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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-10-09 · Rural Housing Service, USDA · Notices

Notices. Proposed collection; comments requested

26,127 words·~119 min read·/register/2007/10/09/07-4965

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

BILLING CODE 3410-52-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed collection; comments requested. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Housing Service's intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the program of the Agency's use of supervised bank accounts (SBA).
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by December 10, 2007, to be assured of consideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Stouder, Deputy Director, Multi-Family Housing Portfolio Management Division, RHS, STOP 0782, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0782. Telephone:
(202)720-9728. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* 7 CFR 1902-A, Supervised Bank Accounts. *OMB Number:* 0575-0158. *Expiration Date of Approval:* January 31, 2008. *Type of Request:* Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection. *Abstract:* The Agency extends financial assistance to applicants that do not qualify for loans under commercial rates and terms. The Agency use SBAs as a mechanism to
(1)ensure correct disbursement and expenditure of all funds designated for a project;
(2)help a borrower properly manage its financial affairs;
(3)ensure that the Government's security is protected adequately from fraud, waste and abuse. SBAs are mandatory for Multi-Family Housing
(MFH)reserve accounts. The MFH funds must be kept in the SBA for the full term of a loan. Any funds withdrawn for disbursement for an authorized purpose require a countersignature from an Agency official. This regulation prescribes the policies and responsibilities for the use of SBAs. In carrying out the mission as a supervised credit Agency, this regulation authorizes the use of supervised accounts for the disbursement of funds. The use may be necessitated to disburse Government funds consistent with the various stages of any development (construction) work actually achieved. On limited occasions, a supervised account is used to provide temporary credit counseling and oversight of those being assisted who demonstrate an inability to handle their financial affairs responsibly. Another use is for depositing MFH reserve account funds in a manner requiring Agency co-signature for withdrawals. MFH reserve account funds are held in a reserve account for the future capital improvement needs for apartment properties. Supervised accounts are established to ensure Government security is adequately protected against fraud, waste and abuse. The legislative authority for requiring the use of supervised accounts is contained section 510 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1480). These provisions authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make such rules and regulations as deemed necessary to carry out the responsibilities and duties the Government is charged with administering. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average .79 hours per response. *Respondents:* Small businesses. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20,000. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 3.5. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 70,100. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 55,708. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at
(202)692-0043. *Comments:* Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: September 27, 2007. Russell T. Davis, Administrator, Rural Housing Service. [FR Doc. E7-19848 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 48-2007] Foreign-Trade Zone 219 - Yuma, Arizona, Application for Subzone, Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., (Lead-Acid Batteries), Yuma, Arizona An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Yuma County Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 219, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the manufacture of lead-acid batteries at the facility of Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc. (JCBGI), located in Yuma, Arizona. 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 September 28, 2007. The JCBGI facility (120 employees, 15 acres, 4-5 million battery/year capacity) is located at 3470 South Arizona Avenue, in Yuma, Arizona. The facility will be used to form, fill and distribute batteries (duty-free) using imported unformed batteries (duty-free). The application indicates that FTZ designation would allow JCBGI to utilize certain CBP procedures resulting in increased efficiencies for its logistics operations, and would also have state/local tax-related benefits. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness. 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 December 10, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to December 24, 2007. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: Yuma County Airport Authority, 2191 E. 32 nd Street, Suite 218, Yuma, Arizona 85365. 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 Elizabeth Whiteman at Elizabeth_Whiteman@ita.doc.gov or
(202)482-0473. Dated: September 28, 2007. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-19824 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-848) Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind 2005-2006 New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to timely requests from four exporters and the petitioner, 1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the 2005-2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC). In addition, in response to requests from four new shippers, the Department is also concurrently conducting 2005-2006 new shipper reviews of the above-referenced order. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value
(NV)by certain exporters participating in the administrative review. Also, we have preliminarily determined that none of the sales by the three new shippers currently under review are *bona fide* (one new shipper withdrew its request for review) and have preliminarily rescinded these reviews. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review
(POR)for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . 1 The petitioner is the Crawfish Processors Alliance. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge or Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3518 and
(202)482-2769, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 15, 1997, the Department published an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. *See Notice of Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China* , 62 FR 48218 (September 15, 1997). On September 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the above-referenced order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 52061 (September 1, 2006). Based on timely requests for administrative reviews, the Department initiated administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC with respect to the following companies: China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. (aka Zhongda Import & Export Co., Ltd.) (China Kingdom), Anhui Tongxin Aquatic Product & Food Co., Ltd. (Anhui), Fujian Pelagic Fishery Group Co. (Fujian), Shanghai Strong International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Strong), Nanjing Merry Trading Co., Ltd. (Nanjing Merry), Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. (Qingdao JYX), Qingdao Wentai Trading Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Wentai), Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (Weishan Zhenyu), Weishan Hongrun Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. (Weishan Hongrun), Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xuzhou), Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. (Yancheng), Huoshan New Three-Gold Food Trade Co., Ltd. (Huoshan), Leping Lotai Foods Co., Ltd. (Leping), and Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (Xiping Opeck). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 63752 (October 31, 2006). The period covered by these reviews is September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. Additionally, based on timely requests for new shipper reviews, on October 23, 2006, the Department initiated new shipper reviews of Anhui, Huoshan, Jingdezhen Garay Foods Co., Ltd (Jingdezhen) and Shanghai Now Again International Trading Co., Ltd (Shanghai Now Again) covering the period September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 63284 (October 30, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), each of the new shippers agreed to waive the applicable time limits for their new shipper reviews so that the Department could conduct the new shipper reviews concurrently with the 2005-2006 administrative review ( *see* Shanghai Now Again's and Jingdezhen's November 30, 2006, submission, Huoshan's December 7, 2006, and Anhui's January 3, 2007, submission). *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Time Limits for New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews in Conjunction With Administrative Review* , 72 FR 13744 (March 23, 2007). On November 1, 2006, the Department issued a quantity and value questionnaire to all respondents for which an administrative review was initiated. The Department received responses to the quantity and value questionnaire from the following companies: Xiping Opeck (November 14, 2006), Xuzhou (November 15, 2006), Anhui (November 15, 2006), Huoshan (January 10, 2006), Qingdao JYX (November 9, 2006), Qingdao Wentai (November 15, 2006), China Kingdom (November 29, 2006), Weishan Hongrun (November 30, 2006), Huoshan (January 17, 2007) and Yancheng (November 15, 2006). In response to the quantity and value questionnaire, Qingdao JYX, Qingdao Wentai, China Kingdom, and Yancheng reported that they had no sales, entries or exports of subject merchandise during the POR. Anhui, Huoshan, and Weishan Hongrun noted in their responses to the quantity and value questionnaire that they had reported all of their subject merchandise sales that were made during the POR in submissions filed in their respective new shipper reviews. On October 30, 2006, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the four new shippers: Shanghai Now Again, Huoshan, Jingdezhen, and Anhui. On December 11, 2006, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou, the only non-new shippers reporting sales for which an administrative review was requested. We received timely questionnaire responses from the new shippers in November and December 2006, and January 2007. We issued supplemental questionnaires to, and received responses from, the new shippers from December 2006 to May 2007. Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou submitted responses to the Department's questionnaires in January and February 2007. We issued supplemental questionnaires to, and received responses from, Xuzhou and Xiping Opeck from February to August 2007. On December 11, 2006, the Department provided parties with an opportunity to submit publicly available information on surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary results. While no parties submitted surrogate values, on December 27, 2006, and again on March 1, 2007, the petitioner argued that the Department should continue, as in prior reviews, to use India as the primary surrogate country, while relying, where appropriate, on Spanish import statistics for the surrogate value for live crawfish. On March 30, 2007, June 6, 2007, June 12, 2007, and June 18, 2007, the Department placed memoranda on the record regarding potentially unreported subject merchandise sales made by Xuzhou. 2 Xuzhou commented on these memoranda on April 12, 2007, and July 6, 2007. 2 *See* Memorandum to All Interested Parties Regarding Entry Documents of Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (March 30, 2007), Memorandum For The File regarding Phone Conversation with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (June 6, 2007), Memorandum For The File regarding Information Obtained from the Food and Drug Administration (June 12, 2007), and Memorandum For The File regarding Entry Data Obtained from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Database (June 18, 2007). On November 15, 2006, Weishan Zhenyu withdrew its request for an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). On January 29, 2007, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of Qingdao JYX, Qingdao Wentai, China Kingdom, Fujian, Leping, Nanjing Merry, and Shanghai Strong pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). On March 23, 2007, Shanghai Now Again withdrew its request for a new shipper review. Although Shanghai Now Again withdrew its request after the 60-day deadline, we found it reasonable to accept its withdrawal because the Department had not yet committed significant resources to the new shipper review of Shanghai Now Again. Further, no party opposed Shanghai Now Again's withdrawal. Therefore, on August 6, 2007, the Department rescinded its review of Shanghai Now Again. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 43591 (August 6, 2007). On September 5, 2007, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of Huoshan and Weishan Hongrun. On May 30, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of the administrative and new shipper reviews until October 1, 2007. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 29970 (May 30, 2007). Period of Review The POR is September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. Scope of Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on, whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared. Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by CBP in 2000, and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which are reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Final Partial Rescission of Administrative Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. 3 As noted above, on November 15, 2006, Weishan Zhenyu withdrew its request for an administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). In addition, as noted above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of Qingdao JYX, Qingdao Wentai, China Kingdom, Fujian, Leping, Nanjing Merry, and Shanghai Strong on January 29, 2007, and withdrew its request for an administrative review of Weishan Hongrun and Huoshan on September 5, 2007. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and consistent with our practice, where the review requests were withdrawn within the 90-day time limit, we have rescinded the review because no other parties requested a review of these companies. Although the petitioner withdrew its request for a review of Weishan Hongrun and Huoshan after the 90-day deadline, we find it reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request because no other interested party requested a review of the companies and the companies' sales during the POR were already examined by the Department in new shipper reviews. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of Weishan Zhenyu, Qingdao JYX, Qingdao Wentai, China Kingdom, Fujian, Leping, Nanjing Merry, Shanghai Strong, Weishan Hongrun, and Huoshan. 3 The Department may extend this time limit if it is reasonable to do so. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review Yancheng informed the Department that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Anhui reported that, aside from its sale that is under review in the concurrent new shipper review, it did not have any sales of subject merchandise during the POR. In our examination of CBP entry data, we did not find any information inconsistent with these statements. Further, in response to our request for information relating to these claims, CBP did not provide any information that contradicted the respondents' claims. Lastly, as discussed below, the Department has preliminarily found Anhui's one sale during the POR to be non- *bona fide* . Therefore, because the record indicates that Yancheng did not sell subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and Anhui did not make any *bona fide* sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we are preliminarily rescinding the instant administrative review with respect to Yancheng and Anhui. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Preliminary Rescission of New Shipper Reviews The Department has preliminarily determined that the sales made by Anhui, Jingdezhen, and Huoshan, which are under examination in the new shipper reviews, are not *bona fide* sales because:
(1)the sales were made at artificially high prices that are not commercially reasonable;
(2)the sales quantities are atypical compared to data on other imports of crawfish tail meat into the U.S. market; and,
(3)there are other atypical aspects of the sales. Due to the proprietary nature of the information discussed in our *bona fide* sales analysis, please see the separate memoranda addressing this issue for details. 4 Because the Department has found the sales by Anhui, Jingdezhen, and Huoshan to be non- *bona fide* , there are no sales to review. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily rescinding the new shipper reviews of these companies. *See, e.g., Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1249 (CIT 2005). 4 *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary For Import Administration from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4 Import Administration, regarding *Bona Fide* Sales Analysis and Intent to Rescind the Review with Respect to Anhui Tongxin Aquatic Product & Food Co., Ltd. (dated concurrently with this notice), and Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary For Import Administration from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4 Import Administration, regarding *Bona Fide* Sales Analysis and Intent to Rescind the Review with Respect to Houshan New Three-Gold Food Trade Co., Ltd. (dated concurrently with this notice), and Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary For Import Administration from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4 Import Administration, regarding *Bona Fide* Sales Analysis and Intent to Rescind the Review with Respect to Jingdezhen Garay Foods Co., Ltd (dated concurrently with this notice). Non-Market-Economy (“NME”) Treatment The Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), any determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
(TRBs)From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), (unchanged in TRBs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003)). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Therefore, in these preliminary results of review, we have treated the PRC as an NME country and applied our current NME methodology in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Selection of a Surrogate Country In antidumping proceedings involving NME countries, the Department, pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, will generally base NV on the value of the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs). In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise. The Department has determined that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and the Philippines are countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC. *See* memorandum regarding “Administrative Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,” dated December 1, 2006. While none of these countries are significant producers of crawfish tail meat, 5 India does have a seafood processing industry that is comparable to the crawfish industry with respect to factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit. Therefore, we selected India as the primary surrogate country in which to value all inputs with the exception of whole live crawfish (the primary input) and the by-product, crawfish scrap shell. *See* Surrogate Country Memorandum at 4. Because we have determined that other forms of seafood are not sufficiently comparable to crawfish to serve as surrogates for the primary input, and India does not have a crawfish industry, we have looked to countries other than India for a crawfish input value. As was done in prior segments of this proceeding, we have selected Spain as the surrogate country in which to value whole live crawfish because Spain is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, *i.e.* , whole crawfish, and there are publicly available import statistics for Spain that are contemporaneous with the POR. *See* Surrogate Country Memorandum and *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002) ( *1999-2000 Final Results* ). 5 *See* Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, through Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from Jeff Pedersen, International Trade Compliance Specialist, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, regarding Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country (dated concurrently with this notice) (Surrogate Country Memorandum). We have selected Indonesia as the surrogate country in which to value the crawfish scrap shell because Indonesia is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC, it has significant production of merchandise comparable to the by-product scrap, and has publicly available data ( *i.e.* , a public price quote from an Indonesian company) that has been used in prior segments of this proceeding. 6 The petitioner submitted comments supporting the use of India and Spain as surrogate countries. No other parties commented on surrogate country selection. For further discussion, *see* Surrogate Country Memorandum. 6 *See* Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu through Maureen Flannery re: Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, Administrative Review 9/1/00-8/31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00-8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01 (August 5, 2002), which was placed on the record of this review. *See* Memorandum to the File, through Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, from Melissa Blackledge, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, regarding 2005-2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuation (dated concurrently with this notice) (Factor Value Memorandum). Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation involving an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine* , 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as further developed in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. Absence of De jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou stated that they are independent legal entities and provided copies of their business license which allows each company to engage in the exportation of freshwater crawfish tail meat. Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou also reported that no export quotas apply to crawfish. Prior verifications have confirmed that there are no commodity-specific export licenses required and no quotas for the seafood category “Other,” which includes crawfish, in *China's Tariff and Non-Tariff Handbook* for 1996. In addition, we have previously confirmed that freshwater crawfish tail meat is not on the list of commodities with planned quotas in the 1992 PRC Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation document entitled Temporary Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From The People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review* , 64 FR 8543 (February 22, 1999), and *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of New Shipper Review* , 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 1999). We found no evidence of *de jure* governmental control over Xiping Opeck's or Xuzhou's exportation of freshwater crawfish tail meat. The following laws, which were placed on the record of this review, also indicate a lack of *de jure* government control. The *Company Law of the People's Republic of China* , made effective on July 1, 1994, states that a company is an enterprise legal person, that shareholders shall assume liability towards the company to the extent of their shareholdings and that the company shall be liable for its debts to the extent of all its assets. Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou also provided copies of the *Foreign Trade Law of the PRC* , which identifies the rights and responsibilities of organizations engaged in foreign trade, grants autonomy to foreign-trade operators in management decisions and establishes the foreign trade operator's accountability for profits and losses. Based on the foregoing, the Department has preliminarily determined that there is an absence of *de jure* governmental control over the export activities of Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou. Absence of De facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:
(1)whether the export prices are set by, or are subject to the approval of, a governmental agency;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22586-87; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department considers an analysis of *de facto* control to be critical in determining whether a respondent is, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control that would preclude the Department from assigning the respondent a separate rate. Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou have each asserted that it:
(1)establishes its own export prices;
(2)negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations;
(3)makes its own personnel decisions; and
(4)retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Based upon the record information, the Department has preliminarily determined that there is an absence of *de facto* governmental control over the export activities of Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou. Because the Department has found that Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou operate free of *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control, it has preliminarily determined that Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou have satisfied the criteria for separate rates. Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party:
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to section 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) if:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. The Department's quantity and value questionnaire, as well as sections A and C of the antidumping questionnaire, requested that Xuzhou report each of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise that were made during the POR. 7 Xuzhou reported certain sales of subject merchandise during the POR, 8 however, substantial record evidence indicates that Xuzhou made additional, unreported sales of subject merchandise. Due to the proprietary nature of this record evidence, our analysis of the evidence is contained in a separate memorandum. 9 7 *See* the Department's November 1, 2006, quantity and value questionnaire and the December 11, 2006, section A and C questionnaires. 8 *See* Xuzhou's November 15, 2006, quantity and value response, its January 16, 2007, section A response, and its January 31, 2007, section C response. 9 *See* the memorandum filed concurrently with this notice titled Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia to Stephen J. Claeys Regarding Unreported Sales and the Use of Adverse Facts Available, dated concurrently with this notice (Facts Available Memorandum). Pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department provided Xuzhou with numerous opportunities to fully report all of its U.S. POR sales of subject merchandise. On January 30, 2007, the Department asked Xuzhou whether it had reported all sales of subject merchandise during the POR; 10 on February 12, 2007, the Department requested that Xuzhou provide all of the commercial invoices for, and demonstrate how it recorded the sales of, all subject merchandise sold during the POR; 11 and on February 22, 2007, the Department requested that Xuzhou list all crawfish products sold to the United States during the POR. 12 Xuzhou did not identify the unreported sales in its responses to these requests. 10 *See* the Department's January 30, 2007, supplemental questionnaire at 3. 11 *See* the Department's February 12, 2007, supplemental questionnaire at 1. 12 *See* the Department's February 22, 2007, supplemental questionnaire at 1 After we obtained information regarding entries of Xuzhou's crawfish products from CBP and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, we placed that information on the record and provided Xuzhou with an opportunity to explain the discrepancy between its responses and this information. 13 For the reasons outlined in the Facts Available Memorandum, we found Xuzhou's explanations to be unsatisfactory and inconsistent with certain record information. 13 *See* the Department's March 30, 2007, memorandum to the file regarding “Entry Documents of Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd;” *see also* the Department's June 6, 2007, memorandum to the file regarding "Phone Conversation with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection regarding entries . . . ; the Department's June 12, 2007, memorandum to the file regarding “Information Obtained from the Food and Drug Administration;” and the Department's June 18, 2007, memorandum to the file regarding “Entry Data Obtained from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Database.” Because the information necessary to calculate a margin for Xuzhou's sales of subject merchandise is not on the record and because it is Xuzhou that withheld this information, we have concluded that it is appropriate to base Xuzhou's dumping margin on facts available. Pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department provided Xuzhou with several opportunities to correct its deficient responses, but it failed to do so. Given the significant quantity of unreported sales and Xuzhou's unsatisfactory explanations regarding its reporting failures, we find that the information provided by Xuzhou cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a preliminary ruling with respect to Xuzhou, within the meaning of section 782(e)(3) of the Act. Moreover, Xuzhou's failure to provide the requested information required the Department to expend significant resources to determine whether Xuzhou reported all sales of subject merchandise during the POR, thus impeding this proceeding. Furthermore, Xuzhou's failure to report all of the requested U.S. sales of subject merchandise prevented the Department from calculating an accurate dumping margin for the company. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) (necessary information is not on the record) and 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act (withholding requested information and significantly impeding the proceeding), we have based Xuzhou's preliminary dumping margin on facts otherwise available. Use of Adverse Inferences Once the Department determines that the use of facts available is warranted, section 776(b) of the Act permits the Department to apply an adverse inference if it makes the additional finding that “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” To examine whether the respondent “cooperated” by “acting to the best of its ability” under section 776(b) of the Act, the Department considers, *inter alia* , the accuracy and completeness of submitted information and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. *See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997). In determining whether a party has cooperated to the best of its ability, “Commerce must necessarily draw some inferences from a pattern of behavior.” *See Borden, Inc. v. United States* , 1998 WL 895890 (CIT 1998) at 1. *See also* Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), H.R. Doc. 103-316 at 870 (1994). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in *Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon Steel* ), provided an explanation of the “failure to act to the best of its ability” standard. Specifically, the CAFC held that the Department need not show intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but merely that a “failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's ability” existed, ( *i.e.* , information was not provided “under circumstances in which it is reasonable to conclude that less than full cooperation has been shown”). *See id* . The CAFC also noted that the test is “the degree to which the respondent cooperates in investigating
(its)records and in providing Commerce with the requested information.” *See Nippon Steel* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1383. Xuzhou's failure to report the U.S. sales at issue, despite the fact that it possessed the necessary records regarding these sales, indicates a lack of cooperation on its part. As demonstrated above, the Department provided Xuzhou with numerous opportunities to either submit the requested information or explain why it was unable to do so. Xuzhou did not report the sales in question or indicate that it lacked the records needed to report such sales. Moreover, Xuzhou's failure to report these sales results in a record that cannot serve as a reliable basis for calculating an accurate dumping margin. Hence, the record shows a pattern of behavior on the part of Xuzhou which indicates that it did not cooperate to the best of its ability within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted. Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate In deciding which rate to use as adverse facts available (AFA), section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from
(1)the petition,
(2)a final determination in the investigation,
(3)any previous review or determination, or
(4)any information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally selects, as AFA, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. *See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). The Court of International Trade
(CIT)and the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld this practice. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) ( *Rhone Poulenc* ); *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in the less than fair value investigation); *see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States* , 24 CIT 678, 689
(2000)(upholding a 51.16% total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and *Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States* , Slip Op. 05-22, at 16 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). When selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information, the Department's practice is to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil* , 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); *D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately, and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *See Rhone Poulenc* , 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its normal practice, the Department has selected 223.01 percent as the AFA rate, the highest calculated rate on the record of this proceeding. *See, e.g., 1999-2000 Final Results* . We have corroborated this rate as explained below. Corroboration of Secondary Information Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. As noted in *F.Lii de Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino, S.p.A. v. United States* , 216 F.3d 1027, 1030 (2000), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information. *See also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part* , 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997 )). According to the SAA, independent sources used to corroborate secondary information may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan* , 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada* , 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005). The AFA rate selected in these preliminary results constitutes secondary information. However, unlike other types of secondary information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources of information from which the Department can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for dumping margins is administrative determinations. The rate that we are using as AFA is reliable because it was calculated in the 1999-2000 antidumping duty administrative review in this proceeding using respondent data that were accepted by the Department and surrogate values that were selected by the Department. *See 1999-2000 Final Results* . This rate has been used as an AFA rate in every segment of this proceeding since the 1999-2000 antidumping duty administrative review and the Department has received no information that warrants revisiting the issue of its reliability. With respect relevancy, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a dumping margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected dumping margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the dumping margin and determine an appropriate dumping margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department did not use the highest dumping margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the dumping margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high dumping margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a dumping margin that has been discredited. *See D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d at 1221 (the Department will not use a dumping margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present here. As noted above, the rate that we are using as AFA is based on data from a PRC company in the crawfish industry. These data were accepted by the Department in a prior segment of this proceeding. Moreover, the rate that we are using as AFA is based on surrogate values selected by the Department. Therefore, we consider the 223.01 percent rate (which is the current PRC-wide rate) to be the most probative evidence of the uncooperative respondent's current dumping margin. In addition, however, the Department examined other available information to further demonstrate the relevance of this rate to Xuzhou. Because this data consists of business proprietary information, the Department's analysis is contained in the Facts Available Memorandum. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether Xiping Opeck's sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the export price
(EP)of the sales to NV, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. United States Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based Xiping Opeck's U.S. price on EP because the first sales to unaffiliated purchasers were made prior to importation, and constructed export price was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by deducting, where applicable, the following expenses from the starting price (gross unit price) charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: Foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, and inland freight incurred in the United States. We based all movement expenses on surrogate values because a PRC company either provided the service or Xiping Opeck paid for the service in renminbi
(RMB)( *see* the “NV” section of this notice for further details). Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and the available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. The Department uses an FOP methodology because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part* , 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 71 FR 2517 (January 17, 2006 )). Thus, we calculated NV by adding together the value of the FOPs, general expenses, profit, and packing costs. 14 Specifically, we valued material, labor, energy, and packing by multiplying the amount of the factor consumed in producing subject merchandise by the average unit surrogate value of the factor. In addition, we added freight costs to the surrogate costs that we calculated for material inputs. We calculated freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight rates by the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory that produced the subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory that produced the subject merchandise, as appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the CAFC's decision in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We increased the calculated costs of the FOPs for surrogate general expenses and profit. *See* Factor Value Memorandum. 14 We based the values of the FOPs on surrogate values ( *see* “Selected Surrogate Values” section below). Selected Surrogate Values In selecting surrogate values, we followed, to the extent practicable, the Department's practice of choosing public values which are non-export averages, representative of a range of prices in effect during the POR, or over a period as close as possible in time to the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We also considered the quality of the source of surrogate information in selecting surrogate values. *See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). Where we could only obtain surrogate values that were not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated (or deflated) the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index
(WPI)as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund. *See* Factor Value Memorandum. In calculating surrogate values from import statistics, in accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded statistics for imports from NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all export markets ( *i.e.* , Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand). *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. *See also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally, we excluded from our calculations imports that were labeled as originating from an unspecified country because we could not determine whether they were from an NME country. We used the following surrogate values in our preliminary results of review ( *see* Factor Value Memorandum for details). Except as noted below, we valued raw and packing materials using September 2005-August 2006 weighted-average Indian import values derived from the *World Trade Atlas* online ( *WTA* ). The Indian import statistics that we obtained from the *WTA* were published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India and are contemporaneous with the POR. We valued whole live crawfish using publicly available data for Spanish imports of whole live crawfish from Portugal. We obtained the data from “aduanas e I. especiales,” the Spanish Customs database for foreign trade statistics (Estadisticas Comercio Exterior). We valued the crawfish shell scrap by-product using a price quote from Indonesia for wet crab and shrimp shells. We valued diesel fuel using the rates provided by the OECD's International Energy Agency's publication: *Key World Energy Statistics 2005* from the first quarter of 2005. Because these data are not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated the values using the WPI. We valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) because this source includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. Specifically, this source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003; 193 for the “inside industrial areas” usage category and 193 for the “outside industrial areas” usage category. Because the water value rates are not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated the surrogate value for water using the WPI. We valued non-refrigerated truck freight expenses using a per kilometer per kilogram average rate obtained from the web site of an Indian transportation company, InFreight Technologies India Limited. *See* http://www.infreight.com. We valued refrigerated truck freight expenses based on price quotations from CTC Freight Carriers of Delhi, India, placed on the record of the antidumping investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the PRC. The Department has placed that information on the record of this proceeding. We used two sources to calculate the surrogate value for domestic brokerage and handling expenses. We averaged publicly available brokerage and handling data reported by Essar Steel in the antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India with publicly available brokerage and handling data reported by Agro Dutch Industries Limited (Agro Dutch) in the antidumping duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2018, 2022 (January 12, 2006) (Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, submission) (unchanged in *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006)); *see also Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005) (Agro Dutch's May 24, 2005, submission). We valued international freight expenses using freight quotes from Maersk Sealand, a market-economy shipper. These quotes have been used in prior antidumping duty administrative reviews of this case. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 20634 (April 24, 2001). We calculated a simple average of quotes for shipments from China to the United States occurring during the POR. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued direct, indirect, and packing labor, using the most recently calculated regression-based wage rate, which relies on 2004 data. This wage rate can currently be found on the Department's website on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics, ILO, Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by Xiping Opeck. Lastly, we valued SG&A expenses, factory overhead costs, and profit using the 2002-2003 financial statements of Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd., an Indian seafood processor. *See* Factor Value Memorandum. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may submit publicly available information with which to value FOPs in the final results of review within 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of review. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) 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. These exchange rates can be accessed at the website of Import Administration at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. Preliminary Results of Reviews We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou during the period September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the PRC Company Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. 13.61 Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 223.01 PRC-Wide Rate Margin (Percent) PRC-Wide Rate 223.01 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. 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 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 briefs. The Department will issue the final results of these reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to these reviews directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of these reviews. For assessment purposes for companies with a calculated rate, where possible, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on a per-unit basis. Specifically, the Department divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. The Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. However, 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 these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , no cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed review;
(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 223.01 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These administrative and new shipper reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. Dated: October 1, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19817 Filed 10-5-02; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-801] Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 9, 2007. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) has determined that two requests for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”), received on June 15, 2007, and August 29, 2007, meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) for the two new shipper reviews which the Department is initiating is August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2243. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam was published in the **Federal Register** on August 12, 2003. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 47909(August 12, 2003). 1 On June 15, and August 29, 2007, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department received two new shipper review requests from Southern Fishery Industries Company, Ltd. (“South Vina”) and Binh An Seafood Joint Stock Co. (“Binh An”), respectively. South Vina and Binh An certified that they are both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise upon which the request for a new shipper review is based. The Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S. catfish processors (“Petitioners”) did not submit comments with regard to these two new shipper requests. 1 Therefore, a request for a new shipper review based on the anniversary month, was due to the Department by the final day of August 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), South Vina and Binh An certified that they did not export certain frozen fish fillets to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), South Vina and Binh An certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any Vietnamese exporter or producer who exported certain frozen fish fillets to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), South Vina and Binh An also certified that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of Vietnam. In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), South Vina and Binh An submitted documentation establishing the following:
(1)the date on which South Vina and Binh An first shipped certain frozen fish fillets for export to the United States and the date on which the frozen fish fillets were first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption;
(2)the volume of their first shipment; 2 and
(3)the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. 2 South Vina made one subsequent shipment to the United States, while Binh An made two subsequent shipment during the POR, which the Department corroborated using data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). The Department conducted CBP database queries to confirm that South Vina and Binh An's shipments of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of such entries had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. Initiation of New Shipper Reviews Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that South Vina and Binh An's requests meet the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review for the shipment of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam they produced and exported. The POR for the two new shipper reviews is August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(ii)(A). The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final results of these reviews no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e) in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by South Vina and/or Binh An must continue to pay a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current Vietnam-wide rate of 63.88 percent. Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: September 26, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19826 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-824, A-583-837] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the notice of initiation of the five-year sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from India and Taiwan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 1 As a result of adequate substantive response on filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department has conducted expedited sunset reviews for these orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(c). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. 1 *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,* 72 FR 30544 (June 1, 2007) ( *Notice of Initiation* ). DATES: *Effective Date:* October 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5050 and
(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 1, 2007, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PET Film from India and Taiwan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Notice of Initiation.* Within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations, the Department received notices of intent to participate from domestic interested parties DuPont Teijin Films (DuPont), Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America (MFA), SKC, Inc. (SKC), and Toray Plastics (America), Inc.
(TPA)(collectively, the PET Film Group). DuPont, MFA, and TPA were the petitioners in the original investigation. SKC was a supporter of the petition in the original investigation. The PET Film Group stated that they are not related to any Indian or Taiwanese producers or exporters of the subject merchandise. In addition, members of the PET Film Group noted that they are not importers of the subject merchandise and they are not related to any importer of the subject merchandise. The PET Film Group claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of a domestic like product. On July 2, 2007, the Department received substantive responses from the PET Film Group within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive responses from respondent interested parties in this proceeding. As such, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(c)(1), the Department notified the ITC that respondent interested parties' responses were inadequate. *See* Letter from Susan Kuhbach, Senior Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, to Robert Carpenter, Director, Office of Investigations, ITC, dated July 23, 2007. In accordance with section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, the Department has conducted an expedited review of these orders. Scope of the Orders India and Taiwan The products covered by these orders are all gauges of raw, pretested, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film were currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item number 3920.62.00. Effective July 1, 2003, the HTSUS subheading 3920.62.00.00 was divided into 3920.62.00.10 (metallized PET film) and 3920.62.00.90 (non-metallized PET film). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. Since these orders were published, there was one scope determination for PET Film from India, dated August 25, 2003. In this determination, requested by International Packaging Films, Inc., the Department determined that tracing and drafting film is outside of the scope of the order on PET Film from India. 2 2 *See Notice of Scope Rulings,* 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on PET Film from India and Taiwan; Final Results* from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently with this notice, and which is hereby adopted by this notice ( *Decision Memorandum* ). 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 these orders were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.* The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department has determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PET Film from India and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. Further, the Department determines that the rates likely to prevail are as follows: 3 In the investigation, we found Ester's rate to be 24.14 percent, which was adjusted to 5.71 percent to take into account the export subsidy rate found in the companion countervailing duty investigation. 4 In the investigation, we found Polyplex's rate to be 10.3 percent, which was adjusted to 0.01 percent to take into account the export subsidy rate found in the companion countervailing duty investigation, and we excluded Polyplex from the antidumping order. Polyplex's exclusion was subsequently reversed by a decision of the Court of International Trade. *See Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, LLC, and Toray Plastics (America), Inc.* v. *United States and Polyplex Corporation Limited,* USCIT Slip Op. 04-70 (June 18, 2004); *Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India,* 69 FR 40352 (July 2, 2004). Manufacturers/exporters/ producers Weighted average margin (percent) India Ester 3 5.71 Polyplex Corporation Limited 4 0.01 All Others 5 5.71 Taiwan Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Ltd 2.49 Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation 2.05 All Others 2.40 5 The “all others” rate established in the investigation was based on Ester's rate. International Trade Commission
(ITC)Notification In accordance with section 752(c)(3) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final results of these expedited sunset reviews. Administrative Protective Orders 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 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders 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, and 777 of the Act. Dated: October 1, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19820 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-449-804] Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Latvia AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 4, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of its fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Latvia. This review covers sales of rebar with respect to one producer of the subject merchandise, Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs (LM). The period of review
(POR)is September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. We provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of this review, but received no comments. The final results do not differ from the preliminary results of this review. We will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess importer-specific antidumping duties on the subject merchandise exported by LM. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton at
(202)482-0371; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In the preliminary results of this review ( *see Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia,* 72 FR 30773 (June 4, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”)), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results.* No comments were received. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Final Results of Review These final results remain unchanged from the *Preliminary Results.* We provided an opportunity for parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* and received no comments. Therefore, we find that the following percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period of September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006: Producer Weighted-average margin (percentage) Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs 5.94 Assessment The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). We calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of the sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. As explained in the *Preliminary Results,* the Department will apply the importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the previous review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties,* 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposits The following cash deposit requirements were effective upon publication of the final results of the previous administrative review ( *see Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia,* 71 FR 74900 (December 13, 2006)) for all shipments of rebar from Latvia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 13, 2006, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and will continue to be in effect:
(1)The cash deposit rate listed above for LM will be 5.94 percent;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 17.21 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. October 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19821 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Illinois Institute of Technology; Notice of Decision on Application; for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments This is a decision pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC. *Comments:* None received. *Decision:* Approved. We know of no instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as each is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of its order. *Docket Number:* 07-056. Applicant: Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL. Instrument: Micro Test Pendulum with Hot-Stage Extension & Spherical Indenters. Manufacturer: Micro Materials Ltd., United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 72 FR 52084, September 12, 2007. *Reason:* The instrument must be capable of testing materials at temperatures in excess of 700 °C or at a load capacity of 10kN. Both of these features are critical in the assessment of mechanical properties of high strength materials at elevated temperatures. Dated: October 3, 2007. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19825 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration District Export Council Nomination Opportunity AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. *Mission Statement:* Notice and call for membership for one of the Sixty District Export Councils nationwide. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce is currently seeking expressions of interest from individuals in serving as a member of one of the Sixty District Export Councils
(DECs)nationwide. The DECs are closely affiliated with the U.S. Export Assistance Centers of the U.S. Commercial Service. DECs combine the energies of more than 1,500 exporters and export service providers who promote U.S. exports. DEC members volunteer at their own expense. DATES: Applications for nomination to a DEC must be submitted by the designated local USEAC representative by November 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact your local U.S. Export Assistance Center at: *http://www.buyusa.gov/home/us.html* ; or call Andy Karellas with the U.S. Commercial Service at
(202)482-3642, Fax: 202-482-0687. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DECs sponsor and participate in numerous trade promotion activities, as well as supply specialized expertise to small and medium-sized businesses that are interested in exporting. *Selection Process:* About half of the approximately 30 positions on each of the 60 DECs are open for nominations for the term that ends December 31, 2011. Nominees are recommended by the local U.S. Export Assistance Center Director, in consultation with the DEC and other local export promotion partners. After a review process, nominees are selected and appointed to a DEC by the Secretary of Commerce. *Membership Criteria:* Each DEC is interested in nominating highly-motivated people. Appointment is based upon an individual's energetic leadership, position in the local business community, knowledge of day-to-day international operations, interest in export development, and willingness and ability to devote time to council activities. Members include exporters, export service providers and others whose profession supports U.S. export promotion efforts. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* , 15 U.S.C. 4721. Dated: October 2, 2007. Andy Karellas, Office of Domestic Operations, U.S. Commercial Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E7-19854 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-825] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 1, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the notice of initiation of the first five-year sunset review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate
(PET)film from India, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,* 72 FR 30544 (June 1, 2007) ( *Initiation* ). On the basis of notices of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, and inadequate responses from respondent interested parties (in this case, neither the Government of India nor any of the respondent companies covered by the order provided a response), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of these orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) and (C). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. DATES: *Effective Dates:* October 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0197 or
(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 1, 2007, the Department initiated the first sunset review of the countervailing duty order on PET film from India, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation* , 72 FR 30544. The Department received notices of intent to participate from DuPont Teijin Films (DuPont), Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America (MFA), SKC, Inc. (SKC), and Toray Plastics (America), Inc.
(TPA)(collectively, domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status as U.S. producers engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale of PET film in the United States, pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act. On June 15, 2007, respondent, Garware Polyester Ltd. (Garware) notified the Department of its interest in participating in this sunset review. On July 2, 2007, the Department received a substantive response from domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive any substantive responses from any respondent interested party to this proceeding. Although Garware notified the Department of its interest in participating in the review, it did not file a substantive response. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(1), the Department notified the International Trade Commission
(ITC)that respondent interested parties to the CVD order on PET film from India, provided inadequate responses to the *Initiation* , 72 FR 30544. The Department, therefore, has conducted an expedited sunset review of the countervailing duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) and (C)(2). Since the publication of the countervailing duty order, there have been three completed administrative reviews of this order. *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from India,* 67 FR 44179 (July 1, 2002). There have been no requests for scope clarifications and no changed circumstances reviews. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET film), whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film were classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. Effective July 1, 2003, the HTSUS subheading 3920.62.00.00 was divided into 3920.62.00.10 (metallized PET film) and 3920.62.00.90 (non-metallized PET film). HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised, in the substantive responses, by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Orders on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India,* from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently with this notice ( *Decision Memorandum* ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the *Decision Memorandum* include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the order were revoked and the nature of the subsidy. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Import Administration Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memo* can be accessed directly on the Department's Web page at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.* The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order on PET Film from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following subsidy rates: Manufacturers/exporters Subsidy rate (percent *ad valorem* ) Ester Industries Ltd 27.39 Garware Polyester Ltd 33.44 Polyplex Corporation Ltd 22.71 All Others 29.36 International Trade Commission
(ITC)Notification In accordance with section 752(b)(3) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final results of this expedited sunset review. Administrative Protective Orders 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 19 CFR 351.305. 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 that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 1, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19818 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Docket No.: 070926537-7538-01] Effect on Propane Consumers of the Propane Education and Research Council's Operations, Market Changes and Federal Programs AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is seeking public comment on whether the operation of the Propane Education and Research Council (PERC), in conjunction with the cumulative effects of market changes and Federal programs, has had an effect on residential, agricultural, process and nonfuel users of propane. This notice of inquiry is part of an effort to collect information to fulfill requirements under the Propane Education and Research Act of 1996 that established PERC and requires the Secretary of Commerce to assess the impact of PERC's activities on propane consumers. DATES: Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before November 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: E-mail: *Frank.Caliva@mail.doc.gov.* Include the phrase “Propane Price Impacts on Consumers” in the subject line; Fax:
(202)482-5665 (Attn: Frank Caliva); Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Frank Caliva, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Ave., NW., Suite 4053, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on the submission of comments or to request copies of submitted comments, contact Frank Caliva by telephone at 202-482-8245, or e-mail at *Frank.Caliva@mail.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Propane Education and Research Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-284) established the Propane Education and Research Council to enhance consumer and employee safety and training, to provide for research and development of clean and efficient propane utilization equipment, and to inform and educate the public about safety and other issues associated with the use of propane. Section 12 of the Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to prepare and submit to Congress and the Secretary of Energy a report examining whether operation of the Council, in conjunction with the cumulative effects of market changes and Federal programs, has had an effect on propane consumers, including residential, agriculture, process, and nonfuel users of propane. The Secretary of Commerce shall consider and, to the extent practicable, shall include in the report submissions by propane consumers, and shall consider whether:
(1)There have been long-term and short-term effects on propane prices as a result of the Council's activities and Federal programs; and
(2)whether there have been changes in the proportion of propane demand attributable to various market segments. If the report demonstrates that there has been an adverse effect related to the Council's activities, the Secretary of Commerce shall make recommendations for correcting the situation. In order to assist in the preparation of this study, the Department is seeking public comment on the effect of PERC's operation, market changes and Federal programs on propane consumers. For information on the operation and programs of PERC, you may visit PERC's Web site at *http://www.propanecouncil.org* or call PERC at
(202)452-8975. The Department encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on November 8, 2007. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. All comments must be submitted to the Department through one of the methods listed under ADDRESSES . The office does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you would like to view any comments received in response to this solicitation, please contact the individual listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Jamie Estrada, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing. [FR Doc. E7-19844 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction Meeting AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, United States Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR or Committee) will meet Tuesday, October 23, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Wednesday, October 24, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. The primary purpose of this meeting is to discuss implementation of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) statutory activities and the Committee's annual report to the NIST Director. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NEHRP Web site at *http://nehrp.gov/.* DATES: The ACEHR will meet on Tuesday, October 23, 2007, from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. The meeting will continue on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the entry-level conference room at the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS)in Golden, Colorado. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jack Hayes, Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8600, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8600. Dr. Hayes' e-mail address is *jack.hayes@nist.gov* and his phone number is
(301)975-5640. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established in accordance with the requirements of Section 103 of the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-360). The Committee is composed of 15 members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected for their technical expertise and experience, established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. In addition, the Chairperson of the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS)Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will serve in an ex officio capacity on the Committee. The Committee will assess: • Trends and developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction; • the effectiveness of NEHRP in performing its statutory activities (improved design and construction methods and practices; land use controls and redevelopment; prediction techniques and early-warning systems; coordinated emergency preparedness plans; and public education and involvement programs); • any need to revise NEHRP; and • the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of NEHRP. Background information on NEHRP and the Advisory Committee is available at *http://nehrp.gov/.* Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR) will meet Tuesday, October 23, 2007, from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. The meeting will continue on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. The meeting will be held in the entry-level conference room at the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS)in Golden, Colorado. The primary purpose of this meeting is to discuss implementation of the NEHRP statutory activities, review NEHRP agency budget preparation and implementation procedures for the Committee, and initiate preparation of the Committee's annual report to the NIST Director. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NEHRP Web site at *http://nehrp.gov/.* Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda. On October 23, 2007, approximately one-half hour will be reserved for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be 3 minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the ACEHR, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8600, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8600, via fax at
(301)975-4032, or electronically by e-mail to *info@nehrp.gov.* All visitors to the USGS site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by close of business Tuesday, October 16, 2007, in order to attend. Please submit your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Amber Stillrich. Non-U.S. citizens must also submit their country of citizenship, title, employer/sponsor, and address. Ms. Stillrich's e-mail address is *amber.stillrich@nist.gov* and her phone number is
(301)975-3777. Dated: October 1, 2007. James M. Turner, Acting Director. [FR Doc. E7-19796 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice Requesting Nominations for the Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) was constituted to advise the Secretary of Commerce through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on matters relating to the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry and NOAA's activities to carry out responsibilities of the Department of Commerce set forth in the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. Secs. 5621-5625). The Committee is composed of leaders in the commercial space-based remote sensing industry, space-based remote sensing data users, government (Federal, state, local), and academia. The Department of Commerce is seeking up to six highly qualified individuals knowledgeable about the commercial space-based remote sensing industry and uses of space-based remote sensing data to serve on the Committee. DATES: Nominations must be postmarked on or before November 8, 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACCRES was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on May 21, 2002, to advise the Secretary through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on matters relating to the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry and NOAA's activities to carry out responsibilities of the Department of Commerce set forth in the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. Secs. 5621-5625). The Committee meets at least twice a year. Committee members serve in a representative capacity for a term of two years and may serve up to two consecutive terms, if reappointed. No less than 12 and no more than 15 individuals may serve on the Committee. Membership is comprised of highly qualified individuals representing the commercial space-based remote sensing industry, space-based remote sensing data users, government (Federal, state, local), and academia from a balance of geographical regions. Nominations are encouraged from all interested persons and organizations representing interests affected by the U.S. commercial space-based remote sensing industry. Nominees must possess demonstrable expertise in a field related to the space-based commercial remote sensing industry or exploitation of space-based commercial remotely sensed data and be able to attend committee meetings that are held at least two times per year. In addition, selected candidates must apply for and obtain a security clearance. Membership is voluntary, and service is without pay. Each nomination submission should include the proposed committee member's name and organizational affiliation, a cover letter describing the nominee's qualifications and interest in serving on the Committee, a curriculum vitae or resume of the nominee, and no more than three supporting letters describing the nominee's qualifications and interest in serving on the Committee. Self-nominations are acceptable. The following contact information should accompany each submission: The nominee's name, address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address, if available. Nominations should be sent to David Hasenauer, NOAA/NESDIS International and Interagency Affairs, 1335 East West Highway, Room 7311, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 and nominations must be received by November 8, 2007. The full text of the Committee Charter and its current membership can be viewed at the Agency's Web page at *http://www.accres.noaa.gov/index.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hasenauer, NOAA/NESDIS International and Interagency Affairs, 1335 East West Highway, Room 7311, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone
(301)713-2024 x207, fax
(301)713-2032, e-mail *David Hasenauer@noaa.gov.* Mary E. Kicza, Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-19791 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD02 Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)announces the adoption of an Endangered Species Act
(ESA)recovery plan for the Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon ( *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* ) evolutionarily significant unit
(ESU)and the Upper Columbia River steelhead ( *Oncorhynchus mykiss* ) distinct population segment (DPS). The Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan (the Plan) contains 27 appendices. ADDRESSES: Additional information about the Plan may be obtained by writing to Lynn Hatcher, National Marine Fisheries Service, 304 S. Water Street, Suite #201, Ellensburg, WA 98926, or by calling
(509)962-8911. Electronic copies of the Plan and the summary of and response to public comments on the Proposed (Draft) Recovery Plan are available online at www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Interior-Columbia/Upper-Columbia/Index.cfm, or the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board website, www.ucsrb.com/. A CD-ROM of these documents can be obtained by calling Sharon Houghton at
(503)230-5418 or by e-mailing a request to *sharon.houghton@noaa.gov* , with the subject line “CD-ROM Request for Final ESA Recovery Plan for Upper Columbia Salmon and Steelhead.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Hatcher, NMFS Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Coordinator at
(509)962-8911, or Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS Salmon Recovery Division, at
(503)230-5434. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Recovery plans describe actions beneficial to the conservation and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the extent practicable, incorporate:
(1)objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered;
(2)site-specific management actions that may be necessary to achieve the plan's goals; and
(3)estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. The ESA requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the recovery of a particular species. NMFS' goal is to restore endangered and threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead to the point that they are again self-sustaining members of their ecosystems and no longer need the protections of the ESA. NMFS believes it is critically important to base its recovery plans on the many state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts already underway throughout the region. Therefore, the agency supports and participates in locally led collaborative efforts to develop recovery plans, involving local communities, state, tribal, and Federal entities, and other stakeholders. As the lead ESA agency for listed salmon, NMFS is responsible for reviewing these locally produced recovery plans and deciding whether they meet ESA statutory requirements and merit adoption as ESA recovery plans. The Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) ESU was listed as endangered under the ESA on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14307). The Upper Columbia River Steelhead (O. mykiss) DPS was listed as endangered on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937), and reclassified as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The 2006 reclassification of the steelhead DPS was invalidated as the result of a decision in U.S. District Court on June 13, 2007 (Trout Unlimited, *et al.* v. Lohn, No. CV-06-1493-ST). Thus, the present status of the Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS is endangered. On December 30, 2005, the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB) presented its locally developed Draft Recovery Plan to NMFS. The UCSRB includes representatives from Chelan County, Douglas County, Okanogan County, Yakama Nation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. A variety of additional partners, representing Federal agencies, Washington State agencies, regional organizations, special purpose districts, and members of the public, also participated in the planning process. After NMFS reviewed the Draft Recovery Plan, NMFS and the UCSRB revised it to clarify how it satisfies ESA recovery plan requirements and to address additional elements as needed. The jointly revised Draft Recovery Plan was made available for public review as a Proposed Recovery Plan, and a notice of availability soliciting public comments on the Proposed Recovery Plan was published in the **Federal Register** on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57472). NMFS received 73 comment letters on the Proposed Recovery Plan. An itemized record of all comments is included in the final Plan as Appendix O.4. NMFS summarized the public comments and prepared responses, now available on the NMFS website at *www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Interior-Columbia/Upper-Columbia/Index.cfm* . Public hearings were conducted on November 8, 2006, in Okanogan, Washington, and on November 9, 2006, in Wenatchee, Washington. Complete copies of the Proposed Recovery Plan were placed in the Twisp, Entiat, Okanogan, and Wenatchee, Washington, public libraries. NMFS and the UCSRB again revised the plan based on the comments received, and this final version now constitutes the ESA Recovery Plan for Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Upper Columbia Steelhead. By endorsing this locally developed recovery plan, NMFS is making a commitment to implement the actions in the plan for which it has authority, to work cooperatively on implementation of other actions, and to encourage other Federal agencies to implement recovery plan actions for which they have responsibility and authority. NMFS will also encourage the State of Washington to seek similar implementation commitments from state agencies and local governments. NMFS expects the Plan to help NMFS and other Federal agencies take a more consistent approach to future ESA section 7 consultations and other ESA decisions. For example, the Plan will provide greater biological context for the effects that a proposed action may have on the listed ESU and DPS. Science described in the Plan will become a component of the ''best available information'' reviewed for ESA section 7 consultations, section 10 permits and habitat conservation plans (HCPs), and other ESA decisions. Such information includes viability criteria for the ESU, DPS, and their independent populations; better understanding of and information on limiting factors and threats facing the ESU and DPS; better information on priority areas for addressing specific limiting factors; and better geographic context for assessing risk to the ESU and DPS. The Recovery Plan The Plan is one of many ongoing salmon recovery planning efforts funded under the Washington State Strategy for Salmon Recovery. The State of Washington designated the UCSRB as the Lead Entity for salmon recovery planning for the Upper Columbia. The UCSRB has consistently involved the public in its recovery planning process, making changes based on extensive comments received during public comment periods for the Draft Recovery Plan in January, April, and June of 2005, and during the public comment period for the Proposed Recovery Plan from September 2006 to February 2007. The Plan is an outgrowth and culmination of several conservation efforts in the Upper Columbia Basin, including current efforts related to the ESA, state- and tribally sponsored recovery efforts, subbasin planning, and watershed planning. The Upper Columbia planning effort was supported by a NMFS-appointed science panel, the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). This panel of 11 scientific experts from Federal, state, local, and private organizations identified historical populations and recommended ESU viability criteria (ICTRT 2005 and 2007). The ICTRT reviewed early drafts of the plan and provided scientific peer review of the Proposed Recovery Plan. In addition, staff biologists of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Okanogan County, Douglas County, and Chelan County reviewed the UCSRB Plan at each stage. NMFS Northwest Region staff biologists also reviewed draft versions of the Plan and provided substantial guidance for revisions. The Plan incorporates the NMFS viable salmonid population
(VSP)framework (McElhany *et al.* , 2000) as a basis for biological status assessments and recovery goals for Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and Upper Columbia River steelhead. ESU Addressed and Planning Area The Plan will be implemented within the range of the Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon ESU and the Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS. The planning area includes parts of Okanogan, Douglas, Chelan, and Grant counties. The ICTRT identified three independent populations in the spring Chinook salmon ESU (Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow), and five independent populations in the steelhead DPS (Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Crab Creek). These independent populations were identified based on the genetic, geographic, and habitat characteristics they share within the ESU or the DPS. Each population's size category (very large, large, medium, or basic) was based on its historical population size. The Upper Columbia tributaries were further divided into Major Spawning Areas and Minor Spawning Areas based on the within-population complexity of tributary spawning habitats. The Plan's Recovery Goals, Objectives and Criteria The Plan's goal is to achieve recovery and delisting of spring Chinook salmon and steelhead by ensuring the long-term persistence of viable populations of naturally produced fish distributed across their native range. The Plan bases biological status assessments and recovery goals on the four VSP parameters: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (McElhany *et al.* 2000). Evaluating a species for potential delisting requires an explicit analysis of population or demographic parameters (biological recovery criteria) and also of threats under the five ESA listing factors in ESA section 4(a)(1) (threats criteria). Together these make up the “objective, measurable criteria” required under section 4(f)(1)(B). While the ESU or DPS is the listed entity under the ESA, the viability criteria are based on the collective viability, characteristics, and distribution of the individual populations that make up the ESU or DPS. The Plan identifies two levels of recovery objectives. The first level relates to reclassifying the endangered species as threatened and the second relates to recovery (delisting). The reclassification objectives include increasing the abundance, productivity, and distribution of naturally produced steelhead and spring Chinook salmon sufficient to lead to reclassification as threatened, and conserving their genetic and phenotypic diversity. The Plan's recovery (delisting) objectives include increasing the abundance of naturally produced spring Chinook salmon and steelhead spawners within each population in the Upper Columbia River ESU/DPS to levels considered viable; increasing the productivity (spawner:spawner ratios and smolts/ redds) of naturally produced spring Chinook salmon and steelhead within each population to levels that result in low risk of extinction; restoring the distribution of naturally produced spring Chinook salmon and steelhead to previously occupied areas where practical; and conserving their genetic and phenotypic diversity. The Plan sets forth specific criteria to meet the recovery objectives, based on the ICTRT's recommended criteria, which, if met, would indicate a high probability of persistence into the future for Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and steelhead. The Plan establishes criteria for 95 percent probability of persistence (5 percent extinction risk) for all Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon populations, and all but one population of the steelhead DPS. The Plan concludes that the Upper Columbia River steelhead DPS may be recovered without attaining the 95 percent probability of persistence for the Crab Creek population, based on the possibility that this population was not viable historically because of environmental conditions (e.g., intermittent stream flows and high water temperatures). The ICTRT recently recommended that, in an ESU/DPS containing only one major population group (MPG), as is the case for both Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon and Upper Columbia River steelhead, at least two populations should meet abundance/productivity criteria representing a 1-percent extinction risk (99-percent probability of persistence) over a 100-year period (ICTRT 2005b, p. 46). The ICTRT considers the 5 percent risk level ''viable'' and the 1 percent risk level ''highly viable.'' The Plan does not adopt this more recent recommendation, but instead adopts the 5 percent extinction risk for abundance/productivity for all populations in the Chinook salmon ESU and all but one in the steelhead DPS, as stated above. NMFS accepts the UCSRB's recommended recovery (delisting) criteria because they call for all known extant populations within the Chinook ESU and steelhead DPS to be viable. Furthermore, NMFS believes that it is not possible at this time to distinguish between the levels of effort needed to attain 95 vs. 99 percent probability of persistence; therefore, the Plan's actions would not change at this time in response to the ICTRT's more recently recommended criterion. Finally, NMFS will re-evaluate ESU and DPS status and the appropriateness of the recovery criteria in 5 years or less based on additional data from monitoring and research on critical uncertainties, and could modify the recovery plan accordingly. Causes for Decline and Current Threats The ESA includes five factors, in section 4(a)(1), to be evaluated when the initial determination to list a species for protection is made. These factors are:
(a)the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range;
(b)overutilization for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes;
(c)disease or predation;
(d)the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
(e)other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533[a][1]). These five factors may or may not still be limiting recovery when, in the future, NMFS reevaluates the status of the species to determine whether the protections of the ESA are sill warranted, and whether the species can be delisted. In the Plan, NMFS provides criteria for each of the relevant listing/delisting factors to help ensure that underlying causes of decline have been addressed and mitigated before considering the species for delisting. The Plan identifies the main causes for the decline of the Upper Columbia River steelhead and spring Chinook salmon as:
(1)human adaptation and destruction of habitat;
(2)the effects of hydroelectric operations;
(3)the effects of commercial, sport, and tribal fisheries; and
(4)the impacts of hatchery programs and practices. *Habitat:* Human activities have altered and/or curtailed habitat-forming processes and limited the habitat suitable for spring Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Upper Columbia River tributaries. Although recent land and water management practices have improved, some storage dams, diversions, roads and railways, agriculture, residential development, and forest management continue to cause changes in water flow, water temperature, sedimentation, floodplain dynamics, riparian function, and other aspects of the ecosystem, that are deleterious to spring Chinook salmon and steelhead and their habitat. *Hydroelectric Operations:* Conditions for Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and steelhead have been fundamentally altered throughout the Columbia River basin by the construction and operation of mainstem dams and reservoirs for power generation, navigation, and flood control. Upper Columbia River salmon and steelhead are adversely affected by hydrosystem-related flow and water quality effects, obstructed and/or delayed passage, and ecological changes in impoundments. *Harvest:* Harvest of Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and steelhead occurs in commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries in the mainstem Columbia and in some tributaries. Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and steelhead are rarely taken in ocean fisheries; most harvest of these listed species occurs in the Columbia mainstem and some tributaries. Aggregate harvest rates (from fishing in all areas) have generally been reduced from their peak periods as a result of international treaties, fisheries conservation acts, the advent of weak-stock management in the 1970s and 1980s, regional conservation goals, and the listing of many salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs under the ESA. While fisheries do not target weak stocks of listed salmon or steelhead, listed fish are incidentally caught in fisheries directed at hatchery and unlisted wild stocks. *Hatcheries:* In the Upper Columbia region, the 12 hatcheries currently producing spring Chinook salmon and steelhead are operated to mitigate for loss of habitat and for passage mortalities resulting from the Columbia River hydrosystem. These hatcheries provide valuable mitigation and/or conservation benefits but can cause substantial adverse impacts if not properly managed. The Plan describes the risks to listed fish from these hatcheries, including genetic effects that reduce fitness and survival, ecological effects such as competition and predation, facility effects on passage and water quality, mixed stock fishery effects, and masking of the true status of wild populations. *Additional Factors:* The Plan considers that there could be additional factors that affect Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and steelhead, including changes in estuarine habitat, global climate change, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, fluctuating ocean cycles, and predation. Recovery Strategies and Actions The Plan's initial approach is to target reductions in all manageable threats and limiting factors and to improve the status of all extant Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and steelhead populations. As monitoring and evaluation programs improve understanding of the effectiveness of various actions and their benefits throughout the life cycle of salmon and steelhead, adjustments may be made through the adaptive management framework described in the Plan. The Plan describes objectives and strategies and recommends specific actions for Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and steelhead recovery. Among the most significant recommendations are the following: *Habitat:* The Plan includes habitat protection and restoration actions in all streams that currently support or may support (in a restored condition) listed spring Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Upper Columbia Basin. The objectives and recommended actions are derived from subbasin plans, watershed plans, the Upper Columbia Biological Strategy, the Douglas County public utility district
(PUD)and Chelan County PUD Anadromous Fish Agreement and Habitat Conservation Plans (AFAHCPs), and other relicensing agreements. The Plan emphasizes actions that
(1)protect existing areas where high ecological integrity and natural ecosystem processes persist;
(2)restore connectivity (access) throughout the historical range, where feasible and practical;
(3)protect and restore riparian habitat along spawning and rearing streams and identify long-term opportunities for riparian habitat enhancement;
(4)protect and restore floodplain function and reconnection, off-channel habitat, and channel migration processes where appropriate; and
(5)increase habitat diversity by rebuilding, maintaining, and adding instream structures (e.g., large woody debris or rocks) where long-term channel form and function efforts are not feasible. *Hydroelectric Operations:* Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and steelhead migrate through four federally owned projects and three to five projects owned by PUDs. These projects are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Plan acknowledges that hydropower strategies and actions are being implemented, reviewed, and considered in several ongoing processes, including Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) ESA section 7 consultations (for the lower four Federal dams on the Columbia River), the AFAHCPs, and relicensing agreements. The Plan's recommended actions are intended to be consistent with these processes. The Plan emphasizes continued implementation of the actions identified in the AFAHCPs, which adopted a standard of no net impact
(NNI)on the Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon ESU and Steelhead DPS. *Harvest:* Harvest objectives for treaty and non-treaty salmon and steelhead fisheries in the Columbia River Basin are set by the applicable state, tribal, and Federal agencies. Fishery objectives from McNary Dam to the mouth of the Columbia River (fishing zones 1-6) are established by state, tribal, and Federal parties in *U.S.* v. *Oregon* , 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969). While recognizing the role of the treaty and non-treaty co-managers, the Plan proposes that the *U.S.* v. *Oregon* parties incorporate Upper Columbia recovery goals when formulating fishery plans affecting Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and steelhead. The Plan also recommends that appropriate co-managers and fishery management agencies work together with local stakeholders to develop tributary fisheries management goals and plans. *Hatcheries:* The hatchery strategies and actions in the Plan are being reviewed and considered in several ongoing processes, including the Chelan County and Douglas County PUD AFAHCPs, the Grant County biological opinion, and U.S. v. Oregon. NMFS expects that the Plan's recommended goals and actions will be implemented through these ongoing processes. The Plan emphasizes that hatchery programs play an essential role in spring Chinook salmon and steelhead recovery. Among other measures, the Plan proposes that hatchery programs employ mechanisms to manage hatchery returns on spawning grounds in balance with naturally produced fish, while maintaining production levels identified in various agreements. It also proposes that, as the populations recover, hatchery programs should be modified to minimize adverse impacts of hatchery fish on naturally produced fish. *Integration:* The Plan states that recovery will depend on integrating actions that address habitat, harvest, and hydroelectric operations; moreover, it emphasizes that recovery actions must be implemented at both the ESU/DPS and population scale. *Adaptive Management:* Adaptive management is the process of adjusting management actions and/or directions based on new information. It requires building an evaluation method into an implementation plan, so that selection and design of future recovery actions can be adjusted depending on the results of previous actions. Adaptive management is essential to salmon recovery planning. The UCSRB is developing a monitoring and evaluation element (and associated costs) to incorporate into its adaptive management framework, which will become a part of the overall implementation plan. NMFS will continue to work with the UCSRB on its adaptive management program as appropriate during plan implementation. Time and Cost Estimates ESA section 4(f)(1) requires that a recovery plan include ''estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to achieve the Plan's goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal'' (16 U.S.C. 1533[f][1]). The Plan contains an extensive list of actions that need to be undertaken to recover spring Chinook salmon and steelhead; however, there are many uncertainties involved in predicting the course of recovery and in estimating total costs. Such uncertainties include biological and ecosystem responses to recovery actions as well as long-term and future funding. The Plan states that if its recommended actions are implemented, recovery of the Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon ESU and the Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS is likely to occur within 10 to 30 years. The cost estimates cover work projected to occur within the first 10-year period. NMFS supports the Plan's determination to focus on the first 10 years of implementation, provided that, before the end of this first implementation period, specific actions and costs will be estimated for subsequent years, to achieve long-term goals and to proceed until a determination is made that listing is no longer necessary. The estimated cost of restoring habitat for spring Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Upper Columbia Basin is approximately $296 million over the initial 10-year period. This estimate includes expenditures by local, tribal, state, and Federal governments, private business, and individuals in implementing both capital projects and non-capital work. The estimate of $296 million does not include costs associated with hatchery programs, because the implementation of hatchery actions is approved and budgeted in processes established by the Upper Columbia HCPs. These processes are consistent with this recovery plan. The cost estimate also does not include expenses associated with implementing actions within the lower Columbia River, estuary, or FCRPS, or the cost of implementing measures in the PUDs' HCPs and Settlement Agreements. Cost estimates for the estuary and FCRPS are included in two modules that NMFS developed because of the basin-wide scope and applicability of the actions to all 13 ESUs and DPSs listed as threatened or endangered in the Columbia Basin. These modules, as well as the HCPs and Settlement Agreements, are incorporated into the Plan by reference. The modules are available on the NMFS Web site: *www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/Other- Documents.cfm* . The hydropower cost estimates will be updated over time, as the section 7 consultation on the remanded 2004 FCRPS BiOp is completed. The estuary recovery costs could be further refined following public comment on the module and on the ESA recovery plan for the three listed lower Columbia River ESUs and one listed lower Columbia River steelhead DPS in 2007 or early 2008. There are virtually no estimated costs for recovery actions associated with harvest to report at this time. This is because no actions are currently proposed that go beyond those already being implemented through U.S. v. Oregon and other harvest management forums. In the event that additional harvest actions are implemented through these forums, those costs will be added during the implementation phase of this recovery plan. All cost estimates will be refined and updated over time. The Plan estimates it may cost a total of $10 million ($1 million per year) to cover state, tribal, and local agency and organization staffing costs during the first 10 years of plan implementation, and it is conceivable that this level of effort will need to continue for the Plan's duration. Also, continued actions in the management of habitat, hatcheries, and harvest, including both capital and non-capital costs, will likely warrant additional expenditures beyond the first 10 years. Although it is not practicable to accurately estimate the total cost of recovery, it appears that most of the costs will occur in the first 10 years. Annual costs are expected to be lower for the remaining years, so that the total for the entire period (years 11-30) may possibly range from $150 million to $200 million. Periodic Reviews In accordance with its responsibilities under ESA section 4(c)(2), NMFS will conduct status reviews of the listed Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon ESU and Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS at least once every 5 years to evaluate their status and determine whether the ESU or DPS should be removed from the list or changed in status. Such evaluations will take into account the following: • The biological recovery criteria (ICTRT 2007) and listing factor (threats) criteria described in the Plan. • The management programs in place to address the threats. • Principles presented in the Viable Salmonid Populations paper (McElhany *et al.* , 2000). • Best available information on population and ESU/DPS status and new advances in risk evaluation methodologies. • Other considerations, including: the number and status of extant spawning groups; linkages and connectivity among populations; the diversity of life history and phenotypes expressed; and considerations regarding catastrophic risk. • Principles laid out in NMFS' Hatchery Listing Policy (70 FR 37204, June 28, 2005). Conclusion NMFS has reviewed the Plan, the public comments, and the conclusions of the ICTRT from its reviews of the Plan. Based on that review, NMFS concludes that the Plan meets the requirements in section 4(f) of the ESA for developing a recovery plan. Literature Cited Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team. 2005. Updated population delineation in the Interior Columbia Basin. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Memorandum. May 11, 2005. Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team. 2007. Viability criteria for application to Interior Columbia Basin salmonid ESUs. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. March 2007. McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable salmon populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS NWFSC 42, 156 p. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: October 2, 2007. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-19812 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC75 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Amendment 3 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and Amendment 4 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS); scoping meetings; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council)in conjunction with NMFS intends to prepare a DEIS to describe and analyze management alternatives to be included in a joint amendment to the Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
(USVI)and the FMP for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI. These alternatives will consider measures to implement escape vents in the trap fishery sector of both fisheries. The purpose of this notice of intent is to solicit public comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS. DATES: Written comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS must be received by the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES below) by November 8, 2007. A series of scoping meetings will be held in October 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for the specific dates, times, and locations of the scoping meetings. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *0648-XC75.Proposed@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier: 0648-XC75. • Mail: Jason Rueter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. • Fax: 727-824-5308. • Mail: Graciela Garcia-Moliner, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, PR 00918-25772203; • Fax: 787-766-6239. • E-mail: *Graciela.Garcia-Moliner@noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Graciela Garcia-Moliner; phone: 787-766-5927; fax: 787-766-6239; e-mail: *Graciela.Garcia-Moliner@noaa.gov* ; or Jason Rueter; phone: 727-824-5350; fax: 727-824-5308; or e-mail: *Jason.Rueter@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Many species of fish in the reef fish fishery in Puerto Rico and the USVI are believed to be overexploited, largely due to trap fishing and bycatch associated with this fishery. Landings from the trap fishery have continuously decreased since 1990 in Puerto Rico; species composition has changed; and size frequency of some fish has decreased over the last 10 years. These effects have been attributed to excessive trap fishing effort, lack of compliance with trap construction requirements (i.e., fishers often do not use the required biodegradable fasteners on trap doors), use of other gears by commercial fishers (e.g., gill nets), and the lack of escape panels in traps which would allow smaller fishes to escape, resulting in high mortality of juveniles and a loss of long-term potential yield. According to the NMFS Report on the Status of the U.S. Fisheries for 2006, five stocks are undergoing overfishing, four are overfished, and two are approaching an overfishing condition. The five stocks undergoing overfishing are Grouper Unit 1 (Nassau grouper), Grouper Unit 4 (red, yellowedge, misty, tiger, and yellowfin grouper), Snapper Unit 1 (silk, blackfin, black, and vermilion snapper), parrotfishes, and queen conch. The four stocks that are overfished are Grouper Unit 1 (Nassau grouper), Grouper Unit 2 (goliath grouper), Grouper Unit 4 (red, yellowedge, misty, tiger, and yellowfin grouper), and queen conch. The two stocks approaching an overfished condition are Snapper Unit 1 (silk, blackfin, black, and vermilion snapper) and parrotfishes. All of the finfish species and spiny lobster are susceptible to trap capture at some life history stage, particularly the juvenile stage. Under current fishing practices, bycatch and the associated mortality of bycatch is not expected to be reduced sufficiently in the reef fish or spiny lobster trap fisheries. Without a reduction in bycatch, those stocks experiencing overfishing may become overfished, and those stocks overfished may not meet the goals of the rebuilding plan set forth in the Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment of 2005. Therefore, the use of escape panels as a management tool is proposed in this amendment to help achieve the necessary reductions in fishing mortality among the species harvested by traps. The Council in conjunction with NMFS will develop a DEIS to describe and analyze management alternatives to implement escape panels in the trap sector of both fisheries. The DEIS will provide updates to the best available scientific information regarding the reef fish complex and the spiny lobster stock, and based on the information, the Council, in conjunction with NMFS, will determine what actions and alternatives are necessary to protect reef fishes and spiny lobster. Those alternatives may include, but are not limited to: a “no action” alternative regarding the fisheries, which would not require escape vents; alternatives to require one escape panel of various sizes and shapes in traps; and an alternative requiring two escape panels of various sizes and shapes. In accordance with NOAA's Administrative Order NAO 216-6, Section 5.02(c), the Council, in conjunction with NMFS, has identified this preliminary range of alternatives as a means to initiate discussion for scoping purposes only. This may not represent the full range of alternatives that eventually will be evaluated by the Council and NMFS. Once the Council and NMFS completes the DEIS associated with the amendment to the Caribbean reef fish and spiny lobster FMPs, NMFS will submit the DEIS for filing with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA will publish a notice of availability of the DEIS for public comment in the **Federal Register** . The DEIS will have a 45-day comment period. This procedure is pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6 regarding NOAA's compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations. The Council and NMFS will consider public comments received on the DEIS in developing the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)and before adopting final management measures for the amendment. The Council will submit both the final joint amendment and the supporting FEIS to NMFS for review under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, i.e., Secretarial review. NMFS will announce, through a notice published in the **Federal Register** , the availability of the final joint amendment for public review during the Secretarial review period. During Secretarial review, NMFS will also file the FEIS with the EPA for a final 30-day public comment period. This comment period will be concurrent with the Secretarial review period and will end prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the final joint amendment. NMFS will announce, through a notice published in the **Federal Register** , all public comment periods on the final joint amendment, its proposed implementing regulations, and its associated FEIS. NMFS will consider all public comments received during the Secretarial review period, whether they are on the final amendment, the proposed regulations, or the FEIS, prior to final agency action. Scoping Meeting Dates, Times, and Locations All scoping meetings are scheduled to be held from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. The meetings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Request for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council (see ADDRESSES ). October 16—Windward Passage Hotel, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, USVI. October 17—Buccaneer Hotel, Christiansted, St Croix, USVI. October 23—Pierre Hotel, De Diego Avenue, San Juan, PR. October 24—Ponce Golf and Casino Resort, 1150 Caribe Avenue, Ponce, PR. October 25—Mayaguez Holiday Inn, 2701 Highway #2, Mayaguez, PR. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: October 2, 2007. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-19811 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Meeting: Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP)Product Development Committee
(CPDC)for Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3 AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP)Product Development Committee for Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3 (CPDC-S&A 3.3) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated October 17, 2006. CPDC-S&A 3.3 is the Federal Advisory Committee charged with responsibility to develop a draft Synthesis and Assessment Product that addresses CCSP Topic 3.3: “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate”. *Place:* The meeting will be held at the National Climatic Data Center, 151 Patton Ave., Asheville, North Carolina, 28801. *Time and Date:* The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, October 22, 2007 and adjourn early afternoon on October 24, 2007. Meeting information will be available online on the CPDC-S&A 3.3 Web site ( *http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./ccsp/33.jsp* ). Please note that meeting location, times, and agenda topics described below are subject to change. *Status:* The meeting will be open to public participation and will include a 30-minute public comment period on October 22 from 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. (check Web site to confirm this time and the room in which the meeting will be held). The CPDC—S&A 3.3 expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five
(5)minutes. Written comments (at least 35 copies) should be received by the CPDC—S&A 3.3 Designated Federal Official
(DFO)by October 15, 2007 to provide sufficient time for review. Written comments received after October 15 will be distributed to the CPDC—S&A 3.3, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. *Matters To Be Considered:* The meeting will
(1)formulate responses to the comments received during the official Public Comment Period on the Second Draft of Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3 and revise the Second Draft accordingly;
(2)finalize plans for completion and submission of the Third Draft of Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3 to the Climate Change Science Program Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher D. Miller, CPDC—S&A 3.3 DFO and the Program Manager, NOAA/OAR/Climate Program Office, Climate Change Data and Detection Program Element, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 12239, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone 301-734-1241, e-mail: *Christopher.D.Miller@noaa.gov.* Dated: October 2, 2007. Mark E. Brown, Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19756 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KB-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XD17 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling public meetings of its Monkfish Advisory Panel and its Oversight Committee, in October, 2007, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from these groups will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: These meetings will be held on Tuesday, October 23, at 9 a.m. and on Wednesday, October 24, at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn, One Newbury Street, Peabody, MA 01960; telephone:
(978)535-4600; fax:
(978)535-8238. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Tuesday, October 23, 2007; Monkfish Advisory Panel meeting. The Advisory Panel will review the analysis of alternatives under consideration in Framework 5 to the Monkfish FMP and make recommendations on preferred alternatives to the Monkfish Committee and New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils. Framework 5 alternatives will address changes to the biological reference points (as recommended by the recent stock assessment workshop), days-at-sea
(DAS)carryover limits, monkfish landings under the 3-hour gillnet rule, Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England area large-mesh monkfish incidental catch limits, and the requirement to obtain a monkfish Letter of Authorization to fish in the northern management area. 2. Wednesday, October 24, 2007; Monkfish Oversight Committee meeting. The Committee will review the analysis of alternatives under consideration in Framework 5 to the Monkfish FMP and consider the recommendations of the Monkfish Advisory Panel as well as public comment, and make recommendations on preferred alternatives to the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils. Framework 5 alternatives will address changes to the biological reference points (as recommended by the recent stock assessment workshop), DAS carryover limits, monkfish landings under the 3-hour gillnet rule, Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England area large-mesh monkfish incidental catch limits, and the requirement to obtain a monkfish Letter of Authorization to fish in the northern management area. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at
(978)465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: October 3, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-19809 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD18 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Salmon Technical Team (STT), Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)Salmon Subcommittee, and Model Evaluation Workgroup
(MEW)will hold a joint work session to review proposed salmon methodology changes, which is open to the public. DATES: The work session will be held Wednesday, October 24, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, October 25, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The work session will be held at the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384; telephone:
(503)820-2280. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Tracy, Salmon Management Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the work session is to brief the STT and SSC Salmon Subcommittee on proposed changes to methods and standards used to manage ocean salmon fisheries, review a genetic stock identification research and exempted fishing permit proposal and, to review proposed modifications to the Chinook and Coho Fishery Regulation Assessment Models (FRAM). Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the STT, SSC Salmon Subcommittee, and MEW for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at
(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: October 3, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-19810 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce. *Title:* United States Patent Applicant Survey. *Form Number(s):* None. The surveys contained in this information collection do not have USPTO form numbers assigned to them. When the surveys are approved, they will carry the OMB Control Number and the date on which OMB's approval of the information collection expires. *Agency Approval Number:* 0651-0052. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 140 hours annually. *Number of Respondents:* 400 responses per year with an estimated 267 responses filed electronically. *Average Hours Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public 30 minutes (0.50 hours) to complete the surveys, with the exception of the surveys for the independent inventors, which are estimated to take 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to complete. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, respond to the surveys, and submit them to the USPTO. The USPTO believes that it will take the same amount of time to respond to the surveys, whether they are completed online or mailed to the USPTO. *Needs and Uses:* The USPTO developed the United States Patent Applicant Survey as part of a continuing effort to better predict the future growth of patent application filings by understanding applicant intentions. The main purpose of this survey is to determine the number of application filings that the USPTO can expect to receive over the next three years from patent-generating entities, ranging from large domestic corporations to independent inventors. The USPTO also uses this survey in response to the Senate Appropriations Report 106-404 (September 8, 2000), which directed the USPTO to “develop a workload forecast with advice from a representative sample of industry and the inventor community.” There are two versions of the survey: one for large domestic corporations and small and medium-sized businesses and one for universities, non-profit research organizations, and independent inventors. The large domestic corporations, small and medium-sized businesses, universities, non-profit research organizations, and independent inventors responding to these surveys will provide the USPTO with the number of application filings that they plan to submit, in addition to providing general feedback concerning industry trends and the survey itself. The USPTO will use this feedback to anticipate demand and estimate future revenue flow more reliably; to identify input and output triggers and allocate resources to meet and understand customer needs; and to reassess output and capacity goals and re-align organization quality control measures with applicant demand by division. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profits and not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following: *E-mail: Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0052 copy request” in the subject line of the message. *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan K. Fawcett. *Mail:* Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before November 8, 2007 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Dated: October 2, 2007. Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Customer Information Services Group, Public Information Services Division. [FR Doc. E7-19793 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Corporation is soliciting comments concerning the proposed renewal of its AmeriCorps*VISTA Project Application and Instructions (OMB Control Number 3045-0038), This reinstatement with changes reflects the Corporation's intent to modify selected sections of the collection instrument to better capture appropriate information for use in selecting organizations to serve as VISTA sponsors, while reducing applicant burden. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section December 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1)By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Attn. Paul Davis, Director of Program Development, Room 9107, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2)By hand delivery or by courier to the Corporation's mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph
(1)above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3)By fax to:
(202)565-2789, Attention Mr. Paul Davis, Director of Program Management.
(4)Electronically through the Corporation's e-mail address system: *pdavis@cns.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Davis,
(202)606-6608 or by e-mail at *pdavis@cns.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Corporation is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and, • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses). Background The AmeriCorps*VISTA Project Application and Instructions is used by the Corporation in the selection of VISTA sponsors and in the approval of both new and renewing VISTA projects. The information collection consists of a brief Concept Paper, and, if the Concept Paper is approved, a full application including budget. Current Action The Corporation seeks to revise the previously used Project Application to:
(a)Better align the information requested on the Concept Paper and the Application; and
(b)simplify the project plan while continuing to provide a robust tool for evaluating project performance. *Type of Review:* Renewal. *Agency:* Corporation for National and Community Service. *Title:* AmeriCorps*VISTA Project Application and Instructions. *OMB Number:* 3045-0038. *Agency Number:* None. *Affected Public:* AmeriCorps*VISTA project applicants and sponsoring organizations seeking project renewal. *Total Respondents:* 3,200 for the concept paper; 1,000 for the full application. *Frequency:* One time. *Average Time per Response:* 2 hours for Concept Paper; 15 hours for application. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 21,400 hours. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* None. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* None. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: October 1, 2007. Jean Whaley, Director, AmeriCorps*VISTA. [FR Doc. E7-19736 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Notice of Advisory Committee Closed Meeting AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Closed Meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App 2, section 1), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces the following closed meeting notice pertaining to the following federal advisory committee. Due to events beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Transformation Advisory Group, the Committee was unable to publish its meeting notice in the **Federal Register** for the 15-calendar days required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement *Name of Committee:* Transformation Advisory Group. *Date:* October 18, 2007; October 19, 2007. *Time:* October 18, 2007-9 a.m. to 5 p.m. October 19, 2007-9 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Location:* Military Sealift Command Tower Conference Center, Bldg. 157, 914 Charles Morris Ct. SE., Washington Navy Yard, DC 20398. *Purpose of the Meeting:* The purpose of the meeting is to obtain, review and evaluate information related to scientific, technical and policy-related issues for the nation's joint enterprise, and U.S. Joint Forces Command with emphasis on how these issues relate to the shaping of the command's efforts today and in the future. *Agenda:* Topics include: Future Joint Force Implications, Anticipatory Transformation, Innovation, Unified Action, Joint Capability Portfolio Management Process and Joint Capabilities to support Joint Operations. *Meeting Accessibility:* Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. Per delegated authority by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, LTG John R. Wood, Deputy Commander, U.S. Joints Forces Command in consultation with his legal advisor, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) of Title 5 U.S.C. *Written Statements:* Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Transformation Advisory Group at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Transformation Advisory Group's Designated Federal Officer; the Designated Federal Officer's contact information can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.* Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Transformation Advisory Group may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members. *For Further Information Contact:* Ms. Tammy R. Van Dame, Designated Federal Officer,
(757)836-5365, 1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 200, Norfolk, VA 23551-2488, *tammy.vandame@jfcom.mil.* *Supplementary Information:* Mr. Floyd March, Joint Staff,
(703)697-0610. Dated: October 1, 2007. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 07-4965 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 20
Traces to 20 documents
CFR
18 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 1902
  • 19 USC 81a-81u
  • 15 CFR 400
  • 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246
  • 337 F.3d 1373
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
  • 113 F.3d 1220
  • 216 F.3d 1027
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • Pub. L. 106-36
  • 15 CFR 301
  • Pub. L. 104-284
  • Pub. L. 108-360
  • 15 USC 5621-5625
  • 302 F. Supp. 899
  • 41 CFR 102
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Proposed collection; comments requested
U.S.C.§ 1480
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.402
F. Supp.366 F. Supp. 2d 1246
F. App'x337 F.3d 1373
F. App'x899 F.2d 1185
Cites 38 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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