Notices. Notice of public meetings

9,434 words·~43 min read·/register/2005/02/09/05-2530

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

BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Notice of Final Results of the Seventh Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy and Determination to Revoke in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 6, 2004, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results and partial rescission of the seventh administrative review and revocation of the antidumping duty order in part, for the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. The review covers eight manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise:

(1)Barilla Alimentare, S.p.A. (Barilla),

(2)Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. (Corticella) and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A. (Combattenti) (collectively, Corticella/Combattenti),

(3)Pastificio Guido Ferrara S.r.l. (Ferrara),

(4)Industria Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A. (Indalco) and its affiliate Fusco S.r.l. (Fusco) (collectively Indalco),

(5)Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (Lensi),

(6)PAM S.p.A. (PAM),

(7)Pastificio Riscossa F. Illi Mastromauro, S.r.l. (Riscossa), and

(8)Pastificio Carmine Russo S.p.A./Pastificio Di Nola S.p.A. (Russo). The period of review

(POR)is July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003. As a result of our analysis of the comments received, these final results differ from the preliminary results. For our final results, we have found that during the POR, Barilla, Corticella/Combattenti, Indalco, PAM, Riscossa, and Russo sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). We have also found that Ferrara and Lensi did not make sales of the subject merchandise at less than NV ( *i.e.* , they have “zero” or *de minimis* dumping margins). We have also determined to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to subject merchandise produced and also exported by Ferrara and Lensi because each company sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and the “Revocation” section of this notice. The final results are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Young, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6397. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 6, 2004, the Department published the preliminary results of the seventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. *See Notice of Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order in Part: For the Seventh Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy* , 69 FR 47880 (August 6, 2004) ( *Preliminary Results* ). Although the Department initiated the review of fifteen companies, we rescinded the reviews of N. Puglisi & F. Industria Pasta Alimentari S.p.A. (Puglisi), La Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.a. (La Molisana), Molino e Pastificio Tomasello S.r.l. (Tomasello), Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. (Pallante) and Industrie Alimentari Molisane S.r.l.

(IAM)(collectively Pallante/IAM), Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A. (Pagani), Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (Rummo), and Pastificio Lucio Garofalo S.p.A. (Garofalo). *See* the “Background” and “Partial Rescission” section of the *Preliminary Results* , 69 FR at 47880, 47881. The review covers the remaining eight manufacturers/exporters: Barilla, Corticella/Combattenti, Ferrara, Indalco, Lensi, PAM, Riscossa, and Russo. We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Petitioners 1 filed case briefs on September 7, 2004, regarding Barilla, Indalco, and Riscossa. Barilla, Indalco, PAM, Russo, Riscossa, and Lensi each filed case briefs on September 7, 2004. On September 13, 2004, petitioners submitted rebuttal briefs concerning Barilla and Indalco, and Barilla, Riscossa, and Indalco submitted rebuttal briefs. On October 6, 2004, a public hearing was held at the Department of Commerce with respect to Barilla. On November 4, 2004, the Department published the notice of extension of final results of the antidumping administrative review of pasta from Italy, extending the date for these final results to February 2, 2005. *See Certain Pasta From Italy: Extension of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 64275. 1 Petitioners are New World Pasta Company, Dakota Growers Pasta Company, Borden Foods Corporation and American Italian Pasta Company. Scope of Review Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of this order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia, by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, or by Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“ *HTSUS* ”). Although the *HTSUS* subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Assignment of the Same Antidumping Duty Rate to Corticella/Combattenti and CLC In the *Preliminary Results* , we stated that evidence indicates that Corticella/Combattenti and its toll producer, Coopertive Lomellina Cerealicoltori S.r.l. (CLC), are affiliated, and we noted that the Department recognized, given the nature of their affiliation, that a related issue could arise with respect to whether there is a potential for manipulation of price or production and, if so, whether Corticella/Combattenti and CLC should receive a single same antidumping duty rate. *See* 69 FR at 47880. We solicited comments on the issue for consideration in the final results of review. We did not receive any comments on the matter. For purposes of these final results, we continue to find that Corticella/Combattenti and CLC are affiliated. Further, upon further examination, we have revised our approach from the *Preliminary Results* regarding the antidumping duty rates assigned to Corticella/Combattenti and CLC. Specifically, we find that there is sufficient record evidence to warrant collapsing Corticella/Combattenti and CLC pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f) and that the companies should receive a single weighted-average antidumping duty margin. For further discussion of this issue, *see* the February 2, 2005 memorandum from the Team to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, entitled, “The relationship of Coopertive Lomellina Cerealicoltori S.r.l.

(CLC)with Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. (Corticella) and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A. (Combattenti, collectively Corticella/Combattenti),” a proprietary document, the public version of which is available in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. Revocation In the *Preliminary Results* , we preliminarily determined to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by Ferrara. *See* 69 FR at 47887. We did not receive any comments from interested parties concerning our revocation with respect to Ferrara. For the reasons set forth in the *Preliminary Results* , 69 FR at 47886, we continue to find that revocation is appropriate with respect to Ferrara and, thus, we revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by Ferrara. Regarding Lensi, in the *Preliminary Results* , we found that the company made sales of subject merchandise at less than NV. *See* 69 FR at 47886. As a result, we preliminarily determined not to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Lensi. However, as explained in Comments 13 through 20 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum that accompanies the final results of review, we have corrected certain inadvertent errors in Lensi's margin program and, as a result, find that Lensi did not sell subject merchandise at less than NV. As noted in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, petitioners did not comment on any of the issues raised by Lensi, including the revocation issue. As explained in the February 2, 2005, memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, from the Team, we find that Lensi has satisfied all requirements under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1) and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) entitling it to revocation, and, thus, we revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by Lensi. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for merchandise produced and exported by Ferrara or produced and exported by Lensi, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the first day after the period under review, and to refund any cash deposit. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal brief by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.* The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Barilla 7.25 Corticella/Combattenti 4.00 Ferrara de minimis Indalco 6.03 Lensi de minimis PAM 4.78 Riscossa 1.05 Russo 7.36 All Others 11.26 Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific duty assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins for the examined U.S. sales for each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales for that importer. In situations in which the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de miminis* , we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of the administrative review for all shipments of certain pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except where the margin is *de minimis* or zero we will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.26 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO are sanctionable violations. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 2, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum List of Comments: Barilla Alimentare, S.p.A. (Barilla) Comment 1: Double Counting of the Cost of Semolina Purchases Comment 2: Treatment of Subject Merchandise Produced by Other Italian Manufacturers Comment 3: Overstatement of Constructed Export Price

(CEP)Profit Comment 4: CEP Offset Comment 5: Use of Facts Available for Financial Discount Comment 6: Reclassification of Rebate Payments as Selling Expense Comment 7: Margin Calculation Methodology Comment 8: Application of Case Discount Industria Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A. and Fusco S.r.l. (collectively Indalco) Comment 9: Liquidation Instructions Comment 10: Margin Calculation Methodology Comment 11: Selling, General & Administrative (SG&A) Expenses Comment 12: DIFMER Adjustment Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (Lensi) Comment 13: Credit and purchase order adjustments to the Gross Unit Price in the Net U.S. Price Calculation Comment 14: Credit Adjustment to Gross Unit Price in Calculating Normal Value Comment 15: Commission Offset for CEP Sales Comment 16: CEP Offset Comment 17: Imputed Credit Expenses Comment 18: Wheat Classifications Comment 19: CEP Profit Comment 20: Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order for Lensi PAM S.p.A.

(PAM)Comment 21: Collapsing PAM's wheat types 1 and 2 Pasta Riscossa F. Illi Mastromaura, S.r.l. (Riscossa) Comment 22: Use of a Constant Factor for Inland Freight Expense Comment 23: Correction of the Home Market Warranties field Comment 24: Inclusion of Purchased Pasta in Comparison Market Program Comment 25: Adjustment of Semolina Costs Comment 26: Revision of Riscossa's Reported Interest Rate Pastificio Carmine Russo S.p.A./ Pastificio Di Nola S.p.A. (Russo) Comment 27: U.S. Price Calculation [FR Doc. E5-534 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-489-805) Certain Pasta from Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 6, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Turkey. This review covers two exporters/producers of subject merchandise, Filiz Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Filiz) and Tat Konserve A.S. (Tat), succesor-in-interest to Pastavilla Makarnacilik San. V. Tic. A.S., (Pastavilla). The period of review

(POR)is July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003. As a result of our analysis of the comments received, these final results differ from the preliminary results. For our final results, we have found that during the POR, Tat and Filiz sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). The final results are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyman Armstrong or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3601 or

(202)482-6071, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 6, 2004, the Department published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Turkey. *See Certain Pasta from Turkey: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 47876 (August 6, 2004) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The review covers two manufacturers/exporters. The POR is July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. We only received timely case briefs from Tat and petitioners 1 on September 7, 2004. We received rebuttal briefs from Tat, Filiz, and petitioners on September 13, 2004. 2 On September 17, 2004, Filiz submitted an untimely case brief, and requested that the Department consider it for these final results. On September 22, 2004, the Department returned Filiz's case brief as untimely filed new factual information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301 (b)(2). *See* Letter to the File Re: Removal of Filiz Case Brief, dated September 22, 2004. 1 Petitioners are New World Pasta Company, Dakota Growers Pasta Company, Borden Foods Corporation and American Italian Pasta Company. 2 On September 13, 2004, Filiz filed a rebuttal brief stating that it would not address the issues raised by petitioners in their September 7, 2004 filing because Filiz had already addressed the issues in its case brief. However, Filiz had failed to file the referenced case brief with the Department. On November 4, 2004, the Department published the notice of extension of final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of pasta from Turkey, extending the date for these final results to February 2, 2005. *See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Extension of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 64275 (November 4, 2005). Scope of Review Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of this order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Memorandum from John Brinkmann, Program Manager, to Richard Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Concerning Final Scope Ruling, dated May 24, 1999, in the case file in the Central Records Unit, main Commerce building, room B-099 (the CRU). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* ( *HTSUS* ). Although the *HTSUS* subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal brief by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. We calculated the export price and NV using the same methodology described in the *Preliminary Results* , except as follows: • The Department has corrected a clerical error in order to collapse wheat codes 1 and 2 consistently throughout the program for Filiz and Tat. • The countervailing duty expense

(CVDU)reported by Tat was deleted from the margin calculation program in order to avoid double-counting of this expense. • The Department has corrected an error in applying the affiliated party test for Tat. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Tat 36.65 Filiz 17.73 Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific duty assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins for the examined U.S. sales for each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales for that importer. In situations in which the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de miminis* , we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of the administrative review for all shipments of certain pasta from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except where the margin is *de minimis* or zero we will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 51.49 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Turkey* , 61 FR 38545 (July 24, 1996). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO are sanctionable violations. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 2, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX I List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum I. List of Comments: Tat Konserve A.S.

(Tat)*Comment 1:* Whether the Department Should Reject Tat's February 24, 2004, Submission *Comment 2:* Calculation Error in Affiliated Party Arm's-Length Test *Comment 3:* Whether the Department Should Continue to Collapse Tat's Wheat Codes *Comment 4:* Whether the Department Should Correct Tat's Cost Test to Account for Different Levels of Trade *Comment 5:* Whether the Department Double-Counted Tat's Countervailing Duties *Comment 6:* Modification of Imputed Credit Calculations Filiz Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Filiz) *Comment 7:* The Department Should Continue to Collapse Wheat Codes 1 and 2 But Correct for a Clerical Error II. Background III. Wheat Codes IV. Discussion of Interested Party Comments [FR Doc. E5-538 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-847] Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 6, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review of persulfates from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). This review covers one exporter of the subject merchandise, Shanghai AJ Import & Export Corporation (Ai Jian). The period of review is July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. See the section entitled “Changes Since the Preliminary Results” listed below. The final weighted-average dumping margin is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tisha Loeper-Viti or Erol Yesin, 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)482-7425 and

(202)482-4037, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 6, 2004, the Department published the preliminary results of the 2002-2003 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the PRC. *See Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 47887 (August 6, 2004) ( *Preliminary Results* ). In these results the Department relied on the financial statement of a single Indian producer of identical merchandise to calculate surrogate financial ratios for Ai Jian. On October 29, 2004, we recalculated our preliminary results using the financial statements of two Indian producers of comparable merchandise to calculate surrogate financial ratios. For details, *see* Memorandum on Recalculation of Preliminary Results of Review from Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 29, 2004. We invited interested parties to comment on both the preliminary and recalculated preliminary results of review. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of Review The products covered by this order are persulfates, including ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical formula for these persulfates are, respectively, (NH4)2S2O8, K2S2O8, and Na2S2O8. Potassium persulfates are currently classifiable under subheading 2833.40.10 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Sodium persulfates are classifiable under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Ammonium and other persulfates are classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 2833.40.50 and 2833.40.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Separate Rates Ai Jian has requested a separate, company-specific antidumping duty rate. In our preliminary results, we found that Ai Jian had met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. *See Preliminary Results* , 69 FR at 47888. We have not received any other information since the preliminary results which would warrant reconsideration of our separate-rates determination with respect to this company. Therefore, we have assigned an individual dumping margin to Ai Jian for this administrative review. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 2, 2005, which is adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes from the Preliminary Results For purposes of the final results, we have made certain changes in the margin calculation for Ai Jian. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Decision Memo. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Shanghai Ai Jian Import and Export Corporation 3.30 Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated customer-specific assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following 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 these final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act:

(1)for Ai Jian, the cash-deposit rate will be 3.30 percent;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)the cash-deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 119.02 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation; and

(4)the cash-deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 2, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Comments and Responses: *Comment 1:* Use of financial statements from Asian Peroxides, Limited

(APL)and National Peroxides Limited (NPL), producers of comparable merchandise *Comment 2:* Use of financial statements of Gujarat and Calibre to calculate a surrogate SG&A ratio *Comment 3:* Use of financial information from “potentially sick” companies *Comment 4:* Categorization of “consumables consumed” in APL's financial statement *Comment 5:* Offset of APL and NPL's SG&A expenses with interest and dividend income *Comment 6:* SG&A labor *Comment 7:* Use of NPL's most contemporaneous financial statement *Comment 8:* Affiliation between Chinese exporter and U.S. customer *Comment 9:* Surrogate labor rate *Comment 10:* seb APPENDTreatment of non-dumped sales [FR Doc. E5-537 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-841] Structural Steel Beams from Korea; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping order covering structural steel beams from the Republic of Korea. *See Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 53887 (September 3, 2004) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The merchandise covered by this order is structural steel beams as described in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice. The period of review

(POR)is August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have not made any changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results are unchanged from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, at

(202)482-6312 or

(202)482-0649, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Review The products covered by this review are doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated or clad. These products include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes) and “M” shapes. All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this review: structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches. The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7216.32.00000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7228.70.3040, and 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order for Structural Steel Beams from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (A-580-841),” dated February 1, 2005 (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have not made any changes in the margin calculations. Final Results of the Review We determine the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin INI Steel Company 16.62 percent Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. 4.39 percent Liquidation The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates. To calculate these rates, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct CBP to assess the appropriate assessment rate against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries under the relevant order during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of structural steel beams from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate shown above;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 37.21 percent. This rate is the “All Others” rate from the amended final determination in the LTFV investigations. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams From South Korea* , 65 FR 50501, 50502 (August 18, 2000). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping or countervailing 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 or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act. Dated: February 1, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX Comments and Responses 1. Revision of the Model Match Characteristics 2. Affiliation of Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. and Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. 3. Level of Trade for Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. [FR Doc. E5-533 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether an instrument of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instrument shown below is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and

(4)of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC. *Docket Number:* 05-001. Applicant: California Department of Food and Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832. *Instrument:* Electron Microscope, Model H-7500-1 TEM. *Manufacturer:* Hitachi High Technologies Corporation. *Intended Use:* The instrument is intended to be used to observe and to record images of plant viruses from crude plant sap, purified virus preparations and in imbedded plant tissues to study and identify new and emerging plant viruses that are important for California agriculture. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: January 5, 2005. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E5-540 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Virginia Commonwealth University, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, Franklin Court Building, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC. *Docket Number:* 04-022. Applicant: Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-1230. Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 69 FR 77995, December 29, 2004. Order Date: January 29, 2004. *Docket Number:* 04-023. Applicant: Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, OK. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model H-7600-1 TEM. Manufacturer: Hitachi, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 69 FR 7794, December 29, 2004. Order Date: December 11, 2003. *Docket Number:* 04-024. Applicant: The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-1230. Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 66 FR 77994, December 29, 2004. Order Date: May 4, 2004. *Docket Number:* 04-025. Applicant: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2200FS. Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 66 FR 77995, December 29, 2004. Order Date: December 31, 2003. *Comments:* None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is a conventional transmission electron microscope

(CTEM)and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring a CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States either at the time of order of each instrument or at the time of receipt of application by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E5-539 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 020305B] South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of its Snapper Grouper Committee, Advisory Panel Selection Committee, Joint Executive and Finance Committees, Controlled Access Committee, Highly Migratory Species Committee, and a meeting of the full Council. In addition, there will be a public scoping meeting addressing the Fishery Ecosystem Plan and Comprehensive Amendment. DATES: The meeting will be held in February and March 2005. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Savannah DeSoto Hotel, 15 East Liberty Street, Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (1-800) 426-8483 or 912/ 232-9000, FAX 912/ 232-6018. Copies of documents are available from Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer; telephone: 843/571-4366 or toll free at 866/SAFMC-10; fax: 843/769-4520; email: *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting Dates 1. *Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting: February 28, 2005, 1:30 p.m. - 5 p.m. and March 1, 2005, 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.* The Snapper Grouper Committee will review draft Amendment 13B regarding mandates under the Sustainable Fisheries Act to address overfishing and choose management measure alternatives. In addition, the Committee will review and develop recommendations for the “Oculina Closed Area Evaluation Plan”, receive an update on the Large Whale Take Reduction Team Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)and Proposed Rule, and receive a presentation by NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office on linking permits and landings databases. Note: A public scoping meeting on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan and Comprehensive Amendment will be held February 28, 2005 beginning at 6 p.m. 2. *Advisory Panel Selection Committee Meeting: March 2, 2005, 8:30 a.m. - 10 a.m. (CLOSED SESSION)* The Committee will review advisory panel applications and develop recommendations for Council consideration. *3. Joint Executive Committee and Finance Committee Meeting: March 2, 2005, 10 a.m. until 12 noon* The Committees will receive an update on additional Calendar Year

(CY)2005 funds and review the CY 2005 activities schedule. The Committees will also review activities and budgets for Ecosystem-based management, the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) stock assessment process, and Coral activities, and receive a report on the status of the CY 2005-2009 grant budget. 4. *Controlled Access Committee Meeting: March 2, 2005, 1:30 p.m. - 5 p.m.* The Controlled Access Committee will receive an introduction to rights-based systems, discuss Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs), and receive a presentation on IFQs in Alaska. 5. *Highly Migratory Species Committee Meeting: March 3, 2005, 8:30 a.m. 12 noon* The Highly Migratory Species Committee will receive a presentation regarding Amendment 2 to the Atlantic Tuna, Swordfish, Shark, and Billfish Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)from NOAA Fisheries. The Committee will discuss bluefin tuna and shark management issues following the presentation. 6. *Council Session: March 3, 2005, 1:30 p.m. - 5 p.m. and March 4, 2005, 8:30 a.m. - 12 noon* From 1:30 p.m. - 1:45 p.m., the Council will call the meeting order, make introductions and roll call and adopt the meeting agenda. From 1:45 p.m. 2:45 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee and take action as appropriate. From 2:45 p.m. - 3:15 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Joint Executive/Finance Committee and approve the CY 2005 Activities Schedule and Budget. From 3:15 p.m. - 3:45 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Advisory Panel Selection Committee and approve appointment of advisory panel members. From 3:45 p.m. - 4:15 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Controlled Access Committee. From 4:15 p.m. - 4:45 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Highly Migratory Species Committee and take action as appropriate. From 4:45 p.m. - 5 p.m., the Council will review the status of the Red Drum FMP. *Council Session: March 4, 2005, 8:30 a.m. - 12 noon.* From 8:30 a.m. - 9 a.m., the Council will receive a briefing on litigation and other legal issues affecting the Council (CLOSED SESSION) From 9 a.m. - 9:30 a.m., the Council will discuss Exempted Fishery Permit requests and take action as appropriate. From 9:30 a.m. - 10 a.m., the Council will review the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Law Enforcement Policy and take action as appropriate. From 10 a.m. - 11 a.m., the Council will hear status reports from NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office and the Southeast Fishery Science Center. From 11 a.m. - 12 noon, the Council will receive agency and liaison reports, discuss other business and upcoming meetings. Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES ). Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305

(c)of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Except for advertised (scheduled) public hearings and public comment, the times and sequence specified on this agenda are subject to change. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) by February 25, 2005. Dated: February 4, 2005. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E5-530 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 020105C] Endangered and Threatened Species: Notice of New Information Available Concerning Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Currently Proposed for Threatened Status AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability of new information. SUMMARY: In June 2004, NMFS proposed that Oregon Coast coho salmon be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The State of Oregon (hereafter, “the State”) has recently made publically available a draft assessment of the viability of Oregon Coast coho salmon, as well as of the contributions of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

(OPSW)to conserving Oregon Coast coho salmon. To ensure that the final listing determination for Oregon Coast coho salmon is based upon the best available scientific and commercial information, NMFS will be considering the information presented in the State's draft assessment (hereafter the “draft Coho Project Report”) in determining the final listing status for the species. Accordingly, notice is hereby given of the availability of the State's draft Coho Project Report for public review and comment. NMFS is furnishing this notification to allow other agencies and the public an opportunity to review and comment on the State's analyses and findings. Specifically, NMFS is soliciting public comment on the State's assessment as it relates to the ESA listing status of Oregon Coast coho salmon, as well as other information concerning NMFS' final listing decision on Oregon Coast coho. All comments received will become part of the public record and will be available for review. DATES: All comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on March 11, 2005. ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's draft Coho Project Report are available on the Internet at: *ftp://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/OregonPlan/* , or upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below). You may submit comments on the draft Coho Project Report by any of the following methods: E-mail: The mailbox address for submitting e-mail comments on the draft OPSW Assessment Report is *OR_Coho_Report.nwr@noaa.gov* . Please include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the document identifier “Oregon's Draft Coho Project Report.” Mail: Prior to February 18, 2005, you may submit written comments and information to Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon, 97232-2737. Following February 18, 2005, you may submit written comments and information to Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232. Please identify the comment as regarding the “Oregon's Draft Coho Project Report.” Hand Delivery/Courier: Prior to February 18, 2005, you may hand deliver written comments and information to NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon, 97232-2737. Following February 18, 2005, you may hand deliver written comments and information to NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232. Business hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please identify the comment as regarding the “Oregon's Draft Coho Project Report.” Fax: 503-230-5441. Please identify the fax comment as regarding the “Oregon's Draft Coho Project Report.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest Region, Protected Resources Division by phone at

(503)872-2791. Copies of the **Federal Register** notices cited herein and additional salmon-related materials are available on the Internet at *http://www.nwr.noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires NMFS to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species. In judging the efficacy of existing protective efforts, NMFS relies on the joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions” (“PECE;” 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). PECE provides direction for the consideration of protective efforts identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management plans, or similar documents that have not yet been implemented, or have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The policy articulates several criteria for evaluating the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of protective efforts to aid in determination of whether a species should be listed as threatened or endangered. NMFS lists as endangered “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and lists as threatened any species “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” On June 14, 2004, NMFS published proposed ESA listing determinations for 27 Evolutionarily Significant Units ( ESUs) of salmon and O. mykiss (69 FR 33101), including a proposal to list the Oregon Coast ESU as “threatened” under the ESA. In concluding that the ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future,” NMFS evaluated the status of the species, noting that recent strong returns (in 2000-2002) are extremely encouraging, but that these strong returns follow 3 years of successive recruitment failure (in 1997-1999). The recent increases in Oregon Coast coho returns are largely attributed to highly productive ocean conditions favoring high rates of coho marine survival. NMFS concluded that the recent increases need to be sustained through additional brood years to resolve remaining uncertainties regarding ESU viability, particularly during unfavorable ocean conditions. NMFS noted that additional information demonstrating that the freshwater habitat can support high abundances of natural spawners and sustain recent abundance levels would also help resolve these uncertainties. As part of its June 2004 listing proposals, NMFS evaluated, pursuant to the ESA and consistent with PECE, available information regarding efforts being made to protect the species. In its proposed listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU, NMFS determined that, given the best information available at the time of the proposal, OPSW and other protective efforts do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to alter the conclusion that the ESU is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” However, NMFS noted that the State was initiating a comprehensive analysis of the adequacy of actions under OPSW, specifically in the context of contributing to the conservation and recovery of the Oregon Coast coho ESU. At the time of the proposal the State's OPSW assessment had just recently been initiated, and no new information was available to further inform NMFS' proposed listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU. However, NMFS noted that “if information is made available to NMFS suggesting that the Oregon Plan [OPSW] and/or other conservation efforts substantially mitigate ESU extinction risk, NMFS may take such opportunity to re-initiate a status review for the Oregon Coast coho ESU to consider the best and most recent scientific and commercial information available.” Following an initial public comment period of 90 days, the public comment period was extended twice for an additional 36 and 22 days, respectively (69 FR 53031; August 31, 2004; 69 FR 61348; October 18, 2004). The State has recently made a draft report publicly available (available on the Internet at: *ftp://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/OregonPlan/* ) assessing the viability of Oregon Coast coho and the contributions of OPSW to the conservation of the ESU. NMFS will consider the information presented in the draft and final Coho Project Report in developing a final listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU. To that end, NMFS is soliciting public comment on the State's draft Coho Project Report. Information Solicited NMFS is soliciting public comment on whether the State's draft Coho Project Report provides new information and analyses concerning the viability of Oregon Coast coho to alter the NMFS' extinction risk assessment and proposed determination that the ESU is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (i.e., “threatened”). Additionally, NMFS is soliciting comment on whether the draft Coho Project Report presents information and analyses demonstrating, consistent with PECE, that the OPSW provides sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to alter NMFS' proposed determination that efforts being made to protect the Oregon Coast coho ESU do not substantially mitigate the assessed level of extinction risk. NMFS will also consider, in making a final listing decision for the Oregon Coast coho ESU, any information provided pursuant to this notice concerning the viability of Oregon Coast coho and any efforts being made to protect that ESU. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: February 3, 2005. Laurie K. Allen, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 05-2530 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

CFR