Notices. Notice

14,129 words·~64 min read·/register/2007/08/09/07-3880

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-485-806] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania.

The period of review is November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (MS Galati), have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each argument

(1)A statement of the issue(s) and

(2)a brief summary of the argument(s). We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the publication of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* August 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dirstine at

(202)482-4033, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 29, 2001, the Department published an antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania. See *Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania,* 66 FR 59566 (November 29, 2001). On November 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania for the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. See *Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation,* 71 FR 64240 (November 1, 2006). On November 30, 2006, the Department received timely requests for an administrative review of this order on behalf of MS Galati, Nucor Corporation (a domestic interested party), and United States Steel Corporation (USSC), the petitioner in this proceeding. On December 27, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania for the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006 ( *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part,* 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 2006)). Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight length, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) at the following subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products are covered by this order, including vacuum degassed fully stabilized, high strength low alloy, and the substrate for motor lamination steel which may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this proceeding is dispositive. For a full description of the scope of the order, see *Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania,* 66 FR 59566 (November 29, 2001). Date of Sale Normally, the Department uses the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business, as the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). A date other than the date of invoice may be used, however, it we determine that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *Id.* In the 2003-2004 and the 2004-2005 reviews of this order, we examined customer-order acknowledgments and the corresponding invoices and compared the price, quantity, terms of delivery, and payment terms on the documents. We found that all material terms of sale which were established on the date of the customer-order acknowledgment issued by MS Galati's U.S. subsidiary, MS North America (MSNA), did not change in the corresponding invoices. Based on our analysis in those reviews, we determined that the date of MSNA's customer-order acknowledgment represented the appropriate date of sale for reporting U.S. sales. See *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part of Administrative Review,* 71 FR 30656 (May 30, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. In the current review, however, we find variations in the quantity shipped which exceed the commercial tolerances as stated in the terms and conditions on the customer-order acknowledgment and on the customer invoice. We examined all U.S. sales made during the period of review and found that there were a number of occurrences where the quantity on the invoice differed from the contracted quantity on the customer-order acknowledgment. Therefore, we determine that date of invoice represents the appropriate date of sale for reporting U.S. sales for this administrative review. Fair-Value Comparisons To determine whether MS Galati's sales of the subject merchandise from Romania to the United States were made at prices below normal value, we compared the constructed export price

(CEP)to the normal value as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (the Act), we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products within the “Scope of the Order” section above which were produced and sold by MS Galati in the home market during the period of review to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We relied on the following eleven characteristics, in order of significance, to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product:

(1)Painted;

(2)quality;

(3)carbon content;

(4)yield strength;

(5)thickness;

(6)width;

(7)form;

(8)temper rolled;

(9)pickled;

(10)edge trim; and

(11)patterns in relief. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions we identified in our questionnaire. See Appendix III and IV of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to MS Galati dated January 17, 2007. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and

(d)of the Act. For purposes of this administrative review, we have treated sales by MS Galati as CEP transactions because MS Galati's U.S. affiliate, MSNA, made the first sale to an unaffiliated party in the United States. Therefore, we based CEP on the packed, duty-paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States in accordance with sections 772(b), (c), and

(d)of the Act. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation expenses ( *i.e.* , U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, and surveying), and U.S. customs duty. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , imputed credit expenses) and indirect selling expenses. For these CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted the profit allocated to expenses pursuant to sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) of the Act in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets. Normal Value A. Home-Market Viability We compared the aggregate volume of all home-market sales of the foreign like product and the U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to determine whether the volume of the foreign like product sold in Romania was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis for normal value. Because the volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act we have based the determination of normal value on the home-market sales of the foreign like product. Thus, we used as normal value the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Romania, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade as the CEP sales, as appropriate. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. After testing home-market viability, we calculated normal value as discussed in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice. B. Cost-of-Production Analysis Because we disregarded below-cost sales by MS Galati in the home market in the previous administrative review, we conducted a sales-below-cost investigation of MS Galati’s home-market sales of the foreign like product in the current administrative review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average cost of production based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product plus amounts for home-market general and administrative (G&A) expenses, interest expenses, and packing expenses. We relied on the cost-of-production data MS Galati submitted in its March 27, 2007, questionnaire response. On a model-specific basis, we compared the cost of production to the home-market prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses. We disregarded below-cost sales where 20 percent or more of MS Galati's sales of a given product were made at prices below the cost of production and, thus, such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act and where, based on comparisons of the price to the weighted-average cost of production, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. C. Arm's-Length Test MS Galati reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated and unaffiliated customers. The Department did not require MS Galati to report downstream sales by its affiliated party because these sales represented less than five percent of its total home-market sales. See 19 CFR 351.405(d). We excluded sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made in the ordinary course of trade from our analysis pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. To determine whether sales to affiliated customers were made in the ordinary course of trade, we tested whether sales to each affiliated customer were made at arm's length. As such, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length, consistent with * Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, * 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). D. Price-to-Price Comparisons We based normal value on the home-market sales to unaffiliated purchasers and sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm's-length test. We adjusted gross unit price for reported freight revenue. We made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments for movement expenses ( *i.e.* , inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse and warehousing expenses) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for imputed credit, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the CEP transaction. See also 19 CFR 351.412. The normal-value level of trade is the level of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, the level of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and administrative expenses and profits. For CEP sales, the U.S. level of trade is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1). To determine whether home-market sales are at a different level of trade than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the home-market sales are at a different level of trade than CEP sales and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales on which normal value is based and home-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the normal-value level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels between normal value and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust normal value under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset). See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa,* 62 FR 61731-33 (November 19, 1997). In this review, MS Galati reported that it sold to unaffiliated distributors and end-users in Romania as well as to affiliated end-users for consumption and affiliated distributors. In the United States, MS Galati had sales to an affiliate, MSNA, that resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. MS Galati reported one level of trade in the home market with the following three channels of distribution:

(1)Direct sales to customers where the customer picks up the merchandise at MS Galati's location or MS Galati ships the goods to the destination requested by the customer;

(2)sales with delivery to the Danube River port of Galati, located a few kilometers from MS Galati's location, where certain customers load the goods on barges for delivery within Romania;

(3)sales through its affiliated warehouse. Home-market sales were made to two classes of customers, end-users and distributors. Along with MS Galati's home-market sales of merchandise stored at its affiliated warehouse, MS Galati also had sales to affiliated end-users for consumption. Based on our review of evidence on the record, we find that home-market sales through the three channels of distribution to both customer categories, whether affiliated or not, were substantially similar with respect to selling functions and stages of marketing. MS Galati performed the same selling functions at the same level for sales to all home-market customers. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that MS Galati had only one level of trade for its home-market sales. MS Galati reported one CEP level of trade with one channel of distribution in the United States which consists of its U.S. affiliate's direct sales to end-users and distributors of merchandise shipped directly from Romania. As such, we preliminarily determine that MS Galati made CEP sales to the United States through one channel of distribution—direct sales to end-users and distributors. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we reviewed the selling functions and services MS Galati reported it performed on CEP sales and we have determined that the selling functions it performed on all CEP sales were identical. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is one CEP level of trade in the U.S. market. We then compared the selling functions performed by MS Galati on its CEP sales (after deductions) to the selling functions it provided in the home market. We found that MS Galati performs more selling functions for its home-market sales than those it provides to its U.S. affiliate, MSNA. MS Galati reported that it provided minimal selling functions and services for the CEP level of trade and that, as a result, the home-market level of trade is more advanced than the CEP level of trade. Based on our analysis of the channels of distribution and MS Galati's selling functions for sales in the home market and CEP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily find that the home-market level of trade is at a more advanced stage of distribution when compared to CEP sales because MS Galati provides many selling functions in the home market at a higher level of service as compared to selling functions it performed for its CEP sales. We examined whether a level-of-trade adjustment or CEP offset may be appropriate. In this case, MS Galati sold at one level of trade in the home market. Therefore, there is no information available to determine a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which we base normal value and the home-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, in accordance with our normal methodology as described above. See 19 CFR 351.412(d). We do not have record information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on MS Galati's sales of other products, and there are no other respondents or other record information on which such as analysis could be based. Accordingly, because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a level-of-trade adjustment but the level of trade in the home market is at a more advanced state of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP transactions, we have made a CEP-offset adjustment to normal value in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the home-market indirect selling expenses from normal value for home-market sales that we compared to U.S. CEP sales. As such, we limited the deduction for home-market indirect selling expenses by the amount of the indirect selling expenses we deducted in calculating the CEP as required under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 based on the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for MS Galati during the period November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006, is 11.02 percent. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. If requested, a hearing will be held at the main Department building. We will notify parties of the exact date, time, and place for any such hearing. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be filed no later than 30 days after publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. The Department will publish a notice of final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days from the date of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate The Department will determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate. The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. We intend to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See *Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties,* 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment-Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by MS Galati for which MS Galati did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 17.84 percent all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See the Assessment-Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)For MS Galati, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original antidumping duty investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise;

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous administrative review or in the original less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash-deposit rate will be 17.84 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective on June 14, 2005. See *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 34448 (June 14, 2005). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15573 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-557-813] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 10, 2007, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Malaysia. The review covers exports of this merchandise to the United States by Euro Plastics Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. (Euro Plastics) for the period of review August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments and the revised cost information we received from Euro Plastics, we have made changes in the margin calculation for the final results of this review. The final weighted-average margin is listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun at

(202)482-5760 or Richard Rimlinger at

(202)482-4477, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 10, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of review and invited parties to comment. *See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 26600 (May 10, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). On June 11, 2007, Euro Plastics filed a case brief in which the company alleged two ministerial errors in the calculation. The petitioners 1 did not file a case or rebuttal brief. 1 The Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is PRCBs which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, *e.g.* , grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the order excludes

(1)polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and

(2)polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, *e.g.* , garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that are outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Sales Below Cost in the Home Market The Department conducted an investigation to determine whether Euro Plastics made home-market sales at prices below the cost of production. See *Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 26601. As a result of its investigation, the Department disregarded certain below-cost home-market sales for the preliminary results. As discussed below, Euro Plastics has submitted a more recent financial statement since we published the *Preliminary Results* . The Department has incorporated this financial statement into its below-cost analysis and continues to find that Euro Plastics made sales below cost during the period of review. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department has disregarded certain below-cost home-market sales for these final results. Changes Since the Preliminary Results For the preliminary results, we used Euro Plastics's cost data based on its audited 2005 financial statement because its audited 2006 financial statement was not available. Because the period of review covers five months in 2005 and seven months in 2006, we stated our intent to use Euro Plastics's cost data based on its audited 2006 financial statement once the audited 2006 financial statement became available. See *Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 26601-02. On June 4, 2007, Euro Plastics submitted its general and administrative expense rate and net interest expense rate based on its audited 2006 financial statement. See Euro Plastics's June 4, 2007, supplemental cost information, Exhibits 3 and 4. We used Euro Plastics's revised cost data to re-calculate its general and administrative expense and net interest expense. In its case brief, Euro Plastics identified two clerical errors. We agree with Euro Plastics that we made two inadvertent computer-code errors in the preliminary antidumping-duty margin calculation for Euro Plastics and have corrected them for the final results. For more details, see the Euro Plastics final analysis memorandum dated August 2, 2007. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that a margin of 0.00 percent exists for Euro Plastics for the period of review August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will issue importer-specific assessment instructions for entries of subject merchandise during the period of review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review. See also section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Euro Plastics for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash-Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PRCBs entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)the cash-deposit rate for Euro Plastics will be 0.00 percent;

(2)for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia* , 69 FR 34128, 34129 (June 18, 2004) ( *Final Determination* );

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

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 84.94 percent, the “all others” rate for this proceeding published in the *Final Determination* . *Id.* These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO as explained in the APO itself. See also 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15570 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the 2005-2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). This review covers three exporters. 1 The period of review (“POR”) is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. 1 This figure does not include those companies which did not respond to the Department's requests for information. *See* “Facts Available” section of this notice for further discussion. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” DATES: *Effective Date:* August 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or Terre Keaton Stefanova, 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)482-1766 or

(202)482-1280, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The review covers the following three exporters:

(1)China Processed Food Import & Export Company (“COFCO”) and its affiliates China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation, COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (“COFCO Zhangzhou”), Fujian Yu Xing Fruits & Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co. (“Yu Xing”), and Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (“Xiamen Jiahua”) (hereinafter collectively to referred to as “the COFCO entity”) 2 ;

(2)Guangxi Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd. (“Guangxi Eastwing”); and

(3)Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co., Ltd. (“Primera Harvest”). The POR is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. 2 In the *Preliminary Results* , we determined it appropriate to treat COFCO and its affiliates, China National, COFCO Zhangzhou, Xiamen Jiahua and Yu Xing, as one entity for margin calculation purposes because they met the regulatory criteria for collapsing. *See* October 31, 2006, Memorandum from the Team to The File, entitled “Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Whether to Continue to Collapse COFCO with Some or All of Its Affiliates.” No party objected to this preliminary determination. Therefore, we have continued to treat these affiliated companies as one entity in the final results. On November 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 64930 (November 6, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . On November 9, 2006, the COFCO entity requested that the Department extend the deadlines to submit new factual information, publicly available information (“PAI”), and case and rebuttal briefs, as well as the deadline for the final results. On November 17, 2006, we notified the COFCO entity and the other interested parties in this review that although we did not find it necessary at the time to extend the final results, we would extend the deadline to submit new factual information and PAI until January 26, 2007, and extend the deadlines for submitting case and rebuttal briefs until February 9 and 14, 2007, respectively. On January 22, 2007, the COFCO entity submitted a second request to further extend the deadline for submitting new factual information, PAI, and case and rebuttal briefs, and also requested that the Department fully extend the final results. On January 24, 2007, we notified the COFCO entity and the other interested parties in this review that the Department would provide new deadlines for submitting PAI, case and rebuttal briefs once the Department issued a **Federal Register** notice postponing the final results. On January 29, 2007, we partially extended the time limit for the final results in this review until August 3, 2007. *See Notice of Partial Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,* 72 FR 5268 (February 5, 2007). On January 31, 2007, the Department provided the COFCO entity and the other interested parties in this review revised deadlines for submitting PAI and case and rebuttal briefs. On February 5, 2007, the Department placed on the record a revised non-market-economy (“NME”) wage rate applicable to the PRC for consideration in the final results. 3 3 *See* Memorandum from Brian Smith, Team Leader, to The File, entitled “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Revised Non-Market-Economy Wage Rate Applicable to the PRC,” dated February 5, 2007. On March 19, 2007, the Department placed on the record an additional brokerage and handling surrogate value for consideration in the final results. 4 4 *See* Memorandum from Brian Smith, Team Leader, to The File, entitled “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Additional Brokerage and Handling Surrogate Value Placed on the Record,” dated March 19, 2007. On March 30, 2007, the COFCO entity submitted PAI for consideration in the final results. No other party submitted PAI. The COFCO entity filed its case brief on April 13, 2007. No other party (including the petitioner 5 ) filed case or rebuttal briefs in the review. No party requested a hearing. 5 The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade, which includes the following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mushroom Canning Company, and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc. On June 29, 2007, the Department placed on the record information obtained from the Web site of an Indian producer of the subject merchandise and provided an opportunity for the parties to comment on that information. 6 No comments were filed. 6 *See* Memorandum from Brian Smith, Team Leader, to The File, entitled “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Additional Data Placed on the Record for Comment,” dated June 29, 2007. We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species *Agaricus bisporus* and *Agaricus bitorquis.* “Certain Preserved Mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:

(1)All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms;

(2)all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”;

(3)dried mushrooms;

(4)frozen mushrooms; and

(5)“marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives. 7 7 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. *See* “Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling of Request by Tak Fat, *et al.* for Exclusion of Certain Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this decision was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. *See Tak Fat* v. *United States,* 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case brief submitted by the COFCO entity in this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 3, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that the COFCO entity has raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.* The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Facts Available In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. (“Gerber”) and Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Green Fresh”) were uncooperative because Gerber did not respond to supplemental requests for information relevant to its no-shipment claim, whereas Green Fresh failed to file its response to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire in accordance with the Department's regulations. As a result, the Department considered the information both companies provided either incomplete, unreliable, or improperly filed. Moreover, the Department found that Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc. (“Guangxi Hengxian”) and Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. (“Guangxi Yulin”) were uncooperative as well because Guangxi Hengxian did not respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire and Guangxi Yulin did not respond to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire. Because all four of these companies failed to provide responses to the Department's questionnaires, the Department could not determine whether they were eligible for a separate rate in this review and, therefore, treated them as part of the PRC-wide entity. In the *Preliminary Results,* the Department based the margin for the PRC-wide entity, including the four companies mentioned above, on total adverse facts available (“AFA”) because of the PRC-wide entity's failure to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability in providing responses to the Department's request for information. As AFA, the Department applied the prior PRC-wide entity rate of 198.63 percent. *See Preliminary Results,* 71 FR at 64933. A complete explanation of the selection, corroboration, and application of the AFA rate can be found in the *Preliminary Results.* *See Preliminary Results,* 71 FR at 64933. The Department did not receive comments with regard to its preliminary findings that Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, and Guangxi Yulin are part of the PRC-wide entity. Further, no information was submitted since the *Preliminary Results* that calls into question the reliability of the Department's selection, corroboration, and application of AFA in this review. Accordingly, for the final results, we continue to apply AFA to the PRC-wide entity, including Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, and Guangxi Yulin, consistent with our *Preliminary Results.* Changes From the Preliminary Results Based on the information submitted and our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations for the COFCO entity as follows.

(1)We used the COFCO entity's January 26, 2007, revised factors of production database in our margin calculations.

(2)To value fresh mushrooms, we used data contained in the 2005-2006 financial report of Agro Dutch Industries Limited (“Agro Dutch”). *See* Decision Memo at Comment 1 for further discussion.

(3)To value spawn, we used data contained in the 2004-2005 financial report of Agro Dutch. *See* Decision Memo at Comment 3 for further discussion.

(4)To value foreign brokerage and handling, we used Agro Dutch's publicly summarized data submitted in the 2004-2005 administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. *See* Decision Memo at Comment 4 for further discussion.

(5)We calculated average surrogate percentages for factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit using the 2005-2006 financial reports of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods Limited. *See* Decision Memo at Comment 5 for further discussion.

(6)We used the most recently calculated NME wage rate for the PRC of 0.83 U.S. dollars per hour in our normal value calculations in accordance with Department practice ( *see, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results and Rescission, in Part, of 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews,* 72 FR 19174 (April 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2).

(7)Consistent with our regression-based PRC wage rate calculation, we have treated the bonuses and gratuity line items noted in the surrogate producers' financial reports as part of direct labor and included these expense items in the calculation of the denominator 8 used to derive the factory overhead ratio. 8 The denominator includes costs for direct materials, labor, energy and material freight costs. *See* Memorandum from Brian Smith, Senior Case Analyst, to The File, entitled “7th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Final Results,” dated August 3, 2007, for further details. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) China Processed Food Import & Export Company (which includes its affiliates China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation, COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co., Ltd., Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd., and Fujian Yu Xing Fruit & Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co.) 9 19.02 Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co., Ltd 19.02 Guangxi Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd 10 19.02 PRC-Wide Rate (which includes Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin and Fujian Zishan Group Co., Ltd. (“Fujian Zishan”) 11 ) 198.63 Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c), we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , is not less than 0.50 percent *ad valorem* ). For entries made by the COFCO entity, the respondent was unable to provide the entered value. Therefore, we calculated the importer-specific-per-unit duty assessment rate by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and divided this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the per-unit duty assessment rate is *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated an importer-specific *ad valorem* ratio based on the estimated entered value. For Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest ( *i.e.* , respondents which are being assigned the margin calculated for the COFCO entity), we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on entries from these companies equal to the margin these companies received in the final results, regardless of the importer or customer. 9 For this review, we consider COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, Xiamen Jiahua, and Yu Xing to constitute a single entity. 10 The margin assigned to Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co., Ltd. (“Primera Harvest”) and Guangxi Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd. (“Guangxi Eastwing”), the two non-mandatory respondents in this review, which demonstrated their entitlement to a separate rate, is based on the weighted average of the calculated margins of the mandatory respondents which are not *de minimis* or based on AFA, in accordance with Department practice ( *i.e.* , the margin calculated for the COFCO entity which is the only mandatory respondent entitled to a separate rate in this case). *See Preliminary Results,* 71 FR at 64930-64931, 64937. 11 As discussed in the *Preliminary Results,* 72 FR at 64934, Fujian Zishan is neither subject to this review nor entitled to a separate rate, as it is no longer part of the COFCO entity. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above;

(2)for any previously reviewed or investigated PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this review, with a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the most recent segment of this proceeding;

(3)for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate established in the final results of this review; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: August 3, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—List of Issues Comment 1: Selection of Fresh Mushroom Value Comment 2: Selection of Glass Jar Value Comment 3: Selection of Spawn Value Comment 4: Selection of Brokerage and Handling Value Comment 5: Selection of Financial Statements Comment 6: Reclassification and Adjustments to Certain Financial Data Comment 7: Method of Adjusting U.S. Prices for Glass Jars/Caps Provided Free-of-Charge [FR Doc. E7-15575 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-844] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from South Korea: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on steel concrete reinforcing bars (“rebar”) from South Korea. Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) determined that revocation of this order would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(iii), the Department is revoking the AD order on rebar from South Korea. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Audrey Twyman, AD/CVD Operations Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0182,

(202)482-3534, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 7, 2001, the Department issued the AD order on rebar from South Korea. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine* , 66 FR 46777 (September 7, 2001). On August 1, 2006, the Department initiated, and the ITC instituted, a sunset review of the order on rebar from South Korea. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 43443 (August 1, 2006); and *Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine* , Investigations Nos. 731-TA-873-875, 877-880, and 882 (Review), 71 FR 43523 (August 1, 2006). As a result of the sunset review of this order, the Department found that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Moldova, the People's Republic of China, South Korea, Indonesia, Poland, and Belarus; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders* , 71 FR 70509 (December 5, 2006). The Department notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. On August 1, 2007, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the order would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine* , Investigations Nos. 731-TA-873-875, 877-880, and 882 (Review), 72 FR 42110, (August 1, 2007). Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds ( *i.e.* , non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Determination As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of the order is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, is revoking the order on rebar from South Korea. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is September 7, 2006 ( *i.e.* , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the order). The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after September 7, 2006, the effective date of revocation of the order. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of the order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. This five-year sunset review and notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15571 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-822-804, A-560-811, A-449-804, A-841-804, A-570-860, A-455-803, A-823-809] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty (“AD”) orders on steel concrete reinforcing bars (“rebar”) from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine. As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on steel concrete reinforcing bars (“rebar”) from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of these antidumping duty orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3534 and

(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 7, 2001, the Department issued the orders on rebar from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine* , 66 FR 46777 (September 7, 2001). On August 1, 2006, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on rebar from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 43443 (August 1, 2006); and *Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine* , Investigations Nos. 731-TA-873-875, 877-880, and 882 (Review), 71 FR 43523 (August 1, 2006). As a result of its reviews, the Department found that revocation of the AD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia; Final Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order* , 72 FR 16767 (April 5, 2007); *Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Ukraine; Final Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order* , 72 FR 9732 (March 5, 2007), and *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Moldova, the People's Republic of China, South Korea, Indonesia, Poland, and Belarus; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders* , 71 FR 70509 (December 5, 2006). On August 1, 2007, the ITC determined pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD orders on rebar from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine* , Investigations Nos. 731-TA-873-875, 877-880, and 882 (Review), 72 FR 42110 (August 1, 2007). Scope of the Orders The product covered by these orders is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds ( *i.e.* , non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD orders on rebar from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than July 2012. These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. This notice is published pursuant to 751(c) and 771(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: August 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15572 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Mission Statement; Secretarial Business Development Mission to Vietnam, November 2007 AGENCY: Department of Commerce, ITA. ACTION: Notice. Mission Description Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez will lead a senior-level U.S. business delegation to Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, from November 4-8, 2007, to promote U.S. exports to Vietnam's leading industry sectors. The mission will focus on assisting U.S. companies doing business with Vietnam increase their current level of exports as well as helping U.S. companies that are experienced exporters enter the Vietnamese market for the first time. The mission will help participating firms gain market information, make business and government contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, towards the goal of helping U.S. firms expand their exports to Vietnam. The mission will include business-to-business matchmaking appointments with local companies, as well as meetings with key government officials, and American and local chambers of commerce. The mission will additionally provide a platform for policy and commercial issues—including transparency, rule of law, trading/distribution rights and intellectual-property rights protection—that U.S. companies face in the Vietnamese market. The delegation will be comprised of U.S. firms representing a cross section of U.S. industries with commercial interests in Vietnam. Senior representatives of the U.S. Trade Development Agency (USTDA), the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation

(OPIC)will be invited to participate (as appropriate), to provide information and counseling on their programs as they relate to the Vietnamese market. Commercial Setting With a GDP of $61 billion and a young population of 84 million, Vietnam is one of the fastest growing economies in Asia (8.2% in 2006) and the newest member of the World Trade Organization

(WTO)(January 11, 2007). Since the signing of the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement in 2001, two-way trade has increased from about $1.5 billion

(2001)to $9.7 billion (2006). Total U.S. merchandise exports to Vietnam in 2006 were $1.1 billion. Year-to-date (through May 2007) U.S. exports have grown 65.1% over last year. Industrial production continues to grow at 14-15% per annum, as the country follows an increasingly sophisticated foreign investment- and export-led growth strategy in such industries as agriculture and aquaculture, furniture, textiles and now consumer electronics. Over the past five years, multilateral development banks have expanded loan portfolios to fund aggressive infrastructure (transportation, energy, telecommunications) growth and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. New WTO market-opening commitments will continue to be phased in through 2015, making it easier for U.S. companies to open businesses and sell and distribute products in most major sectors. The telecommunications, power production, and oil and gas equipment markets are well above $2.0 billion each and growing significantly each year. IT infrastructure, financial services, environmental products, aviation and airport equipment, security, mining, medical devices and franchising present further lucrative selling opportunities for U.S. exporters. Also, industrial inputs ranging from raw materials to sophisticated manufacturing technology are needed to fuel the Vietnam Government's export-led growth strategy. Rising incomes in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, which tend to be four times the national average, are opening visible new selling opportunities for consumer goods producers and service-sector providers. The Vietnam Government has successfully privatized a few small State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), and will continue to do so. However, in the major economic sectors, such as energy, banking, telecommunications, oil and gas, and shipping the Vietnam Government will “equitize” (offer shares of large state corporations to investors while maintaining a majority stake) SOEs over the next five to ten years. While challenges remain for U.S. companies doing business in Vietnam, evolving and improving regulatory and commercial law regimes are beginning to address business corruption, weak intellectual property rights enforcement and a lack of transparency and consistency. The mission is designed to assist U.S. companies to identify and capture these opportunities and address such challenges. *Mission Goals:* The Business Development Mission to Vietnam will assist U.S. businesses to initiate or expand their exports to Vietnam's leading industry sectors by making business-to-business introductions, providing market access information, and providing access to government decision makers. The Mission aims to: • Assist U.S. companies already doing business with Vietnam to increase their business there; • Assist U.S. companies that are experienced exporters to enter Vietnam for the first time; • Address obstacles to trade with Vietnam, including transparency, rule of law, trading/distribution rights and intellectual property rights protection; • Provide information on U.S. Government trade financing programs, through the inclusion of representatives from USTDA, Ex-Im, and OPIC (as appropriate). *Mission Scenario:* The Business Development Mission to Vietnam will include stops in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. In each city, participants will: • Meet with high-level government officials; • Meet with potential buyers, agents/distributors and partners; and • Attend briefings conducted by Embassy officials on the economic and commercial climates. Receptions and other business events will be organized to provide mission participants with further opportunities to speak with local business and government representatives, as well as U.S. business executives living and working in the region. Mission Timetable November 4, 2007, Sunday Mission Begins (Late Afternoon/Evening) Commercial Briefing by Government Officials Welcome Event. November 5, 2007, Monday Official Meetings Business Delegation Matchmaking AmCham Event Reception hosted by Ambassador. November 6, 2007, Tuesday Official Meetings Business Delegation Matchmaking Travel to Ho Chi Minh City Reception hosted by Consul General. November 7, 2007, Wednesday Official Meetings Business Delegation Matchmaking. November 8, 2007, Thursday Business Delegation Matchmaking Mission Concludes. *Criteria for Participation and Selection:* All parties interested in participating in the Vietnam Business Development Mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. Between 20 and 30 companies will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool. *Fees and Expenses:* After a company has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee will be $7,000.00 per firm, which includes one principal representative. The fee for each additional firm representative is $2,100.00. Expenses for travel, lodging, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant. *Selection Criteria:* An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's: Products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If we receive an incomplete application, we may either reject the application or take the lack of information into account when we evaluate the applications. • Each applicant must also: —Certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content; —Certify that the export of the products and services that it wishes to export through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations; —Certify that it has identified to the Department of Commerce for its evaluation any business pending before the Department of Commerce that may present the appearance of a conflict of interest; —Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce; and —Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates

(1)Have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and

(2)maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials. Selection will be based on the following criteria in decreasing order of importance. • Demonstrated export experience in Vietnam and/or globally; • Suitability of a company's products or services to the Vietnamese market and likelihood of a participating company's increasing exports to Vietnam within a year as a result of this mission; and • Rank/seniority of the designated company representative. Additional factors, such as diversity of company size, type, location, demographics, and traditional under-representation in business, may also be considered during the review process. Referrals from political organizations and any documents, including the application, containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process. *Timeframe for Recruitment and Applications:* Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the **Federal Register** , posting on the Commerce Department trade mission calendar ( *http://www.ita.doc.gov/doctm/tmcal.html* ) and other Internet Web sites, press releases to general and trade media, direct mail, broadcast fax, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows. The Office of Business Liaison and the International Trade Administration will explore and welcome outreach assistance from other interested organizations, including other U.S. Government agencies. Applications for the Mission will be made available July 30, 2007 through September 12, 2007. Applications can be completed on-line on the Vietnam Business Development Mission Web site at *http://www.export.gov/vietnammission* or can be obtained by contacting the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Business Liaison (202-482-1360 or *vietnammission@doc.gov* ). The application deadline is September 12, 2007. Completed applications should be submitted to the Office of Business Liaison. Applications received after September 12, 2007 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. *Contact Information:* Pat Kirwan, Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Tel:

(202)482-1360, E-mail: *vietnammission@doc.gov.* Pat Kirwan, Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee. [FR Doc. E7-15576 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB83 Marine Mammals; Pinniped Removal Authority AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the establishment of a Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force (Task Force) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA)in response to an application from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho requesting authorization to intentionally take, by lethal methods, individually identifiable California sea lions ( *Zalophus californianus* ) that prey on Pacific salmon and steelhead ( *Onchorhynchus* spp.) listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)in the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon. The Task Force will be convened at its first meeting, which is open to the public. DATES: The first public meeting of the Task Force is September 4-5, 2007, beginning at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The Task Force meeting will be held at the Double Tree Lloyd Center, Executive Meeting Center, 1000 NE Multnomah, Portland, Oregon 97232. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin,

(503)231-2005, or Tom Eagle,

(301)713-2322, ext. 105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access The states' application, associated **Federal Register** notices, and background information on pinniped predation on listed salmonids and on non-lethal efforts to address the predation are available via the Internet at the following address: *http://www.nwr.noaa.gov* . Background On December 5, 2006, NMFS received an application co-signed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW)and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game

(IDFG)requesting authorization to intentionally take, by lethal methods, individually identifiable California sea lions in the Columbia River, which are having a significant negative impact on the recovery of threatened and endangered Pacific salmon and steelhead. The application describes studies conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fisheries Field Unit that document pinniped predation in the Bonneville Dam tailrace, including dates, numbers of pinnipeds present, numbers of salmonids consumed, and the estimated proportion of all salmonids passing Bonneville that are taken by pinnipeds foraging in the tailrace of the dam. In accordance with section 120 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361, *et seq.* ) NMFS reviewed the states' application and determined that it provided sufficient evidence to warrant the establishment of a Task Force, whose purpose is to recommend whether NMFS should authorize the intentional lethal taking of California sea lions that prey on ESA-listed salmonids in the Columbia River. NMFS published a notice of receipt and acceptance of the states' application, along with an explanation of the section 120 process, in the **Federal Register** on January 30, 2007 (72 FR 4239) with a request for public comments. The public comment period closed on April 2, 2007. NMFS received 288 comments in response to the notice and 29 Task Force nominations. NMFS announces that, effective September 4, 2007, the Task Force will be established and will consist of 18 members including designated employees of the Department of Commerce, scientists who are knowledgeable about the pinniped-fishery interactions, representatives of affected conservation and fishing community organizations, Indian Treaty Tribes, the states, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which operates the dam. Under section 120, within 60 days, and after reviewing public comments in response to the **Federal Register** notice, the Task Force shall:

(1)Recommend to NMFS whether to approve or deny the proposed intentional lethal taking of pinnipeds, including along with the recommendation a description of the specific pinniped individuals, the proposed location, time and method of such taking, criteria for evaluating the success of the action and the duration of the intentional lethal taking authority; and

(2)Suggest non-lethal alternatives, if available and practicable, including a recommended course of action. In considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval of the states' application the Task Force is to consider:

(1)Population trends, feeding habits, the location of the pinniped interaction, how and when the interaction occurs, and how many individual pinnipeds are involved;

(2)Past efforts to deter such pinnipeds, and whether the applicant has demonstrated that no feasible and prudent alternatives exist and that the applicant has taken all reasonable non-lethal steps without success;

(3)The extent to which such pinnipeds are causing undue injury to, or imbalance with, other species in the ecosystem, including fish populations; and

(4)The extent to which such pinnipeds are exhibiting behavior that presents an ongoing threat to public safety. All Task Force meetings will be open to the public, but the public will not be allowed to discuss or debate issues with Task Force members at the meetings. NMFS intends to have a predesignated, limited amount of time at the Task Force's first meeting and, if practicable, at subsequent meetings, to allow the public to provide new or relevant information that may assist the Task Force in its deliberations. Subsequent meetings will be determined by the Task Force. Public notice of subsequent meetings of the Task Force will be announced through NOAA Press Releases and postings on the NMFS Northwest Region website (see Electronic Access). The public may contact the NOAA Public Affairs Office in Seattle at 206-526-6172 to obtain more detailed information on the Task Force meeting dates, times and locations. Within 60 days of its first meeting, the Task Force is to provide recommendations based on its review of the available information as listed in the statute and outlined above, comments received from the public and full discussion of alternatives for addressing the pinniped-fishery interaction below Bonneville Dam. The Task Force will be asked to develop recommendations that document the points of consensus reached by the group as well as reporting the alternate points of view when consensus is not reached. All recommendations submitted by the Task Force should fairly reflect the full range of opinion and diversity of the group. To enhance this process, NMFS has contracted with a professional facilitator to manage the Task Force, record meeting notes, and assist the group in assembling its recommendations. The Task Force should address those considerations outlined above in formulating its recommendations. In addition, NMFS will request that the Task Force answer the following questions when preparing its recommendation for approval or disapproval of the states' application to lethally remove pinnipeds. 1. What criteria does the Task Force recommend to assist NMFS in the interpretation of “significant negative impact” and the extent to which pinnipeds are causing undue injury or impact to, or imbalance with listed species? 2. If available and practicable, what non-lethal measures does the Task Force recommend be taken prior to implementing lethal removal? 3. If lethal removal is included in its recommendations, what criteria did the Task Force use to individually identify the specific animals to be removed and which animals meet those criteria at the time the Task Force completed its deliberations? 4. If lethal removal is included in its recommendations, does the Task Force recommend a limit to the number of sea lions that may be removed and if so what is the justification for that limit? 5. If lethal removal is included in its recommendations, what limitations (if any) would the Task Force recommend on timing, location, take methods or duration of the authorization? 6. For purposes of post-implementation evaluation, what criteria does the Task Force recommend for evaluating whether the implementation of the Task Force recommendations has been successful in addressing the pinniped-fishery interaction? 7. Regardless of the outcome of this process, what might be the most effective means to achieve a long-term resolution to the pinniped-fishery conflict? Once the Task Force has completed its deliberations and submitted its recommendations, NMFS will determine a course of action informed by the Task Force recommendations. The ultimate decision to approve or deny the states' application, and any terms or conditions applied to any approval, lies solely with NMFS. If the application for lethal removal authority is approved, the MMPA requires that the Task Force evaluate the effectiveness of the permitted intentional lethal taking or alternative actions implemented. Accordingly, the Task Force may need to meet again after actions to address the pinniped-fishery interaction have been implemented. If implementation is found to be ineffective in eliminating the problem interaction, NMFS will ask the Task Force to recommend additional actions. If the implementation is effective, the Task Force shall so advise NMFS and the Task Force will be disbanded. In accordance with the MMPA, upon receipt of the recommendations from the Task Force, NMFS will have 30 days to decide whether to approve or deny the states' application for lethal removal. Notice of NMFS' final decision will be published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: August 3, 2007. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-15516 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB84 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NMFS is not issuing, at this time, an exempted fishing permit

(EFP)requested by Blue Water Fishermen's Association to collect data on the performance of circle hooks with regard to target catch and bycatch rates, among other variables, associated with pelagic longline

(PLL)fishing activities inside the existing Charleston Bump and Florida East Coast PLL closed areas. NMFS is investigating additional means of obtaining this data. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell Dunn, 727-824-5399; fax: 727-824-5398; or Chris Rilling, 301-713-2347; fax: 301-713-1917. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EFPs are requested and issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ) and/or the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* ). Regulations at 50 CFR 600.745 and 50 CFR 635.32 govern scientific research activity, exempted fishing, and exempted educational activity with respect to Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. The Blue Water Fishermen's Association requested exemptions from certain regulations applicable to the harvest and landing of Atlantic HMS in order to collect data on the performance of mandatory circle hooks with regard to target catch and bycatch rates, hooking location, and mortality of fish at haul back. The proposal included data collection in the existing Charleston Bump and Florida East Coast pelagic longline closed areas. After considering public comment received, as requested in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 11327, March 13, 2007 );(72 FR 18208, April 11, 2007); (72 FR 25748, May, 7, 2007), the Agency has decided not to issue a permit as requested by the current application. Specifically, the proposal did not discuss anticipated effort levels or the spatio-temporal distribution of effort, did not identify “control” fishing locations, and did not justify the number of vessels proposed to participate in the fishery. Absence of this information limits the ability of the Agency to evaluate the potential effectiveness of the data collection program and to analyze its impacts. NMFS supports collecting such data under controlled circumstances and as part of a program with a scientifically rigorous study design. These data are critical to evaluating the efficacy of bycatch mitigation efforts, including required bycatch reduction gears and time/area closures in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. As such, NMFS is actively considering under what circumstances and how best to conduct scientific research that is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of current bycatch reduction measures. Dated: August 3, 2007. Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-15511 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, Scientific Advisory Board AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This Notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of the meeting on September 11-13, 2007 are to review new start and continuing research and development projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1M. This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board. DATES: September 11-12, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and September 13 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: SERDP Program Office Conference Center, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 804, Arlington, VA 22203. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharee Malcolm, SERDP Program Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by telephone at

(703)696-2119. Dated: August 3, 2007. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 07-3880 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

CFR