority Business Development Agency, Office of Business Development, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 5075, Washington, DC 20230. Mr. Gonzalez may be reached by telephone at
(202)482-1940 and by e-mail at *egonzalez@mbda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 17, 2004, MBDA published a **Federal Register** notice (69 FR 51064) soliciting competitive applications for operators of the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, Oklahoma City and Honolulu MBECs, which cover the metropolitan statistical areas of Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, the State of Oklahoma and the Island of Hawaii, respectively. No other MBECs were included as part of this competitive solicitation. The August 17, 2004 notice provides for a two-year award period (January 1, 2005-December 31, 2006), with a third-year option (January 1, 2007-December 31, 2007) available at the sole discretion of MBDA and the Department of Commerce. The August 17, 2004 notice further provides that only those MBECs achieving “outstanding” performance ratings for each of the two prior program years are eligible to receive funding for the optional third-year of the award. Pursuant to the August 17, 2004 notice, two-year awards were made to M. Gill and Associates (Miami/Ft. Lauderdale MBEC), Langston University (Oklahoma City MBEC) and the University of Hawaii (Honolulu MBEC) for the award period January 1, 2005-December 31, 2006. MBDA has determined that it is necessary to amend the August 17, 2004 notice to change the minimum required performance rating for optional third-year funding from “outstanding” to “at least commendable” (as defined in the FFO accompanying the original notice) for the first program year. All other provisions of the original August 17, 2004 notice remain the same. Limitation of Liability Publication of this announcement does not oblige the Department of Commerce or MBDA to award a third-year extension to any of the MBEC operators or projects identified in this notice or to obligate any available funds for such purpose. Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the December 30, 2004 **Federal Register** notice (69 FR 78389) are applicable to this notice. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1512 and Executive Order 11625. Dated: March 13, 2007. Ronald Marin, Financial Management Officer, Minority Business Development Agency. [FR Doc. E7-4902 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-21-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 022207B] National Standard 1 Guidelines; Scoping Process AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notification of additional scoping meetings. SUMMARY: NMFS announces several scoping meetings for the environmental impact statement for implementation of annual catch limit
(ACL)and accountability measure
(AM)requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA). Such guidance would be added to the National Standard 1 Guidelines. These scoping meetings are in addition to those that were announced and published in a **Federal Register** notice on February 28, 2007. Note that the date of the scoping meeting to be held at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council meeting has been changed from March 29, 2007, to March 27, 2007. DATES: Dates and locations of scoping meeting are listed below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Date and times are subject to Regional Fishery Management Council agenda changes during the week of the meeting. Written comments must be received by April 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on issues and alternatives, by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *annual.catchlimitDEIS@noaa.gov* . Include “Scoping comments on annual catch limit DEIS” in subject line of the message. • Fax: 301-713-1193 • Mail: Mark Millikin; National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA; 1315 East-West Highway; Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Millikin; National Marine Fisheries Service, 301-713-2341. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access This **Federal Register** document is available on the Government Printing Office's website at: *www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index* . Background The MSRA, signed into law by President Bush on January 12, 2007, set forth new requirements related to overfishing, including new ACL and AM provisions for federally managed fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone. NMFS initiated action through a notice of intent
(NOI)to develop guidance related to these new provisions, specifically requirements set forth under sections 103(b)(1) and (c)(3), 104(a)(10), (b), and
(c)of the MSRA. NMFS intends to revise the National Standard 1
(NS1)Guidelines, 50 CFR 600.310, through a proposed and final rule to incorporate guidance of these MSRA sections before the end of 2007. NMFS is seeking input on ACLs and AMs and related matters in the NS1 guidelines. More background related to this action is contained in the NOI published on February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7016), and is not repeated here. Dates and Locations of Meetings Scoping meetings will be held at the following locations: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Meeting, March 27, 2007, 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Destin, FL 32550. North Pacific Fishery Management Council Meeting, March 28, 2007, morning session, at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, Anchorage, AK 99501. Pacific Fishery Management Council Meeting, April 3, 2007, afternoon session at the Seattle Airport Marriott Hotel, Seattle, WA 98188. New England Fishery Management Council, April 10, 2007, 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the Mystic Hilton, Mystic, CT 06355. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, April 17, 2007, 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Princess Royale, Ocean City, MD 21842. Special Accommodations The public meetings listed in this notice will be accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jennifer Ise (301-713-2341), at least 5 days before the scheduled session. Dated: March 13, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4955 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 031207D] Pacific Halibut Fishery; Guideline Harvest Levels for the Guided Recreational Halibut Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of guideline harvest level. SUMMARY: NMFS provides notice of the guideline harvest levels
(GHL)for the guided sport halibut fishery (charter fishery) in the International Pacific Halibut Commission
(IPHC)regulatory areas 2C and 3A. The GHLs provide a benchmark harvest level for participants in the charter fishery. This notice is necessary to meet the management and regulatory requirements for the GHLs and to inform the public about the 2007 GHLs for the charter fishery. DATES: The GHLs are effective beginning 1200 h, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 1, 2007, and will close at 2400 h, A.l.t., December 31, 2007. This period is specified by the IPHC as the sport fishing season in all waters of Alaska. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Gasper, 907-586-7228, or email at jason.gasper@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS implemented a final rule to establish GHLs in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A for the harvest of Pacific halibut (Hippoglosses stenolepis) by the charter fishery on August 8, 2003 (68 FR 47256). The GHLs are intended to serve as a benchmark harvest level for participants in the charter fishery. This announcement is consistent with 50 CFR 300.65(c)(2), which requires that GHLs for IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A be specified by NMFS and announced by publication in the **Federal Register** no later than 30 days after receiving information from the IPHC. The IPHC annually establishes the constant exploitation yield
(CEY)for halibut in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A. Regulations at § 300.65(c)(1) establish the GHLs based on the CEY that is established annually by the IPHC. The CEY established by the IPHC for 2007 in Areas 2C and 3A result in GHLs of 1,432,000 lb (649.5 t), and 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 t), respectively. This notice does not require any regulatory action by NMFS and is intended to serve as a notice of the GHLs in Areas 2C and 3A for 2007. If a GHL is exceeded in 2007, NMFS will notify the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) in writing within 30 days of receipt of that information. The Council is not required to take action, but may recommend additional management measures after receiving notification that a GHL has been exceeded. Classification This notice does not require any additional regulatory action by NMFS and does not impose any additional restrictions on harvests by the charter fishery. If a GHL is exceeded in any year, the Council would be notified, but would not be required to take action. This process of notification is intended to provide the Council with information about the level of Pacific halibut harvest by the charter fishery in a given year and could prompt future action. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 *et seq.* Dated: March 12, 2007. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4887 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030107E] Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Overfishing Determination of Petrale Sole AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notification of determination of overfishing. SUMMARY: This action serves as a notice that NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), has determined that overfishing is occurring in fisheries for petrale sole. NMFS notified the Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) of its determination by letter. The Pacific Council is required to take action within 1 year following NMFS notification that overfishing is occurring or a stock is approaching overfishing, a stock is overfished or approaching an overfished condition, or existing remedial action taken to end overfishing or rebuild an overfished stock has not resulted in adequate progress. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Lambert, telephone:
(301)713-2341. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to sections 304(e)(2) and (e)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(2) and (e)(7), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2), NMFS sends written notification to fishery management councils when overfishing is occurring or a stock is approaching overfishing; a stock is overfished or approaching an overfished condition, or existing action taken to end previously identified overfishing or rebuilding a previously identified overfished stock or stock complex has not resulted in adequate progress. On February 13, 2007, the NMFS Northwest Regional Administrator sent a letter, notifying the Pacific Council that petrale sole was subject to overfishing in 2005. The estimated catch of petrale sole in 2005 was 2,766 mt, 0.14 percent above the 2005 petrale sole Acceptable Biological Catch
(ABC)of 2,762 mt. A copy of the notification letter sent to the Pacific Council for the aforementioned determination is available at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm* . Within 1 year of a notification under Magnuson-Stevens Act sections 304(e)(2) or (e)(7), the respective Council must take remedial action in response to the notification, to end overfishing if overfishing is occurring; rebuild an overfished stock or stock complex to the abundance that can produce maximum sustainable yield within an appropriate time frame; prevent overfishing from occurring if a stock is approaching overfishing; and/or prevent a stock from becoming overfished if it is approaching an overfished condition (see implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.310(e)(3)). Such action must be submitted to NMFS within 1 year of notification and may be in the form of a new fishery management plan (FMP), an FMP amendment, or proposed regulations. However, preliminary estimates from 2006 indicate that the 2006 petrale catch was below that species'ABC. This lower catch was likely due to the Pacific Council having introduced winter trip limits for petrale sole via inseason recommendations from its November 2005 meeting (70 FR 72385, December 5, 2005). The 2007-2008 groundfish trip limits, established through notice and comment rulemaking, also include limits for petrale sole that were designed to keep catch within the appropriate level (71 FR 78638, December 29, 2006). Thus, NMFS believes that the Council has taken the necessary steps under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 304(e)(3)(A) to end overfishing on petrale sole. Dated: March 12, 2007. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4954 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 030602141-7056-49; I.D. 030607G] Availability of Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2007 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice; reopening of competition solicitation. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service publishes this notice to reopen the competitive solicitation for the Chesapeake Bay Cooperative Science Program which was originally published in the **Federal Register** on December 27, 2006. The solicitation period was reopened to provide the public more time to submit proposals. DATES: The new deadline for the receipt of proposals is 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 26, 2007 for both electronic and paper applications. ADDRESSES: The address for submitting Proposals electronically is: *http://www.grants.gov/* . (Electronic submission is strongly encouraged). Paper submissions should be sent to the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 107, Annapolis, MD 21403. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Derek Orner, 410-267-5676, *derek.orner@noaa.gov* ; or Peter Bergstrom, 410-267-5665, *peter.bergstrom@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This program was originally solicited in the **Federal Register** on December 27, 2006 (71 FR 77726), as part of the December, 2006 NOAA Omnibus solicitation. The original deadline for receipt of proposals was 5 p.m., EST, on March 12, 2007. NOAA reopens the solicitation period to provide the public more time to submit proposals as severe weather conditions adversely affected the ability of potential applicants to submit applications. All applications that are submitted between March 12, 2007, and March 19, 2007 will be considered timely. All other requirements published in the December 27, 2006 solicitation notice are applicable and remain the same. Limitation of Liability Funding for programs listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2007 funds. In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Universal Identifier Applicants should be aware that they are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number during the application process. See the October 30, 2002, **Federal Register** , Vol. 67, No. 210, pp. 66177-66178, for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or via the internet ( *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* ). National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA website: *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/* , including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf* , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, *http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm* . Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. In some cases if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a project may have on the environment. The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389), are applicable to this solicitation. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/ Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: March 13, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4883 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3520-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 022807G] Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Rocket Launches from Kodiak, AK AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of a Letter of Authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that a 1-year letter of authorization
(LOA)has been issued to the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC), to take Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) and Pacific harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina richardii* ) incidental to rocket launches from the Kodiac Launch Complex (KLC). DATES: Effective March 12, 2007, through March 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: The LOA and supporting documentation are available by writing to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, by telephoning one of the contacts listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or online at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, or Brad Smith, NMFS,
(907)271-3023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) directs the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)to allow, on request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “taking” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill marine mammals. Authorization may be granted for periods up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after notification and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. The regulations must include requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking of Steller sea lions
(SSLs)and harbor seals incidental to rocket launches at KLC, became effective on February 27, 2006 (71 FR 4297), and remain in effect until February 28, 2011. For detailed information on this action, please refer to that document. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals during rocket launches at KLC. Summary of Request NMFS received a request for an LOA pursuant to the aforementioned regulations that would authorize, for a period not to exceed 1 year, take of marine mammals incidental to rocket launches at KLC. Summary of Activity and Monitoring Under the Current LOA In compliance with the 2006 LOA, AADC submitted an annual report on the rocket launches at KLC. A summary of that report (R&M Consultants, 2006) follows. One launch was conducted at KLC between February 27, 2006, and February 28, 2007. This was a monitored launch of an Interceptor FTG-02 on September 1, 2006, at 9:22 am. Aerial surveys to document abundance of SSLs and harbor seals were flown 3 days prior to, immediately after, and 2 days post launch. Video monitoring equipment and a sound level meter were deployed on the northeast end of Ugak Island, 4.5 miles (7.2 km) from the launch site, overlooking East Ugak Rock, and another sound level meter was deployed at Narrow Cape, 0.9 miles from the launch site. No SSLs were observed at the traditional haul-out site on the northern tip of Ugak Island during pre-launch surveys; therefore, no monitoring at that site was conducted. As an alternative, the northeast end of Ugak Island was chosen as a monitoring location as two to five SSLs we observed there during pre-launch aerial survey flights. Sound level monitoring equipment at the SSL haulout site registered noise above general ambient levels for one minute eight seconds. Noise levels peaked at 105.6 dBC. During pre-launch aerial surveys, 2 to 4 sea lions were observed hauled out at this site and one was seen swimming in the area on 2 of the 3 days. Video monitoring showed two SSLs resting on East Ugak Rock during the launch. No change in SSL activity was observed during the ignition, during the peak noise levels that followed the launch, or for the remaining duration of the video monitoring (4 hrs 7 min). Post launch surveys documented 1-2 SSLs using this haul-out site. Video monitoring for harbor seal reaction during the launch was not required in conjunction with SSL response monitoring. Abundance monitoring via aerial surveys conducted pre and post launch around Ugak Island revealed that harbor seals concentrated at two haul-out sites. Average haul-out attendance increased on days following the launch at these two locations, Northeast and Southeast Ugak Island. Pre launch surveys showed 876 and 1154, respectively, seals hauled-out while post launch surveys revealed 1207 and 1497 seals at these locations. Therefore, NMFS believes that harbor seal attendance at these haul-out sites was not affected negatively by this launch. In summary, no impacts to any marine mammals were detected during the launches. There was no evidence of injury or mortality as a result of the launches and numbers of hauled out animals were similar to or higher than pre-launch levels within 1 day of the launch. Authorization Accordingly, NMFS has issued an LOA to AADC authorizing takes of marine mammals incidental to rocket launches at the KLC. Issuance of this LOA is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule (71 FR 4297, January 26, 2006) and supported by information contained in AADC's required 2006 annual report, that the activities described under this LOA will result in the take of small numbers of marine mammals, have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stocks for subsistence uses. Dated: March 12, 2007. James H. Lecky, Director, Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4885 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 021207D] Notice of Availability of Final Stock Assessment Reports AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability; response to comments. SUMMARY: As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS has incorporated public comments into revisions of marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). These reports for 2006 are now final and available to the public. ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as regional compilations and individual reports at the following address: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/* . You also may send requests for copies of reports to: Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn: Stock Assessments. Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Robyn Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, BIN 15700, Seattle, WA 98115. Copies of the Atlantic Regional SARs may be requested from Gordon Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543. Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Eagle, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322, ext. 105, e-mail *Tom.Eagle@noaa.gov* ; Robyn Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 206-526-4032, email *Robyn.Angliss@noaa.gov* ; Gordon Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, email *Gordon.Waring@noaa.gov* ; or Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 858-546-7171, email *Jim.Carretta @noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, the stock's Potential Biological Removal level (PBR), estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995. The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks. NMFS and FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in each of the three regions. As required by the MMPA, NMFS updated SARs for 2006, and the revised reports were made available for public review and comment (71 FR 42815, July 28, 2006). The MMPA also specifies that the comment period on draft SARs must be 90 days. NMFS received comments on the draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. The final reports for 2006 are available. Comments and Responses At the end of the comment period on October 26, 2005 NMFS received letters from three organizations (Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), Hawaii Longline Association (HLA), and the Humane Society of the United States) and two individuals. Each letter contained more than one comment. Unless otherwise noted, comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were included in the reports. Such editorial comments and responses to them are not included in the summary of comments and responses below. Other comments recommended development of Take Reduction Plans or to initiate or repeat large data collection efforts, such as abundance surveys or observer programs. Comments on the need to develop additional Take Reduction Plans are not related to the SARs; therefore, these comments are not included below. Comments recommending additional data collection (e.g., additional abundance surveys or observer programs) have been addressed in recent years. NMFS' resources for surveys or observer programs are fully utilized, and no new large surveys or observer programs may be initiated until additional resources are available or ongoing monitoring or conservation efforts can be terminated. Such comments on the 2006 SARs and responses to them may not be included in the summary below because the responses have not changed. Uncertainties in each of the reports (e.g., age of estimates, large coefficients of variation (CVs), or lack of available data) in each of the affected SARs are clearly indicated. In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered for, or incorporated into, future revisions of the SAR rather than being incorporated into the final 2006 SARs. The delay is due to review of the reports by the regional SRGs. NMFS provides preliminary copies of updated SARs to SRGs prior to release for public review and comment. If a comment on the draft SAR results in a substantive change to the SAR, NMFS may discuss the comment and prospective change with the SRG at its next meeting prior to incorporating the change. Some new events that may affect marine mammal status or take (e.g., the establishment of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Monument in 2006) are not included in the 2006 SARs because these reports were initially drafted in the fall of 2005 to begin the internal and SRG review prior to their availability for public review and comment. Such new events would be incorporated in the next revision of the SARs. In the example of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Monument, the draft 2007 SAR for Hawaiian monk seals will include reference to its establishment and the subsequent implications for monk seal status. Comments on National Issues *Comment 1:* The Commission recommended that NMFS work with Federal and state fisheries management agencies and the fishing industry to develop a fair and sustainable funding strategy to support effective observer programs for collecting information on incidental mortality and serious injury. *Response:* NMFS established a National Observer Program in 1999 to combine program-specific observer effort for efficiency and to promote sustainable funding for a comprehensive marine resource observer program. The National Observer Program has been working with fishery management agencies and the fishing industry to meet these objectives and will continue to do so. The National Observer Program, in coordination with all six NMFS regions, has initiated development of a National Bycatch Report to compile species- and fishery-specific bycatch estimates for fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds. This initiative will incorporate the development of fishery improvement plans to improve the collection of bycatch data and bycatch estimation methodologies. These improvement plans will also provide a comprehensive assessment of resources required to improve bycatch in U.S. commercial fisheries. *Comment 2:* The Commission recommended that NMFS adjust its guidelines for preparing stock assessment reports to ensure consistent methods for identifying strategic stocks. *Response:* NMFS revised the guidelines in 2005 to promote such consistency. In the most recent meetings of the three regional SRGs, each SRG recommended a joint meeting to evaluate various aspects of the PBR/SAR process. If the results of the joint SRG meeting suggest another review and revision of guidelines for preparing SARs, NMFS would initiate the process to review and revise the guidelines. *Comment 3:* Although SARs generally report non-fishery-related mortality from anthropogenic sources, one source, scientific research on marine mammals, is generally not addressed. SARs should include mortality that is attributable to scientific research. *Response:* Research-related mortality and serious injury is included in the 2007 draft reports in the Alaska and Atlantic regions. The information will be made available to the authors of Pacific SARs beginning with the 2008 reports. Although such reporting is necessary to be fully consistent with the provisions of MMPA section 117, NMFS notes that such mortality or serious injury is rare and is not likely to alter the status of any stock. *Comment 4:* A number of SARs rely on unpublished information. The guidelines for SARs stipulate that literature used for key aspects of stock assessment should be peer reviewed. Efforts should be made to assure that information reported in SARs comes from published sources and/or to assure that NMFS employees providing this information incorporate it in published reports in the future. *Response:* This comment mis-interprets the guidelines for preparing SARs. The guidelines, which when published in 1995 and revised in 1997, were parts of larger reports of workshops, do not include statements regarding standards for review of information in SARs. Wade and Angliss (1977, Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks: Report of the GAMMS Workshop April 3-5, 1996, Seattle, Washington, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-OPR-12.) included a summary of discussions among NMFS staff, members of SRGs, and representatives of the Commission which noted general agreement that peer-reviewed information was the most reliable and encouraged the use of peer review when possible. However, there is sometimes a trade-off between peer review and freshness of information, and the MMPA requires SARs to be based upon the best available scientific information. Consequently, each new estimate or other key element of a SAR is not necessarily subjected to peer review; however, the methods and analyses that produce the estimates used in SARs should be published in peer-reviewed journals or in a similar forum that is most appropriate, such as a NOAA Technical Memorandum. Merrick (1999, Report of the Joint Scientific Review Group Workshop, April 13-14, 1999, Seattle, Washington, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-154) summarizes additional discussion and agreements on information used in SARs and was in general agreement with Wade and Angliss (1977). Comments on Alaska Regional Reports *Comment 5:* One comment noted that Steller sea lion abundance and trends are estimated from research occurring at one rookery. *Response:* Estimates of Steller sea lion abundance trends result from surveys of many haulouts and rookeries throughout the range of the population. For specific lists of which haulouts and rookeries are surveyed, the SAR refers to published reports, such as Fritz and Stinchcomb, 2005 and Loughlin and York, 2000. *Comment 6:* Use of data acquired through personal communication is discouraged in the GAMMS report, and major issues of management and policy should not be made on the basis of these data. For example, a new boundary for the Western stock of Steller sea lions has been proposed and the citation for active Asian haulouts and rookeries that would fall under a new stock boundary is attributed to an unpublished or reviewed personal communication. *Response:* NMFS makes every effort to rely on information in peer-reviewed publications and to use unpublished data or “personal communication” as little as possible. Further, NMFS replaces “unpublished data” or “personnel communication” citations with peer reviewed publications as soon as the more substantiated reference is available. However, when peer-reviewed data are unavailable and will not be available in the immediate future, the best scientific information available may sometimes come from personal communication or another non-reviewed source. With regard to changes in the structure of the western Steller sea lion stock, new publications occurred between the draft and final SAR which indicated lack of clarity about the proposed stock boundary between the western stock and a hypothetical Asian stock. The final SAR describes the different analyses and retains the original stock identification. *Comment 7:* One commenter objected to the removal of fishery self-report information from the commercial fisheries mortalities sections of the SARs. The reports are negatively biased but are as reliable as stranding data which have been retained in the SARs. Fishery self-reports should remain in the SARs. *Response:* Fishery self-reports are not as reliable as stranding data. Stranding reports are reviewed and assessed to promote correct species identification. Humpback whale stranding reports are reviewed by both agency staff and members of the Alaska SRG prior to inclusion in the SARs. Because the number of self-reports submitted annually has declined drastically, most self-reported mortalities are more than 10 years old. Based on the unreliability and age of available self-report data, NMFS does not include these data in the body of the SARs. However, the data will continue to be reported in an appendix to the SARs as additional information. *Comment 8:* In other regions, stocks that are declining set the PBR as “undetermined” (e.g., Hawaiian monk seals) or as zero (North Atlantic right whales), because the stocks do not meet the assumptions inherent to calculating a PBR. In the Alaska region several stocks are declining, including the western stock of Steller sea lions and northern fur seals; therefore, it would be precautionary to adopt the same practice as other regions (note that the Alaska region has set the Cook Inlet beluga whale PBR as “undetermined”). This rationale should be used for all stocks in which declines are apparent, even if the declines are not a result of anthropogenic mortality. *Response:* In the Alaska SARs, a case-by-case approach is taken when assessing whether the PBR should be set to “undetermined” for a declining stock. For the Cook Inlet beluga stock, setting the PBR to “undetermined” was appropriate because the stock has been at a critically low abundance (2005 abundance of 278) for several years and the stock shows no signs of recovery, even after initiating very conservative management of the subsistence harvest, which was the largest source of human-related mortality. The western stock of Steller sea lions is currently at a low level relative to the historical size of the population, but the number of animals (47,885) is substantially larger than the abundance of the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock, and the ability of the population to sustain some level of human-related impact is larger. Further, it is no longer clear that the population remains in decline. While the population was clearly in decline until 2000, recent estimates in 2002 and 2004 may indicate that the population may have stabilized. Thus, it is not necessary to set the PBR level as “undetermined” as a precautionary management step. The northern fur seal population is currently declining, but is very large. Human-related mortality or serious injury does not contribute substantially to the decline. However, northern fur seals, with an abundance estimate of 721,935, are one of the most abundant marine mammals in Alaska. Thus, it is not necessary to set the PBR level as “undetermined” as a precautionary management step. *Comment 9:* Previous stock assessments have provided point estimates for native subsistence harvest, as well as upper and lower estimates based on bounds of confidence. Given the low precision of these estimates, this information should be included so that reviewers may gauge the possible range of impacts. *Response:* Several years ago, NMFS received a recommendation to remove the upper and lower estimates for the subsistence harvest of all stocks because, for most stocks, this information is not available. For the stocks where this information is available, the reliability of the information is unknown. In all cases, the primary literature where this information can be found is cited. More detailed information is contained in the references cited in the SARs. *Comment 10:* Data provided in the draft recovery plan for Steller sea lions indicated that the trend in pup counts for the Western stock was not uniform and that declines were still occurring at some key trend sites. This information should be included in this stock assessment. *Response:* Data from the draft recovery plan will be included in the draft 2007 Steller sea lion SARs. *Comment 11:* The slightly upward trend in subsistence harvest of Western Steller sea lions, which is approaching PBR and may exceed it, given the likely margin of error, is of concern. *Response:* NMFS agrees that mortality and serious injury of Steller sea lions approaching PBR are of concern and continues a dialog with Alaska Native subsistence users through the co-management process. *Comment 12:* One commenter objected to the elimination of age and sex of sea lions killed in native subsistence hunts. It remains unclear why the NMFS proposed to delete this information. The MMPA provides for the SRG to advise on issues of uncertainty relative to mortality of animals in certain age and sex classes. Having this information in the SARs makes the discussion easier and more transparent. *Response:* NMFS eliminated this information upon consultation with the Alaska SRG because sex and age class information was of little value without modeling to put the information into the context of the stock's population dynamics. The additional information is available in the references cited in the SAR. *Comment 13:* One commenter objected to a clause in the SAR for the Western stock of Steller sea lions (“ if the population is still declining”). The statement is unnecessary and provides a misleading impression of the stock's status. NMFS should be precautionary in its assessments. *Response:* Given the recent counts of Steller sea lions, it is no longer clear that the abundance is still in decline. The statement “if the population is still declining” is an accurate reflection of the current uncertainty in the trend. *Comment 14:* Because the population trajectory for the Eastern stock of Steller sea lions differs in a portion of its range (e.g., Central California), NMFS may wish to consider viewing management actions for portions of this stock rather than basing them on the trajectory for the stock as a whole. *Response:* Separating the central California portion of the eastern stock of Steller sea lions was discussed and ultimately rejected by the Steller sea lion recovery team. At this time, NMFS will retain the animals in central California area in the eastern stock for management purposes. It is not surprising that populations of marine mammals or other species fluctuate in the margins of their ranges. *Comment 15:* The northern fur seal and Steller sea lion, western stock, SARs state that because the stock “is declining for unknown reasons that are not explained by the level of direct human-caused mortality, there is no guarantee that limiting those mortalities to the level of the PBR will reverse the decline”. While this may be true, it is also true that limiting the anthropogenic mortalities will prevent them from contributing to the decline. This logic is contradicted by the rationale used in the Cook Inlet beluga SAR which designates an “undetermined” PBR. The PBR for fur seals should be undetermined. *Response:* NMFS explained its rationale for including a PBR for these stocks in the response to comment 8. It is not necessarily true that limiting anthropogenic mortality in a declining stock would prevent such mortality from contributing substantially to the decline. *Comment 16:* One commenter strongly supports the urgent need to sub-divide harbor seal stocks into discrete management units and expresses disappointment that NMFS has again postponed this decision. These stocks should be re-classified so that each will have appropriate PBR and assessments of trends and status. *Response:* As in past responses to public comments on the SARs, NMFS reiterates its commitment to work with its co-managers in the Alaska Native community to make recommendations regarding stock structure of harbor seals in Alaska. *Comment 17:* It is unfortunate that abundance estimates of harbor seals are still calculated based on 1996-2000 surveys and that all, or at least part, of the 2001-2005 surveys data remain unreported in the SAR. That data from 2000 remain unpublished six years after they are gathered is unfortunate, to say the least. *Response:* In recent years, analysis of the harbor seal abundance information has been slowed due to a backlog of data and advances in abundance estimate procedures. New estimates for 2001-05 are under development and should be available for inclusion in the draft SARs for 2008. *Comment 18:* The subsistence harvest data for ice seals (spotted, bearded, ringed, and ribbon) are old and there are no ongoing efforts to collect more recent data. NMFS should include a chart that reports annual subsistence harvests *Response:* NMFS has insufficient resources to collect information on the subsistence harvest of ice seals on an annual basis. Old information on harvests will be retained as the best available information on harvest levels until more current information becomes available, and the dates of these estimates will be retained so that the underlying uncertainty is obvious. NMFS will consider the inclusion of a chart reporting annual subsistence harvests for future versions of the SARs and after consultation with the SRG. *Comment 19:* NMFS should remedy the factors leading to its inability to estimate a PBR and assess stock status for all stocks of ice seals. Considering that harvest data are old and ice conditions are deteriorating significantly, it is vital that updated estimates be made. *Response:* NMFS will pursue the collection of information needed to identify stocks and estimate the PBR levels and harvest data for ice seals when resources are available. *Comment 20:* It is unclear why NMFS made changes to the Habitat Concerns sections of ice seal SARs that downgrades the assessment of changes in climate from “drastic” to “significant”. *Response:* This modification to the report should not be interpreted to indicate a difference in the assessed level for effects of climate change. The published literature used to document these specific habitat concerns actually uses the term “significant”, which is defined and supported quantitatively. *Comment 21:* The population estimates for the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Eastern Bering Sea beluga whale stocks are substantially and inappropriately outdated, and the stocks are subjected to harvest-related and incidental mortality. These stocks should be considered potentially strategic for these reasons. *Response:* The SAR for these four stocks of beluga whales are next scheduled for a review and update in 2008, and this comment will be considered at that time. *Comment 22:* The Cook Inlet beluga whale stock is of considerable concern. We support the adopted precautionary PBR set at “undetermined” and believe the stock should be listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). *Response:* NMFS agrees with the PBR comment. A status review of the Cook Inlet beluga stock is currently underway. The report of the biological information related to their status is available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/PR%202006-16.pdf. *Comment 23:* One commenter supports the precautionary approach used when reducing the Alaska Resident killer whale abundance estimate based on the age of the data. *Response:* NMFS agrees. *Comment 24:* The data used for developing the population estimate for Northern Resident killer whale are at least 6 years old. NMFS should update this in the near future and given the low PBR (2), we are concerned about the lack of Canadian fishery mortality information. NMFS should work with Canada to obtain these data. *Response:* The SAR for the Northern Resident killer whale stock is next scheduled for a review and update in 2008, and this comment will be considered at that time. *Comment 25:* The abundance and sightings data for AT1 transient killer whale stock are old and should be updated. *Response:* The abundance of AT1 killer whales is monitored each year by an independent researcher, who is a member of the SRG. The report cites personal communication with that research for an abundance estimate of eight whales in 2004. Since 2004, the researcher's observations have not indicated that the status of the stock has changed or that the status could be assessed more accurately. Therefore, NMFS has not revised the rerport. As new information is presented indicating a change in abundance, NMFS will incorporate such a change in future revisions of the report. *Comment 26:* The use of an abundance estimate for Pacific white-sided dolphin that is outdated and derived from personal communications is inappropriate. The region has appropriately left the PBR undefined. *Response:* NMFS agrees. *Comment 27:* It is inappropriate to re-classify the Pacific white-sided dolphin stock as non-strategic simply because there is no evidence that take exceeds PBR. There is also no evidence that it does not. There is no PBR and no reliable fishery data even though there is acknowledgment that takes are likely to occur in fisheries. The stock should be retained as strategic. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. Although many of the fisheries that overlap with this stock are observed, and some fisheries are subject to high levels of observer coverage, no mortality or serious injury of Pacific white-sided dolphins has been observed. In addition, there have been no self reports or stranding data indicating that serious injuries or mortalities have occurred. Because the estimated level of serious injury and mortality is zero, this stock should no longer be designated as “strategic” despite uncertainty due to age of the abundance estimate. *Comment 28:* The surveys used for estimating Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise abundance are older than recommended under GAMMS. Re-analyzing these data does not make them new. Therefore the PBR should be undetermined. *Response:* NMFS recognizes that the estimates for the harbor porpoise stock in southeast Alaska are dated. Setting the PBR level as “undetermined” is not necessary as updated abundance estimate for this stock is forthcoming due to surveys conducted in 2006. *Comment 29:* One commenter agreed that all three stocks of harbor porpoise in Alaska should be classified as strategic. *Response:* NMFS agrees. *Comment 30:* Using the region's rationale for classifying Alaska harbor porpoise stocks as strategic, the Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise should also be classified as strategic. The abundance data are old and cannot be used to estimate either a minimum population or PBR. While there are no data to indicate that mortality exceeds PBR, there are no data to indicate that it does not, since PBR is undetermined. *Response:* Although the abundance estimate is old, the last estimate of this population indicated that the population is very abundant. Further, there is no information that would indicate that the abundance has changed appreciably over the past several years; observer programs on the fisheries overlapping with this stock have not reported substantial incidental mortality or serious injury. NMFS will continue to calculate a PBR for the Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise. *Comment 31:* The fact that there are no recent estimates of abundance, that PBR is unknown, and that fishery-related mortality could be occurring in all stocks of beaked whales in Alaska (Baird's, Cuvier's, and Stejneger's) argues for designating these stocks as strategic. *Response:* NMFS recognizes that the abundance estimates are old and, in consultation with the SRG will consider whether to continue reporting the PBR for these stocks in future reports. Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports *Comment 32:* We reiterate our belief that data on mortalities of large whales (e.g., humpback, finback and Northern right whale) can be provided on a more timely basis than data on small cetaceans and should be more current than 2004. The need to extrapolate observed mortality of small cetaceans to fleet-wide mortality estimates results in the understandable situation in which small cetacean mortality estimates are only for years up to 2004. But the “body count” of ship-struck or entangled large whales needs no such extrapolation and the data should be the most recently available - in this case at least through 2005. *Response:* A review of entanglement and injury reports is not a straight forward “body count” because the evidence has to be evaluated to distinguish between serious and non-serious injury. After each case has been evaluated and a determination made for each injury, the results are subjected to scientific review. This process was not complete when the 2006 draft SARs were completed for review by the SRGs; therefore, the mortality estimates for large whales consist of the latest year of information that has been subjected to evaluation and scientific review. The latest reviewed information will be included as SARs are updated in the future. NMFS will consider changes to this procedure in future meetings with the SRG. *Comment 33:* For short and long-finned pilot whales, Risso's dolphins and white-sided dolphins, estimates of mortality and other important information have been withheld pending presentation to a take reduction team that met in September 2006. The new verbiage states that the data are undergoing “scientific review” which implies review by the SRG. This is not the case, and the language should be changed to reflect that this is solely an internal NMFS review. We assume these data will be incorporated in the next SAR. *Response:* Reference to the Take Reduction Team has been removed. The new information is expected to be included in the 2007 SARs, and it will have been subjected to scientific review, including the SRG, before the draft is made available for public review and comment. *Comment 34:* Until new information is available, it is not appropriate to omit older information. Reviewers need to have some estimates on which to base a general understanding of fisheries that interact with the species (e.g., the discussion of various bottom trawl fisheries and incidental mortality of Risso's dolphins and pilot whales). Please reinstate the original omitted verbiage until it can be replaced by newer information. *Response:* The older numbers were calculated using different analytical methods, and the fisheries have been revised. The old information is not applicable to the new categories, and its inclusion could be confusing and misleading to reinstate the old data. Therefore, NMFS has omitted the older information. *Comment 35:* We renew our request that NMFS continue its focal efforts to define the boundaries of short-finned and long-finned pilot whales which are taken in multiple fisheries and yet are managed with a single PBR as though they are a single stock. The NMFS has been undertaking analysis of stock boundaries for pilot whales that it is inappropriately managing as a single stock This sort of analysis should be discussed, or at least alluded to in the SAR so that reviewers understand that efforts are underway to appropriately separate the two stocks as was done for harbor seals in Alaska. *Response:* The SARs were revised to allude to ongoing research activity to identify stock boundaries and assign abundance and mortality accordingly. Comments on Pacific Regional Reports *Comment 36:* It is inappropriate to remove discussion of various anthropogenic threats to the Southern Resident stock of killer whales as well as mention of this stock's special status in Canada, into which the stock's range extends. *Response:* The discussion relating to the natural and anthropogenic threats of this stock was included in the report during its status review. When the status under the ESA was changed due to the stock's listing as “endangered”, the narrative in the “Status of the Stock” section became unnecessary. *Comment 37:* Recent information on gillnet-related mortality of Hawaiian monk seals was not included in the draft stock assessment and a clarification on whether monk seal interactions with gillnets typically involve debris or active gear was requested. *Response:* No gillnet deaths are listed in the table because none were documented during the 5 years covered in the table. There was one recent pup death (2006), but it is not included in the draft 2007 SAR which covers fishery data through 2005. The reason for this is that preparation of the 2007 draft SAR occurs in late 2006, before complete annual data for 2006 are available. There was a gillnet-related serious injury in 2005 that will appear in the 2007 draft table. Monk seal entanglement in debris, whether the remains of fishing gear or other material, is reported in the section of the report on other human-caused mortality rather than in the fishery mortality section. *Comment 38:* Personal communications are used as the source of information for mortality of the San Miguel Island stock of northern fur seals from 2001 and 2003. Effort should be made to assure that these sorts of information come from published sources where possible and/or to assure the NMFS employees providing this information incorporate it into published reports for future use. *Response:* The SAR has been changed to cite Marine Mammal Stranding Network records maintained by NMFS Regional Offices as the source of information for fishery-related strandings. Because this information is meant only as background rather than as an estimate of fishery-caused mortality or serious injury, the information may not be included in a future publication. *Comment 39:* In the face of evidence that mortality of short-finned pilot whales is occurring (with wide CVs) and the knowledge that this fishing gear is insufficiently monitored, it would be precautionary to consider the stock strategic until more precise abundance and mortality information is available. *Response:* The assessments explicitly take uncertainties in mortality and abundance estimates into account in a standardized way, consistent with the guidelines developed for assessing marine mammal stocks. The level of uncertainty in mortality and abundance of short-finned pilot whales is within the range of those addressed in these guidelines. Mortality estimates are based on 12-26 percent observer coverage in the Hawaii-based longline fleet. The PBR for the Hawaiian stock of short-finned pilot whales is 65 animals. There was no mortality or serious injury documented within the Hawaiian EEZ during 2000-2004. Therefore, a strategic designation is not warranted. Bottlenose Dolphin, California Coastal Stock *Comment 40:* NMFS is applying a new methodology for calculating PBR because the stock spends only part of its time in U.S. waters. It appears a portion of the PBR is allocated to Mexico. The SAR states a correction factor of 0.82 could be used if the population were distributed randomly and then notes that the populations is not distributed randomly. Thus, use of 0.82 as the correction factor seems inappropriate *Response:* Decreasing PBR for transboundary stocks is not a new methodology, and the method used for this report is consistent with NMFS' guidelines for calculating PBR for stocks that spend only a portion of the time in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. It was first used in 1995 for humpback whales, CA/OR/WA stock. Although the commenter suggested an implicit allocation of PBR to Mexico, PBR is not allocated. Rather, at the end of the year, human-caused mortality is compared to PBR to assess the stock's status (strategic vs. non-strategic). In the case of California coastal bottlenose dolphins, NMFS has no estimate for human-caused mortality outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and has reduced the PBR so that the effect of human-caused mortality and serious injury in the U.S. is not underestimated. The report states explicitly that the correction factor of 0.82 is applied until sufficient information is available to calculate an appropriate correction. When research yields sufficient information to calculate a more appropriate correction, the newer value will be used. Until then, use of the interim correction provides a better approximation of the effect of human-caused mortality and serious injury in the U.S. than an uncorrected PBR would provide. *Comment 41:* The stock assessment does not state whether or not estimates of mortality are available from Mexican waters. *Response:* The stock assessment states that coastal gillnet fisheries exist in Mexico and may take animals from this population, but no details are available. The statement means that estimates of mortality in Mexico are not available. NMFS will continue to seek information on possible fishery interactions with this stock in Mexican waters. *Comment 42:* Concern was expressed that observer coverage in the halibut set gillnet fishery has been nonexistent to low over the last several years. A clarification of fishery-related mortality for this stock was also requested. *Response:* A renewed observer program began in the California halibut set gillnet fishery in 2006, which will provide approximately 10 percent observer coverage for this fishery. Fishery-related mortality is included in Table 1 of the stock assessment report, which details one animal that was entangled in 3.5 inch mesh netting from an unknown fishery Harbor Porpoise, Oregon and Washington Stocks *Comment 43:* Oregon and Washington harbor porpoise abundance data are from an unpublished source. *Response:* Oregon and Washington harbor porpoise abundance data from the most recent aerial surveys have not yet been published but will be published in the future. The methodologies and analyses used in these abundance estimates have been peer-reviewed and applied for years. *Comment 44:* In the report for the Oregon and Washington coast stock, the chart showing fishery-related mortality states that there was “no fishery” for the past several years for the Northern Washington marine set gillnet fishery. The text should briefly discuss possible reasons for this. *Response:* Text has been added to the Oregon/Washington Coast harbor porpoise SAR to discuss the reduction in fishing effort in the Northern Washington marine set gillnet fishery in recent years due to reduced numbers of chinook salmon (a target species) in coastal waters. *Comment 45:* The SAR for the Washington inland waters stock provides a substantially higher estimate of abundance than in the previous SAR and a much greater minimum population estimate. It would be helpful to discuss possible reasons for this. *Response:* The abundance of the Washington Inland Waters harbor porpoise stock has increased since the previous survey in 1996. The most recent abundance estimate for this stock is an average of estimates from surveys in 2002 and 2003 and both of these surveys produced very similar results. Calves comprised 10 percent of the counts in 2002 and 2003 compared to 2 percent of the count in 1996, suggesting an increase in reproduction which would provide population growth. During this same time, the percentage of calves in counts of the Oregon/Washington Coast stock of harbor porpoise remained the same (10 percent in both the 1997 and 2002 surveys). Information in the SAR is limited to a reporting of the abundance estimates and does not include the explanation above because NMFS has maintained the SARs as very brief presentations of the information required by the MMPA; interested readers can obtain the literature cited in each SAR for addition details. False Killer Whales, Hawaii Stock *Comment 46:* NMFS should explain the limitations and the agency's use of the population data currently available, as well as clarify the discussion of mortality and serious injury attributable to the fishery in the SAR. *Response:* The population data in the current SAR are used according to established and published guidelines (Wade and Angliss, 1997, and the 2005 revisions to the guidelines, both of which are available on the Internet; see ADDRESSES). Details of the mortality and serious injury attributable to the fishery are provided in the reference cited in the SAR (Forney and Kobayashi). The SARs are intended to summarize results of references related to population status, not reproduce details available in the cited reports. *Comment 47:* NMFS should provide a range of plausible abundance estimates, minimum population estimates, and PBR levels for false killer whales in the Hawaiian Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), similar to the approach used for false killer whales in the Palmyra Atoll EEZ. *Response:* The estimated range of plausible estimates for the Palmyra Atoll EEZ was previously provided because there were no survey data available for that geographic region. In contrast, there have been multiple surveys (Barlow, 2006, Mobley et al., 2001, Baird et al., 2003, 2005, within waters of the Hawaiian EEZ (one extending throughout the EEZ and the others closer to the Main Hawaiian Islands). All existing data indicate that the population size of false killer whales in Hawaiian EEZ waters is small. When survey data are available, it is always preferable to use the actual data, rather than rely on plausible estimates based on surveys conducted elsewhere. In the 2007 draft SAR the range of plausible estimates for the Palmyra EEZ has accordingly been replaced with the actual estimates of the 2005 shipboard survey in that region. *Comment 48:* Issue a revised draft SAR, which addresses the concerns expressed in this comment letter, and submit it for meaningful public comment. *Response:* The comments on this SAR did not warrant revision of the SAR. As new information becomes available, NMFS will update the SAR and solicit public review and comment as required by the MMPA. *Comment 49:* NMFS should undertake a new population survey that accounts for the known seasonality of false killer whale abundance in the Hawaiian EEZ and the presence of false killer whales near the Main Hawaiian Islands and outside the EEZ. *Response:* NMFS will continue to conduct population surveys and improve analysis methodology for the assessment of cetaceans in U.S. waters as resources. However, there is no scientific evidence of seasonality in occurrence of false killer whales within the Hawaiian EEZ (see detailed comments below). During 2005, a survey was completed that provided additional data for estimation of false killer whale abundance in waters of the Hawaiian EEZ, the Palmyra Atoll EEZ, in international waters these two EEZ, and westward to the Johnston Atoll EEZ. *Comment 50:* NMFS should revise its 1998 guidelines on mortality and serious injury to provide an accurate methodology for assessing the impacts of fishery-related take of false killer whales. *Response:* NMFS, in conjunction with the Commission, FWS, and representatives of regional SRGs, reviewed and revised its guidelines for preparing SARs in 2003 and issued final revisions in 2005 following public review and comment. The guidelines provide accurate methodologies for evaluating mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing and other sources. The SAR guidelines note that NMFS anticipates periodic review and revision of the SAR guidelines to incorporate new information and experience in implementing the MMPA. Also, see response to comment 4. *Comment 51:* The numerous flaws in extrapolating from the limited population data available for the Hawaiian stock of false killer whales have been acknowledged for some time. *Response:* The “flaws” alleged in this comment refer to older population data that are not used for the current assessment and are provided in the stock assessment report only as background information. The current abundance estimate, based on the 2002 survey, is not subject to these same limitations, and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that this estimate is biased or is an underestimate of the population size. *Comment 52:* The population estimate appears to be extrapolated from a single false killer whale sighting made during the 2002 survey, and numerous false killer whales have been sighted in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Consequently, the SAR must acknowledge the high degree of uncertainty and potential for error. *Response:* The population estimate is based on the overall encounter rate of false killer whales during an extensive 5-month ship survey, according to established line-transect methodology. Although the observation of only one false killer whale sighting during these surveys increases the uncertainty
(CV)around the estimate, it is a valid scientific estimate. This uncertainty is clearly stated in the SAR. This comment focuses only on the sighting and does not note the survey effort by well-trained observers using powerful binoculars that produced no additional false killer whale sightings, despite many sightings of other dolphins and whales. The lack of false killer whale sightings through much of the survey indicates that false killer whales are sparsely distributed over a very large area in the Pacific Ocean. Observations of false killer whale sightings around the main Hawaiian Islands include many of the same individuals, seen repeatedly over many years by other researchers. The incidence of resightings in these nearshore waters indicates that the population of false killer whales around the Hawaiian Islands is small. *Comment 53:* Assuming 236 is the mean for calculating the CV, the estimated population could be anywhere from -30 to 472. *Response:* The range of populations sizes suggested in this comment is inappropriate. Abundance estimates generally have log-normally distributed errors, and the resulting 90 percent confidence interval of the population estimate, calculated for a CV=1.13, is 44-1,252. *Comment 54:* NMFS must explain why the abundance and minimum population estimates for Hawaiian false killer whales are lower in the draft SAR than in previous SARs, even though these estimates are based on the same 2002 survey. *Response:* Following submission of the original analysis as a manuscript for publication in Marine Mammal Science, a reviewer recommended some improvements to the analyses. These improvements were made, and the revised analysis yielded slightly lower estimates. Such an approach is in accordance with standard review procedures. Thus, the lower estimate resulted from an improved analysis of the same survey data. *Comment 55:* The abundance survey was conducted between August and November, a time of year when false killer whales abundance and pod size is believed to be low. Reliable anecdotal information, confirmed by the results of an analysis by NMFS's Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (supporting information was included in the comment), indicates that the Hawaiian stock of false killer whales exhibits seasonal behavior. *Response:* There is no scientific evidence of seasonality in false killer whale abundance or pod size within the Hawaiian EEZ. In contrast to the comment's claim of seasonality, the information supplied by the commenter states that “month” was not a significant factor in the observer data analyzed. In addition, ongoing studies of cetaceans around the main Hawaiian Islands (Baird *et al.* , 2003, 2005, cited in the SAR) have documented false killer whales in nearly all months surveyed, with no evidence of seasonality in their occurrence. Additional published information cited by the commenter indicates seasonal influence on distribution of false killer whales; however, these papers refer to the seasonal occurrence of this tropical species in temperate waters off Japan, Russia and Canada, rather than the tropical waters around Hawaii. *Comment 56:* Given the difficulties in observing false killer whales, the extreme limitations of the known data, and the seasonal variations in abundance and pod size, extrapolations from the sighting of a single individual, assumed to represent a very modest pod size of 10 individuals, cannot reasonably be supported as a basis for reliable population estimate. *Response:* MMPA section 117 requires NMFS to prepare marine mammal stock assessment reports that are “based on the best scientific information available.” The abundance estimate for false killer whales was based on an extensive ship-board survey designed and conducted by experts in marine mammal population assessment. The survey design and subsequent data analyses were consistent with peer-reviewed, established methods, and the results have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Accordingly, the estimates presented are based on the “best scientific information available”, as required by the MMPA. *Comment 57:* NMFS applied a diving correction factor of 0.76, meaning that NMFS estimates that about 75 percent of false killer whale species should be observable at the surface of the ocean during survey work. False killer whales are a cryptic species that follow schools of prey species, such as tuna. In many cases, commercial fisheries have experienced severe depredation of catch by false killer whales, yet participants in the fishery have not seen signs of the species at the surface of the water. Accordingly, NMFS' assumptions regarding diving behavior are biased and do not reflect the species actual behaviors. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. The commenter has misunderstood the application and significance of the correction factor of 0.76 applied by NMFS and is inappropriately comparing observations made by personnel on fishing vessels to observations made by trained marine mammal observers using high-powered binoculars during dedicated marine mammal surveys. The correction factor of 0.76 does not represent the proportion of time animals are at the surface, as suggested by the commenter. Rather, the correction factor accounts for animals that are present on the survey trackline, (that is, during the time the vessel was in sight of the animals, the animals were at the surface at least briefly along the trackline), but not detected by the observer. Although animal behavior is part of the correction, there are other important factors that must be considered, such as weather (e.g., wind), the height of the viewing platform, the number of observers, and the use of high powered binoculars. The correction factor developed by NMFS is appropriate and scientifically valid for estimation of abundance based on the NMFS ship survey. *Comment 58:* The population estimates contained in the draft SAR are prone to underestimation because they are premised on the assumption that the Hawaiian population of false killer whales is genetically distinct. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. The line-transect methodology used to estimate the abundance of false killer whales does not rely on genetic distinctness. Rather, it reflects the total number of animals estimated to have been in the study area during the survey period. Furthermore, the genetic distinctness of false killer whales around the main Hawaiian Islands (described in the SAR) is based on an analysis of a large number of samples collected throughout the eastern and central Pacific, not merely on two samples obtained by fishery observers. NMFS continues to collect additional samples when possible and will refine stock structure as additional evidence becomes available; however, it is important to note that the finding of unique haplotypes around the main Hawaiian Islands confirms that these animals represent a distinct stock. NMFS will continue to provide updated information in the SARs as new results become available. *Comment 59:* The actual distribution of the Hawaiian population of false killer whales is unknown. It is a certainty that the Hawaiian population of false killer whales is not geographically confined to the Hawaiian EEZ, as suggested by NMFS's regulatory definition of the stock. However, the extent of the stock's distribution beyond the Hawaiian EEZ is unknown, and so is the relative abundance of the population within the nearshore and open ocean areas of the EEZ. Nevertheless, the population estimate contained in the draft SAR assumes a static population confined to the Hawaiian EEZ. *Response:* NMFS agrees with this comment only to the limited extent that stock or population structure of false killer whales in the Pacific Ocean is unknown. NMFS disagrees with the assertions, “ as suggested by NMFS' regulatory definition of the stock” and “the draft SAR assumes a static population confined to the Hawaiian EEZ”. False killer whales are widely distributed in tropical and warm temperate waters of the Pacific Ocean. The available data indicate that there is population structure; however, there is insufficient information to identify each demographically independent aggregation (stock) or to identify the boundaries between adjacent aggregations. In the face of this uncertainty, NMFS has identified stocks (as management units) in accordance with the agency's established guidelines, which, in turn, were based, among other things, upon the policies and purposes of the MMPA. The initial guidelines and subsequent revisions of them were based upon workshops with participants from NMFS, FWS, the Commission, and representatives of the three regional SRGs and were made available for public review and comment (59 FR 40527, August 9, 1994; 62 FR 3005, June 2, 1997; and 69 FR 67541, November 18, 2004). Each set of guidelines has addressed stocks such as false killer whales that are broadly distributed in pelagic waters beyond the U.S. EEZ. The 1995 and 1997 guidelines stated, “For situations where a species with a broad pelagic distribution which extends into international waters experiences mortalities within the U.S. EEZ, PBR calculations should be based on the abundance in the EEZ area unless there is evidence for movement of individuals between the EEZ and offshore pelagic areas.” In the subsequent review and revision of the guidelines (2003-2005), NMFS modified these instructions to be more clear, due in large part to uncertainties and distribution of false killer whales in the Pacific Ocean. The current guidelines state, “For situations where a species with a broad pelagic distribution which extends into international waters experiences mortalities within the U.S. EEZ, PBR calculations should be based on the abundance in the EEZ. If there is evidence for movement of individuals between the EEZ and offshore pelagic areas and there are estimates of mortality from U.S. and other sources throughout the stock's range, then PBR calculations may be based upon a range-wide abundance estimate for the stock.” False killer whales are distributed beyond the U.S. EEZ surrounding Hawaii and are taken in fisheries within and outside the EEZ. Fishery mortality and serious injury within the EEZ can be estimated from data collected by fishery observers in the U.S. fishing fleet within and outside the EEZ. Mortality and serious injury incidental to fishing by vessels of other nations is unknown; however, these vessels do not fish within the U.S. EEZ and, accordingly, do not kill marine mammals within the U.S. EEZ. Although it would be ideal to have sufficient information to identify the complete stock structure and boundaries for all false killer whales in the Pacific Ocean, to estimate mortality and serious injury from human-causes from all stocks, and to estimate the abundance (thus, calculate a PBR) for each stock of false killer whales, such a case does not exist, which results in several uncertainties. Accordingly, NMFS has limited the effect of uncertainty by identifying the Hawaiian stock to assess the impact of U.S. fishery-caused mortality and serious injury where the existing data allow. Such an approach allows NMFS to compare U.S. fishery-caused mortality and serious injury to a PBR where the stock is subject only to loss from U.S. fisheries. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with established guidelines, sound principles of wildlife management, and the purposes and policies of the MMPA. *Comment 60:* Given the limited population data available for false killer whales in the Hawaiian EEZ, NMFS should explain why it did not use an approach similar that employed for the Palmyra Atoll. *Response:* NMFS has not used this approach because it would not be based on the best scientific information available. A range of estimated plausible estimates was previously provided for the Palmyra Atoll EEZ because there were no survey data available for that geographic region. In contrast, there have been multiple surveys (Barlow, 2006, Mobley *et al.* 2001, Baird *et al.* , 2003, 2005) within waters of the Hawaiian EEZ (one extending throughout the EEZ and the others closer to the Main Hawaiian Islands). All existing data indicate that the population size of false killer whales in Hawaiian EEZ waters is small. When survey data are available, it is appropriate to use the actual data and associated estimates, rather than rely on plausible estimates based on surveys conducted elsewhere. *Comment 61:* There are serious uncertainties in the existing population data and flaws in the agency's assumptions about take attributable to the Hawaii longline fishery that case NMFS to underestimate false killer whale populations and overestimate fishery-related mortality and serious injury. *Response:* NMFS agrees that there are uncertainties in the data. However, the assessments explicitly take these uncertainties into account in a standardized way, consistent with the guidelines developed for assessing marine mammal stocks. There is no scientific evidence that indicates the abundance of false killer whales is underestimated or the mortality and injury of false killer whales in the Hawaii-based long-line fishery is overestimated. The methods used to estimate abundance have been peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal. Furthermore, several of the unidentified cetaceans that were injured or killed in the fishery were likely short-finned pilot whales or false killer whales, based on the observer's descriptions. These animals were not included in the estimation of serious injury and mortality of false killer whales; therefore, fishery-related mortality and serious injury were likely underestimated, not overestimated. *Comment 62:* NMFS has not explained its rationale for classifying all take by the longline fishery as mortality or serious injury. Participants in a workshop on false killer whales have confirmed the view that the NMFS's working assumption (i.e. that all hookings results in death or serious injury) is likely to be incorrect. *Response:* This comment mis-characterizes NMFS' approach to distinguishing between serious and non-serious injury by saying that NMFS considers all take by the longline fishery or all hookings to be serious injuries. The paper by Forney and Kobayashi (2005), reviewed and accepted by the SRG and cited in the SAR, clearly describes the rationale and process by which injuries are classified either as serious or as not serious. *Comment 63:* NMFS should revisit its 1998 guidelines for distinguishing between serious and non-serious injury to develop a more refined method of assessing false killer whale takes. *Response:* NMFS plans to review and, as appropriate, revise its guidance for distinguishing between serious and non-serious injury. A workshop initiating such an effort was originally scheduled for November 2006; however, it was postponed for budget reasons. When funding for FY 2007 is finalized by Congress, NMFS will assess options to convene the workshop and initiate the review of its serious injury guidance. *Comment 64:* The Hawaiian pelagic longline fishery includes two separately managed fishing efforts, the shallow set swordfish fishery and the deep-set tuna fishery, which operate at different times of the year. Yet, NMFS does not distinguish between the swordfish and tuna fishery or address how bait, gear, timing and seasonal differences between the two pelagic longline fisheries affect the take of false killer whales. As a result, the draft SAR inaccurately suggests that the entire pelagic longline fishery should be treated as a uniform industry subject to the same false killer whale restrictions. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. The report on mortality and serious injury of cetaceans in the Hawaii-based longline fishery (Forney and Kobayashi, 2005) clearly outlines the methodology used to differentiate between the different types of longline fishing that takes place. Estimates are based on a stratified analysis that takes into account differences in the types of cetaceans that interact with each component of the fishery, as well as inter-annual changes in fishing behavior and effort, such as those caused by regulations to protect sea turtles. The SAR reports the level of estimated serious injury and mortality of false killer whales but does not describe the details of the methods used in the estimates, which are available in the cited literature. Furthermore, the Hawaii-based longline fishery is under no restriction due to its false killer whale interactions. *Comment 65:* The draft SAR over-generalizes the number and nature of false killer whale takes attributable to the Hawaiian pelagic longline fishery. Figure 3 in the SAR contains markers for “possible” false killer whale takes. However the draft SAR does not reveal why these possible takes should be considered false killer whales rather than other cetacean species. Figure 3, therefore, creates an unsupportable implication that the fishery has taken more false killer whales than indicated by fishermen's logs and observer reports. *Response:* NMFS disagrees that the SAR over-generalizes the number and nature of false killer whale takes attributable to the longline fishery. The report on mortality and serious injury of cetaceans in the Hawaii-based longline fishery (Forney and Kobayashi, 2005) clearly describes that the characterization of some unidentified cetacean takes as possible false killer whale takes is based on the observers' descriptions of the animals. To clarify this, we have added text to the final 2006 SAR that the designation as possible false killer whales was based on the observers' descriptions. Figure 3 in the Draft SAR presents the most accurate picture of false killer whale mortality and serious injury in the Hawaii-based longline fishery, and the caption clearly describes the source of the information. The inference that a reader makes from Figure 3 is not important from a conservation or management perspective. Rather, the important information from a management perspective in the SAR is the number of fishery-caused mortalities and serious injuries included in the text and the summary table. The “possible” takes are not included in the mortality and serious injury attributed to the fishery. *Comment 66:* Successful catch depredation indicates that there are false killer whale interactions with the fishery which do not result in mortality or significant injury. As written, it is not clear whether the take accounted for in Figure 3 and/or Table 1 of the draft SAR includes this information. *Response:* Forney and Kobyashi, 2005, clearly explains that only interactions resulting in hooking and/or entanglement of cetaceans are included, not other types of interactions, such as depredation. We have added some text to the Draft 2006 SAR to clarify this. However, NMFS does not intend to expand SARs to include every possible bit of information related to the affected stock of marine mammals. The MMPA is clear that certain information is required, and NMFS has implemented MMPA section 117 to produce concise SARs that contain only the brief summaries required by the Act. Each SAR contains an extensive literature cited section so that interested readers may obtain more detail than is included in the SAR. *Comment 67:* NMFS must explain why the estimated mortality and serious injury to false killer whales increased in the 2006 draft SAR, when the estimated overall interactions with the longline fishery decreased. To the extent NMFS believes the answer lies in maintaining a consistent 5-year time period for analyzing mortality and serious injury, HLA submits that such an approach is not reasonable given the rarity of an observed false killer whale take. HLA believes the more prudent approach is to consider observer data from all 11 years for which it is available in order to account for the variable nature of take data. *Response:* NMFS disagrees. The fishery underwent significant regulatory modification, including seasons and gear, to protect sea turtles beginning in 2000, and the gear and set characteristics of the fishery changed. Thus, it would not be appropriate to include data for the earlier fishing practices. The guidelines for assessing marine mammal stocks recommend using the most recent 5 years of available data to balance the use of current information with the need to average across multiple years for rarely observed events. Dated: March 13, 2007. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-4956 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Office of the Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)/TRICARE Management Activity AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of a disease management demonstration project for TRICARE Standard beneficiaries. SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested parties of a Military Health System
(MHS)demonstration project entitled Disease Management Demonstration Project for TRICARE Standard Beneficiaries. Although there are many similarities between TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Prime as to the preventive health care services that may be provided in the current benefit, there are services that are expressly excluded under TRICARE Standard that may be offered under TRICARE Prime which are the essence of a disease management
(DM)program. TRICARE currently requires the Managed Care Support Contractors (MCSCs) to provide “disease management services” under the current contracts, without specific guidance. Based upon the current legal statutes authorizing preventive health care services, TRICARE must conduct a demonstration under 10 U.S.C. 1092 in order to offer TRICARE Prime benefits to TRICARE Standard beneficiaries under the DM program already in existence. (Section 734 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (henceforth NDAA 2007) does not give any broader authority than exists today). Under this demonstration, disease management services will be provided to TRICARE Standard beneficiaries as part of the current MHS DM programs. The demonstration project will enable the MHS to provide uniform policies and practices on disease and chronic care management throughout the TRICARE network. Additionally, the demonstration will help determine the effectiveness of DM programs in improving the health status of beneficiaries with targeted chronic diseases or conditions, and any associated cost savings. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 1, 2007. This demonstration will remain in effect until March 31, 2009. ADDRESSES: TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), Office of the Chief Medical Officer, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810, Falls Church, VA 22041-3206. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR Cynthia Gantt, Office of the Chief Medical Officer—TRICARE Management Activity, telephone
(703)681-0064. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The Military Health System
(MHS)is a $33 billion dollar enterprise, consisting of 76 military hospitals, over 500 military health clinics, and an extensive network of private sector health care partners, which provides medical care for over 9 million beneficiaries and active duty service members. Of these beneficiaries, approximately 5 million are classified as TRICARE Prime enrollees and 4.2 million are TRICARE Standard participants. The MHS is facing significant fiscal challenges in the coming years due to the rising costs of providing health care, coupled with recent expansions to the pool of eligible beneficiaries. The MHS recognizes these challenges and has implemented several new initiatives to help control costs. Disease management
(DM)programs have become popular in the private sector as a means to accomplish this goal, with varying levels of effectiveness having been documented. The MHS has the opportunity to become a leader in DM, due to its population of long term or life time eligible beneficiaries and robust information systems. B. MHS Disease Management Program On September 1, 2006, the MHS implemented a new DM initiative based on a consistent approach across all three managed care regions, focusing on asthma and congestive heart failure. These programs run by the Managed Care Support Contractors (MCSCs) include beneficiaries from military treatment facilities and those seen by civilian healthcare providers within the TRICARE network. In this revised uniform approach to DM, the Government, with the assistance of a program evaluation contractor, provides the MCSCs risk-stratified patient lists and conducts a formal evaluation across all three Regions using national benchmarks. TRICARE's approach to disease management is two-fold:
(1)Keep the well healthy with a focus on healthy lifestyles, disease prevention and health promotion and
(2)maintain an active disease management program for high risk beneficiaries with specific chronic disease conditions. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
(CPGs)and educational resources developed jointly by the Departments of Defense
(DoD)and Veterans Affairs
(VA)are used in both the military treatment facility and MCSC DM programs. The MHS DM program directly supports the MHS strategic goal of effective patient partnerships by advocating the use of evidence-based practice guidelines and emphasizing patient self management skills. The goals of the DM initiatives are to improve clinical outcomes, increase patient and provider satisfaction, and ensure appropriate utilization of resources. C. Current TRICARE Standard Benefit Under 10 U.S.C. 1079(a)(13), TRICARE may cost share only services or supplies that are medically or psychologically necessary to prevent, diagnose, or treat a mental or physical illness, injury, or bodily malfunction as assessed or diagnosed by an authorized provider. There is additional statutory authority that describes what are preventive health care services. Under 10 U.S.C. 1074d, members and former members of the uniformed services are entitled to preventive health care services including cervical cancer screening, breast cancer screening, and screening for colon and prostate cancer, all at intervals and using methods the Secretary considers appropriate. These same services are available to them and all dependents in MTFs under 10 U.S.C. 1077(a)(14), and to all covered beneficiaries under TRICARE under 10 U.S.C. 1079(a)(2). Under 10 U.S.C. 1079(a)(2)(B), other health promotion and disease prevention visits for those over six years of age are authorized under TRICARE Standard only when done in connection with immunizations or with diagnostic or preventive cancer screening tests. (See also, 32 CFR 199.4(g)(37)). Additionally, the TRICARE Prime program is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1097—1099. The statutes authorize Prime to “provide better services than those provided by [Standard]”, and the Secretary “shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section.” The regulations that directly impact the TRICARE Prime program are 32 CFR 199.17 and 199.18. Under 32 CFR 199.18(b)(2), the following services are available under TRICARE Prime that are not authorized under TRICARE Standard:
(1)“Periodic health promotion and disease prevention exams;
(2)Appropriate education and counseling services. The exact services offered shall be established under uniform standards established by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs).
(3)In addition to preventive care services provided pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, other benefit enhancements may be added and other benefit restrictions may be waived or relaxed in connection with health care services provided to include the Uniform HMO Benefit. Any such other enhancements or changes must be approved by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) based on uniform standards.” Also, under TRICARE Standard, education and counseling services are expressly excluded under 32 CFR 199.4(g)(39). D. National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA)2007 Disease Management Directives The NDAA 2007 section 734 requires the design and development of a fully integrated program on disease and chronic care management for the military health care system that provides uniform policies and practices on disease and chronic care management throughout the TRICARE network by October 1, 2007. The NDAA 2007 further states the program “shall include strategies for disease and chronic care management for all beneficiaries, including beneficiaries eligible for benefits under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 *et seq.* ), for whom the TRICARE program is not the primary payer for health care benefits.” The purposes of the MHS DM programs, as stated in the NDAA 2007, are to facilitate the improvement of the health status of individuals under care in the military health care system, to ensure the availability of effective health care services for individuals with diseases and other chronic conditions, and to ensure the proper allocation of health care resources for individuals who need care for disease or other chronic conditions. The NDAA 2007 mandates the DM program to address, at a minimum, the following chronic diseases and conditions: diabetes, cancer, heart disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and depression and anxiety disorders. E. Description of Demonstration Project Under this demonstration, DoD will waive, for disease management services provided to TRICARE Standard beneficiaries, the provisions of 10 U.S.C. section 1079(a)(13) and 32 CFR 199.4(g)(39) that expressly exclude clinical preventive services for TRICARE Standard beneficiaries in the current benefit. The MHS will enroll TRICARE Standard beneficiaries in its DM programs. DM services provided to Standard beneficiaries will include, but are not limited to: clinical preventive examinations, patient education and counseling services, and periodic screening exams. There will be a cap on MHS DM program costs not to exceed the amount approved by the contracting officer. The DM program costs are total costs of DM services provided to both Prime and Standard beneficiaries. Only those beneficiaries identified by TRICARE Management Activity
(TMA)for disease management of asthma, congestive heart failure, and diabetes are included in the current program, with other diseases or conditions to be added in the future as funding permits. The beneficiaries identified by TMA are included in the DM program unless the beneficiary chooses to opt out. This action will directly reduce variation across the system and result in improved consistency and quality for beneficiaries with targeted chronic illness, regardless of TRICARE classification. Furthermore, including TRICARE Standard beneficiaries in current DM efforts will inform the MHS about total potential savings and return on investment
(ROI)associated with DM, a stated requirement for inclusion in the Congressional report per the NDAA 2007. The system-wide DM program will improve the quality of care by educating patients about their disease and helping them manage their symptoms, thereby avoiding many complications and possibly slowing the progression of their chronic disease, thus resulting in significant cost savings. F. Implementation The demonstration is effective on April 1, 2007. G. Evaluation An independent evaluation of the demonstration will be conducted. The evaluation will be designed to use a combination of administrative and survey measures of health care outcomes (clinical, utilization, financial, and humanistic measures) to provide analyses and comment on the effectiveness of the demonstration in meeting its goal of providing uniform disease management policies and practices across the MHS. Dated: March 13, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E7-4924 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Renewal of 18 Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY: DoD. ACTION: Establishment of Federal Advisory Committee. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.65, the Department of Defense gives notice that it intents to establish the U.S. Southern Command Advisory Group, as a discretionary Federal advisory committee. This committee will provide the Secretary of Defense, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander, U.S. Southern Command independent advice and recommendations on the dynamic, transnational challenges facing the United States and its allies with respect to the U.S. Southern Command responsibilities. In accordance with DoD policy and procedures, the Commander U.S. Southern Command is authorized to act upon the advice emanating from this advisory committee. The U.S. Southern Command Advisory Group shall be composed of no more than 25 members who are eminent authorities in the fields of national defense, geopolitical and national security affairs, or Latin America and the Caribbean. Committee members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who are not full-time Federal officers or employees, shall serve as Special Government Employees under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109. The U.S. Southern Command Advisory Group, in keeping with DoD policy to make every effort to achieve a balanced membership, include a cross section of experts directly affected, interested and qualified to advice on US security interests in the Americas. Committee members shall be appointed on an annual basis by the Secretary of Defense, and with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, shall serve without compensation. The Commander, U.S. Southern Command shall select the committee's chairperson from the committee's membership at large. The U.S. Southern Command Advisory Group shall meet at the call of the committee's Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Chairperson and the Commander U.S. Southern Command. The Designated Federal Officer shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Designated Federal Officer or duly appointed Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend all committee meetings and subcommittee meetings. The U.S. Southern Command Advisory Group shall be authorized to establish subcommittees, as necessary and consistent with its mission, and these subcommittees or working groups shall operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and other appropriate Federal regulations. Such subcommittees or workgroups shall not work independently of the chartered committee, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the U.S. Southern Command Advisory Group for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered committee nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any Federal officers or employees who are not members of the U.S. Southern Command Advisory Group. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Wilson, DoD Committee Management Officer, 703-601-2554. Dated: March 12, 2007. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 07-1316 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 31
Traces to 31 documents
CFR
9 references not yet in our index
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 43 F.3d 1442
  • 893 F.2d 337
  • 50 CFR 600.310
  • 50 CFR 300.65(c)(2)
  • 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2)
  • 50 CFR 600.310(e)(3)
  • 32 CFR 199.18(b)(2)
  • 41 CFR 102
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
C.F.R.§ 351.205
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 356.8
C.F.R.§ 351.222
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.106
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.410
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
F. App'x43 F.3d 1442
F. App'x893 F.2d 337
Cites 40 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.