Notices. Notice of public meeting, notice of public comment

8,196 words·~37 min read·/register/2007/07/06/07-3231

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

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-274-804] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from Trinidad and Tobago for the period of review (“POR”) October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006.

We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited (“MSPL”) and its affiliates Mittal Steel North America Inc. (“MSNA”) and Mittal Walker Wire Inc. (collectively “Mittal”) did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”) ( *i.e.* , sales were made at *de minimis* dumping margins). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. The Department will issue the final results within 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5973 or

(202)482-3692, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago; *see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine* , 67 FR 65945 (“ *Wire Rod Orders* ”). On October 2, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** the *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 57920. We received timely requests for review from petitioners 1 , and Mittal, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On November 27, 2006, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, naming Mittal as the respondent. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006). On November 29, 2006, we sent a questionnaire to Mittal. 2 1 The petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc. (formerly Georgetown Steel Company), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel Raritan, Inc.), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. 2 Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and Merchandise Section B: Comparison Market Sales Section C: Sales to the United States Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed Value Section E: Cost of Further Manufacture or Assembly Performed in the United States Mittal submitted its responses to section A of the Department's questionnaire on January 26, 2007, and to sections B through E on February 2, 2007. On March 1, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments on Mittal's questionnaire response. On April 18, 2007, the Department sent Mittal a supplemental questionnaire for sections A through C. We received the response to the supplemental questionnaire on May 2, 2007. We issued a supplemental questionnaire for section D on May 14, 2007, and received the response on June 11, 2007. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions for

(a)stainless steel;

(b)tool steel;

(c)high nickel steel;

(d)ball bearing steel; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of aluminum,

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

(4)0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,

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

(4)0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and

(5)either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. *Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 68 FR 64079, 64081 (November 12, 2003). The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), all products produced by the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of the Order section, above, and sold in Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”) to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and

(b)of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to reflect discounts and increased the prices to reflect billing adjustments. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance, survey fees, U.S. customs duties and various U.S. movement expenses from arrival to delivery. For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty, and further manufacturing). In addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and

(f)of the Act. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Mittal's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Mittal had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. B. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which Mittal participated, the Department found that the respondent made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago* , 70 FR 69512 (November 16, 2005). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Mittal made wire rod sales in Trinidad and Tobago at prices below the cost of production (“COP”) in this administrative review. As a result, we initiated a COP inquiry for Mittal. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses, packing expenses, and interest expense. 2. Test of Comparison Market Prices As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes. 3. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” *See* section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and warranty directly linked to sales transactions). No other adjustments to NV were claimed or allowed. When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs. D. 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 EP or CEP transaction. In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on home market), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). In the home market, Mittal reported sales made through one LOT corresponding to one channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, Mittal reported two LOTs corresponding to two channels of distribution. Mittal made sales to an unaffiliated trading company and through its U.S. affiliates. We have determined that the sales made by Mittal directly to U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by Mittal's affiliated U.S. resellers constitute CEP sales. Furthermore, we have found that U.S. sales and home market sales were made at the same LOT. Accordingly, we did not find it necessary to make an LOT adjustment or CEP offset. For further explanation of our LOT analysis see the *Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited* from Dennis McClure and Stephanie Moore to the File, dated June 29, 2007. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006: Producer/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited 0.40%% ( *i.e.* , *de minimis* ) The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs 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 limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issue, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rate The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of 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 period of review produced by companies included in these final results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it 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 To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that company's sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)the cash deposit rate for Mittal will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* , the cash deposit rate will be zero;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and,

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 11.40 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Wire Rod Orders* . These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed. These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 29, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13134 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-809] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, 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)482-2924 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the 2005-2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India. *See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission and Intent to Rescind* , 72 FR 10142 (March 7, 2007). The review covers the period from February 1, 2005 through January 31, 2006, and three manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States: Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Shree Ganesh Forgings, Ltd., and Rollwell Forge, Ltd. (Rollwell). In the preliminary results we stated that we would issue our final results for the antidumping duty review no later than 120 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results (i.e., July 5, 2007). Extension of Time Limit for Final Results The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), at section 751(a)(3)(A), states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified, the administering authority may extend the 120-day period, following the date of the publication of the preliminary results, to issue its final results by an additional 60 days. Due to the complexity of the issues raised in this review, which necessitated issuing an additional supplemental questionnaire to Rollwell following issuance of the preliminary results, and the corresponding necessity to analyze the response and comments, the completion of the final results within the 120-day period is not practicable. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by an additional 30 days until August 4, 2007. Because August 4, 2007, falls on a Saturday, the final results will be due on August 6, 2007, the next business day. Dated: June 28, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13122 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6312 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results and partial rescission of the 2005-2006 antidumping duty administrative review of heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles (Hand Tools), from the People's Republic of China

(PRC)on March 8, 2007. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 10492 (March 8, 2007). We received a case brief from respondent Shandong Machinery Import & Export Company

(SMC)on April 9, 2007. Separate rebuttal briefs were received from both petitioners, Ames True Temper

(Ames)and Council Tool Company (Council Tools) on April 16, 2007. On April 24, 2007, the Customs Unit of the Department forwarded certain U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)documents in response to our standard request. We placed these on the record of this review on April 24, 2007. *See* Memorandum to the File from Mark Flessner, Case Analyst, entitled “Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China (A-580-803): U.S. Entry Documents and Opportunity to Comment,” dated April 24, 2007. SMC, Ames, and Council Tools filed comments concerning these CBP documents on May 9, 2007. SMC requested and was granted time to file a rebuttal to the Ames and Council Tools comments; SMC's rebuttal was received on May 16, 2007. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), the Department shall issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Tariff Act further provides that the Department shall issue the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published in the **Federal Register** . However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) allow the Department to extend the 245-day period to 365 days and the 120-day period to 180 days. Due to the addition of important new information to the record, the complexity of the issues involved, and the time required to analyze the numerous submissions and arguments raised in parties' briefs, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete these reviews within the original time period. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) allow the Department to extend the deadline for the final results of a review to a maximum of 180 days from the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published. The current deadline for the final results is July 6, 2007. For the reasons noted above, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the final results for the 2005-2006 antidumping duty administrative review of Hand Tools from the PRC until no later than August 6, 2007, which is within 180 days from the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: June 28, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13121 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-879] Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not In Harmony with Final Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 30, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (“Court”) sustained the final remand determination made by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the Court's remand of the final determination of sales at less than fair value of polyvinyl alcohol from the People's Republic of China. *See Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works v. United States* , Court No. 03-00791, Slip Op. 07-88 (CIT May 30, 2007) (“ *Sinopec IV* ”). This case arises out of the Department's *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China* 68 FR 47538 (Aug. 11, 2003)(“ *Final Determination* ”), as amended by *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* 68 FR 52183 (Sept. 2, 2003) (“ *Amended Final Determination* ”). The final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department's *Final Determination* and *Amended Final Determination.* EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hallie Noel Zink, AD/CVD Operations, China/NME Group, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6907. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *In Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works v. United States* , Slip Op. 06-191, 2006 WL 3929638 (CIT Dec. 28, 2006) (not reported in F. Supp.) (“ *Sinopec III* ”), the Court remanded the Department's calculation of Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works' (“SVW”) overhead costs for adjustments that comport with the Department's estimation of double-counting, if any, that may have occurred. Additionally, the Court stated that the Department was to provide the Court with a well-reasoned explanation for its final decision. On March 16, 2007, the Department issued the draft results of redetermination pursuant to remand (“draft results”) for comment by interested parties. On March 23, 2007, SVW and Defendant-Intervenors 1 submitted comments in response to the Department's draft results of redetermination pursuant to remand. On April 14, 2007, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand to the Court. The remand redetermination explained that in accordance with the Court's instructions, the Department analyzed the information on the record and found no evidence on the record establishing the existence of double-counting. Therefore, the Department found that double-counting did not occur. Thus, for these final remand results, the Department applied Jubilant's 2 financial ratios to SVW's costs without any adjustment. Additionally, the Department provided the Court with further explanation with regard to its final decision, which was based upon the following findings: i) there is no evidence on the record establishing that the Department's application of Jubilant's financial ratios resulted in double counting; and ii) the Department's decision to use Jubilant's data in the calculation of SVW's overhead costs without adjustment is consistent with its decision to apply a by-product credit for SVW's acetic acid recovery into its figures. The recalculated margin for these final remand results is 5.51 percent. 1 Celanese Chemicals Ltd., and E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. 2 Jubilant Organosys Ltd.'s (Jubilant). On May 30, 2007, the Court found that the Department complied with the Court's remand order and sustained the Department's remand redetermination. *See Sinopec IV* . Timken Notice In its decision in *Timken Co., v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Timken* ”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. SVW's margin, as originally calculated in the *Amended Final Determination* , was 6.91 percent. SVW's margin, as calculated now, following the Court's decision in *Sinopec IV* is 5.51 percent. The Court's decision in *Sinopec IV* constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's final determination in polyvinyl alcohol from the People's Republic of China. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of *Timken* . Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, upon a final and conclusive court decision. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 27, 2007. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13120 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and

(4)of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Room 2104, Washington, D.C. 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 2104. Docket Number: 07-036. Applicant: Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, d/b/a Methodist Health System, 1441 N. Beckley Avenue, Dallas, TX 75203. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model H-7650. Manufacturer: Hitachi High Technologies, Japan. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for clinical research and teaching in nephrology. The microscope is essential to conduct renal biopsies for the research. It will also be used to enable multiple students to simultaneously visualize the outcomes of the biopsies. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 8, 2007. Docket Number: 07-037. Applicant: Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles, 570 Westwood Plaza Building 114, MC 722710, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7227. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 F20. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used in a multi-user facility for a wide range of TEM research activities which will significantly enhance the inter-disciplinary research profile. It will advance state-of-the-art structural studies of a wide range of nano-devices, biological nanomachines and cellular assemblies. These activities have the potential for a profound impact on our understanding of several fundamental processes in biology, on determining the mechanisms of action of nanobiological machines, and on the development of novel nano-devices. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 7, 2007. Docket Number: 07-038. Applicant: Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles, 570 Westwood Plaza Building 114, MC 722710, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7227. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model FP 5600/XX Titan Krios cryo-EM. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used in a multi-user facility for a wide range of TEM research activities which will significantly enhance the inter-disciplinary research profile. It will advance state-of-the-art structural studies of a wide range of nano-devices, biological nanomachines and cellular assemblies. These activities have the potential for a profound impact on our understanding of several fundamental processes in biology, on determining the mechanisms of action of nanobiological machines, and on the development of novel nano-devices. It will also provide high-resolution data pushing the limit of cryoEM reconstruction to near atomic resolution for biological research. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 7, 2007. Docket Number: 07-039. Applicant: Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles, 570 Westwood Plaza Building 114, MC 722710, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7227. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model FP 5600/30 Titan 80-300 S/TEM. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used in a multi-user facility for a wide range of TEM research activities which will significantly enhance the inter-disciplinary research profile. It will advance state-of-the-art structural studies of a wide range of nano-devices, biological nanomachines and cellular assemblies. These activities have the potential for a profound impact on our understanding of fundamental processes in determining the structural properties of various materials. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 7, 2007. Docket Number: 07-033. Applicant: Stanford University, Varian Physics Bldg., Room 218, 382 Via Pueblo Mall, Stanford, CA 94305. Instrument: Amplified Ultrafast Laser System. Manufacturer: Thales Laser, France. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study the quantum mechanical properties of matter by performing coherent control experiments. Genetic algorithms will be used to control molecular dynamics in molecules as big as proteins and as small as carbon dioxide by optimizing either absorption in proteins or fragmentation of smaller molecules. The laser system will generate light of different colors in a non-collinear optical parametric amplifier. The laser system used must be very reliable, with a clean mode and capability of generating reproducible high powers on a daily basis with very little noise or operator intervention. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 18, 2007. Docket Number: 07-043. Applicant: Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai G2 Spirit TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for structural investigations of biological macromolecular assemblies in structures such as molecular motors, COPII coated vesicles, the HIV capsid assembly, the chloroplast ribosome, etc. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 18, 2007. Docket Number: 07-044. Applicant: Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Dunning Hall 102, Baltimore, MD 21218. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai G2 Spirit TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for basic biological and biomedical research pertaining to ultrastructural studies of cells and tissues; single particle analysis of proteins and macromolecules; and immunolocalization studies of proteins by means of electron dense probes. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 20,2007. Dated: June 29, 2007. Faye Robinson, Director Statutory Import Programs Staff Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13123 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-837] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-8362. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On February 28, 2007, Nucor Corporation (petitioner) requested that the Department of Commerce (the Department) conduct an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Korea with respect to Dongkuk Steel Mill Company Ltd. (DSM), TC Steel, and Daewoo Ship Engineering Company

(DSEC)for the period of January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. On March 28, 2007, the Department initiated the review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 14516 (March 28, 2007). On May 3, 2007, petitioner withdrew its request for a review of TC Steel pursuant to section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations. Scope of Order The products covered by this order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel:

(1)universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and

(2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy

(HSLA)steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which:

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

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

(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of this order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order:

(1)products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;

(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;

(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;

(4)abrasion-resistant steels ( *i.e.* , USS AR 400, USS AR 500);

(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;

(6)ball bearing steels;

(7)tool steels; and

(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable under the HTSUS under subheadings: 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, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive. Partial Rescission of Review If a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review, in whole or in part, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). In this case, petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review for TC Steel within 90 days from the date of initiation. No other interested party requested a review of TC Steel and we have received no comments regarding the petitioner's withdrawal of its request for a review. Therefore, consistent with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review of the countervailing duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Korea in part with respect to TC Steel. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)15 days after the publication of this notice. The Department will direct CBP to assess countervailing duties at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry for entries during the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and 19 CFR 251.213(d)(4). Dated: June 28, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13135 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Public Meeting and Public Comment AGENCY: National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting, notice of public comment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a public meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. The meeting will be held in Pago Pago, American Samoa. This meeting, the 18th bi-annual meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, provides a forum for coordinated planning and action among federal agencies, state and territorial governments, and nongovernmental partners. Please register in advance by visiting the Web site listed below. This meeting has time allotted for public comment and provides exhibit space. All public comment must be submitted in written format. A written summary of the meeting will be posted on the Web site within two months of its occurrence. DATES: The business meeting will be held from Wednesday, August 22-23, 2007. Associated activities will take place August 17-24, 2007. Advance public comments can be submitted to the e-mail, fax, or mailing address listed below from Monday, July 23, 2007-Friday, August 10, 2007. Location: The meeting will be held in Pago Pago, American Samoa at the Lee Auditorium. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Dieveney, U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Secretariat, Coral Reef Conservation Program, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (Phone: 301-713-3155 ext. 129, Fax: 301-713-4389, e-mail: *Beth.Dieveney@noaa.gov,* or visit the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Web site at *http://www.coralreef.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Established by Presidential Executive Order 13089 in 1998, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force mission is to lead, coordinate, and strengthen U.S. government actions to better preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. Co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and Interior, Task Force members include leaders of 12 federal agencies, seven U.S. states and territories, and three freely associated states. For more information about the meeting, registering, exhibiting, and submitting public comment go to *http://www.coralreef.gov.* Dated: June 13, 2007. David Kennedy, Manager, Coral Reef Conservation Program. [FR Doc. 07-3231 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

CFR