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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-07-24 · Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice of a finding of no significant impact

15,164 words·~69 min read·/register/2007/07/24/07-3623·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service North Fork Powell River Watershed, Lee County, Virginia AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of a finding of no significant impact. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an Environmental Impact Statement is not being prepared for the North Fork Powell River Watershed in Lee County, Virginia. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Culpeper Building, Suite 209, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Richmond, Virginia 23229-5014, telephone
(804)287-1691. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmental Assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact and determined that the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed for this project. The project purposes are to improve water quality, improve fish and wildlife habitat, and reduce damages caused by acid mine drainage and excessive erosion and sedimentation. The recommended plan includes the installation of passive acid mine drainage treatment measures and/or erosion and sediment control practices on 39 sites in the North Fork Powell River Watershed in Lee County, Virginia. The watershed protection will be accomplished by the installation of measures on private lands. The Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single-copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the Environmental Assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting John A. Bricker, State Conservationist. No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . Dated: July 12, 2007. John A. Bricker, State Conservationist. (This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.901, Watershed and Flood Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials). [FR Doc. E7-14210 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board T-2-2007 Foreign-Trade Zone 26 - Atlanta, GA, Application for Expansion of Temporary/Interim Manufacturing Authority, Perkins Shibaura Engines LLC (Diesel Engines), Griffin, GA, Notice of Approval On April 24, 2007, an application was filed by the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones
(FTZ)Board submitted by Georgia Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 26, requesting expanded authority (up to 50,000 diesel engines annually; expanded list of foreign-origin components) for temporary/interim manufacturing (T/IM) under FTZ procedures within FTZ 26 Site 6 at the Perkins Shibaura Engines LLC facility in Griffin, Georgia. The application has been processed in accordance with T/IM procedures, as authorized by FTZ Board Orders 1347 (69 FR 52857, 8-30-2004) and 1480 (71 FR 55422, 9-22-2006), including notice in the **Federal Register** inviting public comment (72 FR 21217-21218, 4-30-2007). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval under T/IM procedures. The additional foreign-origin components approved for this activity are: tubes/hoses/pipes of rubber (HTSUS 4009.11, 4009.31, 4009.32, 4009.41); transmission/V-belts (4010.31, 4010.32); flanges (7307.91); spring/lock washers (7318.21); cotter pins (7318.24); dowel pins and keys, pin springs (7318.29); cooling fans (8414.59); holders (8414.90); air filters (8421.31); gears, gearboxes, speed changers, torque converters, ball/roller screws (8483.40); generators (8511.50); ignition parts (8511.90); electrical switches (8536.50) and connectors (8544.42); and, process control instruments (9032.89). Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary in the above-referenced Board Orders, the application is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Dated: July 9, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-14323 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Docket 23-2007 Foreign-Trade Zone 185 - Culpeper County, Virginia, Application for Expansion An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Culpeper County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 185, requesting authority to expand its zone to include a site in Augusta County, Virginia, adjacent to the Front Royal Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on July 13, 2007. FTZ 185 was approved on May 22, 1992 (Board Order 578, 57 FR 23385, 6/3/92) and expanded on December 22, 1997 (Board Order 945, 63 FR 205, 1/5/98). The zone project currently consists of two sites in Culpeper County, Virginia: Site 1: (80 acres) at the Montanus Trade Center, located on Route 29 at Route 666; and, Site 2: (104 acres) located adjacent to the Culpeper County Airport, Route 29 North in the City of Elkwood. The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the general- purpose zone to include an additional site (65 acres) located at 1 Solutions Way, Waynesboro, Augusta County, Virginia. The site is owned by Solutions Way Management LLC and will be operated by REO Distribution Services. No specific manufacturing requests are being made at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 24, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 9, 2007. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: Culpeper County Chamber of Commerce, 109 South Commerce Street, Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 For further information contact Claudia Hausler at *Claudia_Hausler@ita.doc.gov* or (202)-482-1379. Dated: July 13, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-14322 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-549-817) Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or Stephen Bailey, 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)482-0193, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand, covering the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 2006). The preliminary results for this review are currently due no later than August 2, 2007. Statutory Time Limits 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 order for which a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. 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. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results The deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review is currently August 2, 2007. The Department determines that completion of the preliminary results within the statutory time period is not practicable. On May 30, 2007, the Department issued a section D questionnaire to respondent G Steel Public Company Limited (“G Steel”). On June 20, 2007, the Department issued G Steel a supplemental sales questionnaire requesting additional information regarding the business operations of certain affiliated companies. G Steel submitted its section D and supplemental sales questionnaire responses on June 27, 2007, and July 11, 2007, respectively. The Department requires additional time to review and analyze G Steel's questionnaire responses, to issue additional supplemental sales and cost questionnaires to G Steel and/or G Steel's affiliates, and to conduct verification of the questionnaire responses, if necessary. Therefore, given the additional time needed to conduct a complete analysis for this administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results to 365 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than November 30, 2007. The final results continue to be due no later than 120 days after publication of the notice of the preliminary results. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 16, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-14288 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-580-859, A-201-835, A-489-815, A-570-914) Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Republic of Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the People's Republic of China. AGENCY: AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell (Republic of Korea), John Drury (Mexico), Fred Baker (Turkey), or Jeffrey Pedersen (People's Republic of China), AD/CVD Operations, Office 7 and Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0408,
(202)482-0195,
(202)482-2924, or
(202)482-2769, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On June 27, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a petition on imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube
(LWR)from the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, Turkey, and the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper form by Allied Tube and Conduit, Atlas Tube, California Steel and Tube, EXLTUBE, Hannibal Industries, Leavitt Tube Company, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Southland Tube, Vest Inc., Welded Tube, and Western Tube and Conduit (the petitioners). *See Antidumping Duty Petition on Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Korea, Mexico, the People's Republic of China, and Turkey and Countervailing Duty Petition on Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China* (June 27, 2007) (petition). Bull Moose Tube Company later joined the petitioning firms. *See* petitioners' letter dated July 9, 2007, at 7. On June 29, 2007, and July 3, 2007, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petition. Petitioners filed their response to our request for information on July 6, 2007. On July 10, 2007, the Department issued another request for information and clarification of certain areas of the petition. We received petitioners' response to our request for information on July 12, 2007. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and 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, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds the petitioners filed this petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and the petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the investigations the petitioners are requesting the Department to initiate. ( *See* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” below.) Scope of Investigations The merchandise that is the subject of these investigations is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section (LWR), having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 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 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to these investigations is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Comments on the Scope of the Investigations During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. 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
(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 a 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), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. *See USEC, Inc. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing *Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States* , 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989)). 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 title.” 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 the 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 submitted on the record, we have determined that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, *see* “Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea” ( *Korea Initiation Checklist* ) at Attachment II (Industry Support), “Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico” ( *Mexico Initiation Checklist* ) at Attachment II (Industry Support), and “Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey” ( *Turkey Initiation Checklist* ) at Attachment II (Industry Support), “Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China” ( *PRC Initiation Checklist* ) at Attachment II (Industry Support), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In determining whether petitioners have standing ( *i.e.* , those domestic workers and producers supporting the petitions 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 petitions), we considered the industry support data contained in the petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in Attachment I (Scope of the Petitions) to the *Korea Initiation Checklist* , *Mexico Initiation Checklist* , *Turkey Initiation Checklist* , and *PRC Initiation Checklist* . To establish industry support, petitioners provided their production of the domestic like product for the year 2006, and compared that to production of the domestic like product for the industry. For further discussion *see* the *Korea Initiation Checklist* , *Mexico Initiation Checklist* , and *Turkey Initiation Checklist* , and *PRC Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Industry Support). Our review of the data provided in the petitions, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates petitioners have established industry support. First, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 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. Second, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petitions 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 petitions. Because the petitions 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* section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. *See Korea Initiation Checklist* , *Mexico Initiation Checklist* , *Turkey Initiation Checklist* , and the *PRC Initiation Checklist* , at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department finds petitioners filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigation they are requesting the Department initiate. *See Korea Initiation Checklist* , *Mexico Initiation Checklist* , *Turkey Initiation Checklist* , and *PRC Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Industry Support). 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 normal value (NV). Petitioners contend the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced production, reduced capacity, and reduced 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. In addition, petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 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* the *Korea Initiation Checklist* , *Mexico Initiation Checklist* , *Turkey Initiation Checklist* , and *PRC Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III (Injury). Periods of Investigation In accordance with section 19 C.F.R. 351.204(b) of the Department's regulations, because the petition was filed on June 27, 2007, the period of investigation
(POI)for Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, is April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007, and the POI for the PRC is October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. 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 has based its decision to initiate investigations with respect to Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the *Korea Initiation Checklist* , *Mexico Initiation Checklist* , the *Turkey Initiation Checklist* , and the *PRC Initiation Checklist* . Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin calculation, if appropriate. Korea Export Price Petitioners calculated EP using prices at which the subject merchandise was offered for sale in the United States, and also on the AUVs for import data for the POI obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau IM-145 data for Korea. Petitioners based one EP on the FAS (Free Alongside Ship) AUV of the appropriate HTSUS numbers under which LWR is imported into the United States and that fall within the scope of the investigations for the period of investigation. These HTSUS numbers contain imports of products which were most similar to the product on which the Petitioners based normal value
(NV)in the petition. HTSUS number 7306.60.50.00 was the appropriate number for all of 2006. In 2007, merchandise that previously entered under 7306.60.50.00 in 2006 was divided between two new HTSUS numbers. The appropriate HTSUS for LWR is 7306.61.50.00 in 2007. From both the price quotes and the AUVs petitioners deducted an amount for international freight from the EP for the margin calculation to reflect the proposed delivery terms of sale. International freight was calculated as the difference between the IM-45 FAS and the IM-45 CIF values derived from U.S. Census data. Petitioners also deducted a three percent dealer mark up from the price quotes to reflect the estimated expenses the U.S. trader/importer incurred in selling the merchandise. *See Korea Initiation Checklist* . Normal Value Petitioners stated they were unable to obtain reliable pricing data directly from home market producers or trading companies. Therefore, petitioners based home market prices on a January 2007 edition of the *Korean Metal Journal* . The publication listed the prices at which various metal products, including light-walled rectangular pipe and tube, are sold in Korea. The *Korean Metal Journal* listed a single wholesale price and various consumer prices based on location in South Korea. Petitioners used the lower “wholesale price” as a conservative measure. Petitioners converted prices from Korean won to U.S. dollars and from a per-meter to a per-hundred-weight
(cwt)basis because subject merchandise is typically sold on a per-cwt basis in the United States. Petitioners claim the prices in the *Korean Metal Journal* are an actual offering of the subject merchandise for sale in Korea. Petitioners made no deduction for freight in calculating NV, claiming the terms of sale for the wholesale prices were ex-factory. Mexico Export Price The petitioners calculated a single EP using the AUVs for import data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau for Mexico. The petitioners used the FAS AUV of the appropriate HTSUS numbers under which light-walled rectangular pipe and tube is imported into the United States and that fall within the scope of the investigations. These HTSUS numbers contain imports of products which were most similar to the product on which the petitioner based NV in Mexico. 7306.60.50.00 was the appropriate HTSUS number for subject merchandise during 2006. In 2007 the HTSUS number was changed, and now subject merchandise is imported under HTSUS 7306.61.50.00. These HTSUS numbers account for 100 percent of the volume of imports from Mexico. *See Mexico Initiation Checklist* . Petitioners made an adjustment to U.S. price for inland freight from the plant to the port of importation, specifically Laredo, Texas. Petitioners based the inland freight charge on a comparison market price quote for inland freight within Mexico, adjusted for differences in distance between Laredo and the quoted destination of the comparison market quote. *See Mexico Initiation Checklist* . Normal Value Petitioners stated that, since it does not sell light-walled rectangular pipe and tube in the Mexican market, it does not have specific knowledge of how the subject product is sold, marketed, or packaged in that domestic market. Petitioners were able to determine domestic Mexican prices for light-walled rectangular pipe and tube by obtaining a price quotation, through an economic consultant, from a Mexican manufacturer of the subject product. *See* memorandum “Light-walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube: Telephone Call to Market Research Firm “ dated July 16, 2007. The price quotation identified specific terms of sale and payment terms. Petitioner did not make any adjustments to the quoted prices, as the terms of delivery were FOB (“Free on Board”) at the manufacturing facility. *See Mexico Initiation Checklist* . Turkey Export Price Petitioners calculated EP based on a price quote from a U.S. seller of subject pipe and tube (U.S. dealer), and also on AUVs obtained from U.S. Census Bureau IM 145 import statistics. For the price quotes, petitioners deducted an amount for international freight. Petitioners also deducted a value of three percent of the U.S. price to cover inland freight from the U.S. port to the U. S. dealer, as well as the U.S. dealer's expenses and profit. *See Turkey Initiation Checklist* . Petitioners also calculated EP based on AUVs. Petitioners based one EP on the FAS AUV of the appropriate HTSUS numbers under which LWR is imported into the United States and that fall within the scope of the investigations for the period of investigation. These HTSUS numbers contain imports of products which were most similar to the product on which the Petitioners based NV in the petition. HTSUS number 7306.60.50.00 was the appropriate number for all of 2006. In 2007, merchandise that previously entered under 7306.60.50.00 in 2006 was divided between two new HTSUS numbers. The appropriate HTSUS for LWR is 7306.61.50.00 in 2007. Petitioners did not make an adjustment for international freight because they calculated the AUV prices on the FAS value of the merchandise. *See Turkey Initiation Checklist* . Normal Value Petitioners based NV on two price quotes from each of two Turkish producers of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube. Petitioners obtained these prices by engaging a consultant, who hired a research firm with an agent in Turkey. *See* memorandum “Light-walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube: Telephone Call to Market Research Firm,” dated July 16, 2007. Except where terms of sale were ex-works, petitioners made a deduction for a three-percent markup representing the distributor's freight, selling expenses, and profit. For one of the producers, petitioners also made a deduction for a discount the producer offered. *See Turkey Initiation Checklist* . People's Republic of China Export Price The dumping margins in the petition are based on 10 different EPs for LWR. Petitioners based one EP on the FAS AUV of the appropriate HTSUS numbers under which LWR is imported into the United States and that fall within the scope of the investigations for the period of investigation. These HTSUS numbers contain imports of products which were most similar to the product on which the Petitioners based NV in the petition. HTSUS number 7306.60.50.00 was the appropriate number for all of 2006. In 2007, merchandise that previously entered under 7306.60.50.00 in 2006 was divided between two new HTSUS numbers. The appropriate HTSUS for LWR is 7306.61.50.00 in 2007. Petitioners made no adjustments to the AUVs in calculating EPs (foreign inland freight charges were not deducted from the AUVs as the distances between the Chinese producers and the nearest ports are not known). *See PRC Initiation Checklist* . Petitioners calculated nine EPs using price quotes from distributors of subject pipe manufactured in the PRC. Petitioners calculated EPs from the price quotes by deducting foreign brokerage charges, international freight charges, and commission expenses from the prices. *See* Exhibit II-1 of the petition and the *PRC Initiation Checklist* . Each price quote was for a specific grade and quality of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube that is within the scope of this petition and that was to be delivered to the U.S. customer within the POI. Normal Value Petitioners stated that the PRC was a non-market economy
(NME)and no determination to the contrary has been made by the Department. In previous investigations, the Department has determined that the PRC is an NME. * See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China * , 70 FR 24502 (May 10, 2005), *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 9037 (Feb. 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 (Feb. 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 purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, because available information does not permit the NV of the merchandise to be determined under section 773(a) of the Act, 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 identified India as the surrogate country, arguing that India is an appropriate surrogate, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is a significant producer and exporter of subject pipe and tube. *See* Volume II of the petition at pages II-1 and II-2. Based on the information provided by petitioners, we believe their use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this investigation. After the initiation of the investigation, the Department will solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i) of the agency's regulations, interested parties will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Petitioners provided information to calculate NV as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C). *See* Volume II of the petition at Exhibits II-I and 6, as revised in Exhibit 2 of the July 12, 2007 supplement to the petition. Specifically, petitioners provided surrogate values and factors of production information on which they based NV. Petitioners based the amounts and types of inputs used to produce light-walled rectangular pipe and tube on their own production experience because they claimed that they are not aware of any generally available information regarding the factors of production used, and the factor consumption rates experienced, by PRC producers of subject pipe and tube. According to petitioners, the cost model provided in Exhibit II-6 of the petition, as revised in Exhibit 2 of the July 12, 2007, supplement to the petition, reflects the cost of producing LWR with the following dimensions: 1″x1″x.063″ and 2″x2″x.063.″ These are the sizes of LWR for which petitioners provided price quotes. Petitioners also claim that these are the sizes of commonly sold LWR models on which the ITC based its determination in a prior LWR antidumping investigation. Thus, petitioners claim that these sizes of LWR will result in representative dumping margins. *See* pages II-2 and II-3 of the petition and *PRC Initiation Checklist* . In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, petitioners valued factors of production, where possible, using reasonably available, public surrogate country data. Specifically, petitioners valued input materials by multiplying the quantity of the input used to produce a metric ton of LWR by a surrogate value. *See* Exhibit II-6 of the petition. Petitioners valued the hot-rolled steel coil input using prices published online by “Steel Rx Corporation.” However, petitioners' steel coil prices are available in only four Indian cities. The Department prefers to use broad market average prices in valuing factors of production. *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007). Thus, we recalculated the surrogate value for steel coils using data from the *Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India* , as compiled by *World Trade Data Atlas* (WTA). WTA data are readily available and represent broad market averages. We used WTA prices for coils of a thickness that would be used to produce the LWR for which petitioners provided U.S. prices. *See PRC Initiation Checklist* . Since the Indian WTA import values are expressed in a foreign currency, petitioners converted these values into U.S. dollars using the exchange rates on Import Administration's website, *ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/india.txt* , for the period during which the imports were made. *See* Exhibit II-6 of the petition. Petitioners valued labor using the Department's regression-based wage rate for the PRC ($0.83 per hour) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). *See* the PRC Initiation Checklist. Petitioners valued the various forms of energy used to produce LWR using the following surrogates:
(1)the Indian electricity rate as reported by the International Energy Agency for the year 2000, inflated to a POI value using the Wholesale Price Index
(WPI)published by the International Monetary Fund
(IMF)( *see* Volume II of the petition at page 9 and Exhibit II-9); and
(2)Indian natural gas prices charged to industrial users during a period overlapping the POI, as reported by CRISIL Research India. *See* Volume II of the petition at Exhibit II-10. We revalued natural gas using February 2005 Indian natural gas rates published by GAIL. These rates were recently used in the initiation of the antidumping duty investigation of circular pipe from the PRC. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 36663, 36666 (July 5, 2007). We inflated the natural gas price to a POI value using the WPI published by the IMF. Petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios ( *i.e.* , the overhead, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A), and profit ratios) using the 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Indian LWR producer Zenith Birla (India) Limited. *See* Volume II of the petition at page II-4 and Exhibit II-4. We revised petitioners' financial ratios by including in the denominator of the overhead and SG&A ratios certain financial statement line items that were omitted from those denominators. We also revised the denominator of the profit ratio. *See* PRC Initiation Checklist. Fair Value Comparisons Based on a comparison of EP to NV, we find that a dumping margin of 11.50 percent exists for Mexico, that dumping margins exist for Korea ranging from 11.74 percent to 30.66 percent; for Turkey ranging from 15.28 percent to 41.71 percent; and for the PRC ranging from 6.30 percent to 40.52 percent. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, there is reason to believe that imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico, Korea, Turkey, and the PRC, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Initiation of Antidumping Investigations Based upon the examination of the petition on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the PRC, and other information reasonably available to the Department, the Department finds that the petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Separate Rates and Quantity and Value Questionnaire The Department recently modified the process by which exporters and 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 ( *Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin* ), (April 5, 2005), 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-rate applications in the following antidumping duty investigations, we have modified the application for this investigation to make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete: *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) ( *Artist Canvas from the PRC* ) 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) ( *Sawblades from the PRC and Korea* ). The specific requirements for submitting the separate- rate 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** . The separate-rate application is due no later than September 21, 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. In addition, the Department typically requests the assistance of the NME government in transmitting the Department's quantity and value questionnaire to all companies that manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, as well as to manufacturers that produce the subject merchandise for companies that were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters are used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents. 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. The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. This procedure will be applied to this and all future NME investigations. *See Artist Canvas from the PRC* , 70 FR at 21999, *Sawblades from the PRC and Korea* , 70 FR at 35629, and *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 16757, 16760 (April 4, 2006). Appendix I of this notice contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters no later than August 7, 2007. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the IA website: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. The Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies identified in Exhibit I-10 of Volume I of the petition, 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: [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. *Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin* , at page 6. 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 representatives of the Governments of Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the PRC. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to the foreign producers/exporters named in the petition. 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 International Trade Commission The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than August 13, 2007, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the PRC, are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigations being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 17, 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 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 ( *e.g.* , free on board). Total Value: • All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars. Please indicate 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 person 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 person occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person 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: • 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. E7-14284 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-412-822) Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4929 or
(202)482-4007, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 2, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity To Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from the United Kingdom for the period March 1, 2006, through February 28, 2007. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 9505 (March 2, 2007). On March 22, 2007, Sandvik Limited trading as Sandvik Bioline requested an administrative review of its sales for this period. On March 29, 2007, Enpar Special Alloys Limited (Enpar) requested an administrative review of its sales for this period, and on March 30, 2007, Corus Engineering Steels (CES), a division of Corus UK Limited, requested an administrative of its sales for this period. On April 27, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from the United Kingdom with respect to these companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 20986 (April 27, 2007). Rescission of Review On June 4, 2005, Sandvik Bioline timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of its sales during the above-referenced period. One June 27 and July 6, 2007, Enpar and CES, respectively, also withdrew their requests for an administrative review of their sales during the above-referenced period. Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations stipulates that the Secretary will rescind an administrative review if the party that requests a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, Sandvik, Enpar and CES have withdrawn their requests for review within the 90-day period. As these three companies were the only parties to request the initiation of the review, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from the United Kingdom pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Accordingly, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries of the subject merchandise made during the period March 1, 2006, through February 28, 2007, at the rate in effect for each company upon the date of entry. This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 16, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-14287 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-570-915) Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damian Felton, Shane Subler or Brandon Farlander, 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)482-0189 and
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On June 27, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received a petition filed in proper form by Allied Tube & Conduit; Atlas Tube; Bull Moose Tube Company; California Steel and Tube; EXLTUBE; Hannibal Industries; Levitt Tube Company LLC, Maruichi American Corporation; Searing Industries; Southland Tube; Vest Inc.; Welded Tube; and Western Tube and Conduit (collectively, “petitioners”). The Department received timely information from petitioners supplementing the petition on July 6, July 9 and July 12, 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 light-walled rectangular (“LWR”) pipe and tube 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 merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section (LWR), having a wall thickness of less than 4mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 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 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Comments on Scope of Investigation During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. 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 July 16, 2007. *See* the Memoranda to The File, entitled, “Consultations with Officials from the Government of the People's Republic of China” (July 16, 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:
(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 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 a 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”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. *See USEC, Inc. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing *Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States* , 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 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 the 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 submitted on the record, we have determined that LWR pipe and tube constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, *see* Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China, ( *China Initiation Checklist* ) at Attachment II, (Analysis of Industry Support), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In determining whether petitioners have standing ( *i.e.* , those domestic workers and producers supporting 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), we considered the industry support data contained in the petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in Attachment I, (Scope of the Petition), to the *China Initiation Checklist* . To establish industry support, petitioners provided their production of the domestic like product for the year 2006, and compared that to production of the domestic like product for the industry. For further discussion see the *China Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (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 domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 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. Second, the domestic producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 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. Because the petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support ( *e.g.* , polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. 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* the *China Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (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 countervailing duty investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate. *See China Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Analysis of Industry Support). 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 LWR pipe and tube 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 LWR pipe and tube. 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 industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced production, reduced 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 China Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III (Injury). Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation 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 LWR pipe and tube 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 LWR pipe and tube in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, see *China 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” program 4. Income tax exemption program 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 Zhejiang province 14. Export interest subsidy funds for enterprises located in Zhejiang province 15. Loans pursuant to the Liaoning Province's five-year framework *Indirect Tax Programs and Import Tariff Program* 16. Export payments characterized as VAT rebates 17. VAT and tariff exemptions on imported equipment 18. VAT rebates on domestically produced equipment 19. Exemption from payment of staff and worker benefits for export-oriented enterprises *Grant Programs* 20. State Key Technology Renovation Program Fund 21. Grants to loss-making state owned enterprises *Provision Of Goods Or Services For Less Than Adequate Remuneration* 22. Hot-rolled steel 23. Electricity and natural gas 24. Water 25. Land *Government Restraints on Exports* 26. Zinc 27. Hot-rolled steel For further information explaining why the Department is investigating these programs, see *China 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 *China 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 Government of China's (“GOC”) 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 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. 3. Exemption of LWR pipe and tube from export taxes Petitioners allege that LWR pipe and tube 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 LWR pipe and tube producers have been relieved from paying export taxes that would otherwise have been due. Consequently, we do not plan to investigation the exemption of LWR pipe and tube producers from export taxes. 4. 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 World 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Program to rebate antidumping legal fees in Shenzhen province Petitioners allege that the GOC is reimbursing legal fees to local companies located in the Shenzhen province that are facing antidumping duty investigations abroad. However, petitioners did not demonstrate that producers of LWR pipe and tube are located in the Shenzhen Province or explain why such information is unavailable. Therefore, we do not recommend investigating the program to rebate antidumping legal fees in the Shenzhen province. 8. Export interest subsidy funds for enterprises located in Shenzhen province Petitioners allege that producers of LWR pipe and tube with specific export volumes are eligible for export interest subsidies for merchandise produced in the Shenzhen province. However, petitioners did not demonstrate that producers of LWR pipe and tube are located in the Shenzhen province, or explain why such information is unavailable. Therefore, we do not recommend investigating the program for export interest subsidy funds for enterprises located in Shenzhen province. 9. Funds for “outward expansion” of industries in Guangdong province Petitioners allege that eligible LWR pipe and tube producers in the Guangdong province may apply for special funding for the development of export activities. However, Petitioners did not demonstrate that producers of LWR pipe and tube are located in the Guangdong province or explain why such information is unavailable. Therefore, we do not recommend investigating the program of the funds for outward expansion of industries in Guangdong province. 10. Domestic VAT refunds for companies located in the Hainan economic development zone This program was found to be preliminarily countervailable in CFS Investigation. *See Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China; Amended Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 17484, 17496 (April 9, 2007) (“ *CFS Investigation* ”). However, petitioners did not demonstrate that producers of LWR pipe and tube are located in the Hainan economic development zone or explain why such information is unavailable. Therefore, we do not recommend investigating the program on domestic VAT refunds for companies located in the Hainan economic development zone. For further information explaining why the Department is not initiating an investigation of these programs, see *China Initiation Checklist* . Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to the PRC Petitioners argue that the Department recently concluded that CVD law may be applied to the present-day Chinese economy and, thus, the Department should continue to find that the countervailing duty law applies to the PRC in this investigation. *See* Petition, Volume III, at page 2 (citing *CFS Investigation* , 72 FR 17484, 17486; 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) (citing *Georgetown Steel Corp. v. United States* , 801 F.2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“ *Georgetown Steel* ”) (“ *Georgetown Steel Memorandum* ”)). The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (“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 for their allegations to meet the statutory criteria for initiating a countervailing duty investigation of LWR pipe and tube from the PRC, we continue to find that *Georgetown Steel* does not preclude us from initiating this investigation. For further information, see *China 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 LWR pipe and tube 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: July 17, 2007. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-14277 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will meet Tuesday, August 14, from 8:10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Wednesday, August 15, from 8:45 a.m. to 12 p.m. The Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology is composed of fifteen members appointed by the Director of NIST who are eminent in such fields as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations. The purpose of this meeting is to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for the Institute, its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda will include an update on NIST with an overview of its role in U.S. science and technology. Several laboratory tours also will be featured. The meeting will conclude with an extended discussion on the overall role NIST plays in the nation's innovation enterprise. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Web site at *http://www.nist.gov/director/vcat/agenda.htm.* DATES: The meeting will convene on August 14, 2007 at 8:10 a.m. and will adjourn on August 15, 2007 at 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Building 1, Room 1107, at NIST, Boulder, Colorado. All visitors to the NIST site will have to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Denise Herbert no later than Thursday, August 9, and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Ms. Herbert's e-mail address is *denise.herbert@nist.gov* and her phone number is
(301)975-2300. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Herbert, Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1000, telephone number
(301)975-2300. Dated: July 17, 2007. James M. Turner, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E7-14334 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB16 Marine Mammals; File No. 814-1899 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 69, Barrow, AK 99723 [Taqulik Hepa, Responsible Party; Dr. Cheryl Rosa, Principal Investigator] has been issued a scientific research permit to collect and acquire marine mammal specimens from the following species: bearded seal ( *Erignathus barbatus* ), ringed seal ( *Phoca hispida* ), spotted seal ( *Phoca larga* ), and ribbon seal ( *Phoca fasciata* ), bowhead whale ( *Balaena mysticetus* ), beluga whale ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ), minke whale ( *Balaenoptera acutorostrata* ), and grey whale ( *Eschrichtius robustus* ). ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: 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; and Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7221; fax (907)586-7249. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 27, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 20994) that a request for a scientific research permit to the marine mammal species identified above had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested 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 tissues collected/acquired by the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management under this permit would be utilized in a variety of health-related analyses, including (but not limited to): tissue histology, contaminants analyses (elemental analyses, PAH/organochlorine analyses etc.), infectious disease research (culture, PCR analyses), parasitology studies and stable isotope work. Additionally, tissues would be collected to augment the Alaskan Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP). No animals would be killed for the purpose of providing samples under this permit. Locations of collections would be from the Northwest Arctic Borough (St. Lawrence Island, Diomede, Wales and Kivalina) and the North Slope Borough, Alaska. This effort would provide critical baseline data and would be part of a long-term monitoring project being undertaken by the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management in response to public concerns about the safety and health of their subsistence species. This permit has been issued for a period of 5 years. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Issuance of this 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: July 18, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-14330 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB62 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) and its Administrative Committee will hold meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held on August 14-15, 2007. The Council will convene on Tuesday, August 14, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and the Administrative Committee will meet from 5:15 p.m. to 6 p.m., on that same day. The Council will reconvene on Wednesday, August 15, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., approximately. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Carambola Beach Resort, Estate Davis Bay, St. Croix, U.S.V.I 00850 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1920, telephone:
(787)766-5926. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will hold its 125th regular public meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda: August 14, 2007 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Call to Order Election of Officials Adoption of Agenda Consideration of 124th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcription Executive Director's Report White Paper on the Sale of Catch by Charter/Recreational Fishers in the US Caribbean - Graciela Garcia-Moliner Options Paper on Trap Vents - Graciela Garcia-Moliner Deep Water Coral Reef - MCBI Update Deep Water Coral Reef Survey - Jorge R. Garcia-Sais Caribbean Lobster Initiative 5:15 p.m. to 6 p.m. Administrative Committee Meeting -AP/SSC/HAP Membership -Budget 2007 -SOPPs Amendment -Other Business August 15, 2007 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. HMS Presentation on Proposed Measures for Sharks Marine Mammals Protection Act Proposed Rule for 2008 - Jennifer Lee Enforcement Reports -Puerto Rico -U.S. Virgin Islands -Federal and Local Jurisdiction on Mutton Snapper -NOAA -U.S. Coast Guard ACLs Meeting Report - Graciela Garcia-Moliner Administrative Committee Recommendations Meetings Attended by Council Members and Staff Other Business Next Council Meeting The meetings are open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues. 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 These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-2577, telephone:
(787)766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: July 19, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-14280 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE External Quality Metrics Surveys ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Patent and Trademark Office, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this new information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-00xx External Quality Metrics Surveys” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Fawcett. • *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of 0651-00xx External Quality Metrics Surveys c/o Joseph Rolla, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by facsimile at 571-273-9026, or by e-mail at *Joseph.Rolla@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract One of the goals of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Strategic Plan is to optimize quality. The Office holds continuously improving quality as one of its guiding principles in the Agency's Strategic Plan framework. As such, the Office plans to consider appropriate measures of patent quality, including the performance targets, with the goal of a balance between the desire for assured high quality results and resource limitations for the initial examination process. Achieving widely accepted quality measures and processes will require that all stakeholders engage in the effort. To promote greater consistency and credibility for the measurements of quality by the Office, the USPTO is proposing to engage the patent community to assist in the development of an objective set of review criteria and processes that could be applied across all selected components of the current USPTO examination process. The Office will be looking to determine what measures should be used to assess examination quality, how these measures should be reported and what meaningful quality targets should be the goals of an initial system of patent examination. This engagement will take place in the form of a survey, entitled the External Quality Metrics Survey. Through this survey the patent community will assist the USPTO in meeting its strategic goals, including efforts to optimize the patent process, in a clearly and concisely articulated and documented format. The External Quality Metrics Survey project will be designed to query from the patent community, including but not limited to: major stakeholders such as inventors, large and small; property owners, attorneys and agents (application preparers, prosecutors, licensing entities and litigators), patent examination personnel through their elected representatives, patent information searchers, corporate patent counsel, venture capitalists, academics, including the technology transfer departments and quality assurance specialists with interest in the Intellectual Property community. To obtain data, the Office proposes to develop a survey instrument with structured elements in four focus areas of quality metrics: what to measure, how to measure, how to report the measures, and how to set USPTO performance targets for these measures. Analysis of survey results will obtain both quantitative and qualitative responses. This is a voluntary survey. The collected data will not be linked to the respondent and contact information that is used for sampling purposes will be maintained in a separate file from the quantitative data. Respondents are not required to provide any identifying information such as their name, address, or Social Security Number. II. Method of Collection Electronically over the Internet or by mail. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-00xx. *Form Number(s):* N/A. *Type of Review:* New information collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; and state, local, or tribal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,000 responses per year. It is estimated that the USPTO will conduct an online survey of 4,000 respondents, with the intent to conduct a follow-up survey of the same nature in a five-year cycle. The USPTO estimates that 70% of the online surveys will be completed. *Estimated Time Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take approximately 60 minutes (1 hour) to complete the online survey. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, complete the request, and submit it to the USPTO. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 4,000 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $1,216,000. The USPTO believes that a variety of professionals and industry leaders will be responding to these surveys, and will use as the basis for cost burden that of the professional hourly rate of $304 for associate attorneys in private firms. Item Estimated time for response (minutes) Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours External Quality Metrics Survey 60 4,000 4,000 Total 4,000 4,000 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $0. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, operation, or recordkeeping costs, nor are there any filing fees associated with this information collection. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper planning of strategic initiatives, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: July 17, 2007. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E7-14271 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Amendment to the 2007 Tariff Preference Level
(TPL)for Nicaragua under the Central America-Dominican Republic-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) July 19, 2007. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Amending the 2007 TPL for Nicaragua. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 2007. SUMMARY: This notice reduces the 2007 TPL for Nicaragua to 97,584,339 square meters equivalent to account for the shortfall in meeting the one-to-one commitment for cotton and man-made fiber woven trousers exported from Nicaragua to the United States. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Stetson, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Annex 3.28 of the CAFTA-DR; Section 1634(a)(2) and (c)(2) of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-280); Presidential Proclamation 8111 of February 28, 2007. BACKGROUND: Annex 3.28 of the CAFTA-DR establishes a TPL for non-originating apparel goods of Nicaragua. Section 1634(a)(2) of the Pension Protection Act references the exchange of letters between the United States and Nicaragua, which establishes the one-to-one commitment for cotton and man-made fiber woven trousers. Section 1634(c)(2) of the Pension Protection Act authorizes the President to proclaim a reduction in the overall limit in the TPL if the President determines that Nicaragua has failed to comply with the one-to-one commitment. In Presidential Proclamation 8111, the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether Nicaragua had failed to comply with the one-to-one commitment and to reduce the overall limit in the TPL. In an exchange of letters dated March 24 and 27, 2006, Nicaragua agreed that for each square meter equivalent of exports of cotton and man-made fiber woven trousers entered under the TPL, Nicaragua would export to the United States an equal amount of cotton and man-made fiber woven trousers made of U.S. formed fabric of U.S. formed yarn. This commitment for cotton woven trousers applies to the first 20 million square meters equivalent in the first year after the date of entry into force of the CAFTA-DR. Further, any shortfall in meeting this commitment that was not rectified by April 1 of the succeeding year would be applied against the TPL for the succeeding year. For 2006, the shortfall in meeting the one-to-one commitment is 2,415,661 square meters equivalent. This amount is being deducted from the 2007 TPL, resulting in a new TPL level for 2007 of 97,584,339 square meters equivalent. Janet Heinzen, Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E7-14320 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, August 3, 2007. Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. Status: Closed. Matters To Be Considered: Surveillance Matters. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 07-3623 Filed 7-20-07; 11:14 am]
Connectionstraces to 12
11 references not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 1500
  • 7 CFR 650
  • 19 USC 81a-81u
  • 15 CFR 400
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1
  • 688 F. Supp. 639
  • 865 F.2d 240
  • 492 U.S. 919
  • 801 F.2d 1308
  • 50 CFR 216
  • Pub. L. 104-13
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of a finding of no significant impact
Fed. Reg.Notices
C.F.R.§ 351.204
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.202
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.502
C.F.R.§ 351.203
U.S.C.§ 1361
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1
F. Supp.688 F. Supp. 639
F. App'x865 F.2d 240
Cites 23 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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