Rules and Regulations. Notice of intent to prepare a joint environmental impact statement/report

16,151 words·~73 min read·/register/2007/09/07/07-4418

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

BILLING CODE 4120-01-P 72 173 Friday, September 7, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Angeles National Forest, CA, Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a joint environmental impact statement/report. SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service, together with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)and Environmental Impact Report

(EIR)in response to applications received from Southern California Edison for construction of a series of transmission system improvements to deliver electricity from new wind energy projects in eastern Kern County. The proposed project would be located in Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties. The purpose of the project is to provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate levels of new wind generation in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area, and accommodate solar and geothermal projects currently being planned or expected in the future. It would also improve the reliability of the transmission grid in the Antelope Valley and address existing constraints in the transmission system south of the Lugo Substation in Hesperia, California. The Forest Service is the lead Federal agency for the preparation of this EIS/EIR in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)and all other applicable federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and direction. The CPUC is the lead State of California agency for the preparation of the EIS/EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resource Code Division 13, and all other applicable state laws and regulations. Both agencies have determined an EIS/EIR is needed to effectively analyze the proposal and evaluate impacts. The proposed project involves several types of transmission upgrades, including:

(1)Constructing new 500-kV transmission lines;

(2)constructing o new single-circuit 220-kV transmission lines;

(3)rebuilding existing 220-kV lines to 500-V standards;

(4)rebuilding existing single-circuit transmission lines to double-circuit transmission lines;

(5)relocating several existing 66-kV subtransmission lines;

(6)constructing a new 500-kV substation; and

(7)upgrading five existing substations. Approximately 46 miles of the project would be located in a 200- to 400-foot right-of-way on National Forest System land (managed by the Angeles National Forest) and approximately 3 miles would require expanded right-of-way within the Angeles National Forest. The USDA Forest Service and the CPUC invite written comments on the scope of this proposed project. In addition, the agencies give notice of this analysis so that interested and affected individuals are aware of how they may participate and contribute to the final decision. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by October 1, 2007. Nine public scoping meetings are planned to provide information about the proposed project and to allow people to comment on the proposed project. The draft EIS/EIR is expected to be published in July 2008 and the final EIS/EIR is expected in December 2008. ADDRESSES: To request a copy of the draft or final EIS/EIR and/or to send written comments, please write to the Angeles National Forest and/or California Public Utilities Commission, c/o Aspen Environmental Group, 30423 Canwood Street, Suite 215, Agoura Hills, CA 91301. E-mail communications are also welcome; however, please include your name and a return address in the e-mail message. E-mail messages should be sent to *TRTP@aspeneg.com.* Information about this application and the environmental review process will be posted on the Internet at: *Ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/gopher-data/environ/tehachapi_renewables/TRTP.htm* . This site will be used to post all public documents during the environmental review process and to announce upcoming public meetings. See SUPPLMENTARY INFORMATION for dates and addresses of future public meetings. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information related to the project on National Forest System land, contact George Farra, Project Manager, Forest Service, Angeles National Forest, 701 N. Santa Anita Ave., Arcadia, CA 91006, phone:

(626)574-5301. For additional information related to the project on non-National Forest System land, contact John Boccio, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102; phone:

(415)703-2641. Project information can also be requested by leaving a voice message or sending a fax to the Project Information Hotline at

(888)331-9897. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Action Southern California Edison would construct, use, and maintain a series of new and upgraded high-voltage electric transmission lines and substations to deliver electricity generated from new wind energy projects in eastern Kern County, California. The proposed transmission system upgrades are seperated into eight distinct segments. The proposed projects's major components include the following, by segment: • Segment 4: Construct a new ~16-mile single-circuit 500-kV transmission line from the new Whirlwind Substation to the existing Antelope Substation. The existing right-of-way would be expanded by 200 feet and construct two new parallel ~4-mile single-circuit 220-kV transmission lines from the proposed Cottonwind Substation (not part of this project) to the new Whirlwind Substation. The transmission line would be initially energized at 220 kV with the intent of energizing the system to 500 kV in the future as more wind projects are developed. • Segment 5: Replace two single-circuit 220-kV transmission lines (Antelope-Vincent and Antelope-Mesa) with a new ~18-mile single-circuit 500-kV transmission line in existing ROW between Antelope Substation and Vincent Substation. • Segment 6: Replace 27 miles of the Antelope-Mesa 220-kV transmission line and 5 miles of the Rio Hondo-Vincent No. 2 with a single-circuit 500-kV transmission line between Vincent Substation and the southern Angeles National Forest boundary. • Segment 7: Replace ~16 miles of the Antelope-Mesa 220-kV transmission line with a single-circuit 500-kV transmission line from the southern boundary of the Angeles National Forest to the Mesa Substation. • Segment 8: Replace ~33 miles of 220-kV transmission line from the San Gabriel Junction (2 miles east of Mesa Substation) to the existing Mira Loma Substation. Relocate 66-kV subtransmission lines in the Mesa and Chino Areas within existing or public right-of-way. Additionally, ~45 existing double-circuit 66-kV subtransmission lines in the Mesa and Chino Areas would be removed/relocated within existing or public right-of-way or undergrounded. • Segment 9: Construct new 500/220-kV Whirlwind Substation adjacent to Path 26 and upgrade the Antelope Substation to include new 500-kV facilities. Expand and upgrade 500-kV facilities at Vincent Substation. Install reactive compensation equipment at Vincent Substation and Antelope Substation. Upgrade the Gould Substation, Mesa Substation, and Mira Loma Substation within the existing fence line. • Segment 10: Construct a new ~17-mile single-circuit 500-kV transmission line in a new 330-foot-wide corridor from the approved WindHub Substation to the new Whirlwind Substation. • Segment 11: Replace ~19 miles of single-circuit 220-kV transmission line with a single-circuit 500-kV transmission line from Vincent Substation to Gould Substation. Install ~18 miles of 220-kV circuit on the vacant side of existing double-circuit 220-kV lattice steel towers (now carrying the Eagle Rock-Mesa 220-kV transmission line) between Gould Substation and Mesa Substation. Construction activities associated with the proposed action would include upgrading 5 existing substations, construction of 1 new substation, installation of approximately 851 new towers, repairing existing access and spur roads along with the temporary use and construction of spur roads, and the temporary use of approximately 141 new pulling locations and 103 new splicing locations. Only segments 6 and 11 are located on National Forest System lands. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose for this action is to provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate levels of new wind generation in excess of 700 MW and up to approximately 4,500 MW in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area, and accommodate solar and geothermal projects currently being planned or expected in the future. The project will also address the reliability needs of the CAISO-controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley and the South of Lugo transmission constraints. Background Southern California Edison has proposed the construction of a 220/500-kV transmission system that would include a series of new and upgraded high-voltage electric transmission lines and substations to deliver electricity from new wind energy projects in eastern Kern County, California. The project would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate levels of new wind generation in excess of 700 MW and up to approximately 4,500 MW in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area. Under Sections 210 and 212 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824

(i)and (k)) and Sections 3.2 and 5.7 of the California Independent System Operator's Tariff, Southern California Edison is obligated to interconnect and integrate this wind energy project into its system. In addition, the 2001 National Energy Policy goals are to increase domestic energy supplies, modernize and improve our nation's energy infrastructure, and improve the reliability of the delivery of energy from its sources to points of use. Executive Order 13212 encourages increased production and transmission of energy in a safe and environmentally sound manner. According to Executive Order 13212, for energy-related projects, agencies shall expedite their review of permits or take other actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of such projects. The agencies shall take such actions to the extent permitted by law and regulations, and where appropriate. Based on the 2005 Angeles National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the proposed routes are within designated utility corridors. Possible Alternatives Presently, the USDA Forest Service and the CPUC have identified preliminary action alternatives for consideration in the environmental analysis. The alternatives currently under consideration (besides the proposed action) are: • The No-Action Alternative, under which the proposed transmission line would not be constructed and no expansion activities would occur. • The Non-National Forest System Land Alternative that would avoid proposed activities on National Forest System lands. This alternative would be developed during the environmental review process. • Alternate routing between Windhub and Whirlwind Substations (Segment 10). Additional alternatives will be developed, as needed, during the environmental review process. The final alternatives analyzed in detail will depend on the issues raised during public scoping and further investigation of the feasibility of alternatives. Lead and Cooperating Agencies The USDA Forest Service and the CPUC will be joint lead agencies in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b), and are responsible for the preparation of the EIS/EIR. The Forest Service will serve as the lead agency under NEPA. The CPUC will serve as the lead agency under CEQA in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 4, § 15050. Responsible Official The Forest Service responsible official for the preparation of the EIS/EIR is Jody Noiron, Forest Supervisor, Angeles National Forest, 701 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006. Nature of Decision To Be Made The Forest Supervisor for the Angeles National Forest will decide whether to authorize a 50-year term Special Use Permit for construction, use, and maintenance of 500-kV transmission lines and a new 220-kV circuit. The authorization will include ancillary improvements on National Forest System lands needed to maintain this system (e.g., towers, roads, communication equipment, helicopter landing sites). The Forest Supervisor will only make a decision regarding impacts on National Forest System lands. Scoping Process Public participation will be especially important at several stages during the analysis. The lead agencies will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, local agencies, and other individuals and organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed project. This input will be used in preparation of the draft EIS/EIR. Nine scoping meetings are proposed to provide information about the proposed project to the public and to allow people to comment on the proposed project. The scoping meetings will be held on the following dates, times, and locations: 1. September 6, 2007, 6:30 p.m.; La Serna High School, Cafeteria, 15301 Youngwood Drive, Whittier, CA 90605; 562-698-8121. 2. September 10, 2007, 2:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.; Palmdale Cultural Center, 38350 Sierra Highway, Palmdale, CA 93550; 661-267-5656. 3. September 11, 6:30 p.m.; Kern County Library—Wanda Kirk Branch, 3611 Rosamond Blvd., Rosamond, CA 93561; 661-256-3236. 4. September 12, 6:30 p.m.; Duarte Community Center, 1600 Huntington Drive, Duarte, CA 91010; 626-303-8429. 5. September 13, 2007, 6:30 p.m.; Garvey Community Center, 9108 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770; 323-720-5213. 6. September 19, 2007, 6:30 p.m.; Altadena Community Center, 730 E. Altadena Drive, Altadena, CA 91001;

(626)398-6174. 7. September 20, 2007, 2:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.; Chino Hills Council Chambers, 2001 Grand Avenue, Chino Hills, CA 91709; 909-930-8495. Preliminary Issues A number of potential impacts were identified in the *Proponent's Environmental Assessment Tehachapi Renewable Transmission* *Project* issued by Southern California Edison on June 29, 2007. The following preliminary issues were identified in this report related to the proposed project's potential effects on the environment: Visual resources; agriculture; air quality; biological, cultural, and geological resources; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; mineral resources; noise; population and housing; public services and utilities; recreation; traffic and transportation; and paleontological resources. Other issues identified are impacts to future forest management projects (e.g., fuel hazard reduction projects and fire fighting strategies). Permits or Licenses Required A 50-year term special use permit for the construction, maintenance, and use of the transmission line would be authorized to Southern California Edison by the Forest Supervisor for the Angeles National Forest for Segments 6 and 11, and a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity would be issued by the California Public Utilities Commission as part of this decision. Additional permits that may be required of Southern California Edison to construct the proposed project could include: A Permit to Operate issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit issued by California's Regional Water Quality Control Board, a Section 404 Permit (per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement ( per Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code) issued by the California Department of Fish and Game. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process that guides the development of the EIS/EIR. The Forest Service is seeking public and agency comment on the proposed project to identify major issues to be analyzed in depth and assistance in identifying potential alternatives to be evaluated. Comments received on this notice, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered as part of the public record on this proposed project, and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality. Where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted, without names and addresses, within a specified number of days. *Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review:* A draft EIS/EIR will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft EIS/EIR will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, that it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC,* 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel,* 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris,* 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it is meaningful to consider and respond to comments in the final EIS/EIR. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed project, comments on the draft EIS/EIR should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS/EIR or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) Dated: August 23, 2007. Jody Noiron, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E7-17168 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 43-2007] Foreign-Trade Zone 235—Lakewood, NJ; Application for Expansion An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones

(FTZ)Board (the Board) by the Township of Lakewood, New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 235, requesting authority to expand its existing zone to include additional sites in or adjacent to the Philadelphia Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on August 24, 2007. FTZ 235 was approved on November 25, 1998 (Board Order 1008, 63 FR 67854, 12/9/98). The zone project currently consists of the following two sites (2,248 acres total) in the Township of Lakewood: *Site 1* (1,996 acres total, 3 contiguous parcels): *Parcel A* (1,540 acres)—Lakewood Airport located on State Highway Route 70; *Parcel B* (47 acres)—Pine Street South Industrial District located on Pine Street; and, *Parcel C* (409 acres)—Lakewood Industrial Campus West located on Cedar Bridge Avenue; and, *Site 2* (252 acres)—Prospect Street Industrial Park located at Prospect and James Streets. The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the zone to include two additional sites in the area: *Proposed Site 3* (351 acres, 2 parcels)—within the Cranbury Business Park, located at 61 & 66 Station Road (Parcel 1—209 acres) and at Half Acre Road and Santa Fe Way (Parcel 2—142 acres) in Cranbury; and, *Proposed Site 4* (50 acres)—ProLogis Park-South Brunswick, 380 Deans Rhode Hall Road, Jamesburg. The sites will provide warehousing and distribution services to area businesses. No specific manufacturing authority is being requested at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 6, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 21, 2007. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: Township of Lakewood, Municipal Building, 231 Third Street, Lakewood, NJ 08701; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. For further information, contact Camille Evans at *Camille_Evans@ita.doc.gov* or

(202)482-2350. Dated: August 27, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-17710 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 44-2007] Foreign-Trade Zone 7—Mayagüez, PR, Application for Subzone, Lilly del Caribe, Inc. (Pharmaceutical Manufacturing) An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO), grantee of FTZ 7, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the pharmaceutical manufacturing and warehousing facilities of Lilly del Caribe, Inc. (Lilly) located in Carolina, Mayagüez and Guayama, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). The application was filed on August 27, 2007. The Lilly facilities consist of 3 sites on 375 acres in Puerto Rico. Proposed *Site 1* (181 acres, buildings totaling 1,303,852 sq. ft, of which 433,860 sq. ft. is devoted to manufacturing) is located at 65th Infantry Road, Km 12.6, in Carolina, Puerto Rico. Proposed *Site 2* (146 acres, buildings totaling 250,499 sq. ft., of which 106, 745 sq. ft. is devoted to manufacturing) is located at State Road 53, Km. 82, Jobos exit, in Guayama, Puerto Rico. Proposed *Site 3* (48 acres, buildings totaling 103,816 sq. ft.) is located at No. 3080 Ave Hostos (Carr #2), in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. The facilities in Carolina and Guayama are used by Lilly for manufacturing operations involving active pharmaceutical ingredients, while the facility in Mayagüez is used for warehousing, storage and other manufacturing support activities. The application indicates that Lilly employs approximately 1,490 employees at the sites. Lilly has requested authority to manufacture two pharmaceutical products, Humalog (HTSUS 2937.12) and Duloxetine (HTSUS 2934.99) for the U.S. market and export. Duty rates on the finished products range from duty-free to 6.5 percent, *ad valorem* . Foreign components that would be used in the manufacturing process (up to 25 percent of total content) include prepared binders for foundry molds or cores (HTSUS 3824.90) and halogenated derivatives of aromatic hydrocarbons (HTSUS 2903.69), with duty rates of 5.0 and 5.5 percent, respectively. The application also requests authority to include a broad range of inputs and finished pharmaceutical products that Lilly may produce under FTZ procedures in the future. New major activity involving these inputs/products would require review by the FTZ Board. Zone procedures could exempt Lilly from customs duty payments on the foreign components used in export production. On domestic sales, Lilly could defer duty until the products are entered for consumption, and choose the lower duty that applies to the finished product for the foreign components used in production. The company would also realize certain logistical savings related to zone-to-zone transfers and direct delivery procedures, as well as savings on materials that become scrap/waste during manufacturing. The application indicates that FTZ-related savings would help improve Lilly's international competitiveness. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 6, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to November 21, 2007). A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, Centro Internacional de Mercadeo, Tower II, Suite 702, Road 165, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, 00968-8058. Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at *christopher_kemp@ita.doc.gov* or

(202)482-0862. Dated: August 27, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-17712 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-274-804] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago: Amended Notice of Court Decision Not In Harmony with Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 8, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed the final remand results made by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the CIT's remand of the final results of antidumping duty administrative review of the antidumping order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Trinidad & Tobago. *See Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States* , Slip Op. 07-120, (Ct. Int'l Trade) (August 8, 2007). This case arises out of the Department's final results in the administrative review covering the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago* , 70 FR 69512 (November 16, 2005) (“ *Final Results* ”). The judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department's *Final Results* . As a result of an inadvertent error, the version of this notice released on Wednesday, August 15, 2007, contained a typographical error to the recalculated margin for these final remand results. This amended notice corrects this error. Because this error was discovered prior to publication in the **Federal Register** , this amendment is being published in place of the original version released on August 15, 2007. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5973 or

(202)482-3692, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In *Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States* , Slip Op. 07-60, (Ct. Int'l Trade) (April 24, 2007), the CIT remanded the underlying *Final Results* to the Department to re-examine its decision regarding its calculation of credit expenses and inventory costs used to calculate constructed export price, given the treatment of the date of invoice as the date of sale in this review. On May 21, 2007, the Department released a draft of the final remand results to interested parties and requested that they submit comments by May 29, 2007. On May 25, 2007, respondent submitted comments. Petitioners did not submit comments. On June 15, 2007, the Department issued to the CIT its final remand results. In the final remand results the Department made a change to the credit expenses used in the constructed export price calculation. The Department also changed the inventory costs used in its constructed export calculation to reflect the date of invoice as the date of sale. Thus, the Department recalculated the antidumping duty rates applicable to applicable to Mittal Steel Point Lisas, Ltd. On August 8, 2007, the CIT sustained the Department's final remand results. The recalculated margin for these final remand results is 4.08 percent. In its decision in *Timken Co., v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Timken* ”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's decision in this case on August 8, 2007, constitutes a decision of the court that is not in harmony with the Department's *Final Results* . This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of *Timken* . Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to revise the cash deposit rate covering the subject merchandise. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 30, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17701 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-840] Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1131 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 2, 2006, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 period of review (POR). *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 57920 (October 2, 2006). On October 31, 2006, Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) requested an administrative review of its entries that were subject to the antidumping duty order for this period. On that same date, the Department also received requests from petitioners for a review of Ivaco, Inc. and Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P., and from Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., for a review of those companies. On November 27, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review, covering Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P., Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.), and Sivaco Ontario Processing (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006). 1 1 Note that the Department recently concluded a changed circumstance review, in which it determined that, as of the publication of that final changed circumstance review, “(1) Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. is the successor-in-interest to Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P.; and

(2)Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., is the successor-in-interest to Ivaco Inc. for antidumping duty cash deposit purposes.” * See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada * , 72 FR 15102, 15103 (March 30, 2007). Partial Rescission of Review On February 20, 2007, Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) withdrew its request for an administrative review of its entries during the above-referenced period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Because Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) withdrew its request for review within the 90-day period and no other party requested a review of its entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with respect to Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)15 days after the publication of this notice. The Department will direct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry for entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) during the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: August 31, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17705 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-868] Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Quigley at

(202)482-4551, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUMMARY: On May 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate, and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, as well as a lack of response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. As a result of the sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the Final Results of Review section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On May 1, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 23799 (May 1, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). On May 16, 2007, the Department received a notice of intent to participate from domestic interested parties, Meco Corporation (“Meco”) and KI, within the deadline specified in section 315.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Meco and KI claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as domestic producers of folding metal tables and chairs in the United States. On May 31, 2007, the Department received a substantive response from domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. We did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department determined to conduct an expedited review of the order. Scope of the Order: The products covered by this order consist of assembled and unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below: 1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal tables are the following: a. Lawn furniture; b. Trays commonly referred to as “TV trays”; c. Side tables; d. Child-sized tables; e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36” high and matching stools; and, f. Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28” to 36” wide by 48” to 96” long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. 2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal chairs are the following: a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both; b. Lawn furniture; c. Stools; d. Chairs with arms; and e. Child-sized chairs. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0015, 9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 1 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive. 1 Originally the scope included 9403.20.0010, but effective July 1, 2003, 9403.20.0010 (metal household furniture) was eliminated from the HTS code. 9403.20.0011 (ironing boards) and 9403.20.0015 (other) were added in its place. 9403.20.0015 contains merchandise in 9403.20.0010 except for ironing boards. On January 13, 2003, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that “Poly-Fold” chairs consisting of steel frames (20-gauge steel) with polypropylene seats and backs, zinc-plated rivets coated with an epoxy polyester powder coating, three drainage holes in the seat, specially designed back leg cross bar, four oversized leg stoppers with drainage holes, and a frame with hybrid coating are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. 2 2 *See* the Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group III, From Richard Weible, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Enforcement “Final Scope Ruling on Whether RPA International Pty. Ltd.'s Poly-Fold Chairs Are Excluded from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China,” January 13, 2003. On May 5, 2003, the Department issued a scope ruling with respect to the “Complete Office-To-Go” set, which consists of a single chair and a table with a monitor stand and legs that fold as a set. The Department ruled that the chair component is within the scope of the antidumping duty order because the chair component is identical to the chairs described in the order, but the Department ruled that table component is outside the scope of the antidumping duty order because it has legs that fold in sets. 3 3 *See* the Memorandum to Barbara Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group III, From Richard Weible, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Enforcement “Final Scope Ruling on Whether Staples, The Office Superstore Incorporated's ‘Complete Office-To-Go’ is Excluded from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China,” May 5, 2003. On September 7, 2004, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that folding tables with tops made of blow-molded plastic and frames made of steel are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. 4 4 *See* the Memorandum to Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Through Edward C. Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator, China/NME Group, From Kristina Boughton, International Trade Compliance Analyst, China/NME Group, Office 9, “Final Scope Ruling on Whether Lifetime Tables 4600 and 4606 Are Excluded from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China,” September 7, 2004. On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that folding metal chairs, with wooden seats that have been padded with foam and covered with fabric or polyvinyl chloride and attached to a tubular steel seat frame with screws, are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. 5 5 *See* the Memorandum to Barbara Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group III, From Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8 “Final Scope Ruling of the Antidumping Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China (A-570-868); Korhani of America, Inc.,” July 13, 2005. Also on July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that “butterfly” chairs are outside the scope of the antidumping duty order. Butterfly chairs are described as consisting of a collapsible metal rod frame and a cover, such that when the chair frame is spread open, the pockets of the cover are slipped over the upper ends of the frame and the cover provides both the seating surface and back of the chair. The frame consists of eight s-shaped pieces (with the ends offset at almost a 90-degree angle) made from metal rod that are connected by hinges. In order to collapse the frame, the chair cover must be removed. The frame is collapsed by moving the four legs inward until they meet in the center, similar to the folding mechanism of a pocket umbrella. 6 6 *See* the Memorandum to Barbara Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, From Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8 “Final Scope Ruling of the Antidumping Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China (A-570-868); Spencer Gifts, LLC,” July 13, 2005. On May 1, 2006, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that “moon chairs” are outside the scope of the antidumping duty order. Moon chairs are described as containing circular, fabric-padded, concave cushions that envelope the user at approximately a 105-degree reclining angle. The fabric cushion is ringed and supported by two curved 16-mm steel tubes. The cushion is attached to this ring by nylon fabric. The cushion is supported by a 16-mm steel tube four-sided rectangular cross-brace mechanism that constitutes the moon chair's legs. This mechanism supports and attaches to the encircling tubing and enables the moon chair to be folded. To fold the chair, the user pulls on a fabric handle in the center of the seat cushion of the chair. 7 7 *See* the Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8 “Final Scope Ruling of the Antidumping Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China (A-570-868); Mac Industries (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Jiaxing Yinmao International Trading Company, Ltd and Fujian Zenithen Consumer Products Company Ltd.,” May 1, 2005. Analysis of Comments Received: All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 29, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked. 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 room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review: Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted-Average Margin (percent) Dongguan Shichang 13.72 Feili 13.72 New-Tec 13.72 PRC-wide 70.71 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 29, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17702 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-891] Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary E. Sadler, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4340. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department of Commerce (“Department”) published an antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (“hand trucks”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on December 2, 2004. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004). On February 2, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC for the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007). The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than September 2, 2007. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), requires the Department to issue preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the 245-day time period to a maximum of 365 days. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable because the Department requires additional time to analyze information pertaining to the respondents' sales practices, factors of production, and to issue and review responses to supplemental questionnaires. Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time specified under the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 90 days until December 1, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Because December 1, 2007, falls on a Saturday, the preliminary results will be due by December 3, 2007, the next business day. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). Dated: August 31, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17700 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-401-806] Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a timely request by the petitioners, 1 the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod (“SSWR”) from Sweden with respect to Fagersta Stainless AB (“FSAB”). The period of review (“POR”) is September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. 1 The petitioners include the following companies: Carpenter Technology Corporation and Charter Speciality Steel. We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (“NV”). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B-099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1766 or

(202)482-3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 15, 1998, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on SSWR from Sweden. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden* , 63 FR 49329 (“ *SSWR Order* ”). On September 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Sweden covering the period September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 52061 (September 1, 2006). On September 28, 2006, the petitioners submitted a letter timely requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of the sales of SSWR made by FSAB, pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On October 2, 2006, FSAB also requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales. 2 Based on the petitioners' and FSAB's requests for an administrative review of FSAB's sales, on October 19, 2006, we issued an antidumping duty questionnaire 3 to FSAB in advance of our initiation of the administrative review. The Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to FSAB on October 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Reviews* , 71 FR 63752 (October 31, 2006). 2 FSAB later withdrew its request for an administrative review on January 29, 2007. 3 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this Section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. FSAB submitted its response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire on November 27, 2006, Sections B, D, and E of the questionnaire on December 22, 2006, and Section C of the questionnaire on January 5, 2007. We issued to FSAB a Sections A through C supplemental questionnaire on January 26, 2006. FSAB submitted a timely response to this supplemental questionnaire on March 9, 2007. On March 22, 2007, we issued a decision memorandum which outlined the Department's basis for collapsing FSAB with its affiliates, AB Sandvik Materials Technology (“SMT”) and Kanthal AB (“Kanthal”), and treating them as a single entity in this review. *See* March 22, 2007, Memorandum from the Team to The File, entitled, “Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Whether to Collapse FSAB, SMT, and Kanthal.” We issued to FSAB a Sections D and E supplemental questionnaire on March 27, 2007. FSAB submitted timely responses to this supplemental questionnaire on May 1 and 8, 2007, respectively. On April 24, 2007, we issued to FSAB a second Sections A and C supplemental questionnaire to which it submitted a timely response on May 15, 2007. On May 21, 2007, we partially extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until August 31, 2007. *See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2005-2006 Administrative Review* , 72 FR 29485 (May 29, 2007). On July 10, 2007, we issued to FSAB a second Section E supplemental questionnaire to which it submitted a timely response on July 17, 2007. In response to the Department's request, FSAB submitted on August 22, 2007, cost of production (“COP”) information for three products sold in the United States during the POR which it inadvertently did not include in its May 8, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response ( *see also* August 22, 2007, Memorandum to The File, entitled, “Telephone Conversation with Consultant for Fagersta Stainless AB (“Fagersta”)”). On August 24, 2007, we issued FSAB a supplemental questionnaire based on our analysis of its August 22, 2007, submission. For purposes of the preliminary results, we have relied on the data provided by FSAB in the August 22, 2007, submission. However, we will examine the information submitted by FSAB in response to the August 24, 2007, questionnaire for the final results of this review. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, SSWR comprises products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter. Certain stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the order. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The following proprietary grades of Kanthal AB are also excluded: Kanthal A-1, Kanthal AF, Kanthal A, Kanthal D, Kanthal DT, Alkrothal 14, Alkrothal 720, and Nikrothal 40. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as follows: SF20T Carbon 0.05 max Chromium 19.00/21.00 Manganese 2.00 max Molybdenum 1.50/2.50 Phosphorous 0.05 max Lead added (0.10/0.30) Sulfur 0.15 max Tellurium added (0.03 min) Silicon 1.00 max K-M35FL Carbon 0.015 max Nickel 0.30 max Silicon 0.70/1.00 Chromium 12.50/14.00 Manganese 0.40 max Lead 0.10/0.30 Phosphorous 0.04 max Aluminum 0.20/0.35 Sulfur 0.03 max Kanthal A-1 Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 5.30 min, 6.30 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.40 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal AF Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.80 min, 5.80 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.40 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal A Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.80 min, 5.80 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal D Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.30 min, 5.30 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal DT Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.60 min, 5.60 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Alkrothal 14 Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 3.80 min, 4.80 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 14.00 min, 16.00 max Alkrothal 720 Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 3.50 min, 4.50 max Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance Manganese 0.70 max Chromium 12.00 min, 14.00 max Nikrothal 40 Carbon 0.10 max Nickel 34.00 min, 37.00 max Silicon 1.60 min, 2.50 max Iron balance Manganese 1.00 max Chromium 18.00 min, 21.00 max The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 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. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of SSWR by FSAB to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared constructed export price (“CEP”) to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEP of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by FSAB covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2)(ii), we compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by FSAB in the following hierarchical order: grade, diameter, further processing, and coating. Electro-Slag Remelting In its December 22, 2006, response to Section B of the questionnaire (“Section B response”), FSAB requested, as it did in the prior administrative review, that the Department include an additional characteristic, electro-slag remelting (“ESR”), 4 in the above-noted product-matching criteria and also consider it as one of the most significant physical characteristics in the product matching hierarchy. Specifically, FSAB claims that

(1)the physical differences associated with remelting are significant, as the ESR process reduces the number of inclusions in the steel enabling the steel to withstand stress better and to have a higher fatigue resistance;

(2)the model-matching criteria used in the stainless steel bar (“SSB”) proceedings, which include remelting, are relevant to the model-matching criteria in this review because SSB is an immediate downstream product of SSWR; and

(3)significant price and costs differences exist between ESR-treated and non-ESR-treated SSWR and, therefore, the exclusion of ESR from the model-matching criteria has a dramatic effect on the dumping margin. In support of its request to include ESR in the SSWR product-comparison criteria, FSAB provided the same technical information in its questionnaire responses 5 in this administrative review as it had provided in the prior administrative review. Like in the prior review, we preliminarily find an insufficient basis in this review upon which to include ESR as a model-matching criterion for the reasons explained in detail below. 4 ESR is one form of remelting. Another form of remelting is vacuum arc remelting (“VAR”). 5 *See* Exhibit 1 of the Section B Response. In accordance with the Department's practice, when identical merchandise is not available in the home market for comparison to merchandise sold to the United States, the Department will compare “similar” merchandise based upon the physical characteristics of the merchandise being compared. *See* section 771(16)(B) of the Act. The statute also instructs the Department to compare merchandise that is produced in the same country and by the same person as the subject merchandise; like that subject merchandise in component material or materials and in the purposes for which used; and approximately equal in commercial value to the subject merchandise. *See* section 771(16)(B) of the Act. Section 771(16)(C) of the Act instructs that, where no matches can be found under section 771(16)(B) of the Act, three criteria must be met to consider a product similar to the U.S. model:

(1)the comparison-market model must be produced in the same country and by the same person and of the same general class or kind as the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation;

(2)the comparison-market model must be like that merchandise in the purposes for which used; and

(3)the comparison-market model must be found to be reasonably comparable to the U.S. model by the Department. When the Department has an established model-matching methodology in a proceeding, it may alter its established methodology if there is a reasonable basis for doing so. *See NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States* , 295 F. 3d. 1263, 1269 (CIT 2002). With respect to changes to its model-matching methodology, the Department has applied a “compelling reasons” standard, which is fully consistent, if not more rigorous, than the principles applied by the courts in reviewing the Department's determination to alter or change its practice. *See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Compelling reasons that warrant a change to the model-matching methodology may include, for example, greater accuracy in comparing foreign like product to the single most similar U.S. model, in accordance with section 771(16)(B) of the Act, or a greater number of reasonable price-to-price comparisons in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. As in the prior review, we preliminarily find no compelling reason in this review to change the current model-matching criteria as requested by FSAB. In this review, FSAB used ESR to produce one AISI-equivalent SSWR grade 6 that it sold to one customer in the home market during the POR. Although FSAB reported sales to the United States and home market of the same SSWR grade, FSAB did not perform ESR on that same SSWR grade sold in the U.S. market. Although FSAB did report more than one sale of this SSWR grade to a single home market customer during the POR, the fact remains that the single ESR-treated AISI-equivalent SSWR grade is insignificant when compared to the large number of non-ESR-treated AISI-equivalent SSWR grades FSAB sold in both the home and U.S. markets during the POR. Moreover, FSAB's use of ESR (and remelting in general) on products subject to this review is limited to home market sales of one AISI-equivalent SSWR grade, which are insignificant in terms of the total quantity of the AISI-equivalent SSWR grades FSAB sold to the U.S. and home markets during the POR. 6 The Department's antidumping duty questionnaire instructed FSAB to assign codes to its SSWR grades sold during the POR based on the specifications established for AISI-recognized grades. *See* antidumping duty questionnaire at page B-6 and C-5. Moreover, we do not find that there is greater accuracy with respect to comparing the foreign like product to the most similar U.S. model if we include ESR as a model-matching criterion. Specifically, the Department's current product-matching criteria use all of FSAB's home market sales of the ESR-treated and non-ESR-treated grade at issue ( *i.e.* , FSAB's internal grade 20) when comparing those sales of that grade to the identical grade sold in the U.S. market. In accordance with the instructions contained in the Department's questionnaire, FSAB's reported costs for each SSWR grade include both non-ESR and ESR-related production costs. FSAB's proposal to treat ESR as a separate model-matching criterion would effectively remove the home market sales of ESR-treated SSWR from the margin calculation analysis. Specifically, adding ESR to the model-matching criteria would result in separate control numbers for the ESR-treated and non-ESR-treated merchandise at issue, as well as separate production costs and prices for the merchandise. Consequently, by excluding the ESR-treated SSWR home market sales from our analysis, the home market price and production costs of the SSWR grade at issue are artificially lowered when compared to sales of the same grade in the U.S. market. Therefore, including ESR as a model-matching criterion will not result in greater accuracy with respect to product comparisons involving the SSWR grade at issue. In addition, given the fact that the use of ESR is limited to the production of one AISI-equivalent grade in this review, inclusion of ESR as a model-matching characteristic will not result in greater accuracy with respect to comparing the remaining foreign like product ( *i.e.* , all other SSWR grades sold in the home market during the POR) to the single most similar U.S. model, in accordance with section 771(16)(B) of the Act. Furthermore, we find no basis to include remelting in the model-matching criteria because its use in the production of SSWR is limited. We note that other stainless steel products such as stainless steel plate and stainless steel sheet and strip in coils, like SSWR, do undergo, to a limited extent, some form of remelting. 7 However, the model-matching criteria applicable to those other stainless steel products do not include remelting. 8 In contrast, the model-matching criteria for SSB include remelting forms such as ESR because remelting is an integral part of the production of a wide range of SSB and is used extensively by that industry. 9 *See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 17834 (April 10, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (“ *2004-2005 SSWR Final Results* ”). In addition, we note that even though SSWR is used to produce SSB, we find that to the extent that SSWR is used to produce SSB, its use in the production of SSB is limited to the smaller diameters of SSB. 10 As such, we find no basis to conclude that SSB requires the use of remelted SSWR or that remelted SSWR is used primarily to produce SSB; and thus we find no merit to FSAB's claim that the model-matching criteria used in the SSB proceedings, which include remelting, are relevant to the model-matching criteria applicable to SSWR. 7 *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden* , 63 FR 67658 (December 8, 1998), which notes that the Department issued a July 11, 1995, scope ruling with respect to a stainless steel plate product named Stavax ESR; *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 45521, 45523 (August 9, 2006) (“ *SSSS from Taiwan* ”); *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 45024, 45025 (August 8, 2006) (“ *SSSS from Germany* ”); *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 35618, 35619 (June 21, 2006) (“ *SSSS from Mexico* ”). 8 *See* , *e.g.* , *SSSS from Taiwan* , 71 FR at 45527; *SSSS from Germany* , 71 FR at 45027; *SSSS from Mexico* , 71 FR at 35620. 9 Moreover, when the Department sought comment on its proposed model-matching criteria in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) segment of the SSB proceedings, the vast majority of interested parties, not just the petitioners, participating in the SSB proceedings all agreed that remelting was a significant characteristic in SSB production and therefore should be included in the model-matching criteria. *See* August 31, 2007, Memorandum to The File entitled, “Public Documentation Placed on the Record” (which includes discussion of remelting in the SSB proceedings). 10 *See also 2004-2005 SSWR Final Results* at Comment 1. Furthermore, we find that the use of other production processes or steps (i.e., not just remelting) to make SSWR can have an impact on costs and can also affect the quality (both internally and externally) of the final SSWR product, including the level of inclusions, and therefore, the resulting quality of the final SSWR product is not necessarily unique to the remelting process. Moreover, we find that these additional production steps appear to be dependent on a particular customer's request, as in the case of FSAB's use of ESR to produce one SSWR grade sold in the home market during the POR. Therefore, we find that such use appears to be limited and, therefore, is the exception rather than the norm when producing SSWR. In prior reviews, the Department has stated that changing the model-matching criteria may be warranted if an interested party can show that a specific standard exists that is not captured in the model-matching criteria but which is industry-wide, commercially accepted and recognizes material physical characteristics of various types for the particular product at issue. 11 In this review, it is clear based on the limited application of ESR, in particular, and remelting, in general, to SSWR that FSAB has not met this test. 11 *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 13458 (March 21, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; *Notice of Final Results of Twelfth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea* , 72 FR 13086 (March 12, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. As pointed out earlier, ESR is but one form of remelting. As such, even though FSAB may have only started using the ESR process to produce the one grade at issue after the Department completed the LTFV segment of this proceeding, we find that other forms of remelting, such as VAR, have been used to produce SSWR before the initiation of the LFTV segment of this proceeding. 12 In fact, both ESR and VAR are similar in terms of their intended purposes and uses. For example, ESR and VAR are both used to make a cleaner steel ( *i.e.* , a steel with fewer, smaller, and more evenly distributed and/or segregated inclusions). However, the use of one remelting form may be preferred over the other depending on the type of final end use of the SSWR. 13 Therefore, we do not consider remelting (in one form or another) to be a new technological development affecting the SSWR industry, as it has been in existence for decades. 14 12 *See 2004-2005 SSWR Final Results* at Comment 1. 13 *See* FSAB's Section B Response at Exhibit 1. 14 *See* FSAB's Section B response at Exhibit 1. We recognize that FSAB may have incurred additional costs when it used ESR to remelt one AISI-equivalent SSWR grade of merchandise sold in the home market during the POR. We also recognize that a producer which remelts grades of steel used to produce any stainless steel product may incur additional costs, and those costs will be greater when compared to the costs incurred to produce the same grades without remelting. However, in this case, the single AISI-equivalent SSWR grade for which FSAB used ESR represents only one in a broad range of other SSWR grades sold by FSAB in the U.S. and home markets during the POR. Moreover, based on FSAB's own data and our findings in the *2004-2005 SSWR Final Results* , it does not appear that the use of remelting is a common practice in the SSWR industry. Therefore, the cost differences identified by FSAB with respect to the single remelted AISI-equivalent grade relative to the numerous other non-remelted grades sold during the POR, coupled with the fact that ESR remelting is a production step not common to producing SSWR, do not warrant the inclusion of ESR as an additional model-matching criterion as suggested by FSAB in this review. Constructed Export Price We calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject merchandise was either sold for the account of FSAB by its subsidiary, Fagersta Stainless, Inc. (“FSI”), in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers, or subsequently further manufactured into non-subject merchandise by its affiliate, Sandvik Materials Technology U.S. (“SMT U.S.”), in the United States and then resold to its unaffiliated customers. We based CEP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We identified the correct starting price by adjusting for alloy surcharges and billing adjustments associated with the sale, and by making deductions for early payment discounts and volume rebates, where applicable, as required by section 772 of the Act. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These expenses included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight (including freight from the plant to the port of exportation), U.S. brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses (including freight from the U.S. port to the U.S. customer or warehouse, and freight from the warehouse to the U.S. customer) offset by freight revenue, U.S. customs fees (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), and warehousing expenses. 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 (credit expenses, warranty expenses, and repacking expenses) and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) incurred in the country of exportation and the United States. We also deducted an amount for further-manufacturing costs, where applicable, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, and made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. To calculate the cost of further manufacturing, we relied on SMT U.S.'s reported cost of further-manufacturing materials, labor, and overhead, plus amounts for further- manufacturing general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses, and financial expenses. For further details regarding the further-manufacturing cost calculation, *see* the Memorandum from LaVonne Clark, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director of Accounting, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation for the Preliminary Results - Fagersta Stainless AB” (“ *COP/CV Memo* ”) dated August 31, 2007. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because FSAB's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that its home market was viable. B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test During a portion of the POR, FSAB sold the foreign like product to an affiliated customer. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, on a product-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all discounts and rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the Department's practice, where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002) (establishing that the overall ratio calculated for an affiliate must be between 98 percent and 102 percent in order for sales to be considered in the ordinary course of trade and used in the NV calculation). Sales to the affiliated customer in the home market that were not made at arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered these sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade. *See* 19 CFR 351.102(b). Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the export price (“EP”) or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id* .; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) ( *Plate from South Africa* ). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 15 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 15 Where NV is based on constructed value (“CV”), we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( *i.e.* , no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR at 61732. We obtained information from FSAB regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. Our LOT findings are summarized below. FSAB sold SSWR only to end-users in the home market, but sold to both end-users and distributors in the U.S. market. FSAB reported that it made CEP sales in the U.S. market through the following two channels of distribution:

(1)sales of FSAB-produced SSWR to its U.S. affiliate FSI (“U.S. Channel 1”), and

(2)sales of FSAB-produced SSWR to its U.S. affiliate SMT U.S. (which further manufactured the SSWR into wire products for sale to its unaffiliated U.S. customers) (“U.S. Channel 2”). We compared the selling activities performed in each channel, and found that certain selling functions ( *i.e.* , sales process/marketing support and freight/delivery) were performed at the same relative level of intensity in both channels of distribution. With regard to the other selling functions considered in this analysis ( *i.e.* , warehousing/inventory and quality assurance/warranty service), we found that either the difference in the selling function between U.S. Channel 1 and U.S. Channel 2 is insignificant or the selling function was not performed at all in either channel during the POR. As a result, both U.S. channels, on balance, are at the same LOT. Accordingly, we find that all CEP sales constitute one LOT. For further discussion, *see* August 31, 2007, Memorandum to the File, entitled, “Level of Trade Analysis for the Preliminary Results - FSAB” (“ *LOT Memo* ”). With respect to the home market, FSAB reported one channel of distribution ( *i.e.* , factory direct sales) through which it sold SSWR to both affiliated and unaffiliated end-user customers. According to FSAB, its direct sales to both affiliated and unaffiliated home market customers constitute one distinct LOT in the home market. In determining whether separate LOTs exist in the home market, we compared the selling functions performed by FSAB for its home market sales to both affiliated and unaffiliated customers. Based on our analysis of the information submitted for the record of this review, we find that all home market sales were made at the same LOT. *See LOT Memo* . Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the home market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for home market sales are either performed at the same degree of intensity as, or vary only slightly from, the selling functions performed for U.S. sales. Specifically, we found that two of the four selling functions ( *i.e.* , freight/delivery and warehousing/inventory) are performed by FSAB at the same level of intensity in both the U.S. and home markets. With respect to the remaining two selling functions ( *i.e.* , sales process/marketing support and quality assurance/warranty service), we found that there are only slight differences in the level of intensity between the home and U.S. markets which are not a sufficient basis to determine separate LOTs between the two markets. Therefore, we find that the NV LOT and single U.S. LOT are at the same LOT. Accordingly, we matched CEP sales to home market sales at the same LOT and have not made a CEP offset. Cost of Production Analysis In the LTFV investigation, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of October 31, 2006, the date this review was initiated, we found that FSAB had made sales below the cost of production (“COP”). *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Sweden* , 63 FR 10841, 10846 (March 5, 1998); affirmed in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden* , 63 FR 40449, 40452 (July 29, 1998) (“ *SSWR from Sweden LTFV Final* ”). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that FSAB made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. Accordingly, we instructed FSAB to respond to Section D (Cost of Production) of the Department's questionnaire. A. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated FSAB's COP based on the sum of FSAB's costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses and interest expenses ( *see* “Test of Home Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data submitted by FSAB in its supplemental Section D questionnaire responses. B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of alloy surcharges and billing adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses. C. Results of the COP Test In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)or the Act:

(1)whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and

(2)whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because:

(1)they 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

(2)based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of FSAB's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on delivered prices (inclusive of alloy surcharges) to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that were determined to be at arm's length. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for billing adjustments, discounts, and rebates. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland freight (from the plant to the customer) and inland insurance, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We also made deductions from the starting price for credit, warranty, and other direct selling expenses, under section 773 of the Act. We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. Calculation of Constructed Value We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, which states that CV shall be based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the submitted CV information. Price-to-Constructed Value Comparisons We based NV on CV for comparison to certain U.S. sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For comparisons to FSAB's CEP sales, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting from CV the weighted-average home market direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for the period September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006, is as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Fagersta Stainless AB/AB Sandvik Materials Technology/Kanthal AB 40.24 Disclosure and Public Hearing The Department will disclose to the parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the publication date of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument:

(1)a statement of the issue;

(2)a brief summary of the argument; and

(3)a table of authorities. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:

(1)the party's name, address and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. However, for subject merchandise produced by FSAB but imported by its U.S. affiliate, SMT U.S., we do not have the actual entered value. Therefore, for those entries of subject merchandise imported by SMT U.S., we will calculate the importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. 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.* , at or above 0.50 percent). *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (“ *Assessment Policy Notice* ”). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed company did not know the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See *Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements Pursuant to the *Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in US--Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocations and Partial Revocations of Certain Antidumping Duty Orders* , 72 FR 25261, 25263 (May 4, 2007), effective April 23, 2007, we have revoked the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Sweden and accordingly have instructed CBP to discontinue collection of cash deposits of antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: August 31, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-17703 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICE: Request for Nominations and Expressions of Interest, Joint Advisory Committee AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ACTION: Notice, Request for Nominations and Expressions of Interest SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 2201(c) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, ___(2007) (Act), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Commerce, and the Federal Communications Commission

(FCC)are establishing the Joint Advisory Committee on Communications Capabilities of Emergency Medical and Public Health Care Facilities (Committee). By February 4, 2008, the Committee is to assess and submit a report to Congress on the communications capabilities and needs of emergency medical and public health care facilities and the options to accommodate growth of communications services and to improve integration of communications systems used by such facilities. NTIA and FCC are requesting nominations from interested organizations of qualified individuals, and the submission of expressions of interest from individuals who desire to serve as members of the Committee. DATES: Nominations and expressions of interest must be delivered or electronically transmitted on or before September 12, 2007. Nominations or expressions of interest received after this date might not be considered. ADDRESSES: Nominations and expressions of interest should be delivered to the attention of Eric Werner, Senior Advisor, Office of the Assistant Secretary, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4898, Washington DC, 20230; by facsimile transmission to

(202)501-0536; or by electronic mail to: *jointadvisorycommittee@@ntia.doc.gov* AND to the attention of Lisa M. Fowlkes, Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 7-C753,Washington, DC 20554; by facsimile transmission to

(202)418-2817; or by electronic mail to lisa.fowlkes@fcc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Werner at

(202)482-0014 or ewerner@ntia.doc.gov; or Lisa M. Fowlkes at

(202)418-7452 or lisa.fowlkes@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 3, 2007, the President signed the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110-53 (Act). Section 2201(c) of the Act requires the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to establish a joint advisory committee to examine the communications capabilities and needs of emergency medical and public health care facilities. According to the Act, the Committee will assess the following:

(1)Specific communications capabilities and needs of emergency medical and public health care facilities, including the improvement of basic voice, data, and broadband capabilities;

(2)options to accommodate growth of basic and emerging communications services used by emergency medical and public health care facilities; and

(3)options to improve integration of communications systems used by emergency medical and public health care facilities with existing or future emergency communications networks. Pursuant to the Act, the Committee will report its findings to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, no later than February 4, 2008. The Act also requires that the Committee be composed of individuals with expertise in communications technologies and emergency medical and public health care, including representatives of Federal, State, and local governments, industry and non-profit health organizations, and academia and educational institutions. NTIA and FCC intend to appoint representatives from a balanced cross-section of stakeholder interests as required by the Act. Accordingly, the NTIA and FCC seek qualified individuals with expertise in communications technologies and/or emergency medical and public health care and that are capable of representing the policy and/or technical issues relevant to the work of the Committee. It is anticipated that the Committee will be comprised of 20-25 individuals. Members will be appointed for a term of six months. Depending upon the nature of the appointment, some members of the Committee may be required to submit certain confidential financial disclosures as a part of the appointment process. Individuals who would not be prepared to furnish such information, if required, should not submit their names for consideration. Members will serve without compensation and neither travel nor per diem will be paid. Members must also be willing and able to dedicate substantial time to the work of this Committee during the appointment. Nominations and expressions of interest should include a resume or curriculum vita, and should also include a statement summarizing the individual's qualifications and identifying the sector or interest for which the individual has expertise. Individuals should also have substantial experience (5 or more years) in the communications technologies and/or emergency medical and public health care sectors relevant for this Committee's work. Please note this Notice is not intended to be the exclusive method by which NTIA and FCC are soliciting nominations and expressions of interest and identifying qualified individuals. However, all candidates for membership on the Committee will be subject to the same evaluation criteria. Dated: August 31, 2007. John M.R. Kneuer, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information. [FR Doc. E7-17648 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-S COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Time and Date: 3 p.m., Monday, September 24, 2007. Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor, Commission Conference Room. Status: Closed. Matters to be Considered: Enforcement Matters. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084. David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 07-4418 Filed 9-5-07; 3:46 pm]

Connectionstraces to 15

Traces to 15 documents

U.S. Code