Você está na página 1de 8

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

173 / Friday, September 7, 2007 / Notices 51411

regulations and terms of an APO is a Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary administrative review of the
violation which is subject to sanction. Results. antidumping duty order on stainless
We are issuing and publishing the Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act steel wire rod (‘‘SSWR’’) from Sweden
results and notice in accordance with of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), requires with respect to Fagersta Stainless AB
sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Department to issue preliminary (‘‘FSAB’’). The period of review
the Act. results within 245 days after the last day (‘‘POR’’) is September 1, 2005, through
of the anniversary month of an order for August 31, 2006.
Dated: August 29, 2007. We preliminarily determine that sales
which a review is requested and the
David M. Spooner, final results within 120 days after the have been made below normal value
Assistant Secretary for Import date on which the preliminary results (‘‘NV’’). Interested parties are invited to
Administration. are published. However, if it is not comment on the preliminary results. If
[FR Doc. E7–17702 Filed 9–6–07; 8:45 am] practicable to complete the review the preliminary results are adopted in
within this time period, section our final results of administrative
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
Department to extend the 245-day time and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE period to a maximum of 365 days. We antidumping duties on all appropriate
determine that completion of the entries.
International Trade Administration preliminary results of this review within EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2007.
the 245-day period is not practicable FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[A–570–891] because the Department requires Brian C. Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/
additional time to analyze information CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof pertaining to the respondents’ sales Administration–Room B–099,
from the People’s Republic of China: practices, factors of production, and to International Trade Administration,
Extension of Time Limit for the issue and review responses to U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Preliminary Results of the supplemental questionnaires. Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Antidumping Duty Administrative Because it is not practicable to Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
Review complete this review within the time 482–1766 or (202) 482–3773,
specified under the Act, we are respectively.
AGENCY: Import Administration, extending the time period for issuing
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
International Trade Administration, the preliminary results of review by 90
Department of Commerce. days until December 1, 2007, in Background
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of On September 15, 1998, the
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2007. the Act. Because December 1, 2007, falls Department published in the Federal
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: on a Saturday, the preliminary results Register an antidumping duty order on
Hilary E. Sadler, AD/CVD Operations, will be due by December 3, 2007, the SSWR from Sweden. See Notice of
Office 8, Import Administration, next business day. The final results Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless
International Trade Administration, continue to be due 120 days after the Steel Wire Rod from Sweden, 63 FR
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th publication of the preliminary results. 49329 (‘‘SSWR Order’’). On September
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., This notice is published pursuant to 1, 2006, the Department published in
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 the Federal Register a notice of
482–4340. CFR 351.213(h)(2). ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative
Dated: August 31, 2007. Review’’ of the antidumping duty order
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: on SSWR from Sweden covering the
Gary Taverman,
Background Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import period September 1, 2005, through
Administration. August 31, 2006. See Antidumping or
The Department of Commerce [FR Doc. E7–17700 Filed 9–6–07; 8:45 am] Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
(‘‘Department’’) published an BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
antidumping duty order on hand trucks to Request Administrative Review, 71
and certain parts thereof (‘‘hand FR 52061 (September 1, 2006). On
trucks’’) from the People’s Republic of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE September 28, 2006, the petitioners
China (‘‘PRC’’) on December 2, 2004. submitted a letter timely requesting that
See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: International Trade Administration the Department conduct an
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof [A–401–806]
administrative review of the sales of
From the People’s Republic of China, 69 SSWR made by FSAB, pursuant to
FR 70122 (December 2, 2004). On Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
February 2, 2007, the Department Preliminary Results of Antidumping amended (‘‘the Act’’). On October 2,
published in the Federal Register a Duty Administrative Review 2006, FSAB also requested that the
notice of the initiation of the Department conduct an administrative
AGENCY: Import Administration, review of its sales. 2 Based on the
antidumping duty administrative review
International Trade Administration, petitioners’ and FSAB’s requests for an
of hand trucks from the PRC for the
Department of Commerce. administrative review of FSAB’s sales,
period December 1, 2005, through
SUMMARY: In response to a timely on October 19, 2006, we issued an
November 30, 2006. See Initiation of
request by the petitioners,1 the
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty antidumping duty questionnaire3 to


Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Department’’) is conducting an 2 FSAB later withdrew its request for an
Revocation in Part, 72 FR 5005
administrative review on January 29, 2007.
(February 2, 2007). The preliminary 1 The petitioners include the following 3 Section A of the questionnaire requests general
results of this review are currently due companies: Carpenter Technology Corporation and information concerning a company’s corporate
no later than September 2, 2007. Charter Speciality Steel. Continued

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:34 Sep 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1
51412 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 173 / Friday, September 7, 2007 / Notices

FSAB in advance of our initiation of the 2007, cost of production (‘‘COP’’) Molybdenum ....... 1.50/2.50
administrative review. The Department information for three products sold in Phosphorous ....... 0.05 max
published a notice of initiation of an the United States during the POR which Lead .................... added (0.10/0.30)
administrative review with respect to it inadvertently did not include in its Sulfur .................. 0.15 max
Tellurium ............. added (0.03 min)
FSAB on October 31, 2006. See May 8, 2007, supplemental Silicon ................. 1.00 max
Initiation of Antidumping and questionnaire response (see also August K–M35FL.
Countervailing Duty Reviews, 71 FR 22, 2007, Memorandum to The File, Carbon ................ 0.015 max
63752 (October 31, 2006). entitled, ‘‘Telephone Conversation with Nickel .................. 0.30 max
FSAB submitted its response to Consultant for Fagersta Stainless AB Silicon ................. 0.70/1.00
Section A of the Department’s (‘‘Fagersta’’)’’). Chromium ........... 12.50/14.00
questionnaire on November 27, 2006, On August 24, 2007, we issued FSAB Manganese ......... 0.40 max
Sections B, D, and E of the a supplemental questionnaire based on Lead .................... 0.10/0.30
Phosphorous ....... 0.04 max
questionnaire on December 22, 2006, our analysis of its August 22, 2007,
Aluminum ............ 0.20/0.35
and Section C of the questionnaire on submission. For purposes of the Sulfur .................. 0.03 max
January 5, 2007. We issued to FSAB a preliminary results, we have relied on Kanthal A–1.
Sections A through C supplemental the data provided by FSAB in the Carbon ................ 0.08 max
questionnaire on January 26, 2006. August 22, 2007, submission. However, Aluminum ............ 5.30 min, 6.30 max
FSAB submitted a timely response to we will examine the information Silicon ................. 0.70 max
this supplemental questionnaire on submitted by FSAB in response to the Iron ...................... balance
March 9, 2007. August 24, 2007, questionnaire for the Manganese ......... 0.40 max
On March 22, 2007, we issued a Chromium ........... 20.50 min, 23.50 max
final results of this review.
Kanthal AF.
decision memorandum which outlined Carbon ................ 0.08 max
the Department’s basis for collapsing Scope of the Order
Aluminum ............ 4.80 min, 5.80 max
FSAB with its affiliates, AB Sandvik For purposes of this order, SSWR Silicon ................. 0.70 max
Materials Technology (‘‘SMT’’) and comprises products that are hot–rolled Iron ...................... balance
Kanthal AB (‘‘Kanthal’’), and treating or hot–rolled annealed and/or pickled Manganese ......... 0.40 max
them as a single entity in this review. and/or descaled rounds, squares, Chromium ........... 20.50 min, 23.50 max
See March 22, 2007, Memorandum from octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in Kanthal A.
the Team to The File, entitled, coils, that may also be coated with a Carbon ................ 0.08 max
lubricant containing copper, lime or Aluminum ............ 4.80 min, 5.80 max
‘‘Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Silicon ................. 0.70 max
Whether to Collapse FSAB, SMT, and oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels Iron ...................... balance
Kanthal.’’ containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or Manganese ......... 0.50 max
We issued to FSAB a Sections D and less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more Chromium ........... 20.50 min, 23.50 max
E supplemental questionnaire on March of chromium, with or without other Kanthal D.
27, 2007. FSAB submitted timely elements. These products are Carbon ................ 0.08 max
responses to this supplemental manufactured only by hot–rolling or Aluminum ............ 4.30 min, 5.30 max
questionnaire on May 1 and 8, 2007, hot–rolling annealing, and/or pickling Silicon ................. 0.70 max
respectively. and/or descaling, are normally sold in Iron ...................... balance
Manganese ......... 0.50 max
On April 24, 2007, we issued to FSAB coiled form, and are of solid cross- Chromium ........... 20.50 min, 23.50 max
a second Sections A and C section. The majority of SSWR sold in Kanthal DT.
supplemental questionnaire to which it the United States is round in cross- Carbon ................ 0.08 max
submitted a timely response on May 15, sectional shape, annealed and pickled, Aluminum ............ 4.60 min, 5.60 max
2007. and later cold–finished into stainless Silicon ................. 0.70 max
On May 21, 2007, we partially steel wire or small–diameter bar. The Iron ...................... balance
extended the time limit for the most common size for such products is Manganese ......... 0.50 max
preliminary results in this review until 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in Chromium ........... 20.50 min, 23.50 max
August 31, 2007. See Stainless Steel Alkrothal 14.
diameter, which represents the smallest Carbon ................ 0.08 max
Wire Rod from Sweden: Notice of size that normally is produced on a Aluminum ............ 3.80 min, 4.80 max
Extension of Time Limit for 2005–2006 rolling mill and is the size that most Silicon ................. 0.70 max
Administrative Review, 72 FR 29485 wire–drawing machines are set up to Iron ...................... balance
(May 29, 2007). draw. The range of SSWR sizes Manganese ......... 0.50 max
On July 10, 2007, we issued to FSAB normally sold in the United States is Chromium ........... 14.00 min, 16.00 max
a second Section E supplemental between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in Alkrothal 720.
questionnaire to which it submitted a diameter. Carbon ................ 0.08 max
timely response on July 17, 2007. Aluminum ............ 3.50 min, 4.50 max
Certain stainless steel grades are
In response to the Department’s Silicon ................. 0.70 max
excluded from the scope of the order. Iron ...................... balance
request, FSAB submitted on August 22, SF20T and K–M35FL are excluded. The Manganese ......... 0.70 max
following proprietary grades of Kanthal Chromium ........... 12.00 min, 14.00 max
structure and business practices, the merchandise AB are also excluded: Kanthal A–1, Nikrothal 40.
under review that it sells, and the manner in which
it sells that merchandise in all of its markets.
Kanthal AF, Kanthal A, Kanthal D, Carbon ................ 0.10 max
Section B requests a complete listing of all home Kanthal DT, Alkrothal 14, Alkrothal Nickel .................. 34.00 min, 37.00 max
market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, 720, and Nikrothal 40. The chemical Silicon ................. 1.60 min, 2.50 max
of sales in the most appropriate third-country makeup for the excluded grades is as Iron ...................... balance
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

market (this Section is not applicable to Manganese ......... 1.00 max


respondents in non-market economy cases). Section
follows:
Chromium ........... 18.00 min, 21.00 max
C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section
D requests information on the cost of production of SF20T.
the foreign like product and the constructed value Carbon ................ 0.05 max The subject merchandise is currently
of the merchandise under review. Section E Chromium ........... 19.00/21.00 classifiable under subheadings
requests information on further manufacturing. Manganese ......... 2.00 max 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:34 Sep 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 173 / Friday, September 7, 2007 / Notices 51413

7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and hierarchy. Specifically, FSAB claims When the Department has an
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff that (1) the physical differences established model–matching
Schedule of the United States associated with remelting are methodology in a proceeding, it may
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS significant, as the ESR process reduces alter its established methodology if
subheadings are provided for the number of inclusions in the steel there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
convenience and customs purposes, the enabling the steel to withstand stress See NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States,
written description of the scope of this better and to have a higher fatigue 295 F. 3d. 1263, 1269 (CIT 2002). With
order is dispositive. resistance; (2) the model–matching respect to changes to its model–
criteria used in the stainless steel bar matching methodology, the Department
Fair Value Comparisons (‘‘SSB’’) proceedings, which include has applied a ‘‘compelling reasons’’
To determine whether sales of SSWR remelting, are relevant to the model– standard, which is fully consistent, if
by FSAB to the United States were made matching criteria in this review because not more rigorous, than the principles
at less than NV, we compared SSB is an immediate downstream applied by the courts in reviewing the
constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to the product of SSWR; and (3) significant Department’s determination to alter or
NV, as described in the ‘‘Constructed price and costs differences exist change its practice. See Ball Bearings
Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ between ESR–treated and non–ESR- and Parts Thereof From France,
sections of this notice. treated SSWR and, therefore, the Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the exclusion of ESR from the model– the United Kingdom: Final Results of
Act, we compared the CEP of individual matching criteria has a dramatic effect Antidumping Duty Administrative
U.S. transactions to the weighted– on the dumping margin. In support of Review, 70 FR 54711 (September 16,
average NV of the foreign like product its request to include ESR in the SSWR 2005), and accompanying Issues and
where there were sales made in the product–comparison criteria, FSAB Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
ordinary course of trade, as discussed in provided the same technical Compelling reasons that warrant a
the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ information in its questionnaire change to the model–matching
section below. responses5 in this administrative review methodology may include, for example,
as it had provided in the prior greater accuracy in comparing foreign
Product Comparisons
administrative review. Like in the prior like product to the single most similar
In accordance with section 771(16) of review, we preliminarily find an U.S. model, in accordance with section
the Act, we considered all products insufficient basis in this review upon 771(16)(B) of the Act, or a greater
produced by FSAB covered by the which to include ESR as a model– number of reasonable price–to-price
description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ matching criterion for the reasons comparisons in accordance with section
section, above, to be foreign like explained in detail below. 773(a)(1) of the Act.
products for purposes of determining In accordance with the Department’s
As in the prior review, we
appropriate product comparisons to practice, when identical merchandise is
preliminarily find no compelling reason
U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR not available in the home market for
in this review to change the current
351.414(e)(2)(ii), we compared U.S. comparison to merchandise sold to the
model–matching criteria as requested by
sales to sales made in the home market United States, the Department will
FSAB. In this review, FSAB used ESR
within the contemporaneous window compare ‘‘similar’’ merchandise based
to produce one AISI–equivalent SSWR
period, which extends from three upon the physical characteristics of the
merchandise being compared. See grade6 that it sold to one customer in the
months prior to the month of the U.S.
section 771(16)(B) of the Act. The home market during the POR. Although
sale until two months after the sale.
statute also instructs the Department to FSAB reported sales to the United States
Where there were no sales of identical
compare merchandise that is produced and home market of the same SSWR
merchandise in the comparison market
in the same country and by the same grade, FSAB did not perform ESR on
made in the ordinary course of trade to
person as the subject merchandise; like that same SSWR grade sold in the U.S.
compare to U.S. sales, we compared
that subject merchandise in component market. Although FSAB did report more
U.S. sales to sales of the most similar
material or materials and in the than one sale of this SSWR grade to a
foreign like product made in the
purposes for which used; and single home market customer during the
ordinary course of trade. In making the
approximately equal in commercial POR, the fact remains that the single
product comparisons, we matched
value to the subject merchandise. See ESR–treated AISI–equivalent SSWR
foreign like products based on the
section 771(16)(B) of the Act. Section grade is insignificant when compared to
physical characteristics reported by
771(16)(C) of the Act instructs that, the large number of non–ESR-treated
FSAB in the following hierarchical
where no matches can be found under AISI–equivalent SSWR grades FSAB
order: grade, diameter, further
section 771(16)(B) of the Act, three sold in both the home and U.S. markets
processing, and coating.
criteria must be met to consider a during the POR. Moreover, FSAB’s use
Electro–Slag Remelting product similar to the U.S. model: (1) of ESR (and remelting in general) on
In its December 22, 2006, response to the comparison–market model must be products subject to this review is
Section B of the questionnaire (‘‘Section produced in the same country and by limited to home market sales of one
B response’’), FSAB requested, as it did the same person and of the same general AISI–equivalent SSWR grade, which are
in the prior administrative review, that class or kind as the merchandise which insignificant in terms of the total
the Department include an additional is the subject of the investigation; (2) the quantity of the AISI–equivalent SSWR
characteristic, electro–slag remelting comparison–market model must be like grades FSAB sold to the U.S. and home
(‘‘ESR’’),4 in the above–noted product– that merchandise in the purposes for markets during the POR.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

matching criteria and also consider it as which used; and (3) the comparison–
one of the most significant physical market model must be found to be 6 The Department’s antidumping duty

reasonably comparable to the U.S. questionnaire instructed FSAB to assign codes to its
characteristics in the product matching SSWR grades sold during the POR based on the
model by the Department. specifications established for AISI-recognized
4 ESR is one form of remelting. Another form of grades. See antidumping duty questionnaire at page
remelting is vacuum arc remelting (‘‘VAR’’). 5 See Exhibit 1 of the Section B Response. B-6 and C-5.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:34 Sep 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1
51414 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 173 / Friday, September 7, 2007 / Notices

Moreover, we do not find that there is model–matching criteria applicable to to be limited and, therefore, is the
greater accuracy with respect to those other stainless steel products do exception rather than the norm when
comparing the foreign like product to not include remelting.8 In contrast, the producing SSWR. In prior reviews, the
the most similar U.S. model if we model–matching criteria for SSB Department has stated that changing the
include ESR as a model–matching include remelting forms such as ESR model–matching criteria may be
criterion. Specifically, the Department’s because remelting is an integral part of warranted if an interested party can
current product–matching criteria use the production of a wide range of SSB show that a specific standard exists that
all of FSAB’s home market sales of the and is used extensively by that is not captured in the model–matching
ESR–treated and non–ESR-treated grade industry.9 See Stainless Steel Wire Rod criteria but which is industry–wide,
at issue (i.e., FSAB’s internal grade 20) from Sweden: Final Results of commercially accepted and recognizes
when comparing those sales of that Antidumping Duty Administrative material physical characteristics of
grade to the identical grade sold in the Review, 72 FR 17834 (April 10, 2007), various types for the particular product
U.S. market. In accordance with the and accompanying Issues and Decision at issue.11 In this review, it is clear
instructions contained in the Memorandum at Comment 1 (‘‘2004– based on the limited application of ESR,
Department’s questionnaire, FSAB’s 2005 SSWR Final Results’’). In addition, in particular, and remelting, in general,
reported costs for each SSWR grade we note that even though SSWR is used to SSWR that FSAB has not met this
include both non–ESR and ESR–related to produce SSB, we find that to the test.
production costs. FSAB’s proposal to extent that SSWR is used to produce As pointed out earlier, ESR is but one
treat ESR as a separate model–matching SSB, its use in the production of SSB is form of remelting. As such, even though
criterion would effectively remove the limited to the smaller diameters of FSAB may have only started using the
home market sales of ESR–treated SSB.10 As such, we find no basis to ESR process to produce the one grade at
SSWR from the margin calculation conclude that SSB requires the use of issue after the Department completed
analysis. Specifically, adding ESR to the remelted SSWR or that remelted SSWR the LTFV segment of this proceeding,
model–matching criteria would result in is used primarily to produce SSB; and we find that other forms of remelting,
separate control numbers for the ESR– thus we find no merit to FSAB’s claim such as VAR, have been used to produce
treated and non–ESR-treated that the model–matching criteria used SSWR before the initiation of the LFTV
merchandise at issue, as well as separate in the SSB proceedings, which include segment of this proceeding.12 In fact,
production costs and prices for the remelting, are relevant to the model– both ESR and VAR are similar in terms
merchandise. Consequently, by matching criteria applicable to SSWR. of their intended purposes and uses. For
excluding the ESR–treated SSWR home Furthermore, we find that the use of example, ESR and VAR are both used to
market sales from our analysis, the other production processes or steps (i.e., make a cleaner steel (i.e., a steel with
home market price and production costs not just remelting) to make SSWR can fewer, smaller, and more evenly
of the SSWR grade at issue are have an impact on costs and can also distributed and/or segregated
artificially lowered when compared to affect the quality (both internally and inclusions). However, the use of one
sales of the same grade in the U.S. externally) of the final SSWR product, remelting form may be preferred over
market. Therefore, including ESR as a including the level of inclusions, and the other depending on the type of final
model–matching criterion will not therefore, the resulting quality of the end use of the SSWR.13 Therefore, we
result in greater accuracy with respect to final SSWR product is not necessarily do not consider remelting (in one form
product comparisons involving the unique to the remelting process. or another) to be a new technological
SSWR grade at issue. In addition, given Moreover, we find that these additional development affecting the SSWR
the fact that the use of ESR is limited production steps appear to be industry, as it has been in existence for
to the production of one AISI– dependent on a particular customer’s decades.14
equivalent grade in this review, request, as in the case of FSAB’s use of We recognize that FSAB may have
inclusion of ESR as a model–matching ESR to produce one SSWR grade sold in incurred additional costs when it used
characteristic will not result in greater the home market during the POR. ESR to remelt one AISI–equivalent
accuracy with respect to comparing the Therefore, we find that such use appears SSWR grade of merchandise sold in the
remaining foreign like product (i.e., all home market during the POR. We also
other SSWR grades sold in the home 9, 2006) (‘‘SSSS from Taiwan’’); Stainless Steel recognize that a producer which remelts
market during the POR) to the single Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany: Notice of grades of steel used to produce any
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty stainless steel product may incur
most similar U.S. model, in accordance Administrative Review, 71 FR 45024, 45025 (August
with section 771(16)(B) of the Act. 8, 2006) (‘‘SSSS from Germany’’); Stainless Steel additional costs, and those costs will be
Furthermore, we find no basis to Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico: Preliminary greater when compared to the costs
include remelting in the model– Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative incurred to produce the same grades
Review, 71 FR 35618, 35619 (June 21, 2006) (‘‘SSSS without remelting. However, in this
matching criteria because its use in the from Mexico’’).
production of SSWR is limited. We note 8 See, e.g., SSSS from Taiwan, 71 FR at 45527;
case, the single AISI–equivalent SSWR
that other stainless steel products such SSSS from Germany, 71 FR at 45027; SSSS from
11 See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
as stainless steel plate and stainless Mexico, 71 FR at 35620.
9 Moreover, when the Department sought Steel Flat Products from Canada: Final Results of
steel sheet and strip in coils, like SSWR, Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
comment on its proposed model-matching criteria
do undergo, to a limited extent, some in the less-than-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) segment of the 13458 (March 21, 2005), and accompanying Issues
form of remelting.7 However, the SSB proceedings, the vast majority of interested and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Notice
parties, not just the petitioners, participating in the of Final Results of Twelfth Administrative Review
7 See, e.g., Final Results of Expedited Sunset SSB proceedings all agreed that remelting was a of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Review: Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden, 63 FR significant characteristic in SSB production and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

67658 (December 8, 1998), which notes that the therefore should be included in the model-matching the Republic of Korea, 72 FR 13086 (March 12,
Department issued a July 11, 1995, scope ruling criteria. See August 31, 2007, Memorandum to The 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision
with respect to a stainless steel plate product File entitled, ‘‘Public Documentation Placed on the Memorandum at Comment 1.
12 See 2004-2005 SSWR Final Results at Comment
named Stavax ESR; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip Record’’ (which includes discussion of remelting in
in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and the SSB proceedings). 1.
13 See FSAB’s Section B Response at Exhibit 1.
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 10 See also 2004-2005 SSWR Final Results at

Administrative Review, 71 FR 45521, 45523 (August Comment 1. 14 See FSAB’s Section B response at Exhibit 1.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:34 Sep 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 173 / Friday, September 7, 2007 / Notices 51415

grade for which FSAB used ESR also deducted an amount for further– order for sales to be considered in the
represents only one in a broad range of manufacturing costs, where applicable, ordinary course of trade and used in the
other SSWR grades sold by FSAB in the in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of NV calculation). Sales to the affiliated
U.S. and home markets during the POR. the Act, and made an adjustment for customer in the home market that were
Moreover, based on FSAB’s own data profit in accordance with section not made at arm’s–length prices were
and our findings in the 2004–2005 772(d)(3) of the Act. To calculate the excluded from our analysis because we
SSWR Final Results, it does not appear cost of further manufacturing, we relied considered these sales to be outside the
that the use of remelting is a common on SMT U.S.’s reported cost of further– ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR
practice in the SSWR industry. manufacturing materials, labor, and 351.102(b).
Therefore, the cost differences identified overhead, plus amounts for further- Level of Trade
by FSAB with respect to the single manufacturing general and
remelted AISI–equivalent grade relative administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses, and Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act
to the numerous other non–remelted financial expenses. For further details states that, to the extent practicable, the
grades sold during the POR, coupled regarding the further–manufacturing Department will calculate NV based on
with the fact that ESR remelting is a cost calculation, see the Memorandum sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’)
production step not common to from LaVonne Clark, Senior as the export price (‘‘EP’’) or CEP. Sales
producing SSWR, do not warrant the Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director are made at different LOTs if they are
inclusion of ESR as an additional of Accounting, ‘‘Cost of Production and made at different marketing stages (or
model–matching criterion as suggested Constructed Value Calculation for the their equivalent). See 19 CFR
by FSAB in this review. Preliminary Results - Fagersta Stainless 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
AB’’ (‘‘COP/CV Memo’’) dated August selling activities are a necessary, but not
Constructed Export Price sufficient, condition for determining
31, 2007.
We calculated CEP in accordance that there is a difference in the stages of
with section 772(b) of the Act because Normal Value marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final
the subject merchandise was either sold A. Home Market Viability Determination of Sales at Less Than
for the account of FSAB by its Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length
subsidiary, Fagersta Stainless, Inc. In order to determine whether there Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa,
(‘‘FSI’’), in the United States to was a sufficient volume of sales in the 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19,
unaffiliated purchasers, or subsequently home market to serve as a viable basis 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order
further manufactured into non–subject for calculating NV, we compared the to determine whether the comparison
merchandise by its affiliate, Sandvik volume of home market sales of the sales were at different stages in the
Materials Technology U.S. (‘‘SMT foreign like product to the volume of marketing process than the U.S. sales,
U.S.’’), in the United States and then U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in we reviewed the distribution system in
resold to its unaffiliated customers. accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of each market (i.e., the chain of
We based CEP on the packed prices to the Act. distribution), including selling
unaffiliated purchasers in the United Because FSAB’s aggregate volume of functions, class of customer (customer
States. We identified the correct starting home market sales of the foreign like category), and the level of selling
price by adjusting for alloy surcharges product was greater than five percent of expenses for each type of sale.
and billing adjustments associated with its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of
the sale, and by making deductions for subject merchandise, we determined the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and
early payment discounts and volume that its home market was viable. comparison market sales (i.e., NV based
rebates, where applicable, as required on either home market or third country
B. Affiliated–Party Transactions and
by section 772 of the Act. We also made prices),15 we consider the starting prices
Arm’s–Length Test
deductions for movement expenses in before any adjustments. For CEP sales,
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of During a portion of the POR, FSAB we consider only the selling activities
the Act. These expenses included, sold the foreign like product to an reflected in the price after the deduction
where appropriate, foreign inland affiliated customer. To test whether of expenses and profit under section
freight (including freight from the plant these sales were made at arm’s–length 772(d) of the Act. See Micron
to the port of exportation), U.S. prices, we compared, on a product– Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.
brokerage and handling, ocean freight, specific basis, the starting prices of sales 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
marine insurance, U.S. inland freight to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, When the Department is unable to
expenses (including freight from the net of all discounts and rebates, match U.S. sales of the foreign like
U.S. port to the U.S. customer or movement charges, direct selling product in the comparison market at the
warehouse, and freight from the expenses, and packing expenses. same LOT as the EP or CEP, the
warehouse to the U.S. customer) offset Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in Department may compare the U.S. sale
by freight revenue, U.S. customs fees accordance with the Department’s to sales at a different LOT in the
(including harbor maintenance fees and practice, where the price to the affiliated comparison market. In comparing EP or
merchandise processing fees), and party was, on average, within a range of CEP sales at a different LOT in the
warehousing expenses. In accordance 98 to 102 percent of the price of the comparison market, where available
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we same or comparable merchandise sold data make it practicable, we make an
deducted those selling expenses to unaffiliated parties, we determined LOT adjustment under section
associated with economic activities that sales made to the affiliated party 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP
occurring in the United States, were at arm’s length. See Antidumping sales only, if the NV LOT is more
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

including direct selling expenses (credit Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in remote from the factory than the CEP
expenses, warranty expenses, and the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR
15 Where NV is based on constructed value
repacking expenses) and indirect selling 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002)
(‘‘CV’’), we determine the NV LOT based on the
expenses (including inventory carrying (establishing that the overall ratio LOT of the sales from which we derive selling
costs) incurred in the country of calculated for an affiliate must be expenses, G&A expenses, and profit for CV, where
exportation and the United States. We between 98 percent and 102 percent in possible.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:34 Sep 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1
51416 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 173 / Friday, September 7, 2007 / Notices

LOT and there is no basis for market sales were made at the same submitted by FSAB in its supplemental
determining whether the difference in LOT. See LOT Memo. Section D questionnaire responses.
LOTs between NV and CEP affects price Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to
comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment the home market LOT and found that B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
was practicable), the Department shall the selling functions performed for On a product–specific basis, we
grant a CEP offset, as provided in home market sales are either performed
compared the weighted–average COP to
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate at the same degree of intensity as, or
the home market sales of the foreign like
from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732. vary only slightly from, the selling
We obtained information from FSAB functions performed for U.S. sales. product, as required under section
regarding the marketing stages involved Specifically, we found that two of the 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine
in making the reported foreign market four selling functions (i.e., freight/ whether the sale prices were below the
and U.S. sales, including a description delivery and warehousing/inventory) COP. For purposes of this comparison,
of the selling activities performed for are performed by FSAB at the same we used COP exclusive of selling and
each channel of distribution. Our LOT level of intensity in both the U.S. and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive
findings are summarized below. home markets. With respect to the of alloy surcharges and billing
FSAB sold SSWR only to end–users remaining two selling functions (i.e., adjustments, where appropriate) were
in the home market, but sold to both sales process/marketing support and exclusive of any applicable movement
end–users and distributors in the U.S. quality assurance/warranty service), we charges, rebates, discounts, direct and
market. FSAB reported that it made CEP found that there are only slight indirect selling expenses and packing
sales in the U.S. market through the differences in the level of intensity expenses.
following two channels of distribution: between the home and U.S. markets
(1) sales of FSAB–produced SSWR to its which are not a sufficient basis to C. Results of the COP Test
U.S. affiliate FSI (‘‘U.S. Channel 1’’), determine separate LOTs between the In determining whether to disregard
and (2) sales of FSAB–produced SSWR two markets. Therefore, we find that the home market sales made at prices below
to its U.S. affiliate SMT U.S. (which NV LOT and single U.S. LOT are at the the COP, we examined, in accordance
further manufactured the SSWR into same LOT. Accordingly, we matched with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) or the
wire products for sale to its unaffiliated CEP sales to home market sales at the Act: (1) whether, within an extended
U.S. customers) (‘‘U.S. Channel 2’’). We same LOT and have not made a CEP
period of time, such sales were made in
compared the selling activities offset.
performed in each channel, and found substantial quantities; and (2) whether
that certain selling functions (i.e., sales Cost of Production Analysis such sales were made at prices which
process/marketing support and freight/ In the LTFV investigation, the most permitted the recovery of all costs
delivery) were performed at the same recently completed segment of this within a reasonable period of time in
relative level of intensity in both proceeding as of October 31, 2006, the the normal course of trade. Where less
channels of distribution. With regard to date this review was initiated, we found than 20 percent of the respondent’s
the other selling functions considered in that FSAB had made sales below the home market sales of a given product
this analysis (i.e., warehousing/ cost of production (‘‘COP’’). See Notice are at prices less than the COP, we do
inventory and quality assurance/ of Preliminary Determination of Sales at not disregard any below–cost sales of
warranty service), we found that either Less Than Fair Value and Postponement that product because we determine that
the difference in the selling function of Final Determination: Stainless Steel in such instances the below–cost sales
between U.S. Channel 1 and U.S. Wire Rod From Sweden, 63 FR 10841, were not made within an extended
Channel 2 is insignificant or the selling 10846 (March 5, 1998); affirmed in period of time and in ‘‘substantial
function was not performed at all in Notice of Final Determination of Sales quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more
either channel during the POR. As a at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel of a respondent’s sales of a given
result, both U.S. channels, on balance, Wire Rod from Sweden, 63 FR 40449, product are at prices less than the COP,
are at the same LOT. Accordingly, we 40452 (July 29, 1998) (‘‘SSWR from we disregard the below–cost sales
find that all CEP sales constitute one Sweden LTFV Final’’). Thus, in because: (1) they were made within an
LOT. For further discussion, see August accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) extended period of time in ‘‘substantial
31, 2007, Memorandum to the File, of the Act, there are reasonable grounds quantities,’’ in accordance with sections
entitled, ‘‘Level of Trade Analysis for to believe or suspect that FSAB made 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2)
the Preliminary Results - FSAB’’ (‘‘LOT sales in the home market at prices below based on our comparison of prices to the
Memo’’). the cost of producing the merchandise weighted–average COPs for the POR,
With respect to the home market, in the current review period. they were at prices which would not
FSAB reported one channel of Accordingly, we instructed FSAB to permit the recovery of all costs within
distribution (i.e., factory direct sales) respond to Section D (Cost of a reasonable period of time, in
through which it sold SSWR to both Production) of the Department’s accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
affiliated and unaffiliated end–user questionnaire. the Act.
customers. According to FSAB, its
direct sales to both affiliated and A. Calculation of Cost of Production We found that, for certain specific
unaffiliated home market customers In accordance with section 773(b)(3) products, more than 20 percent of
constitute one distinct LOT in the home of the Act, we calculated FSAB’s COP FSAB’s home market sales were at
market. In determining whether separate based on the sum of FSAB’s costs of prices less than the COP and, in
LOTs exist in the home market, we materials and conversion for the foreign addition, such sales did not provide for
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

compared the selling functions like product, plus amounts for G&A the recovery of costs within a reasonable
performed by FSAB for its home market expenses and interest expenses (see period of time. We therefore excluded
sales to both affiliated and unaffiliated ‘‘Test of Home Market Sales Prices’’ these sales and used the remaining sales
customers. Based on our analysis of the section below for treatment of home as the basis for determining NV, in
information submitted for the record of market selling expenses). The accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
this review, we find that all home Department relied on the COP data Act.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:34 Sep 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 173 / Friday, September 7, 2007 / Notices 51417

Price–to-Price Comparisons Percent imported by SMT U.S., we will


Manufacturer/Exporter Margin calculate the importer–specific
We calculated NV based on delivered assessment rate by aggregating the
prices (inclusive of alloy surcharges) to Fagersta Stainless AB/AB dumping margins calculated for all of
unaffiliated customers or prices to Sandvik Materials Technology/ the U.S. sales examined and dividing
affiliated customers that were Kanthal AB .............................. 40.24
that amount by the total quantity of the
determined to be at arm’s length. We sales examined. To determine whether
made adjustments, where appropriate, Disclosure and Public Hearing the duty assessment rates are de
to the starting price for billing The Department will disclose to the minimis, in accordance with the
adjustments, discounts, and rebates. We parties the calculations performed in requirement set forth in 19 CFR
made deductions, where appropriate, connection with these preliminary 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate
from the starting price for inland freight results within five days of the importer–specific ad valorem ratios
(from the plant to the customer) and publication date of this notice. See 19 based on the estimated entered value.
inland insurance, under section CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may We will instruct CBP to assess
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We also made submit case briefs not later than 30 days antidumping duties on all appropriate
after the date of publication of this entries covered by this review if any
deductions from the starting price for
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues importer–specific assessment rate
credit, warranty, and other direct selling
raised in the case briefs, may be filed calculated in the final results of this
expenses, under section 773 of the Act. not later than 35 days after the date of review is above de minimis (i.e., at or
We made adjustments for differences publication of this notice. Parties who above 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR
in costs attributable to differences in the submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this
physical characteristics of the this proceeding are requested to submit review shall be the basis for the
merchandise in accordance with section with each argument: (1) a statement of assessment of antidumping duties on
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR the issue; (2) a brief summary of the entries of merchandise covered by the
351.411. We also deducted home market argument; and (3) a table of authorities. final results of this review.
packing costs and added U.S. packing Interested parties who wish to request a The Department clarified its
costs, in accordance with sections hearing or to participate if one is ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. requested, must submit a written May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
request to the Assistant Secretary for Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Calculation of Constructed Value Import Administration, Room B–099, Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
within 30 days of the date of publication FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment
We calculated CV in accordance with of this notice. Requests should contain: Policy Notice’’). This clarification will
section 773(e) of the Act, which states (1) the party’s name, address and apply to entries of subject merchandise
that CV shall be based on the sum of the telephone number; (2) the number of during the POR produced by the
respondent’s cost of materials and participants; and (3) a list of issues to be company included in these preliminary
fabrication for the subject merchandise, discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues results of review for which the reviewed
plus amounts for selling, general and raised in the hearing will be limited to company did not know the merchandise
administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, those raised in the respective case it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a
profit and U.S. packing costs. We relied briefs. The Department will issue the reseller, trading company, or exporter)
on the submitted CV information. final results of this administrative was destined for the United States. In
review, including the results of its such instances, we will instruct CBP to
Price–to-Constructed Value analysis of issues raised in any written liquidate unreviewed entries at the ‘‘All
Comparisons briefs, not later than 120 days after the Others’’ rate if there is no rate for the
We based NV on CV for comparison date of publication of this notice, intermediary involved in the
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the transaction. See Assessment Policy
to certain U.S. sales, in accordance with
Act. Notice for a full discussion of this
section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For
comparisons to FSAB’s CEP sales, we Assessment Rates clarification.
made circumstance–of-sale adjustments Upon completion of the Cash Deposit Requirements
by deducting from CV the weighted– administrative review, the Department Pursuant to the Implementation of the
average home market direct selling shall determine, and CBP shall assess, Findings of the WTO Panel in US--
expenses, in accordance with section antidumping duties on all appropriate Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations
773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. entries, in accordance with 19 CFR Under Section 129 of the Uruguay
351.212. The Department will issue Round Agreements Act and Revocations
Currency Conversion appropriate appraisement instructions and Partial Revocations of Certain
We made currency conversions in for the company subject to this review Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261,
accordance with section 773A of the Act directly to CBP 15 days after publication 25263 (May 4, 2007), effective April 23,
based on the exchange rates in effect on of the final results of this review. 2007, we have revoked the antidumping
For assessment purposes, we will duty order on SSWR from Sweden and
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by
calculate importer–specific ad valorem accordingly have instructed CBP to
the Federal Reserve Bank.
duty assessment rates based on the ratio discontinue collection of cash deposits
Preliminary Results of Review of the total amount of dumping margins of antidumping duties on entries of the
calculated for the examined sales to the subject merchandise.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

As a result of this review, we total entered value of those same sales.


preliminarily determine that the However, for subject merchandise Notification to Importers
weighted–average dumping margin for produced by FSAB but imported by its This notice also serves as a
the period September 1, 2005, through U.S. affiliate, SMT U.S., we do not have preliminary reminder to importers of
August 31, 2006, is as follows: the actual entered value. Therefore, for their responsibility under 19 CFR
those entries of subject merchandise 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:34 Sep 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1
51418 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 173 / Friday, September 7, 2007 / Notices

the reimbursement of antidumping expressions of interest received after technologies and emergency medical
duties prior to liquidation of the this date might not be considered. and public health care, including
relevant entries during this review ADDRESSES: Nominations and representatives of Federal, State, and
period. Failure to comply with this expressions of interest should be local governments, industry and non-
requirement could result in the delivered to the attention of Eric profit health organizations, and
Secretary’s presumption that Werner, Senior Advisor, Office of the academia and educational institutions.
reimbursement of antidumping duties Assistant Secretary, National NTIA and FCC intend to appoint
occurred and the subsequent assessment Telecommunications and Information representatives from a balanced cross-
of double antidumping duties. Administration, 1401 Constitution section of stakeholder interests as
This administrative review and notice Avenue NW., Room 4898, Washington required by the Act. Accordingly, the
are published in accordance with DC, 20230; by facsimile transmission to NTIA and FCC seek qualified
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the (202) 501–0536; or by electronic mail to: individuals with expertise in
Act and 19 CFR 351.221. jointadvisorycommittee@@ntia.doc.gov
communications technologies and/or
Dated: August 31, 2007. AND to the attention of Lisa M.
emergency medical and public health
David M. Spooner, Fowlkes, Deputy Chief, Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal care and that are capable of representing
Assistant Secretary for Import the policy and/or technical issues
Administration. Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room 7–C753,Washington, relevant to the work of the Committee.
[FR Doc. E7–17703 Filed 9–6–07; 8:45 am]
DC 20554; by facsimile transmission to It is anticipated that the Committee
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
(202) 418–2817; or by electronic mail to will be comprised of 20–25 individuals.
lisa.fowlkes@fcc.gov. Members will be appointed for a term of
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric six months. Depending upon the nature
Werner at (202) 482–0014 or of the appointment, some members of
National Telecommunications and ewerner@ntia.doc.gov; or Lisa M. the Committee may be required to
Information Administration Fowlkes at (202) 418–7452 or submit certain confidential financial
lisa.fowlkes@fcc.gov. disclosures as a part of the appointment
NOTICE: Request for Nominations and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August process. Individuals who would not be
Expressions of Interest, Joint Advisory
3, 2007, the President signed the prepared to furnish such information, if
Committee
Implementing Recommendations of the required, should not submit their names
AGENCY: National Telecommunications 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public for consideration. Members will serve
and Information Administration, U.S. Law No. 110–53 (Act). Section 2201(c) without compensation and neither
Department of Commerce of the Act requires the Assistant travel nor per diem will be paid.
ACTION: Notice, Request for Nominations Secretary of Commerce for Members must also be willing and able
and Expressions of Interest Communications and Information and to dedicate substantial time to the work
the Chairman of the Federal of this Committee during the
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 2201(c) of Communications Commission, in
the Implementing Recommendations of appointment.
consultation with the Secretary of
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Homeland Security and the Secretary of Nominations and expressions of
Public Law No. 110–53, 121 Stat. 266, Health and Human Services, to establish interest should include a resume or
lll(2007) (Act), the National a joint advisory committee to examine curriculum vita, and should also
Telecommunications and Information the communications capabilities and include a statement summarizing the
Administration (NTIA), Department of needs of emergency medical and public individual’s qualifications and
Commerce, and the Federal health care facilities. According to the identifying the sector or interest for
Communications Commission (FCC) are Act, the Committee will assess the which the individual has expertise.
establishing the Joint Advisory following: (1) Specific communications Individuals should also have substantial
Committee on Communications capabilities and needs of emergency experience (5 or more years) in the
Capabilities of Emergency Medical and medical and public health care communications technologies and/or
Public Health Care Facilities facilities, including the improvement of emergency medical and public health
(Committee). By February 4, 2008, the basic voice, data, and broadband care sectors relevant for this
Committee is to assess and submit a capabilities; (2) options to accommodate Committee’s work.
report to Congress on the growth of basic and emerging
communications capabilities and needs Please note this Notice is not intended
communications services used by
of emergency medical and public health to be the exclusive method by which
emergency medical and public health
care facilities and the options to care facilities; and (3) options to NTIA and FCC are soliciting
accommodate growth of improve integration of communications nominations and expressions of interest
communications services and to systems used by emergency medical and and identifying qualified individuals.
improve integration of communications public health care facilities with However, all candidates for membership
systems used by such facilities. NTIA existing or future emergency on the Committee will be subject to the
and FCC are requesting nominations communications networks. Pursuant to same evaluation criteria.
from interested organizations of the Act, the Committee will report its Dated: August 31, 2007.
qualified individuals, and the findings to the Senate Committee on John M.R. Kneuer,
submission of expressions of interest Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Assistant Secretary for Communications and
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

from individuals who desire to serve as and the House of Representatives


members of the Committee. Information.
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
DATES: Nominations and expressions of
[FR Doc. E7–17648 Filed 9–6–07; 8:45 am]
no later than February 4, 2008.
interest must be delivered or The Act also requires that the BILLING CODE 3510–60–S
electronically transmitted on or before Committee be composed of individuals
September 12, 2007. Nominations or with expertise in communications

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:34 Sep 06, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1

Você também pode gostar