Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from The People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony, 52344-52345 [E7-18069]

Download as PDF 52344 Notices Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 177 Thursday, September 13, 2007 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency statements of organization and functions are examples of documents appearing in this section. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108–447) USDA Forest Service, ShastaTrinity National Forest. ACTION: Notice of new fee sites on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Shasta-Trinity National Forest is proposing to charge fees for overnight camping at three campgrounds and eight popular day use sites in 2008. The proposed fees include: Overnight Camping 1. Big Bar Campground: $8.00/night/ site plus a $5.00/night extra vehicle fee. 2. Ripstein Campground: $10.00/ night/site plus a $5.00/night extra vehicle fee. 3. Scott Flat Campground: $10.00/ night/site plus a $5.00/night extra vehicle fee. Extra vehicle fees are being proposed at several campgrounds where space is at a premium. If all camp sites at these locations are full and everyone brings an extra vehicle, there isn’t enough room to park and resources are impacted. ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES Day Use Sites 1. Fisherman’s Point: $3.00/vehicle/ day. 2–8. Day use sites within the following seven campgrounds: Big Bar, Big Flat, Burnt Ranch, Hayden Flat, Pigeon Point, Ripstein and Skunk Point: $5.00/vehicle/day or $50.00 annually for the use of any of the day use sites at these seven campgrounds. The proposed fees are based on the level of amenities and services provided, an operational analysis identifying the cost of operating and VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Sep 12, 2007 Jkt 211001 maintaining these sites and market research. Visitors appreciate and enjoy the availability of these outdoor opportunities with a scenic backdrop on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The overall goal of charging fees is to provide better services for the recreating public and to protect the investments that have been made at these sites. Fee revenue would be used to repair and improve facilities, including replacing some restrooms; installing bear-proof receptacles to facilitate recycling glass, aluminum and plastic; improving water systems and roads; replacing degraded picnic tables; reducing fuels; and increasing the frequency of restroom cleanings and garbage collection activities. DATES: New fees will be implemented after March 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: J. Sharon Heywood, Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, California 96002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Tracy, Assistant Public Use Staff Officer, at 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002. Information about proposed fees can also be found on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108–447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established. These new fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. Dated: September 6, 2007. Scott G. Armentrout, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. [FR Doc. 07–4494 Filed 9–12–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act Notice United States Commission on Civil Rights. ACTION: Notice of meeting. DATE AND TIME: Friday, September 21, 2007; 9:30 a.m. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, Washington, DC 20425. PLACE: Meeting Agenda I. Approval of Agenda. II. Approval of Minutes of August 24 Meeting. III. Program Planning. • Record for Minority Children in State Foster Care and Adoption. • Briefing Book on Minority Children in State Foster Care and Adoption. IV. Briefing on Minorities in Foster Care and Adoption. • Introductory Remarks by Chairman. • Speakers’ Presentation. • Questions by Commissioners and Staff Director. V. Adjourn. CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Manuel Alba, Press and Communications, (202) 376–8582. Dated: September 11, 2007. David Blackwood, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 07–4578 Filed 9–11–07; 3:51 pm] BILLING CODE 6335–01–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–867] Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from The People’s Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 28, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘Court’’) entered a final judgment in Xinyi Automotive Glass v. United States sustaining the third remand results made by the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) pursuant to the Court’s remand of the final determination with respect to Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) in Slip Op. 06–21 (CIT February 15, 2006). See Xinyi Automotive Glass v. United States, Ct. No. 02–00321, Judgment (Ct. Int’l Trade June 28, 2007) (‘‘Xinyi’’). This case arises out of the Department’s Antidumping Duty Order on Certain AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM 13SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 177 / Thursday, September 13, 2007 / Notices ebenthall on PRODPC61 with NOTICES Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) (‘‘Order’’). The final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department’s 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) (‘‘Final Determination’’), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (‘‘Decision Memo’’), as amended at 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’), July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0414. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Plaintiffs, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fuyao’’) and Xinyi Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinyi’’), initially in separate lawsuits, contested several aspects of the Final Determination, including the Department’s decision to disregard certain market economy inputs. On August 6, 2002, all law suits challenging the Final Determination, including Xinyi’s lawsuit, were consolidated into Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 02– 00282, 2006 Ct. Int’l Trade Lexis 21, Slip Op. 2006–21 (CIT February 15, 2006) (‘‘Fuyao Glass III’’). On February 15, 2006, while the cases were still consolidated, the court remanded the Department’s decision regarding certain market economy inputs to the Department. In its remand to the Department, the Court concluded with respect to the standard applied in the Department’s analysis, that the Department must conduct its analysis ‘‘in accordance with the court’s finding with respect to the use of the word ’are’ rather than ’may be’ when applying its subsidized price methodology.’’ Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. P. 9. The Court further directed the Department to either (1) ‘‘concur with the court’s conclusions with respect to substantial evidence, or (2) re–open the record . . .’’ Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. p. 7. The Court concluded that it does not find the Department’s determination, that prices from Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by substantial VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Sep 12, 2007 Jkt 211001 record evidence. See Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. p. 16. Pursuant to the Court’s ruling, and under respectful protest, the Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from Korea and Indonesia are subsidized. See Viraj Group v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence on the record does not support the Department’s determination to disregard prices from Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and Xinyi based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers located in Korea and Indonesia. On January 8, 2007, Xinyi’s action was severed from the consolidated action. See Court Order of January 8, 2007, in Ct. No. 02–00282. On June 28, 2007, the court issued a final judgment, wherein it affirmed the Department’s third remand results with respect to Xinyi’s action. Timken Notice In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department determination. The Court’s decision in Xinyi on June 28, 2007, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department’s Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will issue revised instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection if the Court’s decision is not appealed or if it is affirmed on appeal. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 7, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–18069 Filed 9–12–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52345 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–858] Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Glycine From the Republic of Korea Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 2007. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that imports of glycine from the Republic of Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final determination within 75 days after the date of this preliminary determination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Richard Rimlinger, 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) 482–4477, respectively. AGENCY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 26, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the initiation of an antidumping investigation on glycine from the Republic of Korea. See Glycine from India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 72 FR 20816 (April 26, 2007) (Initiation Notice). The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice. We did not receive comments regarding product coverage from any interested party. On May 21, 2007, we selected Korea Bio-Gen Co., Ltd. (Korea Bio-Gen) as the mandatory respondent in this investigation. See the Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation Glycine from the Republic of Korea—Respondent Selection,’’ dated May 21, 2007. On May 25, 2007, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of glycine from the Republic of Korea. E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM 13SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 177 (Thursday, September 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52344-52345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18069]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-867]


Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from The 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of 
International Trade Not in Harmony

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 28, 2007, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``Court'') entered a final judgment in Xinyi Automotive Glass v. 
United States sustaining the third remand results made by the 
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the Court's 
remand of the final determination with respect to Certain Automotive 
Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') in Slip Op. 06-21 (CIT February 15, 2006). See Xinyi 
Automotive Glass v. United States, Ct. No. 02-00321, Judgment (Ct. 
Int'l Trade June 28, 2007) (``Xinyi''). This case arises out of the 
Department's Antidumping Duty Order on Certain

[[Page 52345]]

Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of 
China, 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) (``Order''). The final judgment in 
this case was not in harmony with the Department's 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) (``Final Determination''), and accompanying Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum (``Decision Memo''), as amended at 67 FR 11670 
(March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (``POI''), July 
1, 2000 through December 31, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0414.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Plaintiffs, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. (``Fuyao'') and 
Xinyi Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (``Xinyi''), initially in separate 
lawsuits, contested several aspects of the Final Determination, 
including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy 
inputs. On August 6, 2002, all law suits challenging the Final 
Determination, including Xinyi's lawsuit, were consolidated into Fuyao 
Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 02-
00282, 2006 Ct. Int'l Trade Lexis 21, Slip Op. 2006-21 (CIT February 
15, 2006) (``Fuyao Glass III''). On February 15, 2006, while the cases 
were still consolidated, the court remanded the Department's decision 
regarding certain market economy inputs to the Department. In its 
remand to the Department, the Court concluded with respect to the 
standard applied in the Department's analysis, that the Department must 
conduct its analysis ``in accordance with the court's finding with 
respect to the use of the word 'are' rather than 'may be' when applying 
its subsidized price methodology.'' Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. P. 9. The 
Court further directed the Department to either (1) ``concur with the 
court's conclusions with respect to substantial evidence, or (2) re-
open the record . . .'' Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. p. 7. The Court 
concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, that 
prices from Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by 
substantial record evidence. See Fuyao Glass III, Slip Op. p. 16. 
Pursuant to the Court's ruling, and under respectful protest, the 
Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain 
substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from Korea and 
Indonesia are subsidized. See Viraj Group v. United States, 343 F.3d 
1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence 
on the record does not support the Department's determination to 
disregard prices from Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the 
Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and 
Xinyi based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers 
located in Korea and Indonesia.
    On January 8, 2007, Xinyi's action was severed from the 
consolidated action. See Court Order of January 8, 2007, in Ct. No. 02-
00282. On June 28, 2007, the court issued a final judgment, wherein it 
affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Xinyi's 
action.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), the Department must 
publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a 
Department determination. The Court's decision in Xinyi on June 28, 
2007, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony 
with the Department's Final Determination. This notice is published in 
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the 
Department will issue revised instructions to U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection if the Court's decision is not appealed or if it is affirmed 
on appeal.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 7, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-18069 Filed 9-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S