Notices. Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments

13,843 words·~63 min read·/register/2005/02/24/05-3584

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-896] Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. Final Determination We determine that magnesium metal from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) as provided in section 735 of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: February 24, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Lilit Astvatsatrian, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4243 and

(202)482-6412, respectively. Case History The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on October 4, 2004. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 59187, (October 4, 2004) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). The Department selected two mandatory respondents 1 and received a Section A response from a third company requesting a rate separate from the PRC-wide entity. 2 Since the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department conducted verification of RSM and Tianjin in both the PRC and the United States, where applicable. *See* the *Verification Section* below for additional information. On November 22, 2004, the parties 3 submitted surrogate-value information. On December 2, 2004, the parties submitted rebuttals to those surrogate-value submissions. On December 28, 2004, the petitioners submitted an allegation of critical circumstances in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1). On January 4, 2005, the Petitioners, RSM, and Tianjin submitted case briefs, and on January 10, 2005, all three parties submitted rebuttal briefs. On January 11, 2005, the Department invited all parties to comment on the petitioners' allegation of critical circumstances and requested RSM, Tianjin, and Guangling to report the quantity and value of their shipments of subject merchandise to the United States on a monthly basis for the period January 2003 through December 2004. On January 19, 2005, RSM and Tianjin provided the requested information. Guangling did not respond to the Department's request for information. On February 3, 2005, the Department published its preliminary determination of critical circumstances in which it found that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports of magnesium metal from the PRC for Tianjin, Guangling, and the PRC-wide entity. *See Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 5606 (February 3, 2005) (“ *Critical Circumstances Determination* ”). On February 7, 2005, the petitioners submitted comments on the Department's preliminary determination of critical circumstances. None of the respondents provided comments or rebuttals on the Department's preliminary determination of critical circumstances. 1 Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin”), and the RSM companies. In the preliminary determination we determined that the following companies were collapsed members of the RSM group of companies for the purposes of this investigation: Nanjing Yunhai Special Metals Co., Ltd. (“Yunhai Special”), Nanjing Welbow Metals Co., Ltd. (“Welbow”), Nanjing Yunhai Magnesium Co., Ltd. (“Yunhai Magnesium”), Shanxi Wenxi Yunhai Metals Co., Ltd. (“Wenxi Yunhai”). *See* Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 8, NME/China Group, from Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager: *Antidumping Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Affiliation and Collapsing of Members of the RSM Group and its Affiliated U.S. Reseller, Toyota Tsusho America, Inc.* , dated September 24, 2004. In addition, we calculated a separate rate for China National Nonferrous Metals I/E Corp. Jiangsu Branch (“Jiangsu Metals”). *See* Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 8, NME/China Group, from Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst and Lilit Astvatsatrian, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager: *Separate Rates Memorandum* , dated September 24, 2004. 2 Beijing Guangling Jinghua Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (“Guangling”). 3 The parties include RSM, Tianjin, and the petitioners (U.S. Magnesium LLC, United Steelworkers of America, Local 8319 and Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers International, Local 374). Guangling did not submit case or rebuttal briefs. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding are addressed in the memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China* , dated February 16, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice (“ *Issues and Decision Memorandum* ”). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The *Issues and Decision Memorandum* is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“ *CRU* ”), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Scope of Investigation The products covered by this investigation are primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this investigation includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium. The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes, magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes: products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 4 and thus are outside the scope of the existing antidumping orders on magnesium from the PRC (generally referred to as “alloy” magnesium). 4 The meaning of this term is the same as that used by the American Society for Testing and Materials in its *Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.* The scope of this investigation excludes the following merchandise:

(1)All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 5 ;

(2)magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and

(3)mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form, by weight, and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite. 6 5 This material is already covered by existing antidumping orders. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium from the Russian Federation* , 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995), and *Antidumping Duty Order: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 57936 (November 19, 2001). 6 This third exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000-2001 investigations of magnesium from the PRC, Israel, and Russia. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 49345 (September 27, 2001); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel* , 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); *Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation* , 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys because they are not chemically combined in liquid form and cast into the same ingot. The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under items 8104.19.00 and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the mandatory respondents for use in our final determination ( *see* the Department's verification reports on the record of this investigation, located in the CRU, with respect to Jiangsu Metals, Yunhai Special, Welbow, Bada, Tianjin, and Toyota Tsusho America, Inc. (“TAI”)). For all verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records as well as original source documents provided by respondents. Surrogate Country In the *Preliminary Determination* , we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for the following reasons:

(1)India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC;

(2)Indian manufacturers produce comparable merchandise and are significant producers of aluminum;

(3)India provides the best opportunity to use appropriate, publicly available data to value the factors of production. *See Preliminary Determination* , 69 FR at 59191. For the final determination, we made no changes to our findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. Critical Circumstances As described below in the section concerning the application of adverse facts available (“AFA”), we are applying total AFA to the group of RSM companies which includes Jiangsu Metals and TAI. As part of total AFA for the RSM companies, we determine that RSM and Jiangsu Metals are not eligible for a separate rate and, therefore, remain a part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, we revised our critical-circumstances analysis to include imports from RSM and Jiangsu Metals in the total quantity of imports from the PRC-wide entity during the base and comparison periods. As a result of this change, we have determined that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to the PRC-wide entity. Additionally, for this final determination we continue to find that critical circumstances exist for Tianjin and Guangling. For further details regarding the Department's critical-circumstances analysis *see* the Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita, Case Analyst, to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, *Antidumping Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China (the “PRC”)—Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances* , dated February 16, 2005 (“ *Final Critical Circumstances Memorandum* ”). Separate Rates In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that Guangling, which provided a response to Section A of the antidumping questionnaire, was eligible for a rate separate from the PRC-wide rate. The margin we established in the Preliminary Determination for Guangling was 140.09 percent. Because the rates of the selected mandatory respondents have changed since the *Preliminary Determination* , we have recalculated the rate applicable to Guangling. The final rate is 91.36 percent. As discussed below, the Department has determined to apply AFA with respect to the RSM companies. In addition, we have determined that there is no reliable basis for granting the RSM companies a separate rate. Accordingly, the RSM companies have not overcome the presumption that they are part of the PRC-wide entity and, therefore, entries of their merchandise will be subject to the PRC-wide rate. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , an interested party or any other person

(A)withholds information that has been requested,

(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782,

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding, or

(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act provides further that the Department may use an adverse inference when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, and is not so incomplete that it cannot be used and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we calculated a dumping margin of 128.11 percent for RSM based on the information it reported in its questionnaire responses. *See Preliminary Determination* . We conducted verification of the RSM companies in the PRC and in the United States. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we determined that the RSM group of companies and Jiangsu Metals were affiliated under sections 771(33)(E) and

(F)of the Act. *See Preliminary Determination* at 59192. Additionally, we determined that TAI and the RSM group of companies were affiliated under sections 771(33)(E) and

(F)of the Act. *See Preliminary Determination* at 59192. There has been no information placed on the record since the *Preliminary Determination* that contradicts our affiliation determinations. Therefore, for the final determination, we continue to find that RSM, Jiangsu Metals, and TAI are affiliated under the statute. Based on record evidence gathered as a result of the verification of TAI, RSM's affiliated customer in the United States, and pursuant to the statutory requirements of the Act, the Department has determined that the RSM Group and its affiliates impeded this investigation, provided unverifiable information, and did not cooperate to the best of their ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. Therefore, we determine that the use of AFA is warranted with respect to all of TAI's sales of subject merchandise whether exported through RSM or Jiangsu Metals for the purposes of the final determination of this investigation. *See* our response to Comment 1 in the *Decision Memorandum* for a further discussion of this issue. In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department granted RSM and Jiangsu Metals separate rates based on the information provided in their questionnaire responses. *See* memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, China/NME Group, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, from Laurel LaCivita, Senior Case Analyst and Lilit Astvatsatrian, Case Analyst, *Preliminary Determination: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Separate-Rates Memorandum (“Separate Rates Memorandum* ”), dated September 24, 2004, at 13. Because we found that RSM's affiliate TAI did not cooperate to the best of its ability and are applying AFA to all of TAI's sales of subject merchandise in the United States, we have determined that RSM and Jiangsu Metals, which produced and/or exported the subject merchandise, do not qualify for separate rates. *See* our response to Comment 3 in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* for a further discussion of this issue. Corroboration of the Adverse-Facts-Available Rate In the *Preliminary Determination,* in accordance with sections 776(b) of the Act, we assigned an AFA rate to the PRC-wide entity based on a calculated margin derived from information obtained in the course of the investigation and placed on the record of this proceeding. At the *Preliminary Determination,* we applied a rate of 177.62 percent. Based on comments we received from interested parties which changed our calculations of the respondents margins, we have determined to change the AFA rate we applied in the *Preliminary Determination.* Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *Ibid* . The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *Ibid* . As explained in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews,* 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. We find that the export-price and normal-value information in the petition is reliable and relevant and, therefore, have determined that the information has probative value. *See* Memorandum from Lilit Astvatsatrian to Laurie Parkhill, dated February 16, 2005, *Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Adverse Facts-Available Rate* . Accordingly, we find that the highest margin based on that information, 141.49 percent, is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Furthermore, there is no information on the record that demonstrates that the rate we have selected is an inappropriate total AFA rate for the companies in question. Therefore, we consider the selected rate to have probative value with respect to the firms in question and to reflect the appropriate adverse inference. The PRC-Wide Rate Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a non-market-economy (“NME”) country are subject to government control and because only the companies listed under the “Final Determination Margins” below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide rate—to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China,* 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the respondents listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below (except as noted). Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in our margin calculations for Tianjin. We did not calculate a margin using the information RSM provided because we determined the margin for RSM based on total AFA. For discussion of the company-specific changes we made since the preliminary determination to our calculations of Tianjin's final margin, *see* Memorandum to the File from Lilit Astvatsatrian, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, *Analysis Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China: Tianjin Magnesium Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin”) (“Final Analysis Memorandum”),* dated February 16, 2005. We made the following changes to the margin calculations: • We determined the profit ratios for the Indian surrogate companies as a percentage of the cost of manufacturing, selling, general and administrative expenses, and interest. • We calculated the surrogate value for the subject merchandise produced by Yinguang Metal based on its purchases of pure magnesium from affiliated and unaffiliated suppliers rather than by using surrogate values for inputs used to produce the raw magnesium produced and supplied to Yinguang by Yangyu Magnesium, an affiliated supplier. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the Period of Investigation: Magnesium Metal from the PRC Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin Tianjin 91.31 Guangling 91.31 PRC-Wide Rate* 141.49 * Not a separate rate; also applies to the RSM companies and Jiangsu Metals. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 4, 2004 for the RSM group of companies. With respect to Tianjin and Guangling, we will direct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of magnesium metal from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after 90 days before the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* . CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of subject merchandise entered for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO 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 return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(I)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 16, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Issues With Respect to RSM Comment 1: TAI Verification Failure Date of Sale TAI's Lack of Preparation Location of the Accounting Documents and Site Selection for Verification Sales—Trace Documentation Brokerage Expenses Incurred in the United States Warehousing and Freight Expenses Incurred in the United States Indirect Selling Expenses Comment 2: Application of Adverse Facts Available Comment 3: Separate Rate for Jiangsu Metals Comment 4: Labor-Rate Factor at Bada Magnesium General Issues Comment 5: Critical Circumstances Comment 6: Exporter-Producer Combination Rates Surrogate Values Comment 7: Time Period for the Valuation of Pure Magnesium Comment 8: Valuation of Pure Magnesium Comment 9: Surrogate Value for Dolomite Comment 10: Ferrosilicon, No. 2 Flux, Fluorite Powder, Magnesium and Barium Chlorides, Bituminous Coal Comment 11: Electricity and Chemicals/Gases Comment 12: Use of Zinc Financial Statements Instead of Aluminum for Determination of the Overhead Ratios Comment 13: Particle-board Pallets, Profit, and Marine Insurance Issues with Respect to Tianjin Comment 14: Valuation of Pure Magnesium for Yinguang Comment 15: Yinguang's Consumption Rate for Dolomite Comment 16: Supplier Distance for Yangyu Comment 17: Valuation of Pure Magnesium for Guoli [FR Doc. E5-760 Filed 2-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-819] Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. Final Determination We determine that magnesium metal (“magnesium”) from the Russian Federation (“Russia”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley at

(202)482-3148 or Kimberley Hunt at

(202)482-1272 (Avisma); and Josh Reitze at

(202)482-0666 (SMW); AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Case History On October 4, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV of magnesium metal from Russia. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation,* 69 FR 59197 (October 4, 2004) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). Since the *Preliminary Determination,* the following events have occurred. On October 8, 2004, Solikamsk Magnesium Works (“SMW”) requested a public hearing. On October 18, 2004, SMW provided a revised version of its U.S. sales database that included all sales invoiced during the period of investigation. The Department conducted verification of JSC AVISMA Titanium-Magnesium Works' (“Avisma”) and SMW's sales and cost questionnaire responses from October 25, 2004, to November 5, 2004. 1 Petitioners 2 requested a hearing on October 28, 2004, and on November 3, 2004, Avisma requested one as well. On November 8 and November 9, 2004, respectively, Petitioners and the USEC Inc. and United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, “USEC”), submitted comments regarding Russian energy prices. On November 10, 2004, Avisma requested that the Department reject this submission as USEC is not a party to the proceeding. On November 12, 2004, USEC rebutted Avisma's November 10 submission; on November 18, 2004, Avisma filed a rebuttal to Petitioners' November 8, 2004, submission. 1 *See* Memorandum to the File, from Sebastian Wright, Magnesium Metal From The Russian Federation: Verification Report for JSC AVISMA Titanium-Magnesium Works, December 23, 2004 ( *Avisma Verification Report* ); Memorandum to Neal M. Halper from Robert Greger, *et al.* , Verification Report on the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by JSC AVISMA Titanium-Magnesium Works, December 30, 2004 ( *Avisma Cost Verification Report* ); *See* Memorandum to the File from Maria MacKay and Mark Hoadley; Magnesium Metal From The Russian Federation: Verification Report for Solikamsk Magnesium Works ( *SMW Verification Report* ); and Memorandum to Neal M. Halper from Ernest Gziryan, *et al;* Verification Report on the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by Solikamsk Magnesium Works, December 30, 2004 ( *SMW Cost Verification Report* ), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce building (“CRU”). 2 Petitioners in this investigation are U.S. Magnesium Corporation, LLC; United Steelworkers of America, Local 8319; and Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics and Allied Workers International, Local 374. The Department conducted verification of SMW's U.S. affiliate, Solimin Magnesium Corporation (“Solimin”), on December 6 and 7, 2004. 3 The Department conducted verification of Avisma's U.S. affiliate, VSMPO-Tirus, U.S., Inc. (“Tirus”), on December 13 and 14, 2004, 4 and of SMW's other U.S. affiliate, CMC Cometals (“Cometals”), on December 16 and 17, 2004. 5 3 Memorandum to the File, from Joshua Reitze and Kimberley Hunt, Magnesium Metal From The Russian Federation: U.S. Sales Verification, December 29, 2004 ( *Solimin Verification Report* ), on file in the CRU. 4 Memorandum to the File, from Sebastian Wright and Mark Hoadley; Magnesium Metal From The Russian Federation: Verification Report for JSC AVISMA Titanium-Magnesium Works, December 30, 2004 ( *Tirus Verification Report* ), on file in the CRU. 5 Memorandum to the File, from Joshua Reitze and Kimberley Hunt, Magnesium Metal From The Russian Federation: U.S. Sales Verification (Cometals), December 30, 2004 ( *Cometals Verification Report* ), on file in the CRU. On January 4, 2005, Petitioners submitted “previously unavailable” information on the Russian energy market. Avisma, on January 5, and SMW, on January 6, 2005, requested that Petitioners' “untimely” submission be removed from the record. During the weeks of January 3rd and January 10th, the Department held meetings with several parties on the energy issue and memoranda documenting these meetings have been placed on the record of this investigation. On January 7, 2005, the Department extended the time limits on the submission of factual information and accepted the Petitioners' submission. On January 14, 2005, Avisma argued that the Department should not rely on the information contained in Petitioners' January 4, 2005, submission. On January 7, 2005, Petitioners, Avisma, SMW, and Northwest Alloys, Inc. and Alcoa, Inc. (collectively, “Alcoa”), submitted case briefs. SMW submitted a rebuttal brief on January 12 and Petitioners and Avisma submitted rebuttal briefs on January 13, 2005. On January 12, 2005, the Department requested comments on a methodological issue related to the cost of electricity. On January 14, 2005, Alcoa submitted comments; on January 18, 2005, Avisma and USEC also submitted comments. On January 18, 2005, Petitioners made three submissions, the first two calling for Avisma's and Alcoa's submissions to be struck from the record and the third responding to the Department's request for comment. On January 19, 2005, Avisma made another submission arguing the relevance of Petitioners' January 18, 2005, submission. On January 21, 2005, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to Alcoa's January 14, 2005, submission and Avisma's January 18, 2005, submission. On January 21, 2005, Avisma and SMW both filed rebuttals to Petitioners' January 18, 2005, comments. A public hearing was held on January 21, 2005. On January 26, 2005, Alcoa made a submission, requested at the hearing by the Department, stating that, in its view, the information presented at the hearing had already been placed on the record of the proceeding. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. *See* 19 CFR § 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation For the purpose of this investigation, the product covered is magnesium metal (also referred to as magnesium) from Russia. The products covered by this investigation are primary and secondary pure and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing, by weight, primarily the element of magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this investigation includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium. The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium, including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes:

(1)Products that contain at least 99.95 percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra-pure” magnesium);

(2)products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and

(3)chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or not conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy.” The scope of this investigation excludes:

(1)Magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and

(2)mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite. 6 6 This second exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000-2001 investigations of magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China,* 66 FR 49345 (September 27, 2001); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel,* 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); *Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation,* 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys because they are not chemically combined in liquid form and cast into the same ingot. The magnesium subject to this investigation is classifiable under item numbers 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and 8104.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by Avisma and SMW for use in this final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the Respondents. Energy Costs In the original petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on U.S. imports of magnesium from Russia, Petitioners alleged that Russian energy costs are distorted by excessive Russian government involvement in the energy sector. Citing section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, Petitioners requested that the Department adjust Respondents' reported energy costs to account for the effects of this government involvement and to reflect better what they considered to be true, market-based energy costs. Petitioners argued that the use of the qualifying word “normally” demonstrates that the Department has the authority to disregard reported costs under certain circumstances. In the *Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation,* 69 FR 15293 (March 25, 2004) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”), the Department recognized the complexity of valuing energy costs and stated its intention to examine this issue during the course of this investigation. On July 30, 2004, Petitioners submitted additional information to support their claim that Russian government involvement resulted in gas and electricity prices that do not reflect “economic reality.” Petitioners again argued that the Department has the legal authority to disregard or adjust the energy costs reported by Respondents to account for this distortion, and suggested options for correcting the effects of this distortion. On September 1 and 3, 2004, Avisma responded that the Department does not have the authority to disregard Respondents' reported costs and that there is no precedent for doing so. Furthermore, Avisma argued that there is no evidence that the prices Avisma pays for energy are distorted. In Avisma's view, all of the analyses of the Russian energy prices which had been submitted by Petitioners for the record were based on speculation about future capital costs, and were not relevant to this antidumping investigation. SMW submitted comments on September 15, 2004, which endorsed Avisma's legal analysis. In its *Preliminary Determination,* the Department did not adjust Respondents' reported electricity costs, but indicated that it would be willing to consider new or updated factual information on the issue of whether electricity prices in Russia are distorted such that the Department should make an adjustment to the specific prices charged to Respondents for purposes of the final determination. 7 On November 8, 2004, Petitioners submitted additional information in support of their arguments for disregarding or adjusting Respondents' reported electricity costs. On November 9, 2004, USEC argued that the Department should adjust Russian electricity prices in this proceeding and should consider similar adjustments in future proceedings. On November 12, 2004, USEC further argued that the Department should proceed with caution in accepting reported input purchase prices in countries that have recently been graduated to market-economy status. On November 18, 2005, Avisma submitted a rebuttal to Petitioners' claims, arguing that the Department has no authority to make an adjustment to the costs reflected in Respondents' books and records. 7 In the *Preliminary Determination,* the Department focused on electricity costs because electricity is the energy input that is significant in the production of magnesium. On January 4, 2005, Petitioners submitted information on the sale of a privately-held Russian energy firm to a state-controlled Russian energy firm. On January 6, 2005, the Department notified parties that it would allow this new information to remain on the record and permitted interested parties to rebut such information in accordance with section 351.301(c)(1) of its regulations. On January 12, 2005, the Department issued a memorandum outlining two possible adjustments that could be made to Respondents' reported electricity purchases, in the event the Department decided that an adjustment was appropriate. *See* Memorandum to the File from Lawrence Norton, Energy Pricing in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Magnesium from the Russian Federation (January 12, 2005). The Department invited interested parties to comment on the possible adjustments. On January 14, 2005, Alcoa responded, arguing that an adjustment would neither be warranted nor consistent with the statute. On January 18, 2005, Avisma responded stating that neither the Department's proposed adjustments, nor any other adjustments would be appropriate in this antidumping investigation. Avisma argued that there is no legal basis for making such an adjustment and the Department has no authority to do so. Also on January 18, 2005, USEC responded to the proposed adjustments, reiterating again that the Department should preserve maximum flexibility for future proceedings. On the same date, Petitioners submitted an argument in favor of one of the possible adjustments, but also argued that the adjustment should be inflated to make it contemporaneous with the POI. After carefully analyzing all of the evidence and arguments on the record of this proceeding, the Department has determined that, while such adjustments are permissible, based on the specific facts of this case, for purposes of this final determination, it will not make an adjustment to the Respondents' reported electricity costs. Our analyses and specific arguments presented by the parties with respect to this issue are set forth below. First, we agree with Petitioners that section 773(f) of the statute gives the Department the legal authority to adjust prices recorded in a respondent's books and records under certain circumstances. The statute specifies a standard: “normally” the Department will use the costs as recorded in the respondent's books and records in calculating the cost of production if two criteria are met:

(1)Those records are kept in accordance with the respondent's home country's Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and

(2)those recorded costs reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the subject merchandise. However, the statute's explicit use of the word “normally” indicates that there may be circumstances where the Department could reasonably determine that the use of the respondent's recorded costs is inappropriate. In such cases, the Department has the discretion to calculate the costs of production by some other reasonable means. In its June 6, 2002, memorandum graduating Russia from non-market economy (“NME”) status, the Department specifically stated that it retained its statutory authority to evaluate the underlying usefulness of particular costs involved in normal value calculations: Accordingly, the Department will examine prices and costs within Russia, utilizing them for the determination of normal value when appropriate or disregarding them when they are not. In this regard, the Department retains its authority to disregard particular prices when the prices are not in the ordinary course of trade, the costs are not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the costs do not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production or sale of the merchandise, or in other situations provided for in the Act or in the Department's regulations. 8 8 *See* Memorandum to Faryar Shirzad from Albert Hsu et al, Inquiry into the Status of the Russian Federation as a Non-Market Economy Country Under the U.S. Antidumping Law (June 6, 2002) (hereafter, the “ *NME Memorandum* ”). The Department further highlighted its concern regarding prices in the Russian energy sector in particular: The State no longer controls resource allocations or prices, with the notable exception of energy prices, which remain a significant distortion in the economy, as they encourage the wasteful use (misallocation) of Russia's energy resources and slow the adoption of more efficient production methods. * * * While some market distortions and resource misallocations characterize most market economies, energy is of such significance to the Russian economy that continuation of the Russian government's current energy price regulatory policies may warrant careful consideration of energy price data in future trade remedy cases. 9 9 *Id.* Subsequent to Russia's graduation to market-economy status, the Department renegotiated a suspension agreement concerning cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Russia. In the renegotiated suspension agreement, the Department reiterated its concern over the reliability of costs related to Russia's energy sector, stating that “(e)xamples of possible areas in which adjustments may be necessary include, but are not limited to, costs related to energy * * *” 10 10 *See Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian Federation,* 68 FR 3859 (January 27, 2003) (hereafter, the “ *Suspension Agreement* ”). At the time the *NME Memorandum* and the *Suspension Agreement* were issued, the most current information on the Russian energy sector was from 2002. During the course of this investigation, parties have submitted information that has allowed the Department to examine the state of the Russian energy sector, particularly the electricity sector, in 2003. After examining the data on the record of this case at the macroeconomic level, the Department finds substantial evidence of continuing distortions. While electricity prices have been increasing as of late, and while small trading exchanges have been allowed to develop, significant aspects of the electricity sector remain distorted and are not subject to market forces. The World Bank argued in 2003 that “the government needs to develop a medium-term tariff policy * * * that is designed to bring utility tariffs up to full economic levels.” 11 Elsewhere, the World Bank defines “full economic levels” as long-run marginal cost. In addition, in their latest report, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) states that the Russian electricity sector is dominated by a state-controlled monopoly, and that “there is neither competition in the wholesale market (which in any case is not really a market) nor choice of supplier for consumers.” 12 11 World Bank, *Russia: Development Policy Review,* Report No. 26000-RU, June 9, 2003, p. 13. 12 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, *OECD Economic Survey: Russian Federation,* 2004, p. 162-163. Information on the record shows that, at the macroeconomic level, the Russian energy sector has yet to be significantly restructured, and that state ownership is still pervasive, in some cases even increasing. Prices are still generally set by the government and overall remain at uneconomic levels that often do not cover the long-run cost of production. 13 Near-monopoly conditions still prevail in production, while production quantities are still being allocated by the government. 14 Additionally, the transparency of energy sector accounts and records is still very poor. Overall, the evidence on the record indicates that the Russian electricity sector is still, as a whole, in the early stages of reform, and is a sector where prices are based neither on market principles nor on long-term cost recovery. 13 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, *OECD Economic Survey: Russian Federation,* 2004, p. 165. Here the OECD states that “what {electricity tariffs} do not allow for is the recovery of capital cost, and estimates of the sector's capital investment needs vary widely * * *.” 14 *Id.,* p. 163. In addition to examining the studies and other information documenting the state of the Russian energy sector as a whole in 2003, the Department also probed the specific experiences of each Respondent in their purchases of electricity during the POI through questionnaire responses and at verification. We found that:

(1)The Respondents engage in regular purchases of electricity;

(2)the invoices they were issued matched the regional utility's rate schedule; and

(3)they pay these invoices on time and in full. *See SMW Cost Verification Report* and *Avisma Cost Verification Report* (December 30, 2004). While these company-specific facts do not alter our conclusions about the meaningful distortions in price at the macroeconomic level, we find that the information on the record of this proceeding with respect to the macroeconomic distortions in the Russian energy sector does not allow the Department to discern and measure the effects of such distortions on Respondents' reported electricity costs. Furthermore, the record evidence does not demonstrate to what extent local and regional conditions do or do not reflect country-wide distortions in the Russian electricity sector. In summary, because the record evidence of this investigation does not enable us to ascertain the manner and the extent to which the macroeconomic price distortions in the Russian electricity sector affect Respondents' reported electricity costs, the Department has determined not to adjust or disregard such costs for purposes of this final determination. The Department reserves its discretion to do so in future proceedings when evidence of continuing significant distortions at the macroeconomic level is accompanied by sufficient evidence or analysis with respect to the impact of such distortions on energy prices paid by respondent firms. Application of Facts Available During verification, the Department discovered numerous errors in Avisma's payment dates as reported in Avisma's questionnaire responses. These errors, ranging up to over a year difference between the actual payment date and the date reported to the Department, call into question the accuracy and reliability of Avisma's payment dates as reported. We therefore determine that the payment dates reported could not be verified. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department may resort to facts otherwise available when the “necessary information is not available on the record,” or an interested party provides information “but that information cannot be verified. * * *” Accordingly, we find it appropriate to rely on partial facts available to determine payment date. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may apply an adverse inference in selecting from the facts otherwise available when “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. * * *” Avisma did discover one incorrect payment in the course of preparing for verification, a rather large error, which it reported as a minor correction prior to the start of verification. During verification, however, the Department found numerous other errors, some also significant in size, in reviewing the documentation that was solely in Avisma's control. We determine that Avisma had the ability to conduct a more thorough evaluation of its own records prior to verification, and could have discovered these errors on its own. Had Avisma done so, it would have been alerted to the fact that there was a problem with the method it used to collect and report payment dates. Moreover, Avisma could have reported these problems to the Department before the commencement of verification. Having failed to do so, the Department finds that Avisma failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and the application of an adverse inference is warranted. As a result, the Department has determined to replace the payment dates reported by applying the longest verified period between payment date and shipment date for prepayment sales (regardless of whether the payment was received in one or multiple installments), and the shortest verified period between payment date and shipment date for all other sales. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation (January 1, 2003-December 31, 2003),” (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”), dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation in this public memorandum which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html.* The paper copy and the electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our findings at verification and on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain adjustments to the margin calculations used in the *Preliminary Determination.* These adjustments are discussed in detail in the *Decision Memorandum* and are listed below: AVISMA 1. We included “barter sales” in the home-market database. 2. We recalculated the credit period based on verification findings. 3. We adjusted Avisma's interest rate to accurately reflect the underlying loan documents, examined at verification. 4. We recalculated U.S. repacking expenses based on verification findings. 5. We recalculated inventory carrying costs to reflect the revised interest rate and an error discovered at verification regarding the average number of days in inventory. 6. We recalculated Avisma's chlorine gas by-product offset for a restatement of disposal quantities. 7. We adjusted Avisma's reported depreciation expenses to account for the revaluation of fixed assets to reflect inflation. 8. We adjusted Avisma's general and administrative (“G&A”) expense ratio to include certain other operating and non-operating income and expenses. SMW 1. We included “barter sales” in the home-market database. 2. We disregarded SMW's billing adjustments for exchange rate gains and losses on stockpile sales. 3. We adjusted SMW's “zeroed out” credit expenses for prepaid sales to reflect negative credit expenses. 4. We removed two observations from the SMW home-market dataset erroneously reported as sales. 5. We deducted certain commissions paid on sales to one U.S. customer. 6. We adjusted domestic inventory carrying costs to include both days at sea and days in inventory at the factory. 7. We adjusted the reported home-market interest rate to reflect only loans denominated in rubles. 8. We recalculated inventory carrying costs to reflect the revised interest rates. 9. We used home-market indirect selling expenses as reported in the cost database, not those figures reported in the sales database. 10. We recalculated U.S. indirect selling expenses using the latest total U.S. sales figure. 11. We adjusted the reported value of carnallite purchased from an affiliated supplier in accordance with the major input rule of section 773(f)(3) of the Act. 12. We adjusted the reported G&A expense rate to include certain income and expense items related to the general operations of the company. 13. We removed selling expenses which were incorrectly reported in the cost of production (“COP”) file. 14. We adjusted the reported factory overhead costs to reflect the amount of factory overhead recorded in the financial statements. 15. SMW provided multiple costs for the same control number. We calculated a single weighted-average cost for that control number. 16. We adjusted the reported financial expense rate to include net foreign currency exchange gains and losses and short-term interest income recorded as non-operating items on SMW's financial statements. 17. We adjusted Solikamsk Desulphurizer Works' (“SZD”) reported G&A expense rate to include certain non-operating income and expense items related to the general operations of the company. 18. We removed selling expenses for SZD which were incorrectly reported in the COP file. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003: Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) JSC AVISMA Titanium-Magnesium Works 22.28 Solikamsk Magnesium 18.65 Works All Others 21.45 Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of magnesium from Russia that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 4, 2004, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to continue to require, for each entry, a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margins indicated above. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether these imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping order directing CBP officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order 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(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(I)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 16, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—List of Issues Covered in the Decision Memorandum Part I—General Issues Comment 1: Scope of the Order—One or Two Classes or Kinds of Merchandise. Comment 2: Electricity Costs—Whether to Disregard or Adjust Reported Electricity Costs to Account for Distortions in the Russian Electricity Sector. Comment 3: Barter Sales. Part II—Avisma Comment 4: Sales Through Bonded Warehouse. Comment 5: Model Matching of Certain Avisma Products. Comment 6: Constructed Export Price (“CEP”) Offset. Comment 7: Payment Dates for Certain Home-Market Sales. Comment 8: By-Product Credit. Comment 9: Depreciation Expense. Comment 10: Non-Operating Income and Expenses. Comment 11: Interest on Affiliated Party Loan. Comment 12: Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses. Part III—SMW Comment 13: Model Matching of Certain SMW Products. Comment 14: Date of Sale. Comment 15: Sales to the Russian Government Stockpile. Comment 16: Certain Selling Expenses on Sales to the Stockpile. Comment 17: Domestic Inventory Carrying Costs. Comment 18: Selling Expenses Reported in the Cost File. Comment 19: General and Administrative (“G&A”) Expenses. Comment 20: Factory Overhead. Comment 21: By-Product Offset. Comment 22: Major Input. Comment 23: Weighted Average Per-Unit Cost. Comment 24: General and Administrative Expenses—Solikamsk Desulphurizer Works (“SZD”). [FR Doc. E5-765 Filed 2-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-816] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Kristin Najdi at

(202)482-0405 or

(202)482-8221, 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: Background On June 1, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan for the period June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004. *See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 69 FR 30873 (June 1, 2004). On June 2, 2004, the respondent Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Ta Chen”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales to the United States during the period of review (“POR”). On June 22, 2004, Markovitz Enterprises, Inc. (Flowline Division), Gerlin, Inc., Shaw Alloy Piping Products, Inc., and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc. (collectively “petitioners”) requested an antidumping duty administrative review for Ta Chen, Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co., Ltd., Tru-Flow Industrial Co., Ltd., and PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. On July 28, 2004, the Department published the notice initiating this antidumping duty administrative review for the period June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation In Part* , 69 FR 45010 (July 28, 2004). The preliminary results are currently due not later than March 2, 2005. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order for which the administrative review was requested. The Department has determined it is not practicable to complete this review within the originally anticipated time limit, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), for the following reasons:

(1)this review involves complex affiliation issues; and

(2)this review involves complex constructed export price adjustments. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limits for the preliminary results by 120 days, to not later than June 30, 2005. The deadline for the final results of this review will continue to be 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. Dated: February 16, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-762 Filed 2-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments 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 instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are 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:* 05-003. Applicant: Brigham Young University, Purchasing Department, C-144 ASB. Provo, UT 84602. *Instrument:* Electron microscope, Model Tecnai F-20 Twin. *Manufacturer:* FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for high-resolution electron microscopy, electron crystallography, parallel and convergent beam electron diffraction and electron energy-loss spectroscopy. Phenomena at the nano-scale and properties of a variety of materials of scientific and technological significance will be studied. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: January 31, 2005. *Docket Number:* 05-004. Applicant: University of Delaware, 201 duPont Hall, Dept. of Matls. and Eng., University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G 2 12 Twin. Manufacturer: Fei Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study the microstructure of polymers, colloids and biomaterials and other materials from room temperature down to that of liquid nitrogen. It will be used to investigate morphology of phases, crystal structure and defects including vesicles and micelles, colloids as well as polypeptide and polymer mesoscale and nanoscale structure and structure-property relationships. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: January 31, 2005. *Docket Number:* 04-005. Applicant: University of Vermont, Physics Dept., 82 University Place, (Cook Building), Bulington, VT. 05405. Instrument: Excimer Laser. Manufacturer: TUI Laser AG, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to make thin film materials with scientifically interesting electrical and magnetic properties using a pulsed laser deposition process which will be subjected to a variety of measurements to determine their atomic and molecular structure as well as relevant electrical and magnetic properties in order to elucidate the fundamental properties of thin film materials. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: February 7, 2005. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E5-759 Filed 2-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-122-839] Notice of Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak

(202)482-2209, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 13, 2004, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (the Department) determined that countervailable subsidies were being provided with respect to certain softwood lumber products from Canada. *See Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 69 FR 75917 (December 20, 2004) ( *Final Results* ). On January 10, 2005, the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports Executive Committee (petitioners) and the Governments of Canada, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, the British Columbia Lumber Trade council and its constituent associations, the Ontario Forest Industries Association, the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association, and the Quebec Lumber Manufacturers Association (collectively, the Canadian parties) alleged ministerial errors in the calculations of the *Final Results* . On January 14, 2005, petitioners submitted rebuttal comments regarding the allegations. As a consequence of an extension granted by the Department pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(4), these ministerial error comments were submitted timely. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are softwood lumber, flooring and siding (softwood lumber products). Softwood lumber products include all products classified under subheadings 4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and 4409.1020, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and any softwood lumber, flooring and siding described below. These softwood lumber products include:

(1)Coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness exceeding six millimeters;

(2)Coniferous wood siding (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed;

(3)Other coniferous wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces (other than wood moldings and wood dowel rods) whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed; and

(4)Coniferous wood flooring (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. As specifically stated in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 67 FR 15539 (April 2, 2002) ( *see* comment 53, item D, page 116, and comment 57, item B-7, page 126), available at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, drilled and notched lumber and angle cut lumber are covered by the scope of this order. The following softwood lumber products are excluded from the scope of this order provided they meet the specified requirements detailed below:

(1)*Stringers* (pallet components used for runners): if they have at least two notches on the side, positioned at equal distance from the center, to properly accommodate forklift blades, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40.

(2)*Box-spring frame kits* : if they contain the following wooden pieces - two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying numbers of slats. The side rails and the end rails should be radius-cut at both ends. The kits should be individually packaged, they should contain the exact number of wooden components needed to make a particular box spring frame, with no further processing required. None of the components exceeds 1” in actual thickness or 83” in length.

(3)*Radius-cut box-spring-frame components* , not exceeding 1” in actual thickness or 83” in length, ready for assembly without further processing. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the boards and must be substantial cuts so as to completely round one corner.

(4)*Fence pickets* requiring no further processing and properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.70, 1” or less in actual thickness, up to 8” wide, 6' or less in length, and have finials or decorative cuttings that clearly identify them as fence pickets. In the case of dog-eared fence pickets, the corners of the boards should be cut off so as to remove pieces of wood in the shape of isosceles right angle triangles with sides measuring 3/4 inch or more.

(5)*U.S. origin lumber* shipped to Canada for minor processing and imported into the United States, is excluded from the scope of this order if the following conditions are met: 1) the processing occurring in Canada is limited to kiln-drying, planing to create smooth-to-size board, and sanding, and 2) if the importer establishes to the satisfaction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)that the lumber is of U.S. origin.

(6)*Softwood lumber products contained in single family home packages or kits* , 1 regardless of tariff classification, are excluded from the scope of this order if the importer certifies to items 6 A, B, C, D, and requirement 6 E is met: 1 To ensure administrability, we clarified the language of exclusion number 6 to require an importer certification and to permit single or multiple entries on multiple days as well as instructing importers to retain and make available for inspection specific documentation in support of each entry. A. The imported home package or kit constitutes a full package of the number of wooden pieces specified in the plan, design or blueprint necessary to produce a home of at least 700 square feet produced to a specified plan, design or blueprint; B. The package or kit must contain all necessary internal and external doors and windows, nails, screws, glue, sub floor, sheathing, beams, posts, connectors, and if included in the purchase contract, decking, trim, drywall and roof shingles specified in the plan, design or blueprint. C. Prior to importation, the package or kit must be sold to a retailer of complete home packages or kits pursuant to a valid purchase contract referencing the particular home design plan or blueprint, and signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer; D. Softwood lumber products entered as part of a single family home package or kit, whether in a single entry or multiple entries on multiple days, will be used solely for the construction of the single family home specified by the home design matching the entry. E. For each entry, the following documentation must be retained by the importer and made available to CBP upon request: i. A copy of the appropriate home design, plan, or blueprint matching the entry; ii. A purchase contract from a retailer of home kits or packages signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer; iii. A listing of inventory of all parts of the package or kit being entered that conforms to the home design package being entered; iv. In the case of multiple shipments on the same contract, all items listed in E(iii) which are included in the present shipment shall be identified as well. Lumber products that CBP may classify as stringers, radius cut box-spring-frame components, and fence pickets, not conforming to the above requirements, as well as truss components, pallet components, and door and window frame parts, are covered under the scope of this order and may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 4418.90.45.90, 4421.90.70.40, and 4421.90.97.40. Finally, as clarified throughout the course of the investigation, the following products, previously identified as Group A, remain outside the scope of this order. They are: 1. Trusses and truss kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4418.90; 2. I-joist beams; 3. Assembled box spring frames; 4. Pallets and pallet kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4415.20; 5. Garage doors; 6. Edge-glued wood, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40; 7. Properly classified complete door frames; 8. Properly classified complete window frames; 9. Properly classified furniture. Amended Final Results In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act, we have determined that ministerial errors were made in the calculations of the *Final Results* . For a detailed discussion of the ministerial error allegations and the Department's analysis, *see* Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, “Ministerial Error Allegations Filed by Petitioners and Canadian Parties; Amendment to the *Ad Valorem* Rate Calculated in the Notice of Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada,” dated February 16, 2005, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In accordance with section 777(A)(e)(2)(B) of the Act, we calculated a single country-wide *ad valorem* subsidy rate of 17.18 percent in the *Final Results* to be applied to all producers and exporters of the subject merchandise from Canada, other than those producers that have been excluded from the order and those producers receiving an individual rate in this review. In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the *Final Results* to correct ministerial errors. As a result of amending the calculations of the *Final Results* , the country-wide rate changed to 16.37 percent *ad valorem* . We have determined that Fontaine Inc., Les Produits Forestiers Dube Inc., Scierie West Brome Inc., and Scierie Lapointe & Roy Ltee. each received zero or *de minimis* net subsidies during the period of review. We have also determined to rescind the reviews with respect to Bear Lumber Ltd., Bois Daaquam Inc., Cambie Cedar Products Ltd., Midway Lumber Mills Ltd., Nickel Lake Lumber, Twin Rivers Cedar Products Ltd., and Uphill Wood Supply Inc. The Department has previously excluded the following companies from this order: • Armand Duhamel et fils Inc. • Bardeaux et Cedres • Beaubois Coaticook Inc. • Busque & Laflamme Inc. • Carrier & Begin Inc. • Clermond Hamel • J.D. Irving, Ltd. • Les Produits Forestiers D.G., Ltee • Marcel Lauzon Inc. • Mobilier Rustique • Paul Vallee Inc. • Rene Bernard, Inc. • Roland Boulanger & Cite. Ltee • Scierie Alexandre Lemay • Scierie La Patrie, Inc. • Scierie Tech, Inc. • Wilfrid Paquet et fils, Ltee • B. Luken Logging Ltd. • Frontier Lumber • Sault Forest Products Ltd. • Interbois Inc. • Les Moulures Jacomau • Richard Lutes Cedar Inc. • Boccam Inc. • Indian River Lumber • Sechoirs de Beauce Inc. *See Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 67 FR 36068 (May 22, 2002), as corrected (67 FR 37775, May 30, 2002), *Final Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 68 FR 24436 (May 7, 2003), and *Final Results, Reinstatement, Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Expedited Reviews, and Company Exclusions: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 69 FR 10982 (March 9, 2004). Finally, certain softwood lumber products from the Maritime Provinces are exempt from this countervailing duty order. This exemption, however, does not apply to softwood lumber products produced in the Maritime Provinces from Crown timber harvested in any other province. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8, we will instruct CBP, on or after the 41st day after publication of the amended final results of this review, to liquidate shipments of certain softwood lumber products from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from May 22, 2002, through March 31, 2003, at the above indicated company-specific and aggregate *ad valorem* net subsidy rates. We will direct CBP to exempt from the application of the order only entries of softwood lumber products from Canada which are accompanied by an original Certificate of Origin issued by the Maritime Lumber Bureau (MLB), and those of the excluded companies listed above. In addition, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts indicated above of the f.o.b. price on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these amended final results of review. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 16, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-763 Filed 2-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 021605B] Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States and Reef Fish Fishery in the Gulf of Mexico AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit

(EFP)from Neil Allen on behalf of The Georgia Aquarium. If granted, the EFP would authorize the applicant, with certain conditions, to collect limited numbers of groupers, snappers, squirrelfish, sea basses, jacks, spadefish, bluefish, grunts, porgies, surgeonfish, and triggerfish. Specimens would be collected primarily from Federal waters off the coast of Georgia but may also be collected from Federal waters off the coasts of South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas during 2005 and 2006, and displayed at The Georgia Aquarium, located in Atlanta, Georgia. DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on March 11, 2005. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application may be sent via fax to 727-570-5583 or mailed to: Julie Weeder, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702. Comments may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is grouper.aquarium@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail document the following text: Comment on Georgia Aquarium EFP Application. The application and related documents are available for review upon written request to the address above or the e-mail address below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Weeder, 727-570-5305; fax 727-570-5583; e-mail: *julie.weeder@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing. According to the applicant, The Georgia Aquarium is a public, non-profit institution currently under construction in Atlanta, Georgia. Its mission is to provide entertainment and education and support conservation through aquatic exhibits displaying animals from around the world. The aquarium is scheduled to open in late 2005. The proposed collection for public display involves activities otherwise prohibited by regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plans

(FMP)for the Snapper-Grouper Fisheries of the South Atlantic Region, Reef Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, or Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fisheries of the South Atlantic Region and the Gulf of Mexico Region. The applicant requires authorization to harvest and possess the following numbers of fishes: Six goliath grouper, five rock sea bass, five black sea bass, 10 gag (grouper), 10 scamp (grouper), 50 red snapper, 50 vermilion snapper, 50 squirrelfish, 100 yellow jack, 100 crevalle jack, 50 bar jack, 50 greater amberjack, 500 Atlantic spadefish, 50 bluefish, 100 sheepshead seabream, 100 tomtate grunt, 250 french grunt, 50 doctorfish, and 20 grey triggerfish. Specimens would be collected primarily from Federal waters off the coast of Georgia but may also be collected from Federal waters off the coasts of South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas during 2005 and 2006. Fishes would be captured using barrier and hand nets in conjunction with SCUBA, hook and line, and traps. The barrier net would be set up underwater to provide a barrier to a school of fish. The fish would be herded into the barrier net and then hand netted. The net would be set for approximately one hour at a time and monitored by divers using SCUBA at all times. The net is 50 feet long and five feet deep with one inch monofilament mesh. Hook and line would be employed at depths less than 100 feet to capture bottom-dwelling fish, and in the water column for other species. Methods would be identical to that used by charter fishing boats. The fish traps are made from 1.5 inch wire mesh and are approximately three feet long, three feet wide and two feet high. The entrance to the traps is a vertical slit two inches wide and 24 inches long. Ten traps would be deployed for up to 10 fishing periods of 12 hours each. NMFS finds that this application warrants further consideration. Based on a preliminary review, NMFS intends to issue an EFP. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to: Reduction in the number of fish to be collected; restrictions on the placement of traps; restrictions on the size of fish to be collected; prohibition of the harvest of any fish with visible external tags; and specification of locations, dates and/or seasons allowed for collection of particular fish species. A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on a NMFS review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws. The applicant requests a 12-month effective period for the EFP. Dated: February 17, 2005. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E5-743 Filed 2-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 021705B] Marine Mammals; File Nos. 594-1759 and 633-1763 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Receipt of applications. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the following institutions have applied in due form for permits to conduct scientific research on marine mammals: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame-Endangered Wildlife Program, Coastal Office, Brunswick, GA (File No. 594-1759) and the Center for Coastal Studies, Provincetown, MA (File No. 633-1763). DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before March 28, 2005. ADDRESSES: The applications and related documents are available for review upon request or by appointment in the following office(s): All documents: 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)713-0376; File No. 633-1763: Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9200; fax (978)281-9371; and File Nos. 594-1759 and 633-1763: Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5301; fax (727)570-5320. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Additionally, comments may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Please include the appropriate File No. (594-1759 or 633-1763) as a document identifier in the subject line of the e-mail comment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Tammy Adams or Carrie Hubard at (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permits are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226). File No. 594-1759: The applicant requests a 5-year permit for aerial surveys, including associated photo-identification, behavioral observation and incidental harassment of North Atlantic right whales ( *Eubalaena glacialis* ) in Atlantic waters off Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and Gulf of Mexico waters off Florida and Alabama. Data will be used to

(1)reduce potential for ship collisions via the Early Warning System,

(2)improve knowledge of right whale habitat utilization,

(3)maintain photo-id catalog,

(4)monitor annual reproductive success, and

(5)implement programs for population monitoring File No. 633-1763: The applicant requests a 5-year permit to conduct aerial and vessel surveys, photo-identification, behavioral observation, collection and export of sloughed skin, and incidental harassment of North Atlantic right whales in waters of the Gulf of Maine, Cape Cod Bay, Great South Channel, and Georgia Bight. Surveys will be conducted to investigate population parameters, habitat use and conflicts with human activities, and to develop a multi-dimensional foraging/ecosystem model. Data will also be provided to management agencies, including NMFS and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. The CCS application also requests permission for biopsy sampling of right whales for genetic analyses. NMFS is deferring a decision on a permit for that biopsy sampling pending further environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A draft EA has been prepared to examine whether significant environmental impacts could result from issuance of the proposed scientific research permit. The draft EA is available for review and comment simultaneous with the scientific research permit application. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of these applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: February 17, 2005. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 05-3584 Filed 2-23-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 11

Traces to 11 documents

CFR