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 · 2007-06-06 · DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE · Notices

Notices. Notice

24,336 words·~111 min read·/register/2007/06/06/07-2801

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

BILLING CODE 3410-19-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce
(DOC)will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. *Bureau:* International Trade Administration. *Title:* Implementation of Tariff Rate Quota Established Under Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 as Amended by the Trade Act of 2002, the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004, and the Pension Protection Act of 2006 for Imports of Certain Worsted Wool for Imports of Certain Worsted Wool Fabric. *Agency Form Numbers:* ITA-4139P and ITA-4140P. *OMB Number:* 0625-0240. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Estimated Burden Hours:* 160. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20. *Estimated Average Hours per Response:* 1 to 3 hours, based on the requirement. *Needs and Uses:* Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (“the Act”), as amended by the Trade Act of 2002, the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004, and the Pension Protection Act of 2006, contains several provisions to assist the wool products industries. These include the establishment of tariff rate quotas
(TRQ)for a limited quantity of worsted wool fabrics. The Act requires the President to fairly allocate the TRQ to persons who cut and sew men's and boys' worsted wool suits and suit-like jackets and trousers in the United States, and who apply for an allocation based on the amount of suits they produced in the prior year. The Department must collect certain information in order to fairly allocate the TRQ to eligible persons. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* . Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of the publication to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or fax
(202)395-7285. Dated: May 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-10877 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). *Title:* Information Seeking Behaviors and Preferences of Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship
(SURF)Program Students. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 33. *Number of Respondents:* 100. *Average Hours per Response:* 20 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* This study will determine how the next generation of scientists, frequently referred to as the `Millennial Generation,' will seek scientific information in their research. This generation was born between 1982 and 2000 and has grown up with information technology. General studies show this population has technological preferences for receiving and integrating content, and this study is to learn if this extends to the scientific content among young scientists. It will identify most useful (and most desired) devices and formats, so that the NIST's Information Services Division can plan to serve the next generation of scientists. The project plans to use SURF students who work at NIST every summer as the test population. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* Jasmeet Seehra,
(202)395-3123. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-5167, or *Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: May 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-10946 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-559-801, A-412-801] Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent to Rescind Review in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The merchandise covered by these orders are ball bearings and parts thereof (ball bearings) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The reviews cover 21 manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value by various companies subject to these reviews. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in these reviews are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5760 and
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the **Federal Register** (54 FR 20900-10) the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. On July 3, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of initiation of administrative reviews of these orders (71 FR 37892). On October 16, 2006, we announced the rescission of the reviews with respect to certain firms for which we received timely withdrawals of the requests to review these firms (71 FR 60688). On January 18, 2007, we extended the due date for the completion of these preliminary results of reviews from January 31, 2007, to March 19, 2007 (72 FR 2261). On March 23, 2007, we extended the due date for the completion of these preliminary results from March 19, 2007, to April 2, 2007 (72 FR 13743). On April 5, 2007, we extended the due date for the completion of these preliminary results from April 2, 2007, to May 31, 2007 (72 FR 16764). On August 28, 2006, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the International Trade Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings from Singapore would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. See *Certain Bearings from China, et al.: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-344, et al. (Second Review)* (USITC Publication 3876, August 28, 2006). As a result of this determination, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on ball bearings from Singapore, effective as of July 11, 2005. See *Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France and Singapore: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders* , 71 FR 54468 (September 15, 2006). Therefore, the period covered by the administrative review of the order on ball bearings from Singapore is May 1, 2005, through July 10, 2005. For the remaining orders subject to these administrative reviews, the period of review covered is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Act. The list of companies for which we are currently conducting administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings are as follows: France: * SKF France S.A. or SFK Aerospace France S.A. (SKF France) * SNR Roulements or SNR Europe
(SNR)Germany: * Gebrüder Reinfurt GmbH & Co., KG
(GRW)* Schaeffler KG (formerly known as INA-Schaeffler KG; INA Vermogensverwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH; INA Holding Schaeffler KG; FAG Kugelfischer Georg-Schaefer AG; FAG Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG; FAG Komponenten AG; FAG Aircraft/Super Precision Bearings GmbH; FAG Industrial Bearings AG; FAG Sales Europe GmbH; FAG International Sales and Service GmbH (collectively INA/FAG)) (Schaeffler Germany) * SKF GmbH (SKF Germany) Italy: * Schaeffler Italia S.r.l. (formerly known as FAG Italia S.p.A.; FAG Automobiltechnik AG; FAG OEM und Handel AG (collectively FAG Italy)) (Schaeffler Italy) * SKF Industrie S.p.A.; SKF RIV-SKF Officine di Villas Perosa S.p.A.; RFT S.p.A.; OMVP S.p.A. (collectively SKF Italy) Japan: * Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. (Aisin Seiki) * Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. (Asahi Seiko) * Canon Inc. (Canon) * JTEKT Corporation (formerly known as Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.) (JTEKT) * Mori Seiki Co., Ltd. (Mori Seiki) * Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi) * Nankai Seiko Co., Ltd. (Nankai Seiko) * Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd.
(NPB)* NSK Ltd.
(NSK)* NTN Corporation
(NTN)* Osaka Pump Co., Ltd. (Osaka Pump) * Sapporo Precision Inc. (Sapporo) * KYK Corporation Ltd. (formerly known as Tottori Yamakai Bearing Seisakusho, Ltd.)
(KYK)Singapore: * NMB Singapore Ltd. and Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (NMB/Pelmec) United Kingdom: * The Barden Corporation
(UK)Limited; Schaeffler
(UK)Ltd. (formerly known as the Barden Corporation
(UK)Ltd.; FAG
(UK)Ltd. (collectively Barden/FAG)) (collectively Barden/Schaeffler UK) Intent to Rescind Review in Part In a September 18, 2006, submission, KYK stated that its predecessor-in-interest, Tottori Yamakai Bearing Seisakusho Ltd., used the trade name “KYK” and produced finished bearings in Japan from 1952 until it went bankrupt in 2000. KYK stated that, since emerging from bankruptcy in 2002, it has not resumed production operations in Japan and that all of the subject merchandise that KYK sold during the period of review was of Chinese origin. We have received no comments on this submission. Because we preliminarily find that KYK had no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review, we intend to rescind the administrative review with respect to this company. If we continue to find that KYK had no shipments of Japanese-made ball bearings at the time of our final results of administrative review, we will rescind our review for KYK. Scope of Orders The products covered by the orders are ball bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof. These products include all antifriction bearings that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are classified under the following categories: antifriction balls, ball bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units and parts thereof. Imports of these products are classified under the following *Harmonized Tariff Schedules*
(HTS)subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.6000, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.3100, 8708.99.4000, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.58, 8708.99.8015, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90. As a result of recent changes to the HTS, effective February 2, 2007, the subject merchandise is also classifiable under the following additional HTS item numbers: 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.00, 8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.8900, 8708.50.91.50, 8708.50.99.00, 8708.70.6060, 8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 8708.95.20.00, 8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68, 8708.99.81.80. Although the HTS item numbers above are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of these orders remain dispositive. The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether the bearing is covered by one of the orders. These orders cover all the subject bearings and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, cage, rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.) outlined above with certain limitations. With regard to finished parts, all such parts are included in the scope of the these orders. For unfinished parts, such parts are included if they have been heat-treated or heat treatment is not required to be performed on the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts that are not covered by these orders are those that will be subject to heat treatment after importation. The ultimate application of a bearing also does not influence whether the bearing is covered by the orders. Bearings designed for highly specialized applications are not excluded. Any of the subject bearings, regardless of whether they may ultimately be utilized in aircraft, automobiles, or other equipment, are within the scope of these orders. For a listing of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, see the Scope Determination Memorandum from the Antifriction Bearings Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated May 29, 2007, which is on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU)of the main Commerce building, room B-099, in the General Issues record (A-100-001) for the 2005-2006 reviews. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified information provided by certain respondents using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and the selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Specifically, we conducted verifications of Aisin Seiki, Mori Seiki, Schaeffler Germany, and SKF Italy. Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports, which are on file in the CRU, room B-099. Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used export price
(EP)or constructed export price
(CEP)as defined in sections 772(a) and
(b)of the Act, as appropriate. Due to the extremely large volume of U.S. transactions that occurred during the period of review and the resulting administrative burden involved in calculating individual margins for all of these transactions, we sampled CEP sales in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. When a firm made more than 10,000 CEP sales transactions to the United States of merchandise subject to a particular order, we reviewed CEP sales that occurred during sample weeks. We selected one week from each two-month period in the review period, for a total of six weeks, and analyzed each transaction made in those six weeks. The sample weeks are as follows: May 29, 2005 - June 4, 2005; July 17, 2005 - July 23, 2005; October 23, 2005 - October 29, 2005; November 27, 2005 - December 3, 2005; January 8, 2006 - January 14, 2006; March 19, 2006 - March 25, 2006. We reviewed all EP sales transactions the respondents made during the period of review. We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H. Doc. No. 103-316 at 823-824, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes commissions, direct selling expenses, and U.S. repacking expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets. When appropriate, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we also deducted the cost of any further manufacture or assembly except where we applied the special rule provided in section 772(e) of the Act. Finally, we made an adjustment for profit allocated to these expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers, *e.g.* , parts of bearings that were imported by U.S. affiliates of foreign exporters and then further processed into other products which were then sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined that the special rule for merchandise with value added after importation under section 772(e) of the Act applied to all firms that added value in the United States except Aisin Seiki, Asahi Seiko, and NPB. Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, when the subject merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we shall determine the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated customer if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other reasonable basis to determine the CEP. To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for the subject merchandise by the affiliated purchaser. Based on this analysis, we determined that the estimated value added in the United States by all further-manufacturing firms accounted for at least 65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as sold in the United States, except as discussed below. See 19 CFR 351.402(c) for an explanation of our practice on this issue. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that for these firms the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Also, for these firms, we determine that there was a sufficient quantity of sales remaining to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and that the use of these sales is appropriate. See the analysis memoranda for Canon, Barden/Schaeffler UK, JTEKT, Mori Seiki, Nachi, NSK, NTN, Sapporo, Schaeffler Germany, Schaeffler Italy, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR dated May 29, 2007. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins for the sales subject to the special rule, we have used the weighted-average dumping margins calculated on sales of identical or other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated persons. For Asahi Seiko and NPB, we determined that the special rule did not apply because the value added in the United States did not exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. For Aisin Seiki, we determined that the special rule did not apply because, even though the value added in the United States exceeded substantially the value of the subject merchandise, the remaining non-further-manufactured sales were not of a sufficient quantity to provide a reasonable basis for comparison. Consequently, these firms submitted complete responses to our further-manufacturing questionnaire which included the costs of the further processing performed by their U.S. affiliates. Because the majority of their products sold in the United States were further processed, we analyzed all sales. For NTN, we removed all zero-priced transactions from our analysis and there was no other record evidence indicating that NTN received consideration for these transactions although we did include the so-called “sample” sales where NTN did receive compensation. In addition, based on NTN's response to our supplemental questionnaire, we calculated a direct selling expense for NTN's EP sales, attributable to the provision of technical support and other selling-support functions to NTN's EP customer by NTN's U.S. affiliate. Furthermore, we accounted for NTN's re-calculation of its re-packing expense with respect to its reported CEP sales to capture differences in expenses associated with packing materials, packing labor, and packing labor overhead inherent in packing requirements with respect to different customer categories. In addition, we revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying costs incurred in Japan for NTN's EP and CEP sales by applying the factor NTN calculated for inventory carrying costs to the total cost of manufacture value it reported for each bearing model. Home-Market Sales Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by all respondents in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. With the exception of Aisin Seiki, each company's quantity of sales in its home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, with the exception of Aisin Seiki, we based normal value on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP sales. Aisin Seiki did not make sales to any other market so we based normal value on constructed value (CV). Due to the extremely large number of home-market transactions that occurred during the period of review and the resulting administrative burden involved in examining all of these transactions, we sampled sales to calculate normal value in accordance with section 777A of the Act. When a firm had more than 10,000 home-market sales transactions on a country-specific basis, we used sales in sample months that corresponded to the sample weeks which we selected for U.S. CEP sales, sales in a month prior to the period of review, and sales in the month following the period of review. The sample months were February, June, July, October, and November 2005 and January, March, and May 2006. The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, *i.e.* , sales at arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). We excluded sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that we determined not to be at arm's-length prices from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length prices. See *Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). We included in our calculation of normal value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length prices. Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded below-cost sales in the 2004-2005 reviews with respect to ball bearings sold by Asahi Seiko, Barden/FAG, FAG Italy, GRW, JTEKT, Nachi, NPB, NSK, NTN, Schaeffler Germany, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR and in the 2003-2004 reviews with respect to ball bearings sold by Nankai Seiko, NMB/Pelmec, and Osaka Pump. See *Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 40064, 40065-66 (July 14, 2006) ( *AFBs 16* ), and *Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 54711, 54712 (September 16, 2005) ( *AFBs 15* ). These represent reviews for the last completed segments for the firms indicated above. Therefore, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value in these reviews may have been made at prices below the cost of production
(COP)as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted COP investigations of sales by these firms in the home market. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home-market sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its questionnaire responses. After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested whether home-market sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported home-market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the period of review were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the period of review, we determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See the analysis memoranda for Asahi Seiko, Barden/Schaeffler UK, GRW, JTEKT, Nachi, Nankai Seiko, NMB/Pelmec, NPB, NSK, NTN, Osaka Pump, Schaeffler Germany, Schaeffler Italy, SKF France, SKF Germany, SKF Italy, and SNR dated May 29, 2007. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to all of the above-mentioned companies. We received allegations from Timken US Corporation (Timken), the petitioner, that Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki sold ball bearings in the home market at prices below the COP. Timken requested that the Department initiate a cost investigation of these three respondents' home-market sales of ball bearings. We found that Timken's COP allegations did not provide reasonable bases upon which to initiate the COP investigations of these three respondents. Therefore, we declined to initiate the COP investigations of these three respondents. See the Memoranda to Laurie Parkhill concerning Timken's COP allegations on Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki dated January 10, 2007, January 11, 2007, and January 24, 2007, respectively. Model-Match Methodology For all respondents except Aisin Seiki, we compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in the home market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an identical home-market model was reported, we made comparisons to weighted-average home-market prices that were based on all sales which passed the COP test of the identical product during the relevant month. We calculated the weighted-average home-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified the most similar home-market model. To determine the most similar model, we limited our examination to models sold in the home market that had the same bearing design, load direction, number of rows, and precision grade. Next, we calculated the sum of the deviations (expressed as a percentage of the value of the U.S. characteristics) of the inner diameter, outer diameter, width, and load rating for each potential home-market match and selected the bearing with the smallest sum of the deviations. If two or more bearings had the same sum of the deviations, we selected the model that was sold at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale and was the closest contemporaneous sale to the U.S. sale. If two or more models were sold at the same level of trade and were sold equally contemporaneously, we selected the model that had the smallest difference-in-merchandise adjustment. Finally, if no bearing sold in the home market had a sum of the deviations that was less than 40 percent, we concluded that no appropriate comparison existed in the home market and we used the CV of the U.S. model as normal value. For a full discussion of the model-match methodology for these reviews, see *AFBs 15* at Comments 2, 3, 4, and 5 and *Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 25538, 25542 (May 13, 2005). Normal Value Home-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from normal value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP calculations. For NTN's sales of samples in the home market, we have determined that these sales were made outside the ordinary course of trade and have excluded them from our calculation of normal value. We did not accept NTN's claim for an elimination of so-called high-profit sales in the home market from the calculation of normal value because NTN did not demonstrate that these sales were made outside the ordinary course of trade. Furthermore, we accounted for NTN's re-calculation of its packing expense for reported home-market sales to capture differences in expenses associated with packing materials inherent in packing requirements with respect to different customer categories. In addition, we revised NTN's calculation of inventory carrying costs incurred in the home market for its home-market sales by applying the factor for inventory carrying costs it calculated to the total cost of manufacture value it reported for each bearing model. For JTEKT, consistent with *Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part* , 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 21, *AFBs 15* at Comment 10, and *AFBs 16* at Comment 22, we denied certain negative home-market billing adjustments that JTEKT granted on a model-specific basis but reported on a broad customer-specific basis. See the analysis memorandum for JTEKT dated May 29, 2007, for a more detailed discussion. In the last administrative review, we examined the relationship between JTEKT and one of its affiliated home-market firms and determined that it is appropriate to collapse these two companies as one entity. See *AFBs 16* at Comment 18. In this review, we have examined the business relationship between JTEKT and its affiliate and determined that it is appropriate to continue to collapse these two companies as one entity based on additional facts we obtained in this administrative review. JTEKT and its affiliate at issue are in a parent-subsidiary relationship in which JTEKT controls its subsidiary's decision-making bodies that decide on the subsidiary's business policy, finance, and operations because JTEKT owns more than 40 percent of its subsidiary's shares and JTEKT sells a significant portion of ball bearings manufactured by its subsidiary under an agreement that dates back to 1963. This parent-subsidiary relationship is established under Japan's Ministry of Finance Ordinance No. 59, Article 8(3) and 8(4) (hereafter Ordinance No. 59). JTEKT discloses the financial information of its subsidiary under certain circumstances in accordance with the Tokyo Stock Exchange's Rules on Timely Disclosure of Corporate Information by Issuer of Listed Security and the Like, Article 2-2-(3). JTEKT develops products with this subsidiary. This subsidiary also markets itself as a company associated with JTEKT and JTEKT's other subsidiaries. In its November 15, 2006, comment, Timken refers to the Department's decision in *AFBs 16* to collapse JTEKT and its subsidiary after considering several factors and Timken supports the continued collapsing of JTEKT and its subsidiary. Timken argues that a majority-share ownership or a company's ability to “compel” another company to share the other company's information with the company is not a necessary prerequisite to collapse two companies. JTEKT opposes our decision to collapse it with its subsidiary, arguing that JTEKT is not the parent of its subsidiary under the Commercial Code of Japan, Article 211-2, para. 3 (Law No. 48 of March 9, 1899) (hereafter Article 211-2), which requires that a company own the majority share of another company to be a parent company of the other company. JTEKT argues that Ordinance No. 59 is for financial purposes only. Therefore, JTEKT claims, it cannot compel its subsidiary to share the subsidiary's confidential production and sales information with it. While Article 211-2 is silent on other circumstances in which JTEKT may be the parent company of another company, Ordinance No. 59 sets forth other specific circumstances in which JTEKT is the parent company of its subsidiary at issue and, therefore, controls its subsidiary's decision-making bodies that decide on the subsidiary's business policies, finance, and operations. The parent-subsidiary relationship and the business activities between these two companies confirm that JTEKT controls its subsidiary's decision-making bodies in view of their business, financial, and operational relationship. Therefore, we preliminarily find that JTEKT can compel its subsidiary to share its subsidiary's production and sales information with JTEKT. We continue to find that these two companies have intertwined operations and that a potential exists for JTEKT to manipulate prices and production of its subsidiary supplier, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Therefore, for purpose of these preliminary results, we continue to collapse these two companies for this review. See the analysis memorandum for JTEKT dated May 29, 2007, for further details that include reference to JTEKT's business-proprietary information. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See the *Level of Trade* section below. Actual Costs Where the sale to an exporter or a reseller is of finished subject merchandise, the Department's practice is to rely on the COP or CV of the producer. See *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile* , 70 FR 6618 (February 8, 2005), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3, and *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* , 72 FR 6524 (February 12, 2007), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. Pursuant to section 773(e)(1) of the Act, CV shall be based upon the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind employed in producing the merchandise. See the *Constructed Value* section below. In our original questionnaire dated July 10, 2006, we instructed respondents that, if they met the requirement for providing COP or CV information, they were to respond to Question 8 of Appendix V of the questionnaire by July 31, 2006. In Question 8, we sought information concerning each respondent's total sales of bearings manufactured by unaffiliated suppliers, the suppliers' identities, and whether each respondent produced bearings that were the same as the bearings it purchased from the unaffiliated suppliers during the period of review. We requested this information to determine whether to require individual respondents to report their unaffiliated suppliers' actual COP or CV data. We clarified this request following questions from respondents. See the Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, entitled “Sales of Merchandise Under Review Supplied by an Unaffiliated Producer in the 2005-2006 Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom,” dated July 27, 2006. After analyzing the information we received from certain respondents in response to Question 8, we required Schaeffler Italy and SKF Germany to report COP/CV information for certain of their unaffiliated suppliers. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled “Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Calculation of the Cost of Production and Constructed Value for Merchandise Produced by Unaffiliated Suppliers,” dated September 7, 2006. (Since the issuance of the memorandum, we have rescinded the reviews of two other companies for which we made a similar determination.) In that same memorandum, we also stated that companies that had not responded to Question 8 would be required to report CV information of their unaffiliated suppliers if we were to determine that the calculation of their dumping margin necessitated the use of CV for normal value. We made the memorandum available to all respondents in these reviews. We received actual-cost information for the bearings SKF Germany and Schaeffler Italy had purchased from the respective suppliers we identified in our September 7, 2006, memoranda to the file entitled “Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Germany: SKF Germany's Sales of Merchandise Produced by Unaffiliated Suppliers” and “Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Italy: FAG Italy's Sales of Merchandise Produced by Unaffiliated Suppliers.” Three of the respondents in the Japan review, Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki, did not respond to Question 8 in a timely manner. Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki notified us in their original questionnaire responses dated October 4, 2006, October 3, 2006, and September 27, 2006, respectively, that they had purchased all of their bearings from Japanese producers but did not report actual-cost information. Over the course of the review, we requested information from Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki about their purchases and cost information. They responded that, although they had asked their unaffiliated suppliers to provide the information, the unaffiliated suppliers refused to provide the actual-cost information for virtually all models these resellers sold. On March 30, 2007, we requested that all manufacturers that produced bearings in Japan and sold bearings to Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki, either directly or through an affiliated sales company, provide actual-cost information for such bearings. See letters to certain manufacturers from Laurie Parkhill dated March 30, 2007, in the file containing business-proprietary information in the Japan proceeding. These manufacturers submitted the required information and we used it, where necessary, in our margin calculations for the three firms. Where Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki did not purchase bearings directly from the manufacturers or an affiliated sales company but obtained the bearings from another unaffiliated party in the sales chain or where Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki purchased bearings from manufacturers or their affiliates but these suppliers did not produce the bearings, we used the prices at which the three firms acquired the bearings at issue, as needed, for our margin calculations. For Aisin Seiki, Canon, and Mori Seiki, we had all necessary actual or acquisition costs to complete our margin calculations. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the basis for normal value when there were no usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market or, in the case of Aisin Seiki, where the company did not have a viable home or third-country market. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the calculation of CV. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each respondent (with the exception of Aisin Seiki, which we describe below) in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the home market. When appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to CV. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from CV. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons. When possible, we calculated CV at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. If CV was calculated at a different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and
(8)of the Act. We calculated G&A expenses and interest expenses by obtaining rates for these items from Aisin Seiki's unconsolidated financial statements and applying them to the total costs, G&A, and interest expense of the bearing models Aisin Seiki sold to the United States. Because Aisin Seiki did not have a viable comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, we calculated selling expenses and profit for Aisin Seiki's CV based on the weighted-average selling expenses and profit we calculated for the other exporters or producers subject to the review in connection with sales of the foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, in the foreign country. See the analysis memorandum for Aisin Seiki dated May 29, 2007, for a more detailed discussion of our calculation of CV for Aisin Seiki. Level of Trade To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there were no sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to home-market sales at a different level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the home market. When normal value is based on CV, the level of trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and profit. To determine whether home-market sales are at a different level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined 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 were at a different level of trade from that of a U.S. sale and the difference affected price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we made a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). Where the respondent reported no home-market levels of trade that were equivalent to the CEP level of trade and where the CEP level of trade was at a less advanced stage than any of the home-market levels of trade, we were unable to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based on the respondent's home-market sales of the foreign like product. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For respondents' CEP sales, to the extent possible, we determined normal value at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to normal value was subject to the so-called offset cap, calculated as the sum of home-market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP (or, if there were no home-market commissions, the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and U.S. commissions). For a company-specific description of our level-of-trade analyses for these preliminary results, see Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill from Antifriction Bearings Team entitled “Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from Various Countries - 2005/2006 Level-of-Trade Analysis,” dated May 29, 2007, on file in the CRU, room B-099. Preliminary Results of Reviews As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings and parts thereof from various countries exist for the period May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006: FRANCE Company Margin (percent) SKF France 8.99 SNR 13.32 GERMANY Company Margin GRW 0.35 Schaeffler Germany 3.03 SKF Germany 11.06 ITALY Company Margin Schaeffler Italy 1.60 SKF Italy 8.83 JAPAN Company Margin Aisin Seiki 6.48 Asahi Seiko 1.28 Canon 10.50 JTEKT 15.85 Mori Seiki 1.93 Nachi 11.46 Nankai Seiko 3.01 NPB 26.89 NSK 3.66 NTN 7.76 Osaka Pump 4.76 Sapporo 7.63 SINGAPORE Company Margin NMB/Pelmec 12.61 UNITED KINGDOM Company Margin Barden/Schaeffler UK 0.28 Comments We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these reviews within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. A general-issues hearing, if requested, and any hearings regarding issues related solely to specific countries, if requested, will be held at the main Department building at times and locations to be determined. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the following:
(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants;
(3)a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than the dates shown below for general issues and the respective country-specific reviews. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in these proceedings are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Case Briefs due Rebuttals due General Issues July 2, 2007 July 9, 2007 Germany July 3, 2007 July 10, 2007 Italy July 5, 2007 July 12, 2007 Singapore and United Kingdom July 5, 2007 July 12, 2007 France July 6, 2007 July 13, 2007 Japan July 9, 2007 July 16, 2007 The Department will issue the final results of these administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearings, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to these reviews. We will issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of these reviews. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( *Assessment of Antidumping Duties* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these preliminary results of reviews 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 full discussion of this clarification, see *Assessment of Antidumping Duties* . Export-Price Sales With respect to EP sales, for these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and EP) for each exporter's importer or customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries under the relevant order during the review period. Constructed Export-Price Sales For CEP sales (sampled and non-sampled), we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the relevant order during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). Cash-Deposit Requirements In order to derive a single weighted-average margin for each respondent, we weight-averaged the EP and CEP weighted-average deposit rates (using the EP and CEP, respectively, as the weighting factors). To accomplish this when we sampled CEP sales, we first calculated the total dumping margins for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the sample CEP margins by the ratio of total days in the review period to days in the sample weeks. We then calculated a total net value for all CEP sales during the review period by multiplying the sample CEP total net value by the same ratio. Finally, we divided the combined total dumping margins for both EP and CEP sales by the combined total value for both EP and CEP sales to obtain the deposit rate. Furthermore, with the exception of ball bearings and parts thereof from Singapore for which the Department revoked the order effective July 11, 2005, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative reviews for all shipments of ball bearings and parts thereof 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)the cash-deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of reviews;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigations but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise;
(4)the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “All Others” rate for the relevant order made effective by the final results of review published on July 26, 1993. *See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order* , 58 FR 39729, 39730 (July 26, 1993). For ball bearings from Italy, see *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders* , 61 FR 66472, 66521 (December 17, 1996). These rates are the “All Others” rates from the relevant less-than-fair-value investigations. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importer 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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. These preliminary results of administrative reviews are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 29, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-10913 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. International Trade Administration [A-570-822] Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver at
(202)482-2336 or Charles Riggle at
(202)482-0650, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain helical spring lock washers (“HSLWs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006). This review covers the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. The preliminary results of review are currently due no later than July 3, 2007. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of the administrative review of HSLWs from the PRC within this time limit. Specifically, due to the verification of the questionnaire responses scheduled in June, we find that additional time is needed to complete these preliminary results. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by 63 days until September 4, 2007. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-10904 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-839] Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. This review covers imports of certain polyester staple fiber from one producer/exporter. We preliminarily find that sales of the subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Scott Holland, 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)482-1174 and
(202)482-1279, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”) from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”). *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan* , 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000). On May 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 25565 (May 1, 2006). On May 31, 2006, Wellman, Inc.; Invista, S.a.r.L.; and DAK Americas, LLC (collectively, “the petitioners”) requested administrative reviews of Huvis Corporation (“Huvis”); Saehan Industries, Inc. (“Saehan”); Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd. (“Daehan”); and Dongwoo Industry Company (“Dongwoo”). On May 31, 2006, Huvis requested an administrative review. The petitioners withdrew their requests for administrative reviews of Saehan and Daehan on June 19, 2006, and June 21, 2006, respectively. On July 3, 2006, the Department published a notice initiating the review with respect to Huvis and Dongwoo. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 37892, 37900 (July 3, 2006). The period of review (“POR”) is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. On July 13, 2006, we issued antidumping questionnaires in this review. On August 10, 2006, Dongwoo responded that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We received sections A through D questionnaire responses from Huvis on August 17, 2006, September 8, 2006, and September 22, 2006. In November 2006, January 2007, and March 2007, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Huvis. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires in January 2007, February 2007, and April 2007, respectively. On January 16, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of this review until no later than May 31, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). *See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan and the Republic of Korea: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the 2005-2006 Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 1703 (January 16, 2007). Scope of the Order For the purposes of this order, the product covered is PSF. PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to this order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.00.25 is specifically excluded from this order. Also specifically excluded from this order are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Intent to Rescind Administrative Review As noted above, Dongwoo stated that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. The Department confirmed using CBP data that Dongwoo did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Dongwoo. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether Huvis' sales of PSF to the United States were made at less than normal value (“NV”), we compared export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign-like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced and sold by the respondent in the home market covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. For further details, see the “Normal Value” section, below. We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of contemporaneous sales made in the home market. Where there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market, we compared sales made within the window period, which extends from three months prior to the POR until two months after the POR. *See* 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2). As directed by section 771(16) of the Act, where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign-like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Further, as provided in section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where we could not determine NV because there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to constructed value (“CV”). Date of Sale For its home market sales, Huvis reported invoice date as its date of sale, as Huvis permits home market customers to make order changes up to that time. Thus, Huvis' invoices to its home market customers establish the material terms of sale. For one home market sale, consistent with 19 CFR 351.401(i), we used the tax invoice date as the date of sale because it reflected the date on which the material terms of sale were established. We made this adjustment because the tax invoice date preceded both the date of shipment and the date of invoice. *See* Memorandum from Team to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum - Huvis Corporation* ,” dated May 31, 2007 (“ *Huvis Calculation Memorandum* ”). For its U.S. sales, Huvis reported date of shipment as its date of sale, as it permits U.S. customers to make order changes up to the date of shipment. Thus, because the merchandise is always shipped before the date of invoice and the material terms of sale are established on the date of shipment, the date of shipment is the proper date of sale. *See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 63 FR 13170, 13172-73 (March 18, 1998). Export Price For sales to the United States, we calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the cost, insurance, and freight (“CIF”); ex-dock duty paid - free-on-board (“EDDP-FOB”); and EDDP - CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions, consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the following movement expenses: loading fees, inland freight from the plant to port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, and U.S. customs duty. We increased EP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Huvis provided documentation demonstrating that it received duty drawback under Korea's individual-rate system. In prior investigations and administrative reviews, the Department has examined Korea's individual-rate system and found that the government controls in place generally satisfy the Department's requirements for receiving a duty drawback adjustment ( *i.e.* , that
(1)the rebates received were directly linked to import duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the subject merchandise, and
(2)there were sufficient imports to account for the rebates received). *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of the Eleventh Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 7513 (Feb. 13, 2006), and accompanying *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* , at Comment 2. We examined the documentation submitted by Huvis in this administrative review and confirmed that it meets the Department's two-prong test (mentioned above) for receiving a duty drawback adjustment. Accordingly, we are allowing the reported duty drawback adjustment on Huvis' U.S. sales. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PSF in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's home market sales of the foreign-like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
(C)of the Act, because the respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for comparison. B. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) (“ *CTL Plate* ”). In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 1 including selling functions, 2 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. *Id.* 1 The marketing process in the United States and comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. *CTL Plate* , 62 FR at 61732. In performing this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 2 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. *CTL Plate* , 62 FR at 61732. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 3 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. *See Micron Tech, Inc. v. United States* , et al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (interpreting Congressional intent, in accordance with this methodology). 3 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. *See, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 70 FR 32756, 32757 (June 6, 2005) (unchanged in *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea* , 70 FR 73435 (Dec. 12, 2005)). When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign-like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sales to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference in LOT affects price comparability, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Huvis reported a single channel of distribution and a single level of trade in each market, and has not requested a LOT adjustment. In the single channel of distribution for U.S. sales, merchandise is shipped directly to the customer on a CIF, EDDP-FOB, or EDDP-CIF basis. For home market sales, merchandise is delivered to the customer's location. We examined the information reported by Huvis regarding its marketing process for making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including the type and level of selling activities performed, and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which the sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with respect to the different customer categories ( *i.e.* , distributors and end users) within each market and across the markets. Huvis reported that it made direct sales to distributors and end users in the home market and sales to distributors in the United States. For sales in the home market and to the United States, Huvis' selling activities included negotiating sales terms, receiving and processing orders, and arranging for freight and delivery, and preparing shipping documents. For each market, Huvis was available to provide technical advice upon a customer's request. For sales in the home market and to the United States, Huvis offered no inventory maintenance services nor advertising, and it did not handle any warranty claims during the POR. Because the selling functions were similar in both markets, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in the home market and in the United States, and that Huvis' home market and U.S. sales were made at the same LOT. C. Sales to Affiliated Customers Huvis made sales in the home market to an affiliated customer. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to the affiliated customer to those of unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and indirect selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's practice, we included in our margin analysis only sales to an affiliated party that were made at arm's length. D. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed administrative review, we had disregarded some sales by Huvis because they were made at prices below the cost of production (“COP”). Under section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, previously disregarded below-cost sales provide reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent made sales of the subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Whenever the Department has this reason to believe or suspect sales were made below the COP, we are directed by section 773(b) of the Act to determine whether, in fact, there were below-cost sales. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), we disregard sales from our calculation of NV that were made at less than the COP if they were made in substantial quantities over an extended period of time at prices that would not permit recovery of costs within a reasonable period. We find that the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities,” when 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department normally considers sales to have been made within an extended period of time when made during a period of one year. Finally, prices do not permit recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time if the per unit COP at the time of sale is below the weighted average per unit COP for the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Application of Facts Otherwise Available Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party:
(1)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(2)fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the act;
(3)significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(4)provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. As discussed in the “Calculation of COP” section below, Huvis failed to provide market prices for purified terephthalic acid (“PTA”) and qualified terephthalic acid (“QTA”) as requested by the Department. Therefore, under section 776(a) of the Act, use of facts otherwise available is warranted in determining the market price for PTA and QTA. 1. Calculation of COP We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum of the respondent's costs of materials and fabrication for the merchandise under review, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and the costs of all expenses incidental to placing the foreign-like product packed and in a condition ready for shipment, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on COP information submitted in Huvis' cost questionnaire responses except for the following adjustments. (1)We adjusted Huvis' reported cost of manufacturing (“COM”) to account for purchases of PTA, modified terephthalic acid (“MTA”), and QTA from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length prices. *See Huvis Calculation Memorandum* . Consistent with our finding in the previous administrative review, the record of this review does not support interchangeability for MTA and QTA because they contain different impurity levels and there is no evidence to indicate that the same input amounts of MTA or QTA were required to produce a specific PSF product. *See Huvis Calculation Memorandum; see also Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 58581 (Oct. 4, 2006), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Final Results of 2004/05 Administrative Review”)* at Comment 1. In the instant review, Huvis failed to provide a market price for QTA, as requested in the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, in accordance with sections 773(f)(3) and 776(a) of the Act, we have relied on facts available to make a determination of market value. We added the supplier's profit rate, which we calculated from the supplier's financial statements for the fiscal year ending 2005, to the supplier's COP as a reasonable proxy for the missing market price of this input. Under section 773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.407(b), the Department will determine the value of a major input from an affiliated person based on the higher of the transfer price, the market price, or the affiliate's COP. We adjusted Huvis' reported transfer price of QTA by the percent difference between the reported transfer price and the higher of market price or affiliate's COP. For PTA, we find that it is not a major input because Huvis' purchases of PTA do not represent a significant percentage of the total COM of merchandise under review. However, Huvis also failed to provide a market price for this input. Therefore, in accordance with sections 773(f)(2) and 776(a) of the Act, we have relied on facts available to make a determination of market value. We applied the same methodology used for QTA to calculate a proxy market price for PTA. Under section 773(f)(2), the the Department may disregard transactions if the transfer price of an input does not fairly reflect the amount usually reflected for sales of that input. Because the market price of PTA exceeded the transfer price, we adjusted Huvis' reported transfer price of PTA by the percent difference between the reported transfer price and the market price. For MTA, similar to QTA, we determined the value of this major input based on the higher of the transfer price, the market price, or the affiliate's COP. We adjusted Huvis' reported transfer price of MTA by the percent difference between the reported transfer price and the higher of market price or affiliate's COP.
(2)For Huvis' affiliated supplier of QTA and PTA, we adjusted the reported combined SG&A and financial expenses ratio to properly calculate each ratio separately and set the negative ratio to zero. We added these expenses to COM. *See Huvis Calculation Memorandum* .
(3)For Huvis and its affiliated supplier of MTA, the interest expenses were offset by interest on deposits for retirement insurance. Consistent with our treatment of this income in the previous administrative review, we excluded this offset because it is not related to interest income incurred on short-term investments of working capital. *See Final Results of 2004/05 Administrative Review at Comment 4; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 3677 (Jan. 26, 2005), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum (“SSSSC from Mexico”)* at Comment 11; *see also Huvis Calculation Memorandum* .
(4)For Huvis' affiliated supplier of MTA, we excluded an offset for long-term interest income from its SG&A and financial expenses for the same reason as that stated above. *See SSSSC from Mexico* at Comment 11; *see also Huvis Calculation Memorandum* .
(5)In its SG&A ratio, Huvis excluded the depreciation cost of idle assets because it stated that the cost was not related to the production or sale of subject merchandise. Consistent with our treatment of these expenses in the previous administrative review, we have included the depreciation costs because idle assets are considered an overhead burden and appropriately part of SG&A expenses. *See Final Results of 2004/05 Administrative Review* at Comment 3. Further, it is not relevant that the idle assets did not produce merchandise under review because these idle assets were related to the general operations of the company as a whole. *Id.; see also Huvis Calculation Memorandum* . 2. Test of Home Market Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP figures for the POR to the home market sales of the foreign-like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. According to our practice, the prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made
(1)within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and
(2)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 3. Results of COP Test We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining sales of the same product, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1). E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices We calculated NV based on the price to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for loading fees and for inland freight from the plant to the customer. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments, where appropriate, by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales (i.e., credit expenses and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and bank charges). *See* 19 CFR 351.410(c). Preliminary Results of the Review We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Huvis Corporation 2.51 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* section 751(a)(3) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Huvis submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the importer of record for certain of its POR sales. We examined the customs entry documentation submitted by Huvis and tied it to the U.S. sales listing. We noted that Huvis was indeed the importer of record for certain sales. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the importer-specific assessment rates, we have treated Huvis as the importer of record for certain POR shipments. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales where Huvis is the importer of record, Huvis submitted the reported entered value of the U.S. sales and we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Regarding sales where Huvis was not the importer of record, we note that Huvis did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. 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 will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these preliminary results 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. *Id* . If the Department rescinds this review with respect to Dongwoo, and in the event any entries were made during the POR through intermediaries under the CBP case number for Dongwoo, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate in effect on the date of entry, consistent with the May 6, 2003 clarification discussed above. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent);
(2)for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 7.91 percent, the all- others rate established in *Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court Decision* , 68 FR 74552 (December 24, 2003). Notification to Importers 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 these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-10907 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-833] Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from Taiwan. The period of review is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. This review covers imports of certain polyester staple fiber from one producer/exporter. We have preliminarily found that sales of the subject merchandise have not been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2007 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri 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)482-3853 and
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”) from Taiwan. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan* , 65 FR 16877 (March 30, 2000); *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan* , 65 FR 24678 (April 27, 2000). On May 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 25565 (May 1, 2006). On May 31, 2006, Far Eastern Textile Limited (“FET”) requested an administrative review. On July 3, 2006, the Department published a notice initiating an administrative review for PSF from Taiwan. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 37892 (July 3, 2006). The period of review (“POR”) is May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. On July 13, 2006, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to FET. We received questionnaire responses from FET on August 21, 2006, and September 21, 2006. In December 2006, and January and February 2007, we issued supplemental questionnaires to FET. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires in January, February, and March 2007. Scope of the Order For the purposes of this order, the product covered is PSF. PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to this order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded from this order. Also specifically excluded from this order are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, during April 2007, we conducted a verification of the information reported by FET in Taiwan using standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. The Department reported its findings on May 31, 2007. See Memorandum to the File, “ *Verification of the Sales Response of Far Eastern Textile Limited in the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan,* ” dated May 31, 2007 (“ *FET Sales Verification Report* ”); and Memorandum to the File, “Verification of the Cost Response of Far Eastern Textile Limited in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan,” dated May 31, 2007 (“FET Cost Verification Report”). These reports are on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Department building. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether FET's sales of PSF to the United States were made at less than normal value (“NV”), we compared export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we compared the EP of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign-like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced and sold by the respondent in the home market covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
(C)of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (For further details, *see* the “Normal Value” section, below.) We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of contemporaneous sales made in the home market. Where there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market, we compared sales made within the window period, which extends from three months prior to the POR until two months after the POR. As directed by section 771(16) of the Act, where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign-like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Further, as provided in section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where we could not determine NV because there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to constructed value (“CV”). Date of Sale In its questionnaire responses, FET reported date of shipment as the date of sale for its U.S. sales, and the date of invoice as the date of sale for its home market sales. FET has stated that it permits home market and U.S. customers to make order changes up to the date of shipment. According to FET's descriptions, the sales processes in the home market and to the United States are identical. Thus, record evidence demonstrates that the material terms of sale are not set before the date of invoice, which would normally result in using the date of invoice as the date of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). However, because the merchandise is always shipped on or before the date of invoice, we are using the date of shipment as the date of sale. *See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 63 FR 13170, 13172-73 (March 18, 1998). Export Price For sales to the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the cost, insurance and freight (“CIF”) price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions, consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the following movement expenses: inland freight - plant to port of exportation, brokerage and handling, harbor service fee, trade promotion fee, international freight, and marine insurance. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PSF in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's home market sales of the foreign-like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because the respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for comparison. B. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were made at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 1 including selling functions, 2 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 1 The marketing process in the United States and comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to occur. 2 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 3 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, et al.* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming this methodology). 3 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general and administrative expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign-like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference in LOT affects price comparability, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. FET reported that it made direct sales to one distributor in the U.S. market and to end users in the home market. FET has reported a single channel of distribution and a single level of trade in each market, and has not requested a LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by FET regarding the type and level of selling activities performed, and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with respect to the different customer categories (i.e., distributors and end users) across the markets. We found a single level of trade in the United States, and a single, identical level of trade in the home market. Thus, it is unnecessary to make an LOT adjustment for FET in comparing EP and home market prices. C. Cost of Production Analysis Because FET had sales below the cost of production that were disregarded in the original investigation, and the investigation proceeding was FET's most recently completed antidumping duty proceeding, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent made sales of the merchandise under review in its comparison market at prices below the cost of production (“COP”) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. 1. Calculation of COP We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum of the respondent's costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign-like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses, interest expenses, and the costs of all expenses incidental to placing the foreign-like product packed and in a condition ready for shipment, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on COP information submitted in FET's cost questionnaire responses, except for the following adjustments: • We adjusted FET's G&A to disallow gains on investment activities. • We adjusted FET's reported cost of manufacturing to account for purchases of purified terephthalic acid (“PTA”) and mono ethylene glycol (“EG”) from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length prices in accordance with the major input rule. *See* Memorandum from Laurens van Houten to the File, *Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Far Eastern Textile Limited* , dated May 31, 2007 (“Cost *Calculation Memorandum* ”), which is on file in the Department's CRU. • We noted significant fluctuations in the costs of direct materials reported in FET's cost database due to the time of production (reflecting fluctuations in the prices of the inputs, PTA and EG). To address the resulting distortions to FET's costs, we adjusted the company's reported costs using a weighted-average direct materials cost by fiber loft, specialty fiber, and fiber type ( *i.e.* , one direct material cost for virgin, and one for each of the blended fiber types). *See Cost Calculation Memorandum* . 2. Test of Home Market Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP figures for the POR to the home market sales of the foreign-like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made
(1)within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and
(2)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 3. Results of COP Test We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining sales of the same product, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1). D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices We relied on FET's submitted home market sales information, except for the following adjustments: • We reclassified some of FET's reported home market rebates as warranty expenses because these rebates were granted to satisfy claims regarding product quality defects. We allocated the total warranty expenses incurred in the home market during the POR across all reported home market sales, including window period sales. *See* Memorandum from Team to the File, *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Far Eastern Textile Limited* , dated May 31, 2007 (“FET Calculation Memorandum”), which is on file in the Department's CRU. • We reclassified some of FET's reported home market rebates as indirect selling expenses because these expenses did not relate to any particular sales. *See FET Calculation Memorandum* . • For the Fiber Type control number matching characteristic, we used FET's breakdown of blended fibers coded as 5, 6, and 7. We calculated NV based on the price to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments for packing expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for inland freight from the plant to the customer. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments, where appropriate, by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales ( *i.e.* , imputed credit expenses and warranties) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , imputed credit expenses, actual credit expenses, and bank charges). Preliminary Results of the Review We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Far Eastern Textile Limited 0.37 (de minimis) Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to liquidate all entries of merchandise produced and exported by FET without regard to antidumping duties. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of PSF from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent);
(2)for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be 7.31 percent, the “all others” rate established in *PSF Orders* . Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 31, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-10914 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and
(4)of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave., NW, Room 2104, Washington, D.C.20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 2104. Docket Number: 07-013. Applicant: University of Minnesota, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108. Instrument: Carbon monoxide Monitor and Accessories. Manufacturer: AeroLaser, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for a long-term study to determine the carbon exchange of a suburban landscape by quantifying how much carbon is exchanged between vegetation and the atmosphere and determining the relationship between the flux of carbon monoxide (emissions from combustion from vehicles, home heating, etc.) and the flux of carbon dioxide (from the above sources as well as biological activity such as photosynthesis and microbial respiration). The relationship between the above fluxes will allow quantification of the amount of CO2 due to biological activity as opposed to fossil fuel combustion. The experiment will support field-based, hands-on classes using gigabyte fiber optic real-time data streaming into the classroom. An instrument capable of measuring CO concentration fluctuations with the fastest response time is essential to the project. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 26, 2007. Docket Number: 07-016. Applicant: The University of Alabama, 355 Rose Administration, Box 870130, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0150. Instrument: Fast-response NOx Analyzer. Manufacturer: Combustion Ltd., UK. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to measure the intra-cycle variation of NOx production and emission. NOx is formed and destroyed in time scales on the order of several milliseconds. The instrument has near ms response (3 ms for NO, and < 10 ms for other oxides of N). This will allow measurement of changes in concentration of NOx within an engine cycle (2 revolutions for a 4-stroke cycle engine) and correlation with other intra-cycle data such as cylinder pressure or temperature. The purpose is to identify and determine mitigation methods of NOx formation in internal combustion engines. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 28, 2007. Docket Number: 07-017. Applicant: Stanford University, P.O. Box 20410, Stanford, CA. Instrument: 1.1 Micron Wavelength Fiber Laser, Model: Boostik 5 W. Manufacturer: Koheras A/S, Denmark. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study broadband propagation through the atmosphere. The experiments include building and testing a point-to-point freespace communication link operating in the 3.8 micron waveband to verify the system design, using parametric frequency conversion of telecom-like sources. It will also be used for graduate student training. A high-power, cw, polarized laser source operating at a wavelength of exactly 1.1 micron is essential. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: April 9, 2007. Docket Number: 07-026. Applicant: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science, 1880 Pratt Dr., mc 0493, Blacksburg, VA 24061. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model Helios 600 NanoLab. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used in a centralized facility for creating and categorizing 3-dimensional structures at the nanometer size scale. It is equipped with an ion-beam column for ion milling, deposition and lithography, and an electron column for high-resolution lithography and imaging. In addition to nanoscale research it will be used for studies of other materials by other departments at the university. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: April 23,2007.Docket Number: 07-029. Applicant: University of Washington, Chemistry Department, 36 Bagley Hall, Seattle, WA 98195. Instrument: Femtosecond Laser. Manufacturer: Femtolasers Produktions, GmbH, Austria. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for ultra-fast nonlinear optical far and near-field microscopic investigations of nanoscale physical phenomena of ferroelectric and semiconducting materials. Using near-field second and fourth harmonic generation, the ferroelectric domain ordering of manganites will be studied. These multiferroic materials are of great interest due to their potential for nonvolatile storage devices. Using photon echo and pump probe techniques, the electronic and vibrational properties of semiconductor nanocrystals, particularly CdSe and PdSe, will be used to study the effect of the quantum confinement on the vibronic coupling. A femtosecond laser with with pulse durations of 10 fs and below pulse duration at more than 480 mW power will be necessary for this work. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: May 8, 2007. Docket Number: 07-030. Applicant: Lehigh University, 111 Research Dr., Bethlehem, PA 18015. Instrument: Low Voltage Transmission and Scanning Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: Delong Insruments A.s, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to detect proteins of interest (actin, synapsin and Rab3a) in nerve terminals. Immunolabeling of these proteins will be performed and the tissue will be processed for transmission electron microscopy and the samples will be examined. This unique TEM operates at a low voltage of 5 kV, which enables obtaining of high-contrast images of non-osmicated samples, which is crucial since osmication cannot be performed together with immunolabeling. The TEM is capable of both fast and gradual changes in magnification which is needed since nerve terminals are not readily found in the preparations of neuromuscular tissue being examined. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: May 9, 2007. Docket Number: 07-031. Applicant: University of Notre Dame, Fitzpatric Hall, Notre Dame Indiana 46556. Instrument: Surface Roughness Analyzer. Manufacturer: Elionix, Japan. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study Al and other metal tunnel junctions, microelectromechanical systems
(MEMS)related materials such as Al, silicon dioxide and nitride and silicon. New imaging systems for infrared detectors in the form of both nanoantennas and micro-spectrometers will be fabricated. The instrument will be used to image the devices formed at high magnification and also to accurately determine their surface morphology. Measurement of step-coverage of thin metal films with very high resolution is crucial for determining if the nanometer scale, overlapped metal areas are properly formed. The Elionix is essential to the work since it is the only instrument, to their knowledge, that can perform surface roughness analysis using an electron beam. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: May 9, 2007. Docket Number: 07-032. Applicant: University of Missouri, Columbia, Electron Microscopy Core Room W132, Veterinary Medicine Building, 1600 East Rollins St., Columbia, Mo 65211. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Quanta 600 FEG. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used in a University Core Research Facility currently serving over 50 principal investigators campus wide. Selective topics will be in the area of nanodevices and microelectronics, nanoenergetic materials, organic LED's and nanocomposites materials; bioremediation of toxic metals and biochemistry of sulphate-reducing bacteria, characterization of biosensors, and many other diverse topics. It will also be used for student training in electron microscopy. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: May 15, 2007. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-10905 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-830] Stainless Steel Bar From Italy: Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the notice of initiation of the five-year sunset review of the countervailing duty order on stainless steel bar (“SSB”) from Italy, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 4689 (February 1, 2007) (“ *Sunset Review* ”). The Department has conducted an expedited sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3534 or
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 1, 2007, the Department initiated this sunset review of the countervailing duty order on SSB from Italy, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 4689 (February 1, 2007). The Department received the Notice of Intent to Participate from Carpenter Technology Corp.; Crucible Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp.; Electralloy; Outokumpu Stainless Bar, Inc.; Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc.; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively “the domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's Regulations (“Sunset Regulations”). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of a domestic-like product in the United States. On February 28, 2007, the Department received a complete substantive response to the notice of initiation from the Delegation of the European Commission (“EC”). On March 1, 2007, the Department received a complete substantive response from Cogne Acciai Speciali S.r.l. (“CAS”), a foreign producer and exporter of subject merchandise during this review. On March 5, 2007, the Department received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties and from the Government of Italy (“GOI”). CAS claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(A) as a foreign producer and exporter of the subject merchandise. The GOI and EC expressed their intent to participate in this review as the authorities responsible for defending the interests of the Italian industry. We find that CAS accounted for less than 50 percent of the exports to the United States by companies subject to this order, the level that the Department normally considers to be an adequate response to the notice of initiation by respondent interested parties under 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A). In addition, a government response alone, normally, is not sufficient for full sunset reviews in which the orders are not done on an aggregate basis. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of Countervailing Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada* , 70 FR 67140 (November 4, 2005). Therefore, we conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the CVD order on stainless steel bar from Italy as provided for at section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and at section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations. *See* Memorandum from Damian Felton to Susan Kuhbach entitled, “Adequacy Determination: Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Stainless Steel Bar from Italy” (March 23, 2007). On April 12, 2007, we received a letter from domestic interested parties stating that they agree with the Department's decision to conduct an expedited review of this order. On March 12, 2007, the domestic interested parties filed a rebuttal to the substantive responses of CAS, the GOI, and the EC. CAS, the GOI, and the EC did not file rebuttals. The Department did not conduct a hearing because a hearing was not requested. 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 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 stainless steel bar subject to this review 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. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in substantive responses by parties in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memo for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Stainless Steel Bar from Italy; Final Results,” (“Decision Memo”), from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 1, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the order were revoked, and the nature of the subsidies. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in B-099, the Central Records Unit, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Department's Web page at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order on SSB from Italy is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following countervailing duty rates: Manufacturer/exporter Net subsidy rate (percent) Cogne Acciai Speciali S.r.l 1.57 All Others 12.93 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 31, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-10908 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Omnibus Notice for Compliance of National Marine Fisheries Service Permits With the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Statutory Authorities: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 5 CFR Chapter III, Part 1320. Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. 7701. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)permit forms not currently requiring Tax Identifying Numbers (Employer ID Number and/or Social Security Number; and Date of Incorporation and/or Date of Birth) will be revised to require this information, following the procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This notice applies to all NMFS permits information collections for which rulemaking is not needed in conjunction with such revisions. Proposed rules will be issued for all collections whose regulations require amendment for such revisions. The primary purpose for requiring this information is to comply with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. Section 7701. This notice applies to the following NOAA NMFS permit collections— OMB Control Numbers: 1. 0648-0272, Alaska Individual Fishing Quotas
(IFQs)for Pacific Halibut, Sablefish, and Crab; 2. 0648-0334, Alaska License Limitation Program for Groundfish, Crab, and Scallops; 3. 0648-0398, Alaska Individual Fishing Quota Cost Recovery Program Requirements; 4. 0648-0514, Alaska Region BSAI Crab Permits; 5. 0648-0545, Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program; 0648-203, Northwest Region Federal Fisheries Permits; 6. 0648-0399, Limits on Applications of Take Prohibitions (Threatened Salmonids); 7. 0648-0402, Application and Reports for Scientific Research and Enhancement Permits under the Endangered Species Act; 8. 0648-0463, Pacific Islands Region Coral Reef Ecosystems Permit Form; 9. 0648-0490, Pacific Islands Region Permit Family of Forms; 10. 0648-0471, Highly Migratory Species Scientific Research Permits, Exempted Fishing Permits, and Letters of Authorization; and 11. 0648-0293, Application for Commercial Fisheries Authorization under Section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. All but four of these eleven permit collections currently require some or most of this information. The primary purpose of these revisions is to bring NMFS into compliance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act
(DCIA)of 1996, 31 U.S.C. Section 7701. This action is in line with the Department of Commerce Interim Final Rule 0648-AA24 (April 16, 2007), which revises and replaces Department of Commerce debt collection regulations to conform to the DCIA. In addition, this action will add to the developing consistency of permit requirements across NMFS regions and divisions, ultimately reducing the public's burden in completing these forms (a significant number of vessels fish in more than one region or division). This action will add no burden or cost to the public. There should be no research or retrieval required for any of the information. As the information will be added to existing forms, no additional transmission costs will be incurred. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of these information collections; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: May 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-10870 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Tag Recapture Card AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Eric S. Orbesen, 800-437-3936 or *Eric.Orbesen@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The primary objectives of a tagging program are to obtain scientific information on fish growth and movements necessary to assist in stock assessment and management. This is accomplished by the random recapture of tagged fish by fishermen and the subsequent voluntary submission of the appropriate data. II. Method of Collection The recapture cards will be sent out to the constituents who will fill in the cards with the pertinent information when and if they recapture a tagged fish and mail the cards back to our offices. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0259. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 30. *Estimated Time per Response:* 2 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: May 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-10875 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Pacific Tuna Fisheries Logbook AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov.* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Trisha Culver, 562-980-4239 or *trisha.culver@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract United States participation in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) results in certain recordkeeping requirements for U.S. fishermen who fish in the IATTC's area of management responsibility. These fishermen must maintain a log of all operations conducted from the fishing vessel, including the date, noon position, and the tonnage of fish aboard the vessel, by species. The logbook form provided by the IATTC is universally used by U.S. fishermen to meet this recordkeeping requirement, as permitted by the regulations. The information in the logbooks includes areas and times of operation, and catch and effort by area. Logbook data are used in stock assessments and other research concerning the fishery. If the data were not collected or if erroneous data were provided, the IATTC assessments would likely be incorrect and there would be an increased risk of overfishing or inadequate management of the fishery. II. Method of Collection Vessel operators maintain bridge logs on a daily basis, and the forms are either mailed to the IATTC or to the National Marine Fisheries Service at the completion of each trip. The data are processed and maintained as confidential by the IATTC. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0148. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20. *Estimated Time per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 129. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: May 31, 2007. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-10876 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XA62 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notification of a request to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments. SUMMARY: This exempted fishing permit
(EFP)application is a continuation of a collaborative project involving the University of New Hampshire (UNH), Durham, NH; the Lobster Conservancy, Friendship, Maine; the New England Aquarium, Boston, MA; and the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association, Candia, NH. The EFP proposes to continue monitoring legal sized egg bearing female lobsters (berried lobsters) carrying early-stage eggs. The continuation of this project will allow participating Federal lobster permit holders, fishing in designated study areas, to preserve a maximum of ten eggs from each berried lobster captured in commercial lobster gear, to allow researchers to determine what percentage of eggs are fertilized, and estimate the egg developmental stage and time to maturity. The berried lobsters will then be released unharmed. This project would not involve the authorization of any additional trap gear, and all trap gear would conform to existing Federal lobster regulations. There would be no anticipated adverse effects on protected resources or habitat as a result of this research. The EFP would waive the prohibition on removal of eggs for a maximum of 13 participating vessels. The Director, State, Federal and Constituent Programs Office, Northeast Region, NMFS (Office Director) has made a preliminary determination that the subject EFP application contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. The Office Director has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFPs would be consistent with the goals and objectives of Federal management of the American lobster resource. However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue EFPs. NMFS announces that the Office Director proposes to issue EFPs and, therefore, invites comments on the issuance of EFPs for this research. DATES: Comments on this lobster EFP notification for berried lobster monitoring and data collection must be received on or before June 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments - Lobster EFP Proposal”. Comments also may be sent via facsimile
(fax)to 978-281-9117, or by e-mail to *LobsterMay2007@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments - Lobster EFP Proposal”. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Ross, Fishery Management Specialist,
(978)281-9234, fax (978)-281-9117. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations that govern exempted fishing, at 50 CFR 600.745(b) and 697.22 allow the Regional Administrator to authorize for limited testing, public display, data collection, exploration, health and safety, environmental clean-up, and/or hazardous removal purposes, and the targeting or incidental harvest of managed species that would otherwise be prohibited. An EFP to authorize such activity may be issued, provided there is adequate opportunity for the public to comment on the EFP application, the conservation goals and objectives of Federal management of the American lobster resource are not compromised, and issuance of the EFP is beneficial to the management of the species. The American lobster fishery is one of the most valuable fisheries in the northeastern United States. In 2005, approximately 87 million pounds (39,712 metric tons) of American lobster were landed with an ex-vessel value of approximately 414 million dollars. Operating under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's interstate management process, American lobster are managed in state waters under Amendment 3 to the American Lobster Interstate Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 3). In Federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), lobster is managed under Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 697. Amendment 3, and compatible Federal regulations, established a framework for area management, which includes industry participation in the development of a management program which suits the needs of each lobster management area while meeting targets established in the Interstate Fisheries Management Program. The industry, through area management teams, with the support of state agencies, have played a vital role in advancing the area management program. American lobster experience very high fishing mortality rates throughout their range, from Canada to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Although harvest and population abundance are near record levels due to high recent recruitment and favorable environmental conditions, there is significant risk of a sharp drop in abundance, and such a decline would have serious implications. To facilitate the development of effective management tools, extensive monitoring and detailed data on the biology and composition of lobsters throughout the range of the resource are necessary. To facilitate effective management, this proposed EFP would monitor egg growth and development of berried lobsters in three study areas using traditional lobster trap gear. Proposed EFP The EFP proposes to continue the collection of statistical and scientific information as part of a project, originally announced in the **Federal Register** on October 21, 2004 (69 FR 19165), that is designed to monitor berried lobsters to collect data that will assist in the assessment of the lobster resource and in the development of management practices appropriate to the fishery. Previous data collected in 2005 and 2006 from tagged berried lobsters that were monitored for egg-development stages, indicated a percentage of berried females are carrying eggs that are not fertilized. This continuation of the research will focus on quantifying fertilization success, and monitor egg growth and development. Each of the maximum of 13 commercial fishing vessels in possession of Federal lobster permits involved in this monitoring and data collection program would collect a maximum of ten eggs from each berried lobster harvested, up to a maximum of 50 berried lobster per vessel, using traditional lobster trap gear. Removal of a maximum of ten eggs from each berried lobster should have no impact on the health or survival of the lobsters, since lobsters typically experience significantly greater rates of daily egg loss throughout their 13-month incubation period, with cumulative egg loss as high as 36 percent. Participating vessels would collect data from each of the three general study areas in the vicinity of Portsmouth, NH, the northern edge of Georges Bank, and in the vicinity of Veatch and Hydrographer Canyons along the southern edge of Georges Bank. The participating vessels may retain on deck egg bearing female lobsters, in addition to legal lobsters, for the purpose of collecting a maximum of ten eggs from each berried lobster to allow researchers to determine what percentage of eggs are fertilized, and to estimate the egg developmental stage, and time to maturity. All berried lobsters would be returned to the sea as quickly as possible after data collection. Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.745(b)(3)(v), the Regional Administrator may attach terms and conditions to the EFP consistent with the purpose of the exempted fishing. This project would not involve the authorization of any additional lobster trap gear. All traps fished by the participating vessels would comply with all applicable lobster regulations specified at 50 CFR part 697. To allow for the removal of a maximum of ten eggs from each berried lobster, the EFP would waive the American lobster prohibition on removal of eggs specified at 50 CFR 697.7(c)(1)(iv). All sample collections would be conducted by a maximum of 13 federally permitted commercial fishing vessels, during the course of regular commercial fishing operations. There would not be observers or researchers onboard every participating vessel. This project, including the lobster handling protocols, was initially developed in consultation with UNH scientists. To the greatest extent practicable, these handling protocols are designed to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impact on lobsters involved in this project, while achieving the data collection objectives of this project. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 31, 2007. James P. Burgess Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-10765 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Meeting: Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP)Product Development Committee
(CPDC)for Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3 AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP)Product Development Committee for Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3 (CPDC-S&A 3.3) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated October 17, 2006. CPDC-S&A 3.3 is the Federal Advisory Committee charged with responsibility to develop a draft Synthesis and Assessment Product that addresses CCSP Topic 3.3: “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate”. *Place:* The meeting will be held at the Aspen Global Change Institute, 100 East Francis St. Aspen, Colorado, 81611. *Time and Dates:* The meeting will convene at 4 p.m. on Monday, June 25, 2007 and adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 28, 2007. Meeting information will be available online on the CPDC-S&A 3.3 Web site ( * http:// www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./ccsp/33.jsp * ). Please note that meeting location, times, and agenda topics described below are subject to change. *Status:* The meeting will be open to public participation and will include a 30-minute public comment period on June 25 from 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (check Web site to confirm this time and the room in which the meeting will be held). The CPDC-S&A 3.3 expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five
(5)minutes. Written comments (at least 35 copies) should be received by the CPDC-S&A 3.3 Designated Federal Official
(DFO)by June 18, 2007 to provide sufficient time for review. Written comments received after June 18 will be distributed to the CPDC-S&A 3.3, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. *Matters to be Considered:* The meeting will
(1)formulate responses to the published NRC review report on the First Draft of Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3 and revise the First Draft accordingly;
(2)finalize plans for completion and submission of the Second Draft of Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3 to the Climate Change Science Program Office for the public comment period. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher D. Miller, CPDC-S&A 3.3 DFO and the Program Manager, NOAA/OAR/Climate Program Office, Climate Change Data and Detection Program Element, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 12239, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone 301-734-1241, e-mail: *Christopher.D.Miller@noaa.gov.* Dated: May 31, 2007. Terry Bevels, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. 07-2801 Filed 6-1-07; 10:21 am]
Connectionstraces to 19
Traces to 19 documents
CFR
9 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 243 F.3d 1301
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • Pub. L. 106-36
  • 15 CFR 301
  • 50 CFR 600.745(b)
  • 50 CFR 697
  • 50 CFR 600.745(b)(3)(v)
  • 50 CFR 697.7(c)(1)(iv)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.403
C.F.R.§ 351.411
C.F.R.§ 351.410
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.412
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.212
F. App'x243 F.3d 1301
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Pub. L.Pub. L. 89-651
Cites 28 · 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.