14522 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 

1 In the Extension Notice we stated inadvertently 

that we were extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results of this review to February 

13, 2006. On December 15, 2006, we published a 

correction notice announcing the extension of the 

due date for the completion of these preliminary 

results of review to February 13, 2007. See 

Correction to Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 75503 (December 15, 

2006). 

Dated: March 19, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5713 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–469–805 

Stainless Steel Bar from Spain: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

an interested party, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel bar (SSB) from Spain. The review 

covers one manufacturer/exporter, 

Sidenor Industrial SL (Sidenor). The 

period of review is March 1, 2005, 

through February 28, 2006. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that Sidenor has made sales below 

normal value. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of administrative review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments in this 

review are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 2007 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Dmitry 

Vladamirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0665 and (202) 

482–1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 2, 1995, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SSB from 

Spain. See Amended Final 

Determination and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Stainless Steel Bar From Spain, 

60 FR 11656 (March 2, 1995) (SSB 

Order). On March 2, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on SSB from 

Spain. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 10642 (March 2, 2006). On March 29, 

2006, Sidenor requested that the 

Department conduct a review of its U.S. 

sales made during the period of review. 

On April 28, 2006, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a 

notice of initiation of administrative 

review of this order. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 25145 

(April 28, 2006). On December 1, 2006, 

we published a notice announcing the 

extension of the due date for the 

completion of these preliminary results 

of review from December 1, 2006, to 

February 13, 2007. See Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 69550 (December 1, 2006) 

(Extension Notice).1 On February 6, 

2007, we published a notice announcing 

a second extension of the due date for 

the completion of these preliminary 

results of review from February 13, 

2007, to March 22, 2007. See Extension 

of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 5419 (February 6, 2007). 

The Department is conducting this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

SSB. SSB means articles of stainless 

steel in straight lengths that have been 

either hot–rolled, forged, turned, cold–

drawn, cold–rolled or otherwise cold–

finished, or ground, having a uniform 

solid cross section along their whole 

length in the shape of circles, segments 

of circles, ovals, rectangles (including 

squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons 

or other convex polygons. SSB includes 

cold–finished SSBs that are turned or 

ground in straight lengths, whether 

produced from hot–rolled bar or from 

straightened and cut rod or wire, and 

reinforcing bars that have indentations, 

ribs, grooves, or other deformations 

produced during the rolling process. 

Except as specified above, the term 

does not include stainless steel semi–

finished products, cut length flat–rolled 

products (i.e., cut length rolled products 

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness 

have a width measuring at least 10 times 

the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in 

thickness having a width which exceeds 

150 mm and measures at least twice the 

thickness), wire (i.e., cold–formed 

products in coils, of any uniform solid 

cross section along their whole length, 

which do not conform to the definition 

of flat–rolled products), and angles, 

shapes and sections. 

The SSB subject to this order is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 

7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 

7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party withholds 

information requested by the 

administering authority, fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information and in 

the form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, significantly impedes a 

proceeding under this title, or provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified as provided in 

section 782(i), the administering 

authority shall use, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. Section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that, if the administering 

authority determines that a response to 

a request for information does not 

comply with the request, the 

administering authority shall promptly 

inform the responding party and 

provide an opportunity to remedy the 

deficient submission. Section 782(e) of 

the Act further states that the 

Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (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 cost–of-production (COP) 

questionnaire responses submitted by 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 14523 

2Because some of the information regarding 

Sidenor’s costs is business proprietary, see the AFA 

Memo for further discussion. 

Sidenor are incomplete and cannot be 

used to calculate an accurate dumping 

margin for Sidenor. The original 

antidumping questionnaire was issued 

on July 31, 2006. Since the issuance of 

the initial questionnaire to Sidenor, we 

have granted numerous extensions up to 

and including the submission of the 

third supplemental questionnaire 

response, which we received on January 

24, 2007. Over a six-month period, we 

carefully and repeatedly identified 

numerous deficiencies and errors for 

which we needed more complete 

information in order to understand the 

reported information. Throughout this 

process, Sidenor demonstrated a 

consistent pattern of non–

responsiveness, providing confusing, 

incomplete, and inconsistent 

information. As a result of these serious 

deficiencies, we are unable to determine 

adequately whether the COP 

information in its responses reflects 

reasonably and accurately the costs 

incurred by Sidenor to produce the 

merchandise under consideration. 

Without this information, we cannot 

calculate an accurate dumping margin 

for this company. 

In accordance with section 776 of the 

Act, the Department preliminarily 

determines that the use of total adverse 

facts available (AFA) is warranted with 

respect to Sidenor. As discussed in the 

Memorandum from Mark Todd to Neal 

Halper, entitled ‘‘Use of Adverse Facts 

Available for the Preliminary 

Determination,’’ dated March 22, 2007 

(AFA Memo), Sidenor did not provide 

the following information which we 

requested: (1) a consistent explanation 

for its product–cost calculation 

methodology that demonstrates the link 

between its reported costs and its 

normal books and records; (2) various 

reconciliation schedules (i.e., quantity 

reconciliation, direct material cost 

reconciliation, and conversion cost 

reconciliation); and (3) requested 

supporting cost documentation from its 

normal books and records (i.e., job cost 

sheets and cost of sales information). 

Without this information, the 

Department is unable to determine 

whether Sidenor accounted for all of its 

production costs relating to the 

merchandise under consideration. Thus, 

the Department is unable to rely on 

Sidenor’s submitted costs. Because 

Sidenor has not provided the necessary 

information on the record, the use of 

facts available for the preliminary 

results of review is warranted pursuant 

to section 776(a)(1) of the Act. 

Furthermore, because Sidenor has 

withheld requested information, failed 

to provide such information in the form 

and manner required, impeded this 

review, and reported information that 

could not be verified, the use of facts 

available for the preliminary results is 

warranted pursuant to sections 776(a) 

(2) (A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act. For 

further discussion, please refer to the 

AFA Memo. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, if the administering authority finds 

that an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information from the administering 

authority, in reaching the applicable 

determination under this title, the 

administering authority may use an 

inference adverse to the interests of that 

party in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in Part: Prestressed 

Concrete Steel Wire Strand From 

Mexico, 68 FR 42378 (July 17, 2003), 

unchanged in the final determination 

(see Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Prestressed Concrete 

Steel Wire Strand from Mexico, 68 FR 

68350 (December 8, 2003)). 

Adverse inferences are appropriate 

‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain 

a more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 

103–316, at 870 (1994) (SAA). 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith, or willfulness, on the part of 

a respondent is not required before the 

Department may make an adverse 

inference.’’ See Antidumping Duties, 

Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296 (May 19, 1997). 

Despite repeated requests for 

information concerning Sidenor’s 

reported costs, including extensions of 

time granted to submit the necessary 

information, the company did not 

provide adequate cost data we could use 

in our calculations.2 Sidenor submitted 

a series of supplemental questionnaire 

responses that were inadequate and 

lacked certain critical elements that 

address our evaluation of the accuracy 

and reliability of the reported cost 

information. Additionally, Sidenor 

failed to submit various reconciliation 

schedules and explanations that we 

requested in our supplemental 

questionnaires. Therefore, we find that 

Sidenor has failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability because it continued 

to be non–responsive despite our 

repeated requests to provide critical 

information regarding Sidenor’s 

reported costs. Consequently, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, an 

adverse inference is warranted. See 

section 776(b) of the Act; see also Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 

Stainless Steel Hollow Products from 

Japan, 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 

2000), where the Department applied 

total AFA because the respondents 

failed to respond to the antidumping 

questionnaire; see also Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 

(April 17, 2006), unchanged in the final 

determination (see Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, and Negative Determination 

of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined 

Paper Products from India, 71 FR 

45012, 45013 (August 8, 2006), where 

the Department applied total AFA 

because the respondent had failed to 

address the various deficiencies 

identified several times by the 

Department). 

As total AFA, we have applied the 

highest rate determined by the 

Department in the less–than–fair–value 

investigation, which is 62.85 percent. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless 

Steel Bar From Spain, 59 FR 66931 

(December 28, 1994) (Final LTFV). In 

the LTFV investigation we applied this 

rate to Acenor S.A. 

‘‘In cases in which the respondent 

fails to provide Commerce with the 

most recent pricing data, it is within 

Commerce’s discretion to presume that 

the highest prior margin reflects the 

current margins.’’ See Ta Chen Stainless 

Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 

F.3d 1330, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 

Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 

899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

Further, as stated in Shanghai Taoen 

Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 360 F. 

Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (citing 

D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 

F.3d 1220,1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), ‘‘the 

purposes of using the highest prior 

antidumping duty rate are to offer 

assurance that the exporter will not 

benefit from refusing to provide 

information, and to produce an 

antidumping duty rate that bears some 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
14524 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 

relationship to past practices in the 

industry in question.’’

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that 

the Department corroborate, to the 

extent practicable, secondary 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘information 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. Id. Information from a 

prior segment of this proceeding, such 

as that used here, constitutes secondary 

information. See SAA at 870. 

To corroborate secondary information, 

the Department will examine, to the 

extent practicable, the reliability and 

relevance of the information. The SAA 

emphasizes, however, that the 

Department need not prove that the 

selected facts available are the best 

alternative information. See SAA at 869. 

The SAA also states that independent 

sources used to corroborate such 

evidence may include, for example, 

published prices lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) 

and SAA at 870. 

With respect to the reliability aspect 

of corroboration, the Department found 

the rate of 62.85 percent to be reliable 

in the investigation. See LTFV, 59 FR 

66931. There, the Department assigned 

to Acenor S.A. the highest margin 

among the margins alleged in the 

petition, as recalculated by the 

Department. Because the information 

was supported by source documents, we 

preliminary determine that the 

information is still reliable. 

In making a determination as to the 

relevance aspect of corroboration, the 

Department will consider information 

reasonably at its disposal as to whether 

there are circumstances that would 

render a margin not relevant. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as adverse 

facts available, the Department will 

disregard the margin and determine an 

appropriate margin. For example, in 

Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996), the Department 

disregarded the highest margin as ‘‘best 

information available’’ (the predecessor 

to ‘‘facts available’’) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense that 

resulted in an unusually high dumping 

margin. Similarly, the Department does 

not apply a margin that has been 

discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1224 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use 

a margin that has been judicially 

invalidated). None of these unusual 

circumstances is present here, and there 

is no evidence indicating that the 

margin used as facts available in this 

review is not appropriate. Further, in 

accordance with F. LII De Cecco Di 

Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A v. United 

States, 216 F. 3d. 1027, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 

June 16, 2000), we must also examine 

whether information on the record 

would support the selected rates as 

reasonable facts available. In the 

investigation, we determined that the 

calculation of 62.85 percent reflects 

commercial practices of the particular 

industry during the period of 

investigation and, as such, was relevant 

to mandatory respondents that failed to 

participate in the investigation. Because 

no information has been presented in 

the current review that calls into 

question the relevance of this 

information, we preliminarily determine 

that the adverse facts–available rate we 

corroborated in the investigation is 

relevant to Sidenor in this 

administrative review of the order. 

Similar to our position in Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand, 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 

2006), because this is the first review of 

Sidenor (and because Acenor S.A. failed 

to participate in the investigation), there 

are no probative alternatives. 

Accordingly, by using information that 

was corroborated in the investigation 

and preliminarily determined to be 

relevant to Sidenor in this review, we 

have corroborated the adverse facts–

available rate ‘‘to the extent 

practicable.’’ See section 776(c) of the 

Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d), and NSK Ltd. v. 

United States, 347 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 

1336 (CIT 2004) (stating, ‘‘pursuant to 

the ’to the extent practicable’ language 

the corroboration requirement itself is 

not mandatory when not feasible’’). 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily determine a dumping 

margin of 62.85 percent for Sidenor, 

based on adverse facts available, exists 

for the period March 1, 2005, through 

February 28, 2006. 

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a 

hearing is requested, the Department 

will notify interested parties of the 

hearing schedule. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on the preliminary 

results of this review. The Department 

will consider case briefs filed by 

interested parties within 30 days after 

the date of publication of this notice. 

Also, interested parties may file rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs. The Department will 

consider rebuttal briefs filed not later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs. Parties who submit 

arguments are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) a statement of the 

issue, (2) a brief summary of the 

argument, and (3) a table of authorities 

cited. Further, we request that parties 

submitting written comments provide 

the Department with a diskette 

containing an electronic copy of the 

public version of such comments. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in the written 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results 

in the Federal Register. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Because we are 

relying on total adverse facts available 

to establish Sidenor’s dumping margin, 

we preliminarily determine to instruct 

CBP to apply a dumping margin of 62.85 

percent to all entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review which were produced and/or 

exported by Sidenor. Within 15 days of 

publication of the final results of 

review, the Department will issue 

instructions to CBP. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the 

cash–deposit rate for Sidenor will be the 

rate established in the final results of 

this review (except that if the rate is de 

minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no 

cash deposit will be required); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed 

companies not listed above, the cash–


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 14525 

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 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 subject merchandise; and (4) the 

cash–deposit rate for all other 

manufacturers or exporters will 

continue to be the ‘‘all others’’ rate of 

25.77 percent, which is the ‘‘all others’’

rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. See SSB Order. These 

cash–deposit rates, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(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 occurred 

and the subsequent assessment of 

double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5690 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D.032107C] 

Marine Mammals; File No. 1100–1849 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Shane Moore, Moore & Moore Films, 

Box 2980, 1203 Melody Creek Lane, 

Jackson, Wyoming 83001 has been 

issued a permit to conduct commercial/ 

educational photography. 

ADDRESSES: The permit and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 427–2521; and 

Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 

21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668; phone 

(907) 586–7221; fax (907) 586–7249. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carrie Hubard or Kate Swails, (301) 

713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

19, 2006 notice was published in the 

Federal Register (71 FR 40995) that a 

request for a commercial/educational 

photography permit to take killer 

whales (Orcinus orca), gray whales 

(Eschrichtius robustus), and minke 

whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) had 

been submitted by the above-named 

individual. The requested permit has 

been issued under the authority of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216). 

The applicant will take 10 killer 

whales of the Eastern North Pacific 

Transient stock, 10 gray whales, and 10 

minke whales annually by close 

approach for filming in the Gulf of 

Alaska and Bering Sea. The purpose of 

this project is to document the behavior 

of marine animals in the presence of the 

carcass of a gray or minke whale that 

was killed by killer whales. The 

applicant will fix a remotely operated 

video camera in an underwater housing 

to the sea floor approximately 15 feet 

from the carcass. The camera will be 

deployed after the killer whales have 

left the carcass and would be controlled 

from a boat approximately 100 yards 

away. In addition, if killer whales, gray 

whales, or minke whales pass near the 

boat, the applicant will submerge a 

small camera on a pole to take 

photographs of passing animals. This 

footage will be shared freely with the 

scientific community as it may reveal to 

what extent killer whales continue to 

feed on submerged kills, how they feed 

on these carcasses, and document what 

other animals may benefit from these 

carcasses as well. Filming activities will 

occur between April 1 and August 31 of 

each year. The permit will expire three 

years from the date of issuance. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Dated: March 23, 2007. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5680 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 032307A] 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting of the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council’s Halibut Charter Stakeholder 

Committee. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) Halibut 

Charter Stakeholder Committee will 

meet in Anchorage, AK at the North 

Pacific Research Board meeting room. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

April 12, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. and on April 13, 2007, from 8:30 

a.m. to 12 noon. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the North Pacific Research Board, 1007 

West 3rd Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, 

AK 99501. 

Council address: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 

4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

DiCosimo, Council staff; telephone: 

(907) 271–2809. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

agenda will include the following: 

report on status of Council actions; 

report on status of State actions; 

subcommittee report on finance 

mechanisms to compensate reallocation 

from commercial to charter sectors; 

continued revisions to permanent 

solution alternatives; separating 

allocation from permanent solution 

analysis; charter halibut bycatch 

mortality estimates; new proposals; 

other business. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Gail Bendixen at 

(907) 271–2809 at least 7 working days 

prior to the meeting date. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES