Notices. Notice

26,548 words·~121 min read·/register/2007/07/05/07-3249

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

BILLING CODE 6335-02-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No: 070206026-7213-01] Revision to the Unverified List—Guidance as to “Red Flags” AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On June 14, 2002, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) published a notice in the **Federal Register** that set forth a list of persons in foreign countries who were parties to past export transactions where pre-license checks or post-shipment verifications could not be conducted for reasons outside the control of the U.S.

Government (“Unverified List”). Additionally, on July 16, 2004, BIS published a notice in the **Federal Register** that advised exporters that the Unverified List would also include persons in foreign countries who are parties to transactions where BIS is not able to verify the existence or authenticity of the end-user, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or other party to the transaction and persons affiliated with a person on the Unverified List by virtue of ownership, control, position of responsibility, or other affiliation or connection in the conduct of trade or business.

These notices advised exporters that the involvement of a listed person as a party to a proposed transaction constitutes a “red flag” as described in the guidance set forth in Supplement No. 3 to 15 CFR part 732, requiring heightened scrutiny by the exporter before proceeding with such a transaction. This notice adds three entities to the Unverified List. The entities are: Al Minzal Medical Equipment & Instruments, P.O. Box 31107, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; JSC Chop Vityaz-S, 146 Unikh Pionerov Ave, Samara, Russia;

Sistem Dizayners Co., APA: 2 NO.: 60, Merdanov Gardashlari St., Baku, Azerbaijan. DATES: This notice is effective July 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deniz Muslu, Office of Enforcement Analysis, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone:

(202)482-4255. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In administering export controls under the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 to 774) (“EAR”), BIS carries out a number of preventive enforcement activities with respect to individual export transactions. Such activities are intended to assess diversion risks, identify potential violations, verify end-uses, and determine the suitability of end-users to receive U.S. commodities, software or technology. In carrying out these activities, BIS officials, or officials of other federal agencies acting on BIS's behalf, selectively conduct pre-license checks (“PLCs”) to verify the bona fides of the transaction and the suitability of the end-user or ultimate consignee. In addition, such officials sometimes carry out post-shipment verifications (“PSVs”) to ensure that U.S. exports have actually been delivered to the authorized end-user, are being used in a manner consistent with the terms of a license or license exception, and otherwise consistent with the EAR. In certain instances BIS officials, or other federal officials acting on BIS's behalf, have been unable to perform a PLC or PSV with respect to certain export control transactions for reasons outside the control of the U.S. Government (including a lack of cooperation by the host government authority, the end-user, or the ultimate consignee). BIS listed a number of foreign end-users and consignees involved in such transactions in the Unverified List that was included in BIS's **Federal Register** notice of June 14, 2002. 67 FR 40910. On July 16, 2004, BIS published a notice in the **Federal Register** that advised exporters that the Unverified List would also include persons in foreign countries where BIS is not able to verify the existence or authenticity of the end user, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or other party to an export transaction and persons affiliated with a person on the Unverified List by virtue of ownership, control, position of responsibility, or other affiliation or connection in the conduct of trade or business. 69 FR 42652. The June 14, 2002 and July 16, 2004 notices advised exporters that the involvement of a listed person in a transaction constituted a “red flag” under the “Know Your Customer” guidance set forth in Supplement No. 3 to 15 CFR part 732 of the EAR. Under that guidance, whenever there is a “red flag,” exporters have an affirmative duty to inquire, verify, or otherwise substantiate the proposed transaction to satisfy themselves that the transaction does not involve a proliferation activity prohibited in 15 CFR part 744, and does not violate other provisions of the EAR. The **Federal Register** notices further stated that BIS may periodically add persons to the Unverified List based on the criteria set forth above, and remove persons when warranted. This notice advises exporters that BIS is adding Al Minzal Medical Equipment & Instruments in the United Arab Emirates, JSC Chop Vityaz-S in Russia, and Sistem Dizayners Co. in Azerbaijan to the Unverified List. BIS has determined that it is appropriate to add these entities to the Unverified List because BIS was unable to conduct a PLC, a PSV, and/or was unable to verify the existence or authenticity of an end user, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or other party to an export transaction. A “red flag” now exists for transactions involving these entities due to their inclusion on the Unverified List. As a result, exporters have an affirmative duty to inquire, verify, or otherwise substantiate the proposed transaction to satisfy themselves that the transaction does not involve a proliferation activity prohibited in 15 CFR part 744, and does not violate other provisions of the EAR. The Unverified List, as modified by this notice, is set forth below. Dated: June 28, 2007. Darryl W. Jackson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement. Unverified List (As of July 5, 2007) The Unverified List includes names, countries, and last known addresses of foreign persons involved in export transactions with respect to which: The Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) could not conduct a pre license check (“PLC”) or a post shipment verification (“PSV”) for reasons outside of the U.S. Government's control; BIS was not able to verify the existence or authenticity of the end user, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee or other party to an export transaction; and/or the person is affiliated with a person on the Unverified List by virtue of ownership, control, position of responsibility, or other affiliation or connection in the conduct of trade or business. Any transaction to which a listed person is a party will be deemed to raise a “red flag” with respect to such transaction within the meaning of the guidance set forth in Supplement No. 3 to 15 CFR part 732. The red flag applies to the person on the Unverified List regardless of where the person is located in the country included on the list. Name Country Last known address Lucktrade International Hong Kong Special Administrative Region P.O. Box 91150 Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong. Brilliant Intervest Malaysia 14-1, Persian 65C, Jalan Pahang Barat, Kuala Lumpur, 53000. Dee Communications M SDN. BHD Malaysia G5/G6, Ground Floor, Jin Gereja Johor Bahru. Peluang Teguh Singapore 203 Henderson Road #09-05H Henderson Industrial Park. Lucktrade International PTE Ltd. Singapore 35 Tannery Road #01-07 Tannery Block Ruby Industrial Complex Singapore 347740. Arrow Electronics Industries United Arab Emirates 204 Arbift Tower, Benyas Road Dubai. Jetpower Industrial Ltd Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Room 311, 3rd Floor, Wing On Plaza, 62 Mody Road, Tsim Sha Tsui East, Kowloon. Onion Enterprises Ltd. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Room 311, 3rd Floor, Wing On Plaza, 62 Mody Road, Tsim Sha Tsui East, Kowloon. Lucktrade International Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Room 311, 3rd Floor, Wing On Plaza, 62 Mody Road, Tsim Sha Tsui East, Kowloon. Litchfield Co. Ltd. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Room 311, 3rd Floor, Wing On Plaza, 62 Mody Road, Tsim Sha Tsui East, Kowloon. Sunford Trading Ltd. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Unit 2208, 22/F 118 Connaught Road West. Parrlab Technical Solutions, LTD Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 1204, 12F Shanghai Industrial Building, 48-62 Hennesey Road, Wan Chai. T.Z.H. International Co. Ltd. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Room 23, 2/F, Kowloon Bay Ind. Center, No. 15 Wany Hoi Rd., Kowloon Bay. Design Engineering Center Pakistan House 184, Street 36, Sector F-10/1, Islamabad. Kantry Russia 13/2 Begovaya Street, Moscow. Etalon Company Russia 20B Berezhkovskaya Naberezhnaya, Moscow. Pskovenergo Service Russia 47-A Sovetskaya Street, Pskov, Russia Federation, 180000. Sheeba Import Export Yemen Hadda Street, Sanaa. Aerospace Consumerist Consortium FZCO United Arab Emirates Sheikh Zayed Road, P.O. Box 17951, Jebel Ali Free Zone, Dubai and Dubai International Airport, Dubai, 3365. Medline International LLC United Arab Emirates P.O. Box 86343 Dubai. Al Aarif Factory Equipment Trading LLC United Arab Emirates Sheikh Fahad Saad Alsbah Bldg., Al Maktoum Street, P.O. Box 28162, Dubai, UAE (also located in Al Quoz district of Dubai). Al-Thamin General Trading LLC United Arab Emirates P.O. Box 41364, Dubai, UAE. Amiran Trading Company United Arab Emirates Arbift Tower, 1st Floor, Flat No. 1803, Deira, UAE, also P.O. Box 61463, Jebel Ali, Dubai, UAE. Bazar Trading Co. United Arab Emirates Baniyas Tower, Suite 212, Dubai, UAE. Davood Khosrojerdi, dba Al Musafer Tourism and Cargo United Arab Emirates Concord Tower, Al Maktoum Street, P.O. Box 77900, Dubai, UAE. Fuchs Oil Middle East United Arab Emirates Sharjah Airport International Free Zone, Sharjah, UAE. Part Tech Co. United Arab Emirates Baniyas Tower, Suite 212, Dubai, UAE. Parto Abgardan United Arab Emirates Showroom #5, Sheikh Rashid bin Khalifa al Maktoum Building, Dubai, UAE. Reza Nezam Trading United Arab Emirates Al Dana Center, Al Maktoum Street, P.O. Box 41382, Dubai, UAE. Sarelica (Sar Elica) FZC United Arab Emirates Bldg. #3, Office No. 3 G-08, P.O. Box 41710, Hamariya Free Zone, Sharjah, UAE. Semicom Technology International LLC United Arab Emirates Office No. 18, 6th Floor, Horizons Business Centre, Al-Doha Centre, Al-Maktoum St., P.O. Box 41096, Dubai, UAE. Vitaswiss Limited United Arab Emirates P.O. Box 61069, Office #R/A 8 CB03, UAE. Centre Bright Company Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Unit 7A, Nathan Commercial Building, 430-436 Nathan Road, Kowloon City, Hong Kong. IC Trading Ltd Russia Yauzskaya Str. 8, Bldg. 2, Moscow, Russia. Al Minzal Medical Equipment & Instruments United Arab Emirates P.O. Box 31107, Sharjah, UAE. JSC Chop Vityaz-S Russia 146 Unikh Pionerov Ave., Samara, Russia. Sistem Dizayners Co. Baku, Azerbaijan APA: 2 NO.: 60, Merdanov Gardashlari St., Baku, Azerbaijan. [FR Doc. E7-12894 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-485-803] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from a domestic producer, Nucor Corporation, and a Romanian producer/exporter, Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (“MS Galati”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“CTL plate”) from Romania. The period of review is August 1, 2005, through December 15, 2005. With regard to the two Romanian companies that are subject to this administrative review, producer MS Galati and exporter Metalexportimport S.A. (“MEI”), we preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise produced by MS Galati have been made at less than normal value (“NV”). Since MEI was not involved with any of the U.S. sales during the period of review, we are assigning a preliminary dumping margin to MS Galati only and intend to rescind the review with respect to MEI. For a full discussion of the intent to rescind with respect to MEI, *see* the “Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part” section of this notice below. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue(s),

(2)a brief summary of the argument(s), and

(3)a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or John Drury, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3362 or

(202)482-0195, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from Romania for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). On August 30, 2006, the Department received a timely request from Nucor Corporation, a domestic producer, requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of shipments of CTL plate from Romania produced by MS Galati and exported to the United States by MS Galati or MEI. In addition, on August 31, 2006, the Department received a timely request from MS Galati, requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise produced/exported by MS Galati. On September 29, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from Romania, for the period covering August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006, to determine whether merchandise imported into the United States from MS Galati and MEI is being sold at less than NV. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). On October 12, 2006, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to MS Galati. On November 17, 2006, the Department received the section A questionnaire response from MS Galati. On December 11, 2006, MS Galati filed its section B and C questionnaire responses. On February 14, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding MS Galati's sections A through C questionnaire responses. On March 8, 2007, MS Galati submitted its response to the supplemental questionnaire. On April 2, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire with regard to section C, and received MS Galati's response on April 16, 2007. On June 12, 2007, the Department received MS Galati's quantity and value reconciliation, as required under section A of the Department's antidumping questionnaire. Because there was no sales-below-cost allegation and the Department did not initiate a review of MS Galati's costs, MS Galati was not required to file a section D questionnaire response. On December 14, 2006, the International Trade Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on CTL plate from certain countries, including Romania, would not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom* , 72 FR 4529 (January 31, 2007) and USITC Publication 3899 entitled *Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom: Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325- 327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review)* (January 2007). Thus, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on CTL plate from Romania, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 751(d) of the Act. *See Revocation Pursuant to Second Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews: Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Steel Products from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Spain and Sweden; Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Antidumping Finding on Carbon Steel Plate from Taiwan* , 72 FR 6519 (February 12, 2007) (“ *Revocation of Plate from Romania* ”). The Department stated in the *Revocation of Plate from Romania* that it will complete any pending administrative reviews of the order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is December 15, 2005. As a result, the Department is completing the instant review of CTL plate from Romania for the period of review covering August 1, 2005, to December 15, 2005. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2005, through December 15, 2005. Notice of Intent To Rescind Review in Part Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. *See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002), and *Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 18610 (April 10, 2001). In its supplemental questionnaire response, MS Galati stated that during the POR, MEI was not involved with any of the U.S. sales. *See* MS Galati's supplemental questionnaire response, dated March 8, 2007, at 20. In the previous antidumping duty administrative review of CTL plate from Romania, covering the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005, the Department found that a) MEI is not the producer of subject merchandise, b) MEI does not take title to the merchandise which MS Galati exports through MEI, and c) MS Galati has knowledge of the destination of its subject merchandise exports. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Partial Rescission: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania* , 72 FR 6522, February 12, 2007. Additionally, the Department conducted a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data inquiry and determined that there were no identifiable entries of CTL plate during the POR manufactured or exported by MEI. *See* “Memorandum to the File, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, from Dena Crossland: Metalimportexport S.A. No Shipments of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania Pursuant to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Inquiry,” dated June 24, 2007. Therefore, the Department concludes that during the POR, MEI did not produce or export subject merchandise, including merchandise produced by MS Galati, and accordingly we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to MEI. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Review The products covered by this antidumping duty review include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included under this review are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva). Date of Sale The Department's regulations state that it will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). If the Department can establish “a different date that better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale,” the Department may choose a different date. *Id* . As further discussed below, the Department preliminarily determines that for U.S. sales, the invoice date is the appropriate date of sale. For home market sales, the Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the date of sale provided the invoice is issued on or before the shipment date; and that the shipment date is the date of sale where the invoice is issued after the shipment date. In its section C questionnaire response, MS Galati reported the date of order acknowledgment as the date of sale for its U.S. sales. MS Galati stated that all sales of subject merchandise were made pursuant to affiliated importer Mittal Steel North America's (“MSNA's”) order acknowledgments to the U.S. customer, and that the exact quantities shipped from Romania were consistent with the quantities sold by MSNA. *See* MS Galati's section C questionnaire response, dated December 11, 2006, at C-ME-20. However, in its supplemental questionnaire responses, MS Galati acknowledged that quantities varied between the order acknowledgments and the invoices. *See* MS Galati's supplemental sections A-C questionnaire response, dated March 7, 2007, at 20 and exhibit 18; *see also* MS Galati's second supplemental sections A-C questionnaire response, dated April 16, 2007, at 2-3 and exhibits 1 and 3. In reviewing all information on the record, we preliminarily find that the terms of sale for some of MS Galati's U.S. sales changed from the order acknowledgment to the invoice. Specifically, there were various sales with changes outside of the allowable tolerance for quantity that took place after the order acknowledgment date. Additionally, there were numerous price changes that took place after the order acknowledgment date. *See* MS Galati's supplemental sections A-C questionnaire response, dated March 7, 2007, at exhibit 18; *see also* MS Galati's second supplemental sections A-C questionnaire response, dated April 16, 2007, at exhibit 1. Regarding its home market sales, MS Galati stated that the invoice date is the date of sale. *See* MS Galati's section B questionnaire response, dated December 11, 2006, at 22. According to the home market database and MS Galati's section A questionnaire response, MS Galati issues an invoice to the customer on or a few days after the date the merchandise is shipped. *See* MS Galati's section A questionnaire response, dated November 17, 2006, at 21. MS Galati stated in its response that the terms of sale can change up to the date of invoice. *See id* . For home market sales, the Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the date of sale if the invoice is issued on the shipment date, and shipment date is the date of sale if the invoice is issued after the shipment date. Therefore, for these preliminary results, the Department will use the invoice date as the date of sale for MS Galati's U.S. sales, and either the invoice date or shipment date, depending on which one takes place earlier, as the date of sale for MS Galati's home market sales. *See* the Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated June 27, 2007 (“Analysis Memo”), for further discussion of date of sale and other details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin. A public version of this memorandum is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) located in Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(I) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the constructed export price (“CEP”) transaction. 1 *See also* 19 CFR 351.412. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the level of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and profits. For CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(ii). As noted in the “Constructed Export Price” section below, we preliminarily find that all of MS Galati's sales through its U.S. affiliates are appropriately classified as CEP sales. 1 The Department finds that CEP analysis is warranted because MS Galati sold subject merchandise to the United States through its U.S. affliliate, MSNA. Therefore, the Department finds that export price analysis is not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record, and has based the price of the sales on CEP, in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, where possible, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales for which we are unable to quantify a LOT adjustment, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (“the CEP offset provision”). *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes from Canada* , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002); *see also 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 analyzing the differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. To determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the channels of distribution in each market, 2 including selling functions, class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. In this review, we obtained information from MS Galati regarding the marketing stages involved in sales to the reported home and U.S. markets. MS Galati reported one LOT with two channels of distribution in the home market (“HM”):

(1)sales to unaffiliated distributors and

(2)sales to end users (affiliated and unaffiliated). *See* MS Galati's section A questionnaire response (“AQR”), dated November 17, 2006, at pages 14 and 15. 2 The marketing process in the United States and third country market 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 respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. We examined the selling activities reported for each channel of distribution in the HM and we organized the reported selling activities into the following four selling functions: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical services. We found that MS Galati's level of selling functions to its HM customers for each of the four selling functions did not vary significantly by channel of distribution. *See* MS Galati's AQR at exhibit 5. For example, MS Galati provides similar levels of marketing and technical services to distributors and end users. Because channels of distribution do not qualify as separate LOTs when the selling functions performed for each customer class or channel are sufficiently similar, we determined that one LOT exists for MS Galati's HM sales. In the U.S. market, MS Galati made sales of subject merchandise to MSNA, *i.e.* , through one channel of distribution and it claimed only one LOT for its sales in the United States. *See* MS Galati's AQR at 14 and exhibit 5. All U.S. sales were CEP transactions between MS Galati and its U.S. affiliate, MSNA, and MS Galati performed the same selling functions in its sales to the unaffiliated customers in each instance. *Id* . Therefore, we preliminary determine that MS Galati's U.S. sales constitute a single LOT. We then compared the selling functions performed by MS Galati on its CEP sales (after deductions made pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act) to the selling functions provided in the HM. We found that MS Galati provides significant selling functions in the HM related to the sales process and marketing support, as well as warranty and technical service, which it does not for MSNA in the U.S. market. In addition, the differences in selling functions performed for HM and CEP transactions indicate that MS Galati's HM sales involved a more advanced stage of distribution than CEP sales. In the HM, MS Galati provides marketing further down the chain of distribution by promoting certain downstream selling functions that are normally performed by the affiliated reseller in the U.S. market. On this basis, we determined that the HM LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution when compared to CEP sales because MS Galati provides more selling functions in the HM at higher levels of service as compared to selling functions performed for its CEP sales. Thus, we find that MS Galati's HM sales are at a more advanced LOT than its CEP sales. Based upon our analysis, we preliminarily determine that the CEP and the starting price of HM sales represent different stages in the marketing process, and are thus at different LOTs. Therefore, when we compared CEP sales to the comparison market sales, we examined whether an LOT adjustment may be appropriate. In this case, because MS Galati sold at one LOT in the HM, there is no basis upon which to determine whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences between LOTs. Further, we do not have the information which would allow us to examine the price patterns of MS Galati's sales of other similar products, and there is no other record evidence upon which a LOT adjustment could be based. Therefore, no LOT adjustment was made. Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment and the LOT of MS Galati's HM sales is at a more advanced stage than the LOT of MS Galati's CEP sales, a CEP offset is appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as claimed by MS Galati. We based the amount of the CEP offset on HM indirect selling expenses, and limited the deduction for HM indirect selling expense to the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. We applied the CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether MS Galati's sales of the subject merchandise from Romania to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the CEP to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the “Scope of the Antidumping Duty Review” section above, which were produced and sold by MS Galati in the HM during the POR, to be the foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We relied on eight characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of importance): 1) painting; 2) quality; 3) specification and/or grade; 4) heat treatment; 5) standard thickness; 6) standard width; 7) whether or not checkered (floor plate); and 8) descaling. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the HM to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. *See* Appendix V of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to MS Galati, dated October 12, 2006. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and

(d)of the Act. For purposes of this administrative review, MS Galati has classified its sales as CEP. MS Galati identified one channel of distribution for U.S. sales: MS Galati through MEI to MSNA and then to unaffiliated U.S. customers, who are distributors. *See* “Level of Trade” section above for further analysis. After reviewing the evidence on the record of this review, we have preliminarily determined that MS Galati's transactions are classified properly as CEP sales because these sales occurred in the United States and were made through its U.S. affiliate to an unaffiliated buyer. Such a determination is consistent with section 772(b) of the Act and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *AK Steel Corp. et al. v. United States* , 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“ *AK Steel* ”). In *AK Steel* , the Court of Appeals examined the definitions of EP and CEP, noting “the plain meaning of the language enacted by Congress in 1994, focuses on where the sale takes place and whether the foreign producer or exporter and the U.S. importer are affiliated, making these two factors dispositive of the choice between the two classifications.” *AK Steel* , 226 F.3d at 1369. The court stated, “ the critical differences between EP and CEP sales are whether the sale or transaction takes place inside or outside the United States and whether it is made by an affiliate,” and noted the phrase “outside the United States” had been added to the 1994 statutory definition of EP. *Id* ., 226 F.3d at 1368-70. Thus, the classification of a sale as either EP or CEP depends upon where the contract for sale was concluded ( *i.e.* , in or outside the United States) and whether the foreign producer or exporter is affiliated with the U.S. importer. For this distribution channel, MS Galati has reported these sales as CEP sales because the first sale to an unaffiliated party occurred in the United States. Therefore, we based CEP on the packed duty paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, in accordance with subsections 772(b), (c), and

(d)of the Act. Where applicable, we made a deduction to gross unit price for billing adjustments. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation expenses ( *i.e.* , U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, and surveying), and U.S. customs duty. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , imputed credit expenses and commissions) and indirect selling expenses. For these CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) of the Act 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 total revenue 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. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability We compared the aggregate volume of HM sales of the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to determine whether the volume of the foreign like product sold in Romania was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis for NV. Because the volume of HM sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we determine that sales in the HM provide a viable basis for calculating NV. Thus, we used as NV the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Romania, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same LOT as the CEP sales, as appropriate. After testing HM viability, we calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice. B. Arm's-Length Test MS Galati reported that it made sales in the HM to affiliated and unaffiliated customers. The Department did not require MS Galati to report its affiliated party's downstream sales because these sales represented less than five percent of total HM sales. *See* MS Galati's section B questionnaire response, dated December 11, 2006, at exhibit 2. Sales to these affiliated customers in the HM not made at arm's length were excluded from our analysis. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments and freight revenue, movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and rebates, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, 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, 69187 (November 15, 2002). C. Price-to-Price Comparisons We based NV on the HM sales to unaffiliated purchasers and sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm's-length test. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses ( *i.e.* , inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse, inland freight from plant to customer, and warehousing expenses) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for imputed credit, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted HM packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where the Department was unable to determine NV on the basis of contemporaneous matches in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on CV. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the following manufacturer/exporter during the POR: Manufacturer/Exporter POR Margin Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. 08/01/05 - 12/15/05 1.02 percent Assessment Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. 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 Policy Notice* ”). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash-Deposit Requirements The Department notified CBP to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after December 15, 2005, the effective date of revocation of the antidumping duty order. Schedule for Final Results of Review The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments and may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. Case and rebuttal briefs and comments must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Unless otherwise specified, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first business day thereafter. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain: 1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; 2) the number of participants; and 3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. 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 these review periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 27, 2007. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13009 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-910] Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5831 or

(202)482-5253, respectively. Initiation Of Investigation The Petition On June 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (Department) received a petition on imports of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe

(CWP)from the People's Republic of China

(PRC)filed in proper form by Allied Tube & Conduit, Sharon Tube Company, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Western Tube & Conduit Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Wheatland Tube Co., *i.e.* , the Ad Hoc Coalition For Fair Pipe Imports From China, and the United Steelworkers (collectively Petitioners). The period of investigation

(POI)is October 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioners alleged that imports of CWP from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring and threaten to injure an industry in the United States. The Department issued supplemental questions to Petitioners on June 11, 2007, and June 19, 2007, and Petitioners filed their responses on June 15, 2007, June 22, 2007, and June 25, 2007, respectively. In addition, Petitioners filed an amendment to the petition on June 15, 2007. Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation covers certain welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and with an outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish ( *e.g.* , black, galvanized, or painted), end finish ( *e.g.* , plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification ( *e.g.* , ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may also be referred to as circular, structural, or mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which:

(a)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;

(b)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

(c)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

(i)1.80 percent of manganese;

(ii)2.25 percent of silicon;

(iii)1.00 percent of copper;

(iv)0.50 percent of aluminum;

(v)1.25 percent of chromium;

(vi)0.30 percent of cobalt;

(vii)0.40 percent of lead;

(viii)1.25 percent of nickel;

(ix)0.30 percent of tungsten;

(x)0.15 percent of molybdenum;

(xi)0.10 percent of niobium;

(xii)0.41 percent of titanium

(xiii)0.15 percent of vanadium; or

(xiv)0.15 percent of zirconium. All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above that is used in, or intended for use in, standard and structural pipe applications is covered by the scope of this investigation. Standard pipe applications include the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, and as an intermediate product for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells. Structural pipe is used in construction applications. Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM)specifications, but can be made to other specifications. Standard pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A-53, A-135, and A-795. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A-252 and A-500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications. This is often the case, for example, with fence tubing. Pipe multiple-stenciled to an ASTM specification and to any other specification, such as the American Petroleum Institute

(API)API-5L or 5L X-42 specifications, is covered by the scope of this investigation when used in, or intended for use in, one of the standard applications listed above, regardless of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) category under which it is entered. Pipe used for the production of scaffolding (but not finished scaffolding) and conduit shells (but not finished electrical conduit) are included within the scope of this investigation. The scope does not include:

(a)pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn;

(b)mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn;

(c)finished electrical conduit;

(d)tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;

(e)oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications; and

(f)line pipe produced to API specifications for oil and gas applications. The pipe products that are the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable in HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope of the investigation. Comments on Scope of Investigation During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with Petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. During this review, we noted that, while the Department typically prefers to rely upon physical characteristics to determine the scope of product coverage, the scope description proposed by Petitioners relied upon, in part, end-use applications as a method for determining scope coverage. On June 20, 2007, we met with Petitioners to discuss the scope and its reliance upon end-use applications as a method for determining scope coverage. *See* Memorandum to The File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, Office 4, from Maisha Cryor, Import Compliance Specialist, titled “Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Scope of the Petition,” dated June 22, 2007. As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments, including comments regarding the scope's definition of covered merchandise based upon end-use application, and whether additional HTSUS numbers should be included in the scope description, 14 calendar days after publication of this initiation notice. Rebuttal comments are due 7 calendar days thereafter. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit in Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 - Attention: Maisha Cryor, Room 3057. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed by an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E),

(F)or

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

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

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

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

(1)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and

(2)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition), we considered the industry support data contained in the petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in Attachment IV, (Scope of the Petition), to the Initiation Checklist. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their shipments for the domestic like product for the year 2006, as well as shipments from supporters of the petition, and compared them to shipments for the domestic like product for the industry. In their second petition supplemental submission, Petitioners demonstrated the correlation between shipments and production. *See* “Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China/ Petitioner's Response To The Department's June 19, 2007 Request For Clarification Of Certain Items Contained In The Petition,” dated June 22, 2007, (Second Petition Supplemental) at 7. Based on the fact that total industry production data for the domestic like product for 2006 is not reasonably available, and that Petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data, we have relied upon shipment data for purposes of measuring industry support. For further discussion see Initiation Checklist at Attachment I (Analysis of Industry Support). Our review of the data provided in the petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First, the petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( *e.g.* , polling). *See* Sec. 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Second, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(i) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. *See Initiation Checklist* at Attachment I (Analysis of Industry Support). The Department finds that Petitioners filed the petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are an interested party as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and

(D)of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment I (Analysis of Industry Support). Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate this investigation on imports of CWP from the PRC. The source of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price as well as normal value

(NV)for the PRC are also discussed in the Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determinations, we will reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate. Export Price Petitioners relied on five U.S. prices for CWP manufactured in the PRC and offered by U.S. distributors for sale in the United States. The prices quoted were for specific grades and quality of CWP falling within the scope of this petition, for delivery to the U.S. customer within the POI. Petitioners deducted from the prices the costs associated with exporting and delivering the product, including ocean freight and insurance charges, and foreign brokerage and handling. Petitioners did not deduct foreign inland freight charges from the export price

(EP)because they were unable to establish the distances between the Chinese mills and the ports nearest to those mills. *See* Volume I of the petition at 35. Petitioners did deduct an amount for a U.S. distributor/importer mark-up. *See* Volume I of the petition at 34; *see also* Initiation Checklist. Normal Value Petitioners stated that the PRC is a non-market economy

(NME)and no determination to the contrary has yet been made by the Department. In previous investigations, the Department has determined that the PRC is a NME. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 9037 (February 24, 2005); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and remains in effect for the purpose of initiating this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. Petitioners selected India as the surrogate country. *See* Volume I of the petition at 28. Petitioners argued that India is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market-economy country that is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC and is a significant producer and exporter of CWP. *Id* . Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we believe that its use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this investigation. After the initiation of the investigation, we will solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 40 calendar days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Petitioners provided dumping margin calculations using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners calculated NV based on consumption rates for inputs used to produce CWP experienced by U.S. producers. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, Petitioners valued factors of production, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate country data. To value certain factors of production, Petitioners used official Indian government import statistics, excluding shipments from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries and excluding shipments into India from Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand because the Department has previously excluded prices from these countries because they maintain broadly-available, non-industry specific export subsidies. *See* , *e.g.* , *Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 27287 and Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 23 (May 15, 2007). For inputs valued in Indian rupees and not contemporaneous with the POI, Petitioners used information from the wholesale price indices

(WPI)in India as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund

(IMF)for input prices during the period preceding the POI. *See* Second Petition Supplemental at 1 and Exhibit 1. In addition, Petitioners made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POI, as reported on the Department's website. *Id* . The Department calculates and publishes the surrogate values for labor to be used in NME cases on its website. Therefore, to value labor, Petitioners used a labor rate of $0.83 per hour, published on the Department website, in accordance with the Department's regulations. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) and Initiation Checklist. Petitioners valued electricity in the production of CWP based on the Indian electricity rate as reported in the *Key World Energy Statistics 2003* , published by the International Energy Agency for the year 2000. *See* “Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China/ Petitioner's Response To The Department's June 11, 2007 Request For Clarification Of Certain Items Contained In The Petition,” dated June 15, 2007 (Petition Supplemental) at 23 and Exhibit M. Petitioners originally inflated electricity to a POI value using the WPI published by the Reserve Bank of India. *See* Volume I of the petition at 31. However, Petitioners revised the inflator to the WPI published by the IMF at the direction of the Department. *See* Petition Supplemental at 23 and Exhibit M; *see also* Initiation Checklist for further details. Petitioners valued natural gas in the production of CWP based on Indian natural gas prices charged to industrial users during a period overlapping the POI, as reported by CRISIL Research India. *See* Volume I of the petition at 32 and Volume II of the petition at Exhibit. However, the Department determined that the Gas Authority of India, Ltd.

(GAIL)was more appropriate as the source for the valuation of natural gas. *See* Initiation Checklist for further details. Therefore, the Department requested that Petitioners recalculate the surrogate value for natural gas based upon values published by GAIL. *See* “Letter to Gilbert Kaplan, Counsel for Petitioners, from Mark Manning, Program Manager, Office 4, Regarding ‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China,' ” dated June 19, 2007. As a result, Petitioners valued natural gas in the production of CWP based on Indian natural gas rates, published by GAIL for February 2005. *See* Second Petition Supplemental at Exhibit 4. Petitioners inflated natural gas to a POI value using the WPI published by the IMF. *Id* . For the NV calculations, Petitioners derived the figures for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit from the financial ratios of two Indian producers of CWP: Zenith Birla (India) Limited and Surya Roshni Limited. Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of CWP from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based upon comparisons of EP to the NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated calculated dumping margins for CWP from the PRC range from 51.34 percent to 85.55 percent. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced production, capacity and capacity utilization rate, reduced shipments and increased inventories, underselling and price depression or suppression, lost revenue, reduced employment, decline in financial performance and increase in import penetration. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See* Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Injury). Separate-Rates Application The Department modified the process by which exporters and foreign producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. *See* Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate-Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin), available on the Department's website at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf* . The process requires the submission of a separate-rate status application. Based on our experience in processing the separate-rates applications, we have modified the application for this investigation to make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 58374, 58379 (October 6, 2005); *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005); and *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea* , 70 FR 35625, 35629 (June 21, 2005). The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rates application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available on the Department's website at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the **Federal Register** . Submission of the separate-rates application is due no later August 26, 2007. NME Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value Questionnaire For NME investigations, it is the Department's practice to request quantity and value information from all known exporters identified in the petition. Although many NME exporters respond to the quantity and value information request, at times some exporters may not have received the quantity and value questionnaire or may not have received it in time to respond by the specified deadline. Therefore, the Department typically requests the assistance of the NME government in transmitting the Department's quantity and value questionnaire to all companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, as well as to manufacturers who produce the subject merchandise for companies who were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters is used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents. The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rates application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Appendix I of this notice contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters no later than July 18, 2007. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Department's website at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* . The Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to those exporters identified in Volume II of the petition at Exhibit 5, and to the NME government. Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The Separate-Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states the following: {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. *See* Separate-Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6. Initiation of Antidumping Investigation Based upon our examination of the petition on CWP from the PRC, we find that the petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether imports of CWP from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 calendar days after the date of publication of this initiation notice. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the government of the PRC. International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of CWP from the PRC are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. *See* section 733(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 27, 2007. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) permits us to investigate

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

(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total value of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation ( *see* scope section of this notice), produced in the PRC, and exported/shipped to the United States during the period October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. Market Total Quantity Terms of Sale Total Value United States 1. Export Price Sales 2. a. Exporter name b. Address c. Contact d. Phone No. e. Fax No. 3. Constructed Export Price Sales 4. Further Manufactured Sales **Total Sales** Total Quantity: • Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. Terms of Sales: • Please report all sales on the same terms, such as “free on board” at port of export. Total Value: • All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars. Please provide any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs before importation into the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please *do not* include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Constructed Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated customer is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please *do not* include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Further Manufactured Sales: • Further manufacture or assembly (including re-packing) sales (“further manufactured sales”) refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before being sold to the first unaffiliated customer. • Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry to the further manufacturer. [FR Doc. E7-13017 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-810] Stainless Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland 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)482-1279 or

(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 26, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published an extension of the time limit to complete the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India covering the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. *See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 35033 (June 26, 2007). Due to a clerical error, the due date for the completion of the final results was listed as September 6, 2007. The Department hereby amends the date on which the final results are due for completion. The final results are now due on September 4, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an antidumping duty order for which a review is requested and issue the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. In accordance with 782(i)(3) of the Act, the Department conducted on-site verification of responses submitted by two respondents in this review in May and June 2007. Accordingly, the Department must still issue the verification findings. Therefore, we find that it is not practicable to complete this review within the originally anticipated time limit ( *i.e.* , by July 5, 2007). Thus, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results to no later than September 6, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 28, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13011 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-911] Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damian Felton, Yasmin Nair or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0133,

(202)482-3813 and

(202)482-0196, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation Of Investigations: The Petition On June 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received a petition filed in proper form by the Ad Hoc Coalition for Fair Pipe Imports from China and its individual members (Allied Tube & Conduit; IPSCO Tubulars, Inc.; Northwest Pipe Company; Sharon Tube Company; Western Tube & Conduit Corporation; Wheatland Tube Company; and the United Steelworkers) (collectively, “petitioners”). The Department received timely information from petitioners supplementing the petition on June 15, June 20 and June 25, 2007. In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (“CWP”) in the People's Republic of China ( the “PRC”), receive countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that petitioners filed the petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and

(D)of the Act and petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing duty investigation ( *see* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section below). Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation covers certain welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and with an outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish ( *e.g.* , black, galvanized, or painted), end finish ( *e.g.* , plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification ( *e.g.* , ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may also be referred to as circular, structural, or mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which:

(a)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;

(b)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

(c)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

(i)1.80 percent of manganese;

(ii)2.25 percent of silicon;

(iii)1.00 percent of copper;

(iv)0.50 percent of aluminum;

(v)1.25 percent of chromium;

(vi)0.30 percent of cobalt;

(vii)0.40 percent of lead;

(viii)1.25 percent of nickel;

(ix)0.30 percent of tungsten;

(x)0.15 percent of molybdenum;

(xi)0.10 percent of niobium;

(xii)0.41 percent of titanium

(xiii)0.15 percent of vanadium; or

(a)pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn;

(b)mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn;

(c)finished electrical conduit;

(d)tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;

(e)oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications; and

(f)line pipe produced to API specifications for oil and gas applications. The pipe products that are the subject of these investigations are currently classifiable in HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope of the investigation. Comments on Scope of Investigation During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with Petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. During this review, we noted that, while the Department typically prefers to rely upon physical characteristics to determine the scope of product coverage, the scope description proposed by Petitioners relied upon, in part, end-use applications as a method for determining scope coverage. On June 20, 2007, we met with Petitioners to discuss the scope and its reliance upon end-use applications as a method for determining scope coverage. *See* Memorandum to The File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, Office 4, from Maisha Cryor, Import Compliance Specialist, titled “Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Scope of the Petition,” dated June 22, 2007. As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments, including comments regarding the scope's definition of covered merchandise based upon end-use application, and whether additional HTSUS numbers should be included in the scope description, 14 calendar days after publication of this initiation notice. Rebuttal comments are due 7 calendar days thereafter. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit in Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 - Attention: Maisha Cryor, Room 3057. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. Consultations Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the Government of the PRC for consultations with respect to the countervailing duty petition. The Department held these consultations in Beijing, China with representatives of the Government of the PRC on June 24, 2007. *See* the Memoranda to The File, entitled, “Consultations with Officials from the Government of the People's Republic of China” (June 24, 2007) (public documents on file in the CRU of the Department of Commerce, Room B-099). Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for

(1)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and

(2)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:

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

(ii)determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”) is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured and must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. *See* Section 771(10) of the Act. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 1 1 *See USEC, Inc. v. United States* , 25 CIT 49, 55-56, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7-8 (Jan. 24, 2001) ( *citing Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States* , 12 CIT 518, 523, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (June 8, 1988)). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” *i.e.* , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. With regard to domestic like product, petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information presented by petitioners, we have determined that there is a single domestic like product, CWP, which is defined in the “Scope of Investigation” section above, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of the domestic like product. Our review of the data provided in the petition, the supplemental submission and other information readily available to the Department indicates that petitioners have established industry support. First, the petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( *e.g.* , polling). *See* Sec. 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Second, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 702(c)(4)(A)(i) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. *See Initiation Checklist* at Attachment I (Analysis of Industry Support). *See* “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Countervaling Duty Petition on Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from China,” at Attachment II (“ *CVD Initiation Checklist* ”). Injury Test Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioners allege that imports of CWP from the PRC are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing or threatening to cause, material injury to the domestic industry producing CWP. In addition, petitioners allege that subsidized imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. Petitioners contend that the prices on imports from the PRC do not reflect recent increases in raw material costs, and that large margins of underselling exist, which are causing domestic producers to suffer. Petitioners assert that the industry's injury is evidenced by a decline in production, U.S. shipments, capacity utilization, market share, employment and profitability. The allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs and Border Protection import data, lost sales, employment and pricing information. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation and have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See CVD Initiation Checklist* . Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of an industry that

(1)alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and

(2)is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting the allegations. The Department has examined the countervailing duty petition on CWP from the PRC and found that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating a countervailing duty investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of CWP in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, *see CVD Initiation Checklist* . We are including in our investigation the following programs alleged in the petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC: Preferential Lending 1. Government Policy Lending Program 2. Loans and interest subsidies provided pursuant to the Northeast Revitalization Program Income Tax Programs 3. “Two Free, Three Half” income tax program 4. Income tax exemption for export-oriented foreign investment enterprises (“FIEs”) 5. Corporate income tax refund program for reinvestment of FIE profits in export-oriented enterprises 6. Local income tax exemption and reduction program for “productive” FIEs 7. Reduced income tax rates for FIEs based on location 8. Reduced income tax rate for knowledge or technology intensive FIEs 9. Reduced income tax rate for high or new technology FIEs 10. Preferential tax policies for research and development at FIEs 11. Income tax credits on purchases of domestically produced equipment by domestically-owned companies 12. Income tax credits on purchases of domestically produced equipment by FIEs Provincial Subsidy Programs 13. Program to rebate antidumping legal fees in Shenzen and Zhejiang provinces 14. Funds for “outward expansion” of industries in Guangdong province 15. Export interest subsidy funds for enterprises located in Shenzhen and Zhejiang province 16. Loans pursuant to the Liaoning Province's five-year framework Indirect Tax Programs and Import Tariff Program 17. Export payments characterized as VAT rebates 18. VAT and tariff exemptions on imported equipment 19. VAT rebates on domestically produced equipment 20. Exemption from payment of staff and worker benefits for export-oriented enterprises Grant Programs 21. State Key Technology Renovation Program Fund 22. Grants to loss-making state owned enterprises Provision Of Goods Or Services For Less Than Adequate Remuneration 23. Hot-rolled steel 24. Electricity and natural gas 25. Water 26. Land Government Restraints on Exports 27. Zinc 28. Hot-rolled steel For further information explaining why the Department is investigating these programs, *see CVD Initiation Checklist* . We are postponing our investigation of the following program until such time as we select our respondents because the allegation is company-specific: 1. Loans to uncreditworthy companies For further information explaining why the Department is postponing investigation of this program, see CVD Initiation Checklist. We are not including in our investigation the following programs alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC: 1. *Currency manipulation* Petitioners allege that the GOC's policy of maintaining an undervalued RMB is an export subsidy that provides either a direct transfer of funds or the provision of a good or service at less than adequate remuneration. Petitioners have not sufficiently alleged the elements necessary for the imposition of a countervailing duty and did not support the allegation with reasonably available information. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate the currency manipulation program. 2. *Tax reduction for enterprises making little profit* Petitioners allege that “enterprises making little profit” are a *de jure* specific group. Petitioners have not established with reasonably available evidence that “enterprises making little profit” are a *de jure* specific group pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate tax reduction for enterprises making little profit. 3. *Tax incentives for companies engaging in research and development* Petitioners allege that “domestic” companies ( *i.e.* , companies that are not FIEs) are a *de jure* specific group. Petitioners have not established with reasonably available evidence that this program is *de jure* specific pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate tax incentives for “domestic” companies engaging in research and development. 4. *Exemption of CWP from export taxes* Petitioners allege that CWP producers have been exempted from the export taxes that were imposed on 142 steel products effective June 1, 2007. Petitioners have not sufficiently alleged, on the basis of reasonably available information, that CWP producers have been relieved from paying export taxes that would otherwise have been due. Consequently, we do not plan to investigation the exemption of CWP producers from export taxes. 5. *Funds for technology and research* Petitioners allege that because the GOC did not provide the criteria for awarding funds under this program when they notified it to the Word Trade Organization, funds are awarded on a discretionary basis and, hence, specific. Petitioners have not adequately explained how this program is specific pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate funds for technology and research. 6. *Provision of goods or services for less than adequate remuneration - other companies* Petitioners allege that the GOC's policy of combining steel companies results in the provision of productive assets to the combined companies at less than adequate remuneration. Petitioners have not sufficiently alleged the elements necessary for the imposition of a countervailing duty and did not support the allegation with reasonably available information. Consequently, we do not plan to investigate this program. 7. *Loan guarantees from government-owned banks* As part of their Government Policy Lending allegation, petitioners include loan guarantees. To support this allegation, they point to a provincial guarantee program. However, the supporting evidence indicates that this program is for small and medium size enterprises, a non-specific group under our regulations. *See* 19 C.F.R. 351.502(e). Accordingly, we do not plan to investigate loan guarantees from government-owned banks. 8. *Loan to Huludao Economic Development Zone* Petitioners identify a loan to the Huludao Economic Development Zone and suggest that some portion of the loan would likely have gone to a CWP producer in the zone. However, the supporting information indicates that the money was used to support infrastructure development within the zone. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate the loan to Huludao Economic Development Zone program. For further information explaining why the Department is not initiating an investigation of these programs, *see CVD Initiation Checklist* . Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to the PRC Petitioners contend that there is no statutory bar to applying countervailing duties to imports from the PRC or any other non-market economy country. Citing *Georgetown Steel* , petitioners assert that the court deferred to the Department's conclusion that it did not have the authority to conduct a CVD investigation, but did not affirm the notion that the statute prohibits the Department from applying countervailing duties to NME countries. *See* Petition, Volume I, at 38 ( *citing Georgetown Steel Corp. v. United States* , 801 F.2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“ *Georgetown Steel* ”)). Petitioners further argue that *Georgetown Steel* is not applicable as the countervailing duty law (section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930) involved in the court's decision has since been repealed and the statute has been amended to provide an explicit definition of a subsidy. *See* Petition, Volume I, at 39 (citing 777(5) of the Act). In addition, petitioners argue that the Chinese economy is entirely different from the economies investigated in *Georgetown Steel* and noted that the Department recently recognized in the *CFS Investigation* that the economic conditions of *Georgetown Steel* are not applicable to present-day China. *See* Petition, Volume I, at 41 ( *citing Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China; Amended Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 17484, 17486 (April 9, 2007) (“ *CFS Investigation* ”); and Memorandum for David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from The People's Republic of China Whether the Analytic Elements of the *Georgetown Steel* Opinion are Applicable to China's Present-day Economy,” (March 29, 2007) (“ *Georgetown Steel* Memorandum”)). Petitioners argue that the conditions of the CWP sector of the PRC economy are substantially the same as the Department found them to be in the *CFS Investigation* . Consequently, the countervailing duty law should be applied to the PRC in this investigation. The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, (“TRBs”) From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500, 7500-1 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in *TRBs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review* , 68 FR 70488, 70488-89 (December 18, 2003). In the *CFS Investigation* , the Department preliminarily determined that the current nature of China's economy does not create obstacles to applying the necessary criteria in the CVD law. As such, the Department determined that the policy that gave rise to the *Georgetown Steel* litigation does not prevent us from concluding that the PRC government has bestowed a countervailable subsidy upon a Chinese producer. *See Georgetown Steel* Memorandum. Therefore, because petitioners have provided sufficient allegations and support of their allegations to meet the statutory criteria for initiating a countervailing duty investigation of CWP paper from the PRC, we continue to find that *Georgetown Steel* does not preclude us from initiating this investigation. For further information, *see CVD Initiation Checklist* . Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the Government of the PRC. As soon as and to the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to each exporter named in the petition, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which it receives notice of the initiation, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of subsidized CWP from the PRC are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. *See* section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 27, 2007. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13014 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB19 Issuance of Permit for Incidental Take of Threatened or Endangered Species AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on June 12, 2007, NMFS issued Permit 1613 for incidental take of threatened and endangered species, to the Green Diamond Resource Company, of northern California, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Copies of Incidental Take Permit 1613 and associated decision documents are available upon request. ADDRESSES: If you would like copies of any of the above documents, please contact the Protected Resources Division of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521 (ph: 707-825-5163, fax: 707-825B-840). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John P. Clancy at the above Arcata, California, address, telephone number (707-825-5175), or e-mail, *john.p.clancy@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act

(Act)and Federal regulations prohibit take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under the Act, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS has further defined “harm” as an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, and emphasizes that such acts may include “significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering.” NMFS may, under limited circumstances, issue permits to authorize take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for the incidental taking of threatened and endangered species are found in 50 CFR 222.307. On June 12, 2007, NMFS issued Permit 1613 to the Green Diamond Resource Company for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Permit 1613 was issued after the following determinations were made: the permit application was submitted in good faith; all permit issuance criteria were met, including the requirement that granting the permit will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species; and the permit was consistent with the Act and applicable regulations, including a thorough review of the environmental effects of the action and alternatives, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Permit 1613 authorizes incidental take of fish in two Evolutionarily Significant Units

(ESUs)and one Distinct Population Segment

(DPS)listed under the Act: California Coastal Chinook salmon ( *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* ) ESU, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon ( *O. kisutch* ) ESU, and Northern California steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ) DPS. Permit 1613 also authorizes incidental take of fish in three unlisted ESUs (Klamath Mountains Province steelhead ESU, Upper Klamath/Trinity Rivers Chinook salmon ESU, and Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal Chinook salmon ESU) should these species be listed during the 50-year term of the permit. Copies of Permit 1613 and associated documents are available upon request. Decision documents for Permit 1613 include Findings and Recommendations; a Biological Opinion; and a Record of Decision. Dated: June 28, 2007. Marta Nammack, Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-13061 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XA97 Marine Mammals; File No. 881-1890 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit amendment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Permit No. 881-1890 for conduct of research on Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in Alaska, held by The Alaska SeaLife Center (ASLC), Seward, AK, has been amended. ADDRESSES: The permit amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/review.htm* ; and Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7221; fax (907)586-7249. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tammy Adams or Amy Sloan (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 15, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 7420) that a request for a scientific research permit to take Steller sea lions had been submitted by the ASLC. The requested permit was issued on June 18, 2007 (72 FR 35427). An amendment to the subject permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). The permit issued to ASLC authorized activities to conduct population monitoring and studies on health, nutrition, and foraging behavior of free ranging Steller sea lions in the Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands (west of 144o West), and on temporarily captive female Steller sea lions at the ASLC. The permit has been amended to allow population monitoring and studies on health, nutrition, and foraging behavior of free ranging Steller sea lions east of 144o West, and on temporarily captive male Steller sea lions at the ASLC. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

(PEIS)for Steller Sea Lion and Northern Fur Seal Research was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of awarding grants and issuing permits to facilitate research on these species. Information about the PEIS is available at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/steller.htm* . Issuance of the permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit:

(1)was applied for in good faith;

(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: June 29, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-13062 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XB21] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Statistical Committee

(SSC)meeting via conference call. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene its SSC via conference call to discuss planning of an amendment. DATES: The conference call will be held on July 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via conference call and listening stations will be available. For specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council is preparing an amendment which will require reductions in the harvest of some grouper based on a recent assessment of gag grouper (SEDAR 10 Assessment and supplemental reviews). The SSC and the Special SSC will review certain aspects of that assessment and provide recommendations to the Council on the appropriate benchmark assessment to use to develop the regulations. The Council is preparing an amendment which will require persons to obtain a permit from NMFS to participate in aquaculture by constructing an aquaculture facility in the exclusive economic zone

(EEZ)of the Gulf of Mexico. Each application for a permit must comply with many permit conditions related to record keeping and operation of the facility. These permit conditions will assure the facility has a minimal affect on the environment and on other fishery resources. Compliance with the conditions will be evaluated annually for the duration of the permit as the basis for renewal of the permit for the next year. The conference call will begin at 10 a.m. EDT and conclude no later than 12:30 p.m. EDT. Listening stations are available at the following locations: The Gulf Council office (see ADDRESSES ), and the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)offices as follows: Galveston, TX 4700 Avenue U, Galveston, TX 77551, Contact: Rhonda O'Toole,

(409)766-3500; St. Petersburg, FL 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Contact: Joyce Mochrie,

(727)824-5301; and Miami, FL 75 Virginia Beach Dr., Miami, FL 33149, Contact: Alex Chester,

(305)361-4259. Copies of any related meeting materials can be obtained by calling the Council office at

(813)348-1630. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: June 29, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-12963 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Sea Grant Review Panel AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Sea Grant Review Panel. The meeting will have two main purposes. Panel members will discuss and provide advice on the National Sea Grant College Program in the areas of program evaluation, strategic planning, education and extension, science and technology programs, and other matters as described below: DATES: The announced meeting is scheduled for: Monday, July 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Conference Call. Public access is available at SSMC Bldg 3, Room # 5836, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph Brown, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11717, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910,

(301)734-1088. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Improvement Act (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Panel advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice. The agenda for the meeting is as follows: Monday, July 16, 2007—12 to 2 p.m. Agenda I. Discussion of the Reauthorization Committee's Report. II. Discussion of the Special Review Team Report. Dated: June 26, 2007. Mark E. Brown, Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrator Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. [FR Doc. E7-12972 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KA-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [XRIN: 0648-XB23] Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Limited Access Privilege

(LAP)Program Exploratory Workgroup in Charleston, SC. DATES: The meeting will take place August 1-2, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, Charleston Airport, 5265 International Boulevard, North Charleston, SC 29418; telephone:

(877)782-9444 or

(843)308-9330; fax:

(843)308-9331. *Council address* : South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer,; telephone:

(843)571-4366 or toll free

(866)SAFMC-10; fax:

(843)769-4520; email: *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the LAP Program Exploratory Workgroup will meet from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on August 1, 2007, and from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 2, 2007. The meeting is being convened to address issues relevant to the Council's consideration of implementing a Limited Access Privilege Program for the commercial snapper grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region. Items for discussion by the Workgroup include:

(1)Presentations and discussion with fishermen from the Gulf of Mexico regarding the implementation of Limited Access Privilege Programs in the Gulf region, and

(2)discussion of design characteristics of LAP Programs for the South Atlantic. These characteristics include options for caps on ownership, species to include in a LAP Program, and underage and overage allowances. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) 3 days prior to the meeting. Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change. Dated: July 2, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-13065 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Privacy Act of 1974; Announcement of Systems of Records AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice of Systems of Records. SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) is publishing notice of two new systems of records, CPSC-25, FOIA Express System of Records (FOIAXpress) and CPSC-26, Learning Management System. Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be e-mailed to the Office of the Secretary at *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov* , or sent by mail to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to

(301)504-0127. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda L. Glatz, Division of Policy and Planning, Office of Information Technology and Technology Services, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814;

(301)504-7671,or by e-mail to *lglatz@cpsc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CPSC-25, FOIAXpress will be used to maintain records of correspondence and email requests submitted to the Commission under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, or Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, so that requests can be tracked and responded to accurately and in a timely manner. CPSC-26, Learning Management System, will be used to submit employee training reports as required by the Office of Personnel Management under 5 CFR 410.701. These systems of records will become effective September 4, 2007 unless comments are received which justify a contrary determination. The Congress and the Office of Management and Budget have been notified of these systems. Dated: June 28, 2007. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC-25 System Name: CPSC-25, FOIAXpress. System Location: Division of Information Management, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Categories of Individuals Covered By the System: Individuals who request information from the Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act. Categories of Records Maintained in the System: Correspondence and e-mail requests for information submitted to the Commission which may contain personal information about individuals, e.g., name, address, city, state, telephone number, fax and e-mail address and other pertinent information related to processing and responding to their FOIA and/or Privacy Act request. Authority for Maintenance of the System: 5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a. Purpose: These records are used by Commission staff responding to the request for information so that requests can be tracked and responded to accurately and in a timely manner. Routine Uses: 1. These records are used to record the requesting individual's address so a response can be forwarded. 2. These records are used to record the specific information that the individual is seeking so that the information we provide is responsive to the request. 3. Staff will search the records to determine which requests have been filled and which are still pending. 4. CPSC will use these records to prepare an annual report of FOIA activities at the end of each fiscal year and submit the report to the Attorney General, through the Department of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy. Policies and Practices For Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining, and Disposing of Records In the System: Storage: Records will be entered into a database tracking system and given a request number. All information will be stored electronically and paper requests will eventually be destroyed. Retrievability: Records will mainly be retrieved using the FOIA request number, however, records may also be retrieved by searching on a requester's last name, a company name or entry date and closed date. Safeguards: Computer records are protected by passwords available only to staff with a need to know. Retention and Disposal: Records will be stored electronically for 2 to 6 years, contingent upon the National Archives Records Administration (NARA's General Records Schedule 14). System Manger and Address: Todd A. Stevenson, Director, Division of Information Management, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Notification Procedures: Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Record Access Procedures: Same as notification. Contesting Record Procedures: Same as notification. Records Source Categories: Personal information in these records is obtained from the individual requesting the information under FOIA or Privacy Act. CPSC-26 System Name: CPSC-26, Learning Management System. System Location: Division of Information Management, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Categories of Individuals Covered By the System: CPSC employees. Categories of Records Maintained In the System: Information concerning training courses that an employee takes during the year. The employee enters a training request by entering their social security number, date of birth, course title, vendor name, course location and other OPM specific data fields that pertain to the collection of training records. Authority for Maintenance of the System: 5 U.S.C. Chapter 41—Training; 5 CFR part 410. Purpose: These records are used by Commission to respond to Office of Personnel Management's requirements that all federal agencies submit training reports on a monthly basis. The reports must include employee social security number and date of birth. Routine Uses: 1. These records are used by CPSC to record training information for all employees. 2. CPSC will use these records to submit monthly training reports to OPM. Policies and Practices For Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining, and Disposing of Records In the System: Storage: Records will be entered into a database tracking system and stored electronically. Retrievability: Records will mainly be retrieved using the employee's last name. Safeguards: Computer records are protected by passwords available only to staff with a need to know. Retention and Disposal: Training records will be stored electronically for five years. System Manger and Address: Donna Simpson, Director, Office of Human Resources, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Notification Procedures: Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Record Access Procedures: Same as notification. Contesting Record Procedures: Same as notification. Records Source Categories: Personal information in these records is obtained from the individual requesting training. [FR Doc. E7-12906 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Commission Agenda, Priorities and Strategic Plan; Request for Comments AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is requesting interested parties to comment about the CPSC's agenda and priorities for Commission attention during fiscal year 2009, which begins October 1, 2008, and about revisions to its current strategic plan, the revised version of which will be submitted to Congress in the fall of 2007 pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Written comments concerning the Commission's agenda and priorities for fiscal year 2009 and revisions to the strategic plan become part of the public record. DATES: Written comments from members of the public must be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than July 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be captioned “Agenda, Priorities and Strategic Plan” and e-mailed to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov,* or mailed or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, to be received not later than July 20, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the current strategic plan, e-mail, call or write Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; e-mail *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov;* telephone

(301)504-7923; facsimile

(301)504-0127. An electronic copy of the 2003 Strategic Plan can be found at *http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/reports/2003strategic.pdf.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 306(d) of the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA)(5 U.S.C. 306(d)) requires the Commission to seek comments from interested parties as part of the process of revising the current CPSC strategic plan. The strategic plan is a GPRA requirement. The revised plan will provide an overall guide to the formulation of future agency actions and budget requests. The Office of Management and Budget requires all Federal agencies to submit their budget requests 13 months before the beginning of each fiscal year. The draft CPSC budget request for fiscal year 2009, which begins on October 1, 2008, is being formulated now by staff. The final budget request must reflect the contents of the agency's strategic plan developed under GPRA. The Commission staff desires to obtain the views of a wide range of interested persons including consumers; manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers of consumer products; members of the academic community; consumer advocates; and health and safety officers of state and local governments on both the fiscal year 2009 budget and potential revisions to the strategic plan. Written comments on the Commission's current strategic plan, and agenda and priorities for fiscal year 2009, should be received in the Office of the Secretary not later than July 20, 2007. Persons who desire a hard copy of the current strategic plan may contact the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, e-mail *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov,* telephone

(301)504-7923, facsimile

(301)504-0127. The strategic plan is also available on the CPSC Web site at *http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/reports/2003strategic.pdf. * The CPSC's FY 2008 budget request that is currently pending before Congress is available at *http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/reports/2008plan.pdf.* Dated: June 28, 2007. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E7-12965 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Special Demonstration Programs—Model Demonstration Projects to Improve the Postsecondary and Employment Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of final priority and definitions. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) announces a final priority and definitions under the Special Demonstration Programs administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). The Assistant Secretary may use the priority and definitions for competitions in fiscal year

(FY)2007 and later years. We intend for the priority to support projects that demonstrate the use of promising practices in collaborative transition planning and service delivery to improve the postsecondary education and employment outcomes of youth with disabilities. DATES: *Effective Date:* The priority and definitions are effective August 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Powell, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5038, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone:

(202)245-7505 or via Internet: *Edwin.Powell@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Special Demonstration Programs is to provide financial assistance to projects that expand and improve the provision of vocational rehabilitation

(VR)and other services for individuals with disabilities authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act). We published a notice of proposed priority and definitions

(NPP)for this program in the **Federal Register** on February 15, 2007 (72 FR 7427). The NPP included a background statement that described our rationale for the priority and definitions. More specifically, the background section of the NPP described the challenges that youth with disabilities face as they transition to adult life and how too many of these youth experience difficulties in achieving successful post-school outcomes. We explained the importance of the State VR programs in assisting youth with disabilities to prepare for education, training, and employment opportunities beyond high school. The NPP also included a discussion of the need for programs that build on collaborative State and local efforts and use promising practices to improve the postsecondary education and employment outcomes of youth with disabilities. This notice of final priority and definitions

(NFP)contains several changes from the NPP. These changes are explained in the following section, *Analysis of Comments and Changes.* Analysis of Comments and Changes In response to our invitation in the NPP, 75 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority and definitions. An analysis of the comments and changes in the priority and definitions since publication of the NPP follows. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes and suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. *Comments:* Two commenters stated that the language in the priority should address cultural concerns. *Discussion:* Without more detailed information from the commenters, we cannot respond specifically to their concerns. However, we note that under the Rehabilitation Act, VR services must be provided to eligible individuals with disabilities irrespective of an individual's ethnicity or race. An applicant under this priority may submit a proposal that speaks to the need for specific interventions or activities that address cultural concerns. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* Seven commenters suggested expanding the age range for individuals receiving transition services under this priority. Some commenters suggested we include children younger than 16 in the age range; others suggested we include young adults over the age of 22. Still other commenters suggested that the definition be consistent with their State's regulations or other Federal regulations. One commenter specifically recommended that the definition of *youth with disabilities* include language from the definition of *child with a disability* found in 34 CFR 300.8. *Discussion:* The regulations for Special Demonstration Programs in 34 CFR 373.4 define *youth or young adults with disabilities* as individuals with disabilities who are between the ages of 16 and 26. However, we determined that this age range was overly inclusive for this priority. We therefore proposed that these projects should serve youth from the age of 16 through the age of 22 in order to focus on the majority of students receiving transition services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We also determined that this age range would be the most relevant for providing transition services to youth receiving educational services under section 504 plans and youth who have dropped out of school. The IDEA regulations require transition services to be included in the first individualized education program

(IEP)to be in effect when the child turns 16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team (34 CFR 300.320(b)). We recognize that some States may have regulations that require transition services to be provided to youth under the age of 16. We also recognize that States have the option of providing transition services to youth with disabilities over the age of 22, if permitted by State regulations. Despite these considerations, we believe that it is important to designate a specific age range to ensure that all of these projects serve a comparable population, thus providing for consistency among the projects that will allow for valid comparisons among project results for evaluation purposes. Furthermore, we have not incorporated language from the definition of *child with a disability* in 34 CFR 300.8, as one commenter recommended, because this definition includes disability categories that apply to students with disabilities receiving special education services under the IDEA but which do not necessarily apply to other transition age youth (e.g., students under section 504 plans or youth who have dropped out of school). *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that the priority should not require the creation of a State interagency transition taskforce, because a new taskforce could duplicate the functions of other State entities, such as the State Rehabilitation Councils (SRCs). *Discussion:* Given the very specific functions of the State interagency transition taskforce and the requirement that the taskforce focus only on the transition of youth with disabilities, we think it is unlikely that many States have an existing entity that could serve these functions. However, the priority does not necessarily require the creation of a new taskforce. Accordingly, as long as the entity meets the definition of *State interagency transition taskforce* and can perform the specific functions outlined in the definition, the priority does not preclude an applicant from using an existing entity to facilitate interagency collaboration and coordination for the project. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* Four commenters suggested that youth with disabilities be included on the State interagency transition taskforce. *Discussion:* We do not find it necessary to require that transitioning youth with disabilities serve on the State interagency transition taskforce. Our proposed definition of *State interagency transition taskforce* stated, in part, that the taskforce must include “individuals to represent the perspectives of * * * transitioning youth with disabilities.” A transitioning youth with a disability could certainly serve on the taskforce in this capacity. However, we believe that individuals other than transitioning youth with disabilities also could represent adequately the perspectives of these transitioning youth. Thus, it is appropriate to allow the applicant to determine who will represent this population. *Changes:* In order to clarify that youth with disabilities may, but are not required to, serve on the State interagency transition taskforce, we revised the definition of *State interagency transition taskforce* to explicitly include youth with disabilities among those who may serve on the taskforce. *Comments:* One commenter stated that the priority does not adequately refer to the important services provided by the private sector to transitioning youth with disabilities. *Discussion:* We are well aware of the contributions made by the private sector to improve the post-secondary and employment outcomes of youth with disabilities. For this reason, the State interagency transition taskforce must include among its members “individuals to represent the perspectives of business and industry.” We believe that requiring the taskforce to include this group of individuals addresses adequately the private sector's involvement in providing services to youth with disabilities. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* Seven commenters suggested that the priority require more collaboration among the State VR agency or agencies, the State educational agency (SEA), local educational agencies (LEAs), and community stakeholders on the topic of transition. *Discussion:* We believe the priority, as proposed, already requires significant coordination and collaboration among the State VR agency, the SEA, LEAs, and community stakeholders. For instance, under the priority, the State interagency transition taskforce must implement a model transition program to be carried out at two sites in coordination with the applicable LEA or LEAs. The taskforce also must provide training and technical assistance to LEAs on planning and providing transition services to youth with disabilities. Additionally, the priority provides for local interagency teams to implement the VR service delivery models developed by the taskforce. We believe that these activities, as well as others outlined in the priority, are more than sufficient to ensure significant collaboration among local, State, and community stakeholders. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter stated that the priority does not address the role of partners specified in the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). *Discussion:* We recognize the valuable contributions that WIA partners and other entities providing services under WIA, such as State employment and training agencies, local one-stop workforce centers, and State and local workforce investment boards, can make in improving post-secondary education and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. Accordingly, in the definition of *State interagency transition taskforce* , we proposed that the taskforce include representatives of the State VR agency; the State VR agency for the Blind, in a State where there is such an agency; and the State Labor and Employment/Workforce agency, three of the required partners under WIA. An applicant may include other WIA partners in addition to these required participants on its taskforce. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that SEAs and LEAs be excluded from the priority. *Discussion:* The purpose of the priority is to promote and strengthen collaboration among various partners at the State and local levels to improve post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities. We believe SEAs and LEAs are vital partners in facilitating successful transitions from school to post-school activities for youth with disabilities, and therefore, decline to make the changes requested. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that the priority include support for the cost of transportation. *Discussion:* The priority permits the provision of individualized VR services for youth with disabilities who are eligible for these services under 34 CFR 361.42. These individualized services may include providing transportation if it is needed by the youth to access necessary and appropriate transition services. In addition, the priority does not preclude an applicant from including in its proposed model transition program transportation or any other service that is allowable under the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)cost principles. Therefore, we believe the priority is broad enough to permit the use of funds for transportation services if needed by the individuals served by the project. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* Two commenters suggested that we require applicants to provide the following additional services under the priority: mentoring, assistive technology services, driver's education, services provided by parent training and information centers, summer programs, services to youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system, and intensive reading remediation programs. *Discussion:* We agree that the services identified by the commenters are important services in a transition program. The services that we identified in the priority, however, were not intended to be an exhaustive list of all services that could be provided under the priority. Rather, we expect that, through the State interagency transition taskforce, the grantee will identify the services to be delivered as part of the coordinated set of promising practices to be provided under paragraph 4(c) of the priority. Thus, while the priority does not preclude a grantee from providing any of the services identified by the commenters, we believe it is better left to an applicant and the State interagency transition taskforce to identify the particular services that would best address the needs in the State or local area that the project will serve. Therefore, we do not think it is necessary to require all grantees to provide the particular additional services suggested by the commenters. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that the priority require every middle school, high school, and college involved in the model demonstration project to have a transition counselor to work with youth with disabilities. *Discussion:* The priority does not preclude applicants from including transition counselors in their model demonstration projects. However, that approach may not be feasible in some instances because of staffing constraints and funding limitations. Therefore, we do not believe that we should require all applicants to adopt such an approach. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that the priority include a requirement to train personnel in institutions of higher education and personnel responsible for planning and providing services to youth with disabilities. *Discussion:* Applicants under the priority must provide training and technical assistance to LEAs and VR personnel. The priority does not preclude an applicant from proposing, as part of its model demonstration project, to train personnel in institutions of higher education or other personnel responsible for planning and providing services to youth with disabilities. However, we do not believe we should require each model demonstration project to train personnel in institutions of higher education or other personnel responsible for planning and providing services to youth with disabilities because training of those personnel may not be necessary to meet the specific needs in the State or local area(s) that the project will cover. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter requested that the priority require projects funded under the priority to cultivate community employment possibilities. *Discussion:* With regard to employment, the purpose of the priority is to improve employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. Employment outcomes may be improved through a variety of methods, including the use of activities that focus on cultivating community employment possibilities. In order to provide flexibility and promote creativity, we do not believe the priority should include a requirement to cultivate community employment possibilities. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* Two commenters suggested that the priority require projects to educate parents and students at an early age about transition services. *Discussion:* The priority requires projects to provide a coordinated set of promising practices, which must include, among other things, youth development activities and practices to enhance family involvement. Through these youth development activities and practices to enhance family involvement, we expect that grantees will provide information and other services to youth with disabilities and their parents so that they are well informed about the transition services available to them and thus able to make better decisions. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter suggested that we require applicants to propose in their applications a specific life skills curriculum that includes vocational preparation and training and community field trips. *Discussion:* Under the priority, applicants must provide, among other things, a description of promising practices they propose to provide, including youth development activities. The definition of youth development activities, in turn, specifically identifies training in life skills (e.g., independent living skills, self-advocacy, and conflict resolution) that an applicant may include in its model demonstration project. We do not believe it is appropriate to prescribe more specifically the types of youth development activities an applicant may propose; such decisions are best left to the applicant and the State interagency transition taskforce who can better assess the needs of the youth who will be served. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that the progress of a youth with disabilities be evaluated with a variety of assessments (e.g., work samples, behavioral observation, community-based or situational assessment, family questionnaires, etc.) conducted at various points in the program of services for that youth. *Discussion:* Assessment of a youth's progress, through means such as those described by the commenter, may be utilized at the discretion of the applicant. However, the outcome data that each grantee must collect, at a minimum, are specified in paragraph 4(d) of the priority. Therefore, the assessments the grantee chooses to use must ultimately focus on improving postsecondary education and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that the priority require a Web-based clearinghouse to compile and disseminate information about the results of projects funded under the priority. *Discussion:* OSERS currently funds several transition-related technical assistance and dissemination centers that serve as clearinghouses, including the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities, the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center, and the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY). Information on promising practices resulting from the model demonstration projects funded under the priority will be shared with these technical assistance centers; thus, these existing centers will be used to disseminate information stemming from projects funded under the priority. We believe this is a more efficient use of resources and, therefore, decline to make the change recommended by the commenter. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* Three commenters recommended that the priority require an evaluation plan that includes both formative and summative analyses. *Discussion:* Paragraph 4(d) of the priority requires applicants to provide an evaluation plan in their applications that includes, among other things, the data to be collected and how it will be analyzed. All grantees will necessarily conduct summative analyses of the data they collect to include in the final report they are required to submit to the Department. Grantees also may utilize formative analyses so that they can better assess the progress they are making with youth at various points during the period of the project. However, we do not believe it is necessary to require that all applicants conduct formative analyses, but instead, will leave this decision to the discretion of the applicant. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter asked that we clarify whether a third-party evaluation is required under the priority. *Discussion:* Paragraph 2(f) of the priority requires an applicant to demonstrate that the project for which it seeks funding will conduct an evaluation plan of the project's performance, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of the practices and strategies implemented by the project in achieving project goals, particularly post-school outcomes. This project evaluation does not need to be conducted by a third party. However, during the first year of these projects, we intend to work with grantees to ensure that the required evaluation data under paragraph 4(d) are collected uniformly to allow the Department to analyze project outcomes across models. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that all post-school outcome data be disaggregated and available to examine all categories of disabilities. *Discussion:* We recognize the importance of making certain that grantees can disaggregate data by disability. In order to be responsive to this concern, we have revised paragraph 4(d) of the priority to require applicants to use a consistent approach to collecting and reporting data that can be disaggregated by disability. *Changes:* Paragraph 4(d) of the priority has been changed to require that the evaluation plan include the collection of data about the disability or disabilities of a youth, consistent with the disability coding system used by State VR agencies. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that we require that the project findings be disseminated to the local community, including institutions of higher education, served by the LEA. *Discussion:* Paragraph 4(e) of the priority requires a plan for the systematic dissemination of project findings and knowledge gained that will assist State and local agencies in adapting or replicating the transition model carried out by the project. Applicants may propose to disseminate their findings in the manner suggested by the commenter. However, we do not believe there is a sufficient basis to require all grantees to disseminate project findings to specific groups. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* Three commenters recommended that the priority require applicants to base their projects on objective evidence of the specific needs in the State. *Discussion:* We recognize the importance of basing the project design on objective evidence regarding specific needs in the State. Objective evidence of State needs will be used as a selection criterion in reviewing applications submitted under the priority. Accordingly, we do not believe it is necessary to include this requirement in the priority. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that applicants be required to demonstrate that they are currently participating in research-based designs for best practices and have significant linkages to other transition-outcome improvement projects. *Discussion:* Restricting applicants to those currently participating in research-based designs and those that have significant linkages to other transition-outcome improvement projects may too severely restrict the applicant pool. In fact, through this priority, we hope to encourage the adoption of research-based designs and promising transition practices in additional States and localities. However, we agree with the commenter that projects funded under the priority should link with other transition projects, if they do not already do so. Through ongoing technical assistance and information dissemination activities during the project period, we will advise grantees of new and existing transition-outcome improvement projects with which they may establish linkages. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* Two commenters suggested that the term “internship” be included in the definition of *career preparatory and pre-employment experiences.* *Discussion:* We did not intend the definition of *career preparatory and pre-employment experiences* to preclude internships as one of the training activities. To clarify our intent, we have revised the definition. *Changes:* The definition of *career preparatory and pre-employment experiences* has been revised to clarify that the list of experiences and activities included in the definition is not exhaustive. *Comments:* One commenter suggested that the list of definitions in the priority include: career planning, vocational preparation, and successful transition. *Discussion:* The terms “career planning” and “vocational preparation” are not used in this priority and therefore are not included in the list of definitions. Career planning and vocational preparation are strategies that the applicant may propose in providing career preparatory and pre-employment experiences and student-focused planning activities consistent with paragraph 4(d) of the priority. Regarding the suggestion to add the definition of successful transition to the list of definitions, the term may be defined differently for each student or project. Thus, adding a definition for successful transition to the list of definitions is not necessary or appropriate. *Changes:* None. *Comments:* One commenter recommended requiring each project to define employment for the sake of clarity because some projects consider sheltered work to be employment. *Discussion:* We believe that the definition of *employment outcome* in 34 CFR part 373 addresses the issue raised by the commenter. Under the regulations, the term *employment outcome* has the same meaning as *employment outcome* in the State VR services program regulations in 34 CFR 361.5(b)(16). That definition of *employment outcome* does not include sheltered work. Therefore, it is not necessary for an applicant to define employment. In order to clarify that applicants must use the definition of *employment outcome* found in 34 CFR 361.5(b)(16), a reference to this definition has been added in paragraph 2(b)(i) of the priority in which the individualized VR services that an applicant must provide are described. *Changes:* Paragraph 2(b)(i) of the priority has been revised to clarify that the individualized VR services that are provided are designed to achieve an employment outcome consistent with the definition in 34 CFR 361.5(b)(16). Note: This notice does *not* solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a notice in the **Federal Register** . When inviting applications we designate the priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority follows: *Absolute priority:* Under an absolute priority we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)). *Competitive preference priority:* Under a competitive preference priority we give competitive preference to an application by either

(1)Awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or

(2)selecting an application that meets the competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). *Invitational priority:* Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)). Priority Priority—Model Demonstration Projects to Improve the Postsecondary and Employment Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities This priority supports projects that demonstrate the use of promising practices of collaborative transition planning and service delivery in improving the postsecondary education and employment outcomes of youth with disabilities. In order to meet this priority, an applicant must—

(1)Provide an assurance that the State has an interagency transition taskforce that provides input in the development of the application and that the interagency transition taskforce will—

(a)Play an advisory role in the operation of the project;

(b)Assist in the development of project goals;

(c)Review project findings; and

(d)Assist in the dissemination of project findings;

(2)Demonstrate that the project for which it seeks funding will—

(a)Implement a model transition program that is designed to improve post-school outcomes of students with disabilities through the use of local interagency transition teams and the implementation of a coordinated set of promising practices and strategies. The activities must be implemented at a minimum of two sites to be carried out in coordination with the applicable LEA or LEAs;

(b)Provide transition services to youth with disabilities, including—

(i)Individualized VR services to youth with disabilities who are eligible for such services consistent with 34 CFR 361.42 and designed to achieve an employment outcome as defined in 34 CFR 361.5(b)(16); and

(ii)Services to groups of youth with disabilities, through methods such as workshops and seminars, to support the transition of such youth to post-school and employment outcomes;

(c)Provide training and technical assistance to LEAs and State VR personnel responsible for planning and providing transition services to youth with disabilities;

(d)Conduct outreach activities that assist in the identification of youth with disabilities who are in need of VR services;

(e)Analyze and use the secondary education and post-school outcome data of youth with disabilities collected by the SEA and other relevant data to assist the project to improve transition services and post-school outcomes;

(f)Conduct an evaluation of the project's performance, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of the practices and strategies implemented by the project in achieving project goals, particularly post-school outcomes;

(3)Provide evidence that the LEAs responsible for providing transition services to children with disabilities under the IDEA in the local sites proposed by the applicant will participate in carrying out project activities (e.g., letter of support); and

(4)Provide a description of—

(a)The State interagency transition taskforce members, including their roles and responsibilities with respect to transition planning and the provision of services;

(b)The local interagency team members, including their roles and responsibilities with respect to transition planning and the provision of services;

(c)The coordinated set of promising practices that it proposes to provide, which, at a minimum, must include student-focused planning, career preparatory and pre-employment experiences, youth development activities, and practices to enhance family involvement;

(d)The evaluation plan, including project goals, measurable objectives, and operational definitions and the data to be collected and how it will be analyzed. At a minimum these data must include: the disability or disabilities of the youth, reported consistent with the disability coding system used by State VR agencies; high school exit data (academic achievement and functional performance data, high school graduation outcomes, including type of diploma received); student's post-school goals; services provided; postsecondary education outcomes; employment outcomes (type of employment, wages and earnings, hours worked, weeks of employment); and public benefits received such as Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance; and

(e)A plan for the systematic dissemination of project findings and knowledge gained that will assist State and local agencies in adapting or replicating the transition model carried out by the project. Definitions

(1)*Career preparatory and pre-employment experiences* means experiences and activities to help students become prepared for a successful future in postsecondary education or employment including, but not limited to: instruction in learning and study strategies; career education activities that assist the student to form and develop career aspirations and to make informed choices about careers; structured work experiences such as job shadowing, volunteer and community service, and on-the-job training experiences; and employment skills instruction such as work-related behaviors and skills training, job seeking skills, and occupation-specific vocational skill training.

(2)*State interagency transition taskforce* means a group of individuals who meet on a regular basis to facilitate interagency collaboration and the coordination of practices and services to improve the transition of students with disabilities from secondary education to postsecondary education and employment, such as identifying and addressing systemic transition barriers; facilitating the coordination of transition policies, practices, and services within the State; providing technical assistance; and disseminating information on promising practices.

(a)The group must, at a minimum, include one or more representatives of the State VR agency (including, where applicable, the State VR agency for the Blind), SEA, State Labor and Employment/Workforce agency, Social Security Administration, State developmental disabilities agency, and the State mental health agency. The group also must include individuals to represent the perspectives of business and industry and transitioning youth with disabilities.

(b)The group also may include representatives from other relevant entities such as the State Rehabilitation Council (if applicable in the State), State Independent Living Council, State Developmental Disabilities and Mental Health Planning Councils, postsecondary educational institutions, and transition service providers, youth with disabilities, parents of transitioning youth with a disability, and other stakeholders.

(3)*Student-focused planning* means activities designed to facilitate student participation, self-evaluation and self-determination, including goal setting and decision making within the planning process. Examples of such activities include the identification of student interests and preferences; use of educational, career and psychological assessments in the development of postsecondary education, training, and vocational goals; career, vocational counseling, and guidance; VR participation at IEP meetings; joint IEP and individualized plan for employment

(IPE)planning meetings; and timely referrals to adult service providers.

(4)*Transition services,* as defined in section (7)(37) of the Rehabilitation Act, means a coordinated set of activities for a student, designed within an outcome-oriented process, that promotes movement from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational training, and integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation. The coordinated set of activities must be based upon the individual student's needs, taking into account the student's preferences and interests, and shall include instruction, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation.

(5)*Youth development activities* means activities that help students control and direct their own lives based on informed decisions and become self-sufficient and productive members of society, such as learning to communicate their disability-related work support and accommodation needs and learning to find, request, and secure appropriate supports and reasonable accommodations in education, training, and employment settings. Examples of youth development activities include: mentoring opportunities, training in life skills such as independent living skills, self-advocacy, and conflict resolution; exposure to personal leadership and youth development activities; and exposure to post-program supports.

(6)*Youth with disabilities* means an individual with a disability as defined in paragraph

(b)of the definition of *individual with a disability* in 34 CFR 373.4 who is no younger than age 16 and no older than age 22. Executive Order 12866 This NFP has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the Executive order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the NFP are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this NFP we have determined that the benefits of the priority and related definitions justify the costs. Intergovernmental Review This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program. *Applicable Program Regulations:* 34 CFR part 373. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.235U Special Demonstration Programs) *Program Authority:* 29 U.S.C. 773(b). Dated: June 28, 2007. John H. Hager, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. 07-3249 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 33

Traces to 33 documents

CFR