Notices. Notification of Upcoming Sunset Reviews—Change in Practice

10,029 words·~46 min read·/register/2005/05/03/05-8816

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

BILLING CODE 3510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-816, A-533-817, C-533-818, A-560-805, C-560-806, A-475-826, C-475-827, A-588-847, A-580-836, C-580-837] Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea; Extension of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is extending the time limit for its final results in the expedited sunset reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate (“CTL plate”) from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea. As a result of this extension, the Department intends to issue final results of this sunset review on or about August 1, 2005. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha Douthit at

(202)482-5050 or Hilary Sadler, Esq. at

(202)482-4340, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Extension of Final Results: On January 3, 2005, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea. *See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). Based on adequate responses from the domestic interested parties and inadequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting expedited sunset reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate would lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy. The Department's final results of these reviews were scheduled for May 3, 2005; however, the Department needs additional time for its analysis. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department may extend the period of time for making its final determination in a sunset review by not more than 90 days, if it determines that the review is extraordinarily complicated. As set forth in 751(c)(5)(C), the Department may, among other reasons, treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if:

(i)There are a large number of issues,

(ii)the issues to be considered are complex or

(iii)there are a large number of firms involved. In these proceedings, one or more of these reasons apply. Specifically, the sunset reviews of the four countervailing duty orders on CTL plate contain a large number of complex issues, including privatization, directed credit and section 129 implementation, while the sunset reviews of the six antidumping duty orders include complex issues related to the appropriate margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked and, in some instances, involve a large number of companies. The Department has determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C) of the Act that the sunset reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders of CTL plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea are extraordinarily complicated and require additional time for the Department to complete its analysis. Therefore, the Department will extend the deadlines in these proceedings, and, as a result, intends to issue the final results of the sunset reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders of CTL plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea on or about August 1, 2005, 90 days from the original scheduled date of the final results of these reviews. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(B) and

(C)of the Act. Dated: April 25, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2143 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Change in Practice Regarding Upcoming Sunset Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notification of Upcoming Sunset Reviews—Change in Practice. Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (the Department) automatically initiates and conducts reviews to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy and of material injury. In conjunction with this activity, the Department's practice has been to notify, in advance, by certified or registered mail, all persons on the service list for each proceeding subject to a sunset review of the approximate date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the automatic initiation of the sunset review. This notification is not required by statute but is done as a service to the international trading community. The Department is announcing its intention to discontinue this practice. Instead, beginning with sunset reviews initiated in June 2005, the Department will provide this advance notification of upcoming sunset reviews through a monthly notice published in the **Federal Register** . This notice of upcoming sunset reviews will be published in the month prior to the month of initiation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Parkhill or Gary Taverman, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, at

(202)482-3791 or

(202)482-1061. Dated: April 27, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2141 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-412-801 Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Pursuant to Final Court Decision AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 9, 2001, in response to its action in *FAG Italia S.p.A, Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited, The Barden Corporation and FAG Bearing Corporation v. the United States* , Court No. 98-07-02528, Slip. Op. 00-95 (CIT August 4, 2000), the Court of International Trade

(CIT)affirmed the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) remand determination affecting final assessment rates for the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from the United Kingdom for the period of review May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. The merchandise covered by this review is ball bearings and parts thereof and cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof. Because the appeals have been dismissed and there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this action, we are amending our final results of the review and we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries subject to this review. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0665 or

(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 18, 1998, the Department published *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 33320 (June 18, 1998), as amended by Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 63 FR 40878 (July 31, 1998) (collectively *AFBs 8* ), which covered the period of review

(POR)May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. The classes or kinds of merchandise covered by these reviews are ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof, and spherical plain bearings and parts thereof. FAG Italia S.p.A., The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd., The Barden Corporation and FAG Bearings Corporation appealed the Department's decisions in *AFBs 8* . In *FAG Italia S.p.A., The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd., The Barden Corporation and FAG Bearings Corporation v. United States* , 110 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (CIT August 4, 2000) ( *FAG-Barden* ), the CIT ordered a remand concerning the margin the Department determined for BBs from the United Kingdom covered by *AFBs 8* . In *FAG-Barden* , the CIT remanded *AFBs 8* to the Department to disregard The Torrington Company's below-cost sales allegation and to recalculate the dumping margin without regard to the results of the below-cost sales test. This remand affected Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited, The Barden Corporation, and FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively, Barden) directly with respect to the antidumping duty order on BBs from the United Kingdom for the POR. On November 2, 2000, the Department filed its final results of redetermination with the CIT. See *Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* in *FAG-Barden* (November 2, 2000) (Remand Results). In its redetermination, the Department disregarded The Torrington Company's below-cost allegation and recalculated the dumping margin with respect to Barden and, as a result, Barden's weighted-average margin for the POR changed from 6.63 percent to 5.06 percent with respect to BBs. On January 9, 2001, the CIT affirmed the Department's Remand Results in their entirety. See *FAG Italia S.p.A, Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited, The Barden Corporation and FAG Bearing Corporation v. the United States* , Court No. 98-07-02528, Slip. Op. 01-1 (CIT January 9, 2001). FAG Italia S.p.A, Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited, The Barden Corporation, and FAG Bearing Corporation (the plaintiffs) and The Torrington Corporation (defendant-intervenor) appealed the CIT's remand affirmation but later filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(CAFC)motions to sever and dismiss their appeals voluntarily. On February 12, 2004, the CAFC granted the plaintiffs' and the defendant-intervenor's motions to dismiss their appeals. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision with respect to the company affected by this remand order directly, we are amending our final results of review for this company and we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to liquidate the relevant entries subject to this review in accordance with our remand results. Assessment of Duties We are now amending the final results of the 1996-1997 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on BBs from the United Kingdom to reflect a revised weighted-average margin for Barden. We determine that a revised weighted-average margin of 5.06 percent exists for Barden on BBs from the United Kingdom for the period May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. Accordingly, the Department will determine and CBP will assess appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise produced by the affected company. Individual differences between U.S. price and foreign market value may vary from the above percentage. The Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: April 26, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2144 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-122-840 Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. On March 9, 2005, the Department of Commerce published a notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod products from Canada. We have preliminarily concluded that Mittal Canada Inc. (Mittal) is the successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidebec Inc. (Ispat) and, as a result, should be accorded the same treatment previously accorded to Ispat in regard to the antidumping order on steel wire rod from Canada. May 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel O'Brien or Ashleigh Batton, at

(202)482-1376 or

(202)482-6309, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* On January 14, 2005, Mittal, requested that the Department determine that it had become the successor-in-interest of Ispat, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3). On March 9, 2005, the Department this investigation. *See Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 70 FR 11612 ( *Initiation Notice* ). On March 25, 2005, the Department issued Ispat/Mittal a questionnaire requesting further details on Mittal's successor-in-interest claims. The company's response was received by the Department on April 1, 2005. Scope of the Order For purposes of the order, the products covered are Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see *Initiation Notice* . Preliminary Results of the Review In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in:

(1)management;

(2)production facilities;

(3)supplier relationships; and

(4)customer base. *See,* *e.g.* , Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002); *Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992). While no single factor or combination of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. *See,* *e.g.* , Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the former company, the Department will accord the new company the same antidumping treatment as its predecessor. In its submission to the Department, dated April 1, 2005, Mittal provided documentation supporting its contention that Mittal was functionally the same company as the former Ispat. According to Mittal, Ispat changed its name to Mittal Canada Inc. to align worldwide corporate names of the Mittal Steel Company. Evidence on the record indicates that Ispat's ultimate parent company, Ispat International N.V., purchased LNM Holdings, a holding company with interests in steel producers in Europe, Africa, and Asia. None of the LNM Holdings companies produced any steel in Canada. We preliminarily find that no operational changes to Isapt/Mittal have occurred, or are planned, in terms the organizational structure, production facilities, management, customer base, or suppliers as a result of Ispat International N.V./Mittal Steel Company's acquiring LNM Holdings. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Mittal is the successor-in-interest to Ispat. If the above preliminary results are affirmed in the Department's final results, the cash deposit rate most recently calculated for Ispat will apply to all entries of subject merchandise by Mittal entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review. *See Granular Polytetraflouroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review in which Mittal participates. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs, must be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issue,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. The Department will issue its final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e) (2004), and will publish these results in the **Federal Register** . The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review. This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 of the Department's regulations. Dated: April 26, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2145 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-822] Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 21, 2005, the Department of Commerce (Department) published the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products

(CORE)from Canada for the period from August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003 in the **Federal Register** . *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 13458 (March 21, 2005) ( *Final Results* ). We are amending our *Final Results* to correct a ministerial error alleged by the group of Dofasco Inc., Sorevco Inc., and Do Sol Galva Ltd. (Dofasco) pursuant to section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey or Candice Kenney Weck, at

(202)482-3964 or

(202)482-0938, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is certain corrosion-resistant steel, and includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS)under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Included in this order are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)-- for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. Amendment of Final Results On March 21, 2005, the Department published the *Final Results* of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (subject merchandise) from Canada for the period August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. Dofasco alleged a ministerial error in the Department's programming with respect to the classification of Dofasco's U.S. sales as either Constructed Export Price

(CEP)or Export Price (EP). In addition, we identified an inadvertent error in the *Final Results* regarding the timing of the issuance of assessment instructions. First, we are amending our *Final Results* to correct a ministerial error alleged by Dofasco pursuant to section 751(h) of the Act. On March 29, 2005, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), Dofasco filed a timely allegation that the Department erred in its calculation of the antidumping duty margin by treating all of Dofasco's U.S. sales as CEP sales. Dofasco has four separate channels of U.S. sales. As indicated in the *Final Results* , the Department intended to classify Channels 1 and 4 as EP sales, and Channels 2 and 3 as CEP sales. However, Dofasco contends that the SAS code in the U.S. Sales program resulted in all four channels of U.S. sales being classified as CEP sales. After reviewing Dofasco's allegation, we have determined that the alleged error is a ministerial error pursuant to section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.244(f). We agree with Dofasco that the Department inadvertently used SAS language that resulted in the classification of all Dofasco's U.S. sales as CEP sales. Therefore, we have amended the SAS programming to correct an above-described ministerial error. Second, in the “Assessment” section of the Final Results, the Department indicated that it would “issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.” The “within 15 days of publication” description is incorrect in the notice. Section 356.8 of the Department's regulations provides that the Department shall not order liquidation until the “forty-first day after the date of publication of the notice ...” following an administrative review of merchandise exported from Canada or Mexico. Accordingly, the Department will send assessment instructions to CBP “on or after the 41st day after publication.” Amended Final Results of Review In the *Final Results* , the Department determined the antidumping margin for Dofasco to be 2.31 percent. As a result of correcting the ministerial error, the amended antidumping margin for Dofasco is 2.15 percent. This correction is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: April 27, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2142 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-485-803] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a letter from S.C. Ispat Sidex S.A. notifying the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) that its corporate name has changed to Mittal Steel Galati S.A., the Department is initiating a changed circumstances administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania ( *see Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania* , 58 FR 44167 (August 19, 1993) (“ *Order* ”). We have preliminarily concluded that Mittal Steel Galati S.A. is the successor-in-interest to S.C. Ispat Sidex S.A. (“Sidex”) and, as a result, should be accorded the same treatment previously accorded to Sidex in regards to the antidumping order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Patrick Edwards, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-0195 and

(202)482-8029, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On August 19, 1993, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“steel plate”) from Romania. *See Order* . Since publication, there have been eleven review periods, and three fully completed administrative reviews of this order. Sidex was a participant in all three reviews. In a letter dated March 14, 2005, Sidex advised the Department that on February 7, 2005, it changed its corporate name to Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (“Mittal Steel”) and that Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex. As such, Sidex requested that the Department initiate a changed circumstances review to confirm that Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex for purposes of determining antidumping duty liabilities. Sidex also requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review on an expedited basis, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations. Petitioners provided no comments. Scope of the Order For purposes of the order, the products covered include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates. For a complete description of the scope of the order, *see Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005). Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.216, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty finding or order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Mittal Steel claiming that it is the successor-in-interest to Sidex demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. *See* 19 CFR 351.216(d). In accordance with the above-referenced regulations, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review to determine whether Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex. In determining whether one company is the successor to another for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in

(1)management;

(2)production facilities;

(3)supplier relationships; and

(4)customer base. *See, e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). While no one or several of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of succession, the Department will generally consider one company to be a successor to another company if its resulting operation is similar to that of its predecessor. *See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992), and the attached Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 1 Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the prior company, the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. 1 “[G]enerally, in the case of an asset acquisition, the Department will consider the acquiring company to be a successor to the company covered by the antidumping duty order, and thus subject to its duty deposit rate, if the resulting operation is essentially similar to that existing before the acquisition.” 57 FR 20461. On March 14, 2005, Mittal Steel submitted information demonstrating that it is the successor to Sidex. Specifically, Mittal Steel provided the minutes to its January 10, 2005, “Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders” at which the name change was approved. In addition, Mittal Steel provided a copy of the new company registration certificate filed with the Trade Register Office of the Galati Tribunal on February 7, 2005, the decision of Galati Tribunal to allow the name change (notarized by a delegated, tribunal judge) and the certificate issued by the National Office of the Trade Registry, Romanian Ministry of Justice, which established that Sidex would adopt the Mittal Steel name and logo. *See* Request for Change Circumstances Review, dated March 14, 2005, at Exhibit 1. We also obtained information in the context of the 2002-2003 review demonstrating that no major changes occurred with respect to Mittal Steel's management, plant facilities, customer base, or suppliers. *See* Antidumping Duty Questionnaire Responses for Sections A, B and C, submitted in the on-going 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, (A-485-803), dated November 5, 2005, and November 11, 2005, respectively. This information is currently on the record of this review and is on file in the Central Records Unit of the main Department of Commerce Building, Room B-099. We also noted that the headquarters remained the same and that Mittal Steel's suppliers and customers were consistent with the suppliers and customers it had in the previous review. 2 2 *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005). This information is currently on the record of this review and is on file in the Central Records Unit of the main Department of Commerce Building, Room B-099. Mittal Steel provided excerpts from the 15th edition of * Iron and Steel Works of the World * , published in 2004, which details Sidex's production facilities, and also included a print-out from the Mittal Steel website (dated February 23, 2005), indicating that the production facilities have not changed location, nor the equipment used for the production of merchandise following the name change from Sidex to Mittal Steel. Mittal Steel states in its request for initiation that it is still part of the same corporate group to which Sidex belonged. As such, the affiliated parties of Sidex are the affiliated parties of Mittal Steel, which continues the same relationship with affiliated suppliers that Sidex had used. Similarly, the relationships with unaffiliated suppliers have not been altered as a consequence of the name change. The company provided reports identifying Mittal Steel's suppliers of raw materials for the production of subject merchandise from September to December 2004 ( *i.e.* , before the name change), and from January to February 28, 2005, and we noted no changes or alterations. *See id* at Exhibit 9. Finally, Mittal Steel attached a copy of a February 15, 2005, customer contract, where the company's name is amended in the contract, transferring legal rights and obligations of Sidex to Mittal Steel, and is signed by the customer. *See id* at Exhibit 10. When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, the Department may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results for a changed circumstances review concurrently. *See* 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). *See also Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand; Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 69 FR 30878 (June 1, 2004). Based on the information on the record, we have determined that expedition of this changed circumstances review is warranted. In this case, we preliminarily find that Mittal Steel is the successor-in-interest to Sidex and, as such, is entitled to Sidex's cash deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise. 3 3 *See, e.g., Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 63 FR 20572 (April 27, 1998) where the Department found successorship where the company only changed its name and did not change its operations. Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assign Mittal Steel the antidumping duty cash deposit rate applicable to Sidex. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 28 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue and

(2)a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. Consistent with section 351.216(e) of the Department's regulations, we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding. We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and sections 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3) of the Department's regulations. Dated: April 26, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2146 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am] (BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-122-839] Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of Seed Timber Co. Ltd. (Seed Timber) under the countervailing duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. If the final results remain the same as the preliminary results of this new shipper review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess countervailing duties as detailed in the “Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this new shipper review. ( *See* the “Public Comment” section of this notice.) EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-4793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 22, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the countervailing duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada. *See Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood Products From Canada,* 67 FR 36070 (May 22, 2002). On May 28, 2004, we received a request from Seed Timber, a respondent company, for a new shipper review covering Seed Timber's shipments of subject merchandise. On June 30, 2004, we initiated a new shipper review for Seed Timber covering the review period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003 (POR). *See Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review for the Period May 1, 2003, Through April 30, 2004, and Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review for the Period January 1, 2003, Through December 31, 2003,* 69 FR 41229 (July 8, 2004). 1 1 Seed Timber's antidumping new shipper review was subsequently rescinded as a result of the company's withdrawal of its request for a review (69 FR 54766, September 10, 2004). On August 10, 2004, we issued a questionnaire to Seed Timber. On September 30, 2004, Seed Timber submitted its questionnaire response. On October 26, 2004, we extended the period for the completion of the preliminary results pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review,* 69 FR 63366 (November 1, 2004). On March 18, 2005, and March 24, 2005, we issued supplemental questionnaires and received Seed Timber's questionnaire responses on April 7, 2005. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(a), this new shipper review covers only the exporter or producer for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this new shipper review only covers subject merchandise exported and produced by Seed Timber. Scope of 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 *http://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,* 2 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: 2 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. In addition, this scope language was further clarified to specify that all softwood lumber products entered from Canada claiming non-subject status based on U.S. country of origin will be treated as non-subject U.S.-origin merchandise under the countervailing duty order, provided that these softwood lumber products meet the following condition: upon entry, the importer, exporter, Canadian processor and/or original U.S. producer establish to CBP's satisfaction that the softwood lumber entered and documented as U.S.-origin softwood lumber was first produced in the United States as a lumber product satisfying the physical parameters of the softwood lumber scope. 3 The presumption of non-subject status can, however, be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the merchandise was substantially transformed in Canada. 3 *See* scope clarification message 3034202, dated February 3, 2003, to CBP, concerning treatment of U.S.-origin lumber on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (CFU), room B-099. Company History Seed Timber, located in the province of British Columbia, was incorporated in July 2001, and commenced active operations in September 2001. Seed Timber purchases logs from various suppliers and then rents either a sawmill or remanufacturing facility to custom cut the logs into softwood lumber products, which the company sells directly to customers in Canada and the United States. During the review period ( *i.e.* , calendar year 2003) Seed Timber purchased Western Red Cedar

(WRC)Crown-origin logs from a number of suppliers. Until December 1, 2003, Seed Timber was affiliated with and cross-owned by Storey Creek Trading Ltd. (Storey Creek), a log broker, also located in British Columbia. Storey Creek reported that it does not and has never produced or exported the subject merchandise. Analysis of Programs I. Program Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable In the *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)) ( *Lumber IV First Review Final* ), we found the Government of British Columbia's

(GOBC)stumpage program to be countervailable. Specifically, we found that the GOBC's stumpage program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a provision of a good within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act; is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the provincial stumpage subsidy program is used by a limited number of enterprises; and conferred benefits through the provision of a good for less than adequate remuneration under section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act. In addition, we determined that the stumpage and log markets are closely intertwined and therefore Crown stumpage prices affect both stumpage and log prices. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum: Final Results of Administrative Review of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada ( *Lumber IV First Review Final Memorandum* ) (December 13, 2004) at 14. No new information has been provided in this review to warrant reconsideration of our earlier findings. During the review period, Seed Timber purchased Crown-origin WRC logs. Because of the Department's prior findings that Crown logs are subsidized, we have reason to believe that those purchases may have provided Seed Timber with a “competitive benefit” within the meaning of section 771A(b) of the Act. Therefore, we undertook to evaluate whether a competitive benefit was, in fact, bestowed on Seed Timber. To determine whether a competitive benefit exists, section 351.523(c)(1) of the CVD Regulations states that the Department will compare the price for the subsidized input product ( *i.e.* , logs) to a benchmark input price and outlines five benchmark input price alternatives in order of preference. Based on information available to the Department for these preliminary results, we are using, under tier

(v)of the benchmark hierarchy, 4 U.S. log prices for WRC as the appropriate benchmark input price. *See* the April 25, 2005, Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, from Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, concerning Benchmark Input Price Hierarchy, which is on file in the CRU. The U.S. log prices are from private transactions between log sellers and sawmills for logs harvested from private lands and are thus market-determined prices. Use of a U.S. log price benchmark is also consistent with our approach in the *Lumber IV First Review Final Memorandum* ( *see* pages 16-18). 4 Tier

(v)permits the use of a surrogate price deemed appropriate by the Secretary. *See* section 351.523(c)(1)(v) of the Department's Regulations. Specifically, we have selected U.S. Pacific Northwest log prices for WRC as an appropriate benchmark to evaluate whether a competitive benefit was bestowed on Seed Timber through the purchase of Crown-origin WRC from various B.C. log suppliers. We obtained U.S. log prices for WRC for calendar year 2003, from publicly available materials, which are on the record of this new shipper review. *See* the April 20, 2005, Memorandum to the File concerning U.S. Log Price Data. 5 5 This public document is available in the public file in the CRU. Based on our analysis, we preliminarily find that Seed Timber received a competitive benefit through its purchase of Crown-origin logs because the price paid for those logs was lower than the benchmark U.S. log price and that the subsidized logs (the only input product for the production of softwood lumber) had a significant effect on Seed Timber's cost of producing subject merchandise. Therefore, in accordance with section 771A of the Act, we preliminarily determine that Seed Timber received countervailable subsidies in 2003. To calculate the countervailable benefit conferred on Seed Timber, we multiplied the calculated price differential between benchmark log price and the price Seed Timber paid for the Crown-origin logs by the volume of the Crown-origin logs purchased. We then expensed the total benefit bestowed on Seed Timber in the year of receipt, *i.e.* , the year in which the logs were purchased and entered a sawmill for processing. As in *Lumber IV First Review Final* , we did not include in our calculation logs which Seed Timber acquired and resold without any processing ( *i.e.* , logs that did not enter a sawmill). Also, consistent with our approach in the expedited reviews, we calculated a subsidy rate which applies only to the softwood lumber produced by Seed Timber by dividing the benefit by the appropriate value of Seed Timber's sales ( *i.e.* , scope and non-scope softwood lumber products and softwood lumber by-products, net of resales). *See, e.g.* , Issues and Decision Memorandum: Final Results of Expedited Review of Companies Covered by the May 8, 2003, Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review (March 9, 2004) at 3. On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy of 2.22 percent *ad valorem* for Seed Timber. II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used Seed Timber and its previously affiliated company, Storey Creek, reported that they did not apply for, use, or benefit from the programs listed below; therefore, we preliminarily determine that neither company used these programs. A. Non-Stumpage Programs of the GOBC 1. Grants, Loans, and Loan Guarantees Provided from Forest Renewal BC 2. Payments Associated with Tenure Reclamation 3. Land-Base Investment Program 4. Forestry Innovation Investment Program 5. Allowances for Harvesting Beetle-Infested Timber 6. Tax Breaks for Timber Harvesters on Private Timber Land B. Non-Stumpage Programs of the Federal Government of Canada 1. Non-Repayable Grants and Conditionally Repayable Contributions from the Department of Western Economic Diversification 2. Workers Assistance Packages 3. Softwood Marketing Subsidies 4. Litigation Related Payments to Lumber Trade Associations Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined an individual rate for the exporter or producer of the subject merchandise participating in this new shipper review. We preliminarily determine the total net countervailable subsidy rate to be: Producer/exporter Net subsidy rate Seed Timber Co. Ltd. 2.22 percent *ad valorem* If the final results of this new shipper review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will instruct CBP within 41 days of publication of the final results of this review, to liquidate shipments of the subject merchandise produced or exported by Seed Timber entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, at 2.22 percent *ad valorem* of the f.o.b. invoice price. The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at 2.22 percent *ad valorem* of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from Seed Timber entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this new shipper review. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)A statement of the issue, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date of submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will issue and publish the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, or at a hearing, if requested within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results. This review and notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 26, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2147 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Contracting Policy for Mapping and Charting Services AGENCY: National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: The NOAA National Ocean Service

(NOS)established a contracting policy for mapping and charting services in 1996 that the NOAA Hydrographic and Shoreline Mapping Programs have followed since that time. NOAA seeks public comment on this policy in accordance with the FY 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act request to work with the private mapping community to develop a strategy for expanding contracting with private entities to minimize duplication and take maximum advantage of private sector capabilities in fulfillment of NOAA's mapping and charting responsibilities. Comments on the contracting policy and strategies to expand contracting will be factored into the NOAA Hydrographic Services Review Panel ( *http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ocs/hsrp/hsrp.htm* ) Federal Advisory Committee's (HSRP FAC) recommendations to NOAA on the same issues. NOAA will consider both HSRP FAC recommendations and comments from the public in its update of the current contracting policy. NOAA will publish a draft revised policy and seek a second comment period before publishing the final contracting policy by March 2006. DATES: Comments must be submitted within 60 days of the date of this notice. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to Ashley Chappell, Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service, NOAA (N/CS), 1315 East West Highway, Station 6113, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Written comments may be faxed to

(301)713-4019, Attention: Ashley Chappell. Comments by e-mail should be submitted to *ashley.chappell@noaa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Chappell, Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service, NOAA (N/CS), 1315 East West Highway, Station 6113, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; Telephone:

(301)713-2770 ext. 148. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following documentation is the current contracting policy for surveying and mapping within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS): National Ocean Service, Contracting Policy for Surveying and Mapping Services, June 4, 1996. Background A National Ocean Service

(NOS)mission, as authorized by the Coast and Geodetic Survey Act of 1947 (33 U.S.C. 883a-i)1 is to provide nautical and aeronautical charts and other information products that support safe navigation for marine and air commerce, and to establish and maintain a high precision national coordinate system to provide basic reference data products for engineering and scientific purposes in support of commerce and industry. This mission encompasses those activities associated with the field collection of surveying and mapping data, the analysis and compilation of the data, and the dissemination of the data in useful products for the full public benefit. For the purposes of this policy, the term “surveying and mapping” is defined as including, but not limited to, the following activities; geodetic control, hydrography, photogrammetry, topography, remote sensing, geophysical (gravity, seismological, geomagnetic) measurements, tide and current observations, and specialized data compilation processes. The Coast and Geodetic Survey Act also authorizes NOS to utilize state-of-the-art technology to improve the efficiency, as well as the scientific and engineering knowledge, of surveying and mapping activities. NOS recognizes that qualified commercial sources can provide competent, professional, cost-effective surveying and mapping services to NOS in support of the above mission. In general, it is the intent of NOS to contract for mapping and surveying services when qualified commercial sources exist, and when such contracts are the most cost effective method of conducting these functions. This policy statement documents the framework and conditions under which contracting for surveying and mapping services will be employed to ensure an open, consistent, approach. To support this policy, NOS will maintain a dialogue with professional and business organizations and constituent groups. Policy Private Sector Role It is NOS policy to procure surveying and mapping services from qualified commercial sources in accordance with Federal acquisition regulations and other applicable laws when such procurement is the most cost effective source, unless

(l)A product or service is inherently governmental in nature;

(2)there is no commercial source capable of providing a needed product or service to NOS at the required standard of performance, and at a price equal to or less than existing government services;

(3)Government production, manufacture, or provision of a product or service is necessary for national defense; or,

(4)the procured services cannot reasonably be quality controlled to ensure safety of navigation in the national airspace or coastal waters. NOS surveying and mapping activities considered inherently governmental in nature include services necessary to:

(l)Monitor the quality of NOS products;

(2)promulgate and promote national technical standards and specifications;

(3)conduct basic research and development and ensure the rapid transfer to the private sector of the technology derived therefrom; and

(4)maintain the Federal geodetic and navigational data bases. To carry out the above activities, and to adequately monitor contracted services, NOS will maintain a core capability of field and office expertise. NOS decisions regarding contracting will include consideration of factors such as

(l)Sufficiency of resources appropriated to support national programs,

(2)Federal laws, regulations, policies, and procedures governing contracting, and utilization of the private sector for commercial activities,

(3)Federal laws, regulations, and collective bargaining agreements that ensure fair and equitable treatment for Federal employees,

(4)availability of critical in-house technical and managerial capability needed to use commercial sources effectively,

(5)Federal policies regarding the liability of independent contractors for their acts or inactions, and

(6)Federal requirements to regulate and manage the national airspace and coastal waters. Contracting Basis In general, it is NOS policy to award contracts for surveying and mapping services in accordance with Title IX of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 541 *et seq.* ) commonly known as the “Brooks Act”. NOS may, however, elect to employ other contracting methods in accordance with federal acquisition regulations and other applicable laws when conditions determine that alternative contracting methods best serve the Government's interest. The Brooks Act enables the Government to contract for surveying and mapping services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional services required, and at fair and reasonable prices. NOS has determined that the Brooks Act is the appropriate contract basis for surveying and mapping services because the professional nature of the services to be procured require that potential contractors have specialized technical expertise. Surveying and mapping services are of a highly technical nature, and it is critical that all activities, from collection through compilation be performed to high standards of accuracy and quality control to meet the NOS mission of accurate, reliable products. By employing the Brooks Act, NOS is able to utilize a selection process that places priority on potential contractors' qualifications and expertise. To view the Brooks Act, Pub. L. 92-582 or the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act (which established the HSRP FAC), visit *http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ocs/hsrp/archive/library.htm.* Dated: April 28, 2005. Peter Gibson, Acting Deputy Director, Management and Budget. [FR Doc. 05-8816 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

CFR