Notices. Rescission of antidumping duty new shipper review

11,200 words·~51 min read·/register/2005/09/14/05-18231

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-570-831] Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Rescission of antidumping duty new shipper review. SUMMARY: On June 30, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period November 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China:

Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review,* 70 FR 39733 (July 11, 2005) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). This new shipper review covered three exporters, Shandong Chenshun Farm Produce Trading Company, Ltd., Shenzhen Fanhui Import and Export Co., Ltd., and Xi'an XiongLi Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Xian XiongLi”). For the reasons discussed below, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1), we are rescinding the review of Xian XiongLi. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ryan Douglas or Brian Ledgerwood at AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1277 and

(202)482-3836, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 26, 2005, the Department received a timely request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC from Xian XiongLi, an exporter of subject merchandise sold to the United States. On June 30, 2005, the Department initiated this new shipper review covering the period November 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. On August 9, 2005, the Department received a timely request from Xian XiongLi to withdraw its request for this review. *See Letter from Xian XiongLi Foodstuff Co., Ltd. to the Department, August 9, 2005* . Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products subject to this antidumping duty order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include

(a)garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or

(b)garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0000, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. In order to be excluded from antidumping duties, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is

(1)mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use, or

(2)specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed, must be accompanied by declarations to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to that effect. Rescission of New Shipper Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1), the Department will rescind a new shipper review if a party that requested a review withdraws its request not later than 60 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Xian XiongLi; withdrew its request for a new shipper review on August 09, 2005, before the expiration of the 60-day deadline. No other party requested a new shipper review of Xian XiongLi, therefore, we are rescinding the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC with respect to Xian XiongLi in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1). Cash Deposits The Department will issue appropriate cash deposit instructions to CBP for shipments from Xian XiongLi of fresh garlic from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or after the publication of this notice of rescission of antidumping duty new shipper review in the **Federal Register** . Further, effective upon publication of this notice, for all shipments of the subject merchandise exported by Xian XiongLi and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate, which is 376.67 percent. Notification to Parties Subject to Administrative Protective Orders This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO material or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanctions. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3). Dated: September 7, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-5020 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-818] Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium From France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of its second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium

(LEU)from France. The review covers one producer of the subject merchandise. The period of review

(POR)is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the preliminary results. For the final dumping margins see the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Elfi Blum at

(202)482-2371 or

(202)482-0197, 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: Background On March 7, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on LEU from France. *See Low Enriched Uranium From France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 10957 (March 7, 2005), ( *Preliminary Results* ). We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . On June 30, 2005, we received case briefs from the sole respondent, Eurodif S.A., Compagnie Générale Des Matières Nucléaires, S.A. and COGEMA, Inc. (collectively, Eurodif/COGEMA), and the petitioner, the United States Enrichment Corporation and USEC Inc. (collectively, USEC). Eurodif/COGEMA and USEC submitted their rebuttal briefs on July 8, 2005. On June 15-17, 2005, the Department conducted verification of the information submitted by respondent on behalf of Électricité de France (EdF), an affiliated electricity supplier, and of the research and development (R&D) activities conducted by the Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique (CEA). Eurodif/COGEMA and USEC submitted comments to the verification report on July 22, 2005, and July 25, 2005, respectively. Eurodif/COGEMA submitted its rebuttal comments on July 28, 2005 (amended on August 2, 2005), and USEC submitted its rebuttal comments on July 27, 2005. A hearing was held on August 4, 2005. At petitioner's request, a portion of the hearing was conducted on a closed basis, for purposes of discussing business proprietary information. On August 25, 2005, the Department placed on the record of this review new information pertaining to USEC's R&D activities into centrifuge technology and invited the parties to comment. Eurodif/COGEMA and the petitioner filed their comments on August 29, 2005, and their rebuttals on August 31, 2005. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ) with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO 2 , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2 ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U 3 O 8 ) with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order. Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU

(i)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and

(ii)are re-exported within eighteen

(18)months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end-user. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on June 15-17, 2005 we verified the information submitted by Eurodif/COGEMA regarding its POR purchases of electricity from EdF, and R&D expenses incurred during the POR by the CEA and attributable to Eurodif/COGEMA. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by Eurodif/COGEMA. Our verification results are outlined in the *Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, From Ernest Z. Gziryan, Senior Accountant; Ref.: Administrative Review of Low Enriched Uranium from France; Subj.: Verification Report on the Cost of Production Data Submitted by Electricité de France* (July 11, 2005) ( *EdF Verification Report* ), and *Memorandum to The File Through Dana Mermelstein From Elfi Blum: Verification of research and development expenses at the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA)* (July 11, 2005) ( *CEA Verification Report* ). Public versions of both reports are on file in the Import Administration Central Records Unit (CRU), in room B-099 of the Department of Commerce. Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in all case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration* ( *Decision Memorandum* ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the *Decision Memorandum* is appended to this notice. The *Decision Memorandum* is on file in the CRU, and can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made adjustments to the methodology used in calculating the final dumping margin. The adjustments are discussed in detail in the *Decision Memorandum* . Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period of February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Eurodif/COGEMA 12.62 Assessment The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will not issue liquidation instructions for any entries of Eurodif merchandise until such time as the July 1, 2002, injunction issued by the Court of International Trade, is lifted. Cash Deposits Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of LEU from France entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act:

(1)For companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above;

(2)for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in which that producer or exporter participated;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the most recent final results in which that producer participated; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 19.95 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Reimbursement This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 6, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I—Issues in Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Goods Versus Services Comment 2: Eurodif's Cost of Purchases of Electricity From the Affiliated Supplier Comment 3: Established Market Price for Electricity Comment 4: Excluded Costs in EdF's Cost of Production Comment 5: Cogema's R&D Expenses Comment 6: CEA's R&D for Centrifuge Enrichment Technology Comment 7: Use of USEC's Financial Statements Comment 8: Goodwill Expenses in Constructed Value

(CV)Profit Comment 9: Inter-Company Sales as Part of Sales Revenues in CV Profit Comment 10: Offset to COGEMA's Interest Expense for Income on Short-Term Investment Comment 11: Date of Sale for Certain Deliveries Comment 12: Cost of Uranium in the Calculation of CEP and CV Comment 13: Indirect Selling Expense Rate Comment 14: Attribution of Indirect Selling Expenses Comment 15: Ministerial Error in the CV Calculation for G&A, Interest Rate, and CV Profit [FR Doc. E5-5019 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published *Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 10965 (March 7, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). This review covers twenty-two exporters or producer/exporters, seven of these are active respondents. 1 The active respondents are Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd., (“Gerber”), Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc. (“Guangxi Hengxian”), Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd. (“Jiufa”), Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. (“XITIC”), China Processed Food Import & Export Company (“COFCO”), Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Green Fresh”), and Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. (“Guangxi Yulin”). 1 The following fifteen companies were part of this review, however did not participate: Dingyuan Import & Export Corporation (“Dingyuan”); Guangxi Yizhou Dongfang Cannery (“Guangxi Yizhou”); Nanning Runchao Industrial Trade Co., Ltd. (“Nanning Runchao”); Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co., Ltd. (“Primera Harvest”); Raoping Xingyu (“Raoping Xingyu”), and its affiliate Raoping Yucun Canned (“Raoping Yucun”); Shanghai Superlucky Import & Export Company, Ltd. (“Superlucky”); Shantou Hongda Industrial General Corporation, (“Shantou Hongda”); Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. (“Shenxian Dongxing”); Shenzhen Qunxingyuan Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhen Qunxingyuan”); Tak Fat Trading Co. (“Tak Fat”); Mei Wei Food Industry Co., Ltd. (“Mei Wei”); Xiamen Zhongjia Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. (“Zhongjia”); Zhangzhou Hongning Canned Food Factory (“Zhangzhou Hongning”); Zhangzhou Jingxiang Foods Co., Ltd. (“Zhangzhou Jingxiang”); and Zhangzhou Longhai Minhui Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (“Minhui”). We invited interested parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of the record, including factual information obtained since the *Preliminary Results* , we have made certain changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Musser or John Conniff AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; at

(202)482-1777 and

(202)482-1009, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2005, the Department published the *Preliminary Results* . The period of review (“POR”) is February 1, 2003 through January 31, 2004. *Since the Preliminary Results the following events have occurred:* On March 8, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to COFCO. On March 15, 2005, the Department informed Green Fresh that its March 2, 2005, submission was being returned because it consisted of untimely filed information. On March 17, 2005, the Department informed COFCO that it would not accept new information that had been offered for clarification of a previous submission. On March 14, 2005, Jiufa requested a hearing. On March 22, 2005, the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade (collectively, “petitioners”) requested a hearing. On April 4, 2005, COFCO and Guangxi Yulin requested a hearing. 2 2 We note that all of the above parties withdrew their requests for a hearing; thus, no hearing was held in this case. The Department conducted verifications of Jiufa on March 14 through March 18, 2005; XITIC on March 21 through March 25, 2005; Gerber on March 29 through April 1, 2005, and Green Fresh on April 5 through April 8, 2005. On March 29, 2005, COFCO submitted its response to the Department's fourth supplemental questionnaire. On May 17, 2005, the Department issued a verification reports for Jiufa and XITIC. On June 7 and 8, 2005, the Department issued verification reports for Gerber and Green Fresh, respectively. On June 3, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Guangxi Yulin. On June 24, 2005, Guangxi Yulin informed the Department that it would not respond to the supplemental questionnaire. In a letter dated June 30, 2005, Guangxi Yulin stated that it was withdrawing from the review. On July 6, 2005, we received case briefs from respondents COFCO, Green Fresh, XITIC, Guangxi Hengxian, and Jiufa. We received rebuttal briefs from petitioners, COFCO, and Jiufa on July 13, 2005. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species *Agaricus bisporus* and *Agaricus bitorquis* . “Certain Preserved Mushrooms” refers to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:

(1)All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms;

(2)all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”;

(3)dried mushrooms;

(4)frozen mushrooms; and

(5)“marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives. 3 3 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. *See* “Recommendation Memorandum—Final Ruling of Request by Tak Fat, *et al.* for Exclusion of Certain Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this decision was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. *See Tak Fat* v. *United States* , 39C F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department issued a notice of intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to Guangxi Yizhou, Minhui, Nanning Runchao, Primera Harvest, Raoping Xingyu and its affiliate Raoping Yucun, Shenxian Dongxing, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, Superlucky, Tak Fat and its affiliate Mei Wei, and Zhongjia because the shipment data that was examined by the Department did not show U.S. entries of subject merchandise during the POR for these companies. *See Preliminary Results* . The Department has received no comments on this issue. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review with respect to each of these companies. Separate Rates Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, Guangxi Hengxian, COFCO, and XITIC have requested separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. In our *Preliminary Results* , we found that Gerber was wholly owned by entities located outside of the PRC, and that application of the separate rates analysis was inappropriate. We further found in the *Preliminary Results* that Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, Guangxi Hengxian, COFCO, and XITIC had met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. See *Preliminary Results* . We have not received any information since the *Preliminary Results* with respect to Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, XITIC or COFCO that would warrant reconsideration of our separate-rates results. Therefore, we have assigned individual dumping margins to Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, XITIC, and COFCO. In the *Preliminary Results* we also found that Dingyuan and Zhangzhou Jingxiang did not respond in a complete and timely manner to the Department's requests for information, and that Shantou Hongda withdrew from the review after an initial response; hence these companies do not qualify for a separate rate. The Department did not receive comments on this issue prior to these final results. *See also* “The PRC-Wide Rate and Application of Facts Otherwise Available” section below. On March 29, 2005, the Department commenced a verification of the facts submitted by Gerber in its responses to the Department's questionnaires. On April 1, 2005, the fourth day of verification, Gerber withdrew from verification, reclaiming its verification exhibits, and indicating acceptance that withdrawal would result in total AFA. 4 The Department was unable to complete the verification of the information submitted by Gerber, including verification of information pertaining to Gerber's eligibility for a separate rate. Therefore, as a result, the Department finds that Gerber does not qualify for a separate rate. 4 *See Memorandum Discussing the On Site Meetings to Verify the Response of Gerber Foods (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. (“Gerber”) in the Fifth Antidumping Duty Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)* dated June 13, 2005, from Amber Musser, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, to the File, (“Gerber Memo”) for a discussion of the events that occurred at verification prior to Gerber's withdrawal. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in this review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , dated September 6, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded in the Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memorandum is a public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B-099 in the main Department building, and can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on the comments received from the interested parties, the Department has made changes to the margin calculation for Guangxi Hengxian, Jiufa, XITIC, COFCO, and Green Fresh. Based on information submitted since the *Preliminary Results* , some surrogate values have changed and some new values have been added. The surrogate value for soil, salt, labels, gypsum, water, cans and lids, and labor have changed. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* at comment 1 and 2. The surrogate values for caustic soda, sodium hypochlorite, dope, banding, banding clips, ink, borax, epoxy, amylum, amyl acetate, and staples have been introduced. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* at comment 4. For the final results, the calculation of surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead and selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) have been changed to better reflect 2003 and 2004 information, and to more closely reflect past Department policy. The Department corrected the amount of “Consumption of Raw Material” when using Agro Dutch's financial Profit and Loss Statement for calculation of SG&A. The Department also added “job work” expenses to labor to calculate a total labor cost, consistent with prior practice. The Department excluded discounts and rebates, also consistent with past practice. The Department corrected a clerical error in calculating depreciation, an element of factory overhead. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* at comment 2. For Guangxi Hengxian, we have made the following changes. First, as Guangxi Hengxian self-produces a significant portion of its cans, we have valued the factors of production for the cans that it produces and calculated a weighted average between the value of the can based on the can-making factors and the surrogate value of the finished can that would reflect Guangxi Hengxian's ratio of finished can purchases to its can production 5 Second, in order to capture the most accurate reflection of growing FOPs, the Department has only considered the FOPs in the first growing period in its entirety and has not considered any portion of the FOPs in the second growing period. 5 We note that we have introduced additional surrogate values for these factors where needed. With regard to Jiufa, we have determined that Jiufa and Yantai Muping Packing Materials Co., Ltd. (“Jiufa Packing”) are part of the same group and have used the factors of production reported for Jiufa Packing. 6 With regard to COFCO, we determine that COFCO has provided enough information to establish a reasonable link between the free jars received and the jarred merchandise sold to the U.S. customer. Therefore, we have adjusted the amount of the U.S. price for the expenditures paid by the U.S. customer for the jars. 6 *See* Jiufa comment 9. The PRC-Wide Rate and Application of Facts Otherwise Available The PRC-wide rate will apply to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own calculated rate. *See* “Separate Rates” section above. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”) provides that, when

(1)necessary information is not available on the record, the Department may use the facts otherwise available to make a results. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person:

(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;

(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable results under this title. 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 shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) further states that, if the party submits further information that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the administering authority may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. 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 results but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering authority if

(1)the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission,

(2)the information can be verified,

(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable results,

(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the administering authority with respect to the information, and

(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See Statement of Administrative Action* (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient attention to its statutory duties. *See Tung Mung Dev. Co.* v. *United States* , 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (August 6, 2002). Furthermore, the Department also considers the accuracy and completeness of submitted information, and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. *See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997). The focus of 776(b) of the Act is respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability, rather than its failure to provide requested information. *See Nippon Steel Corp.* v. *United States,* 337 F. 3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final results in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. Gerber Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department may make a facts available (“FA”) determination if a party withholds information requested by the Department, significantly impedes a proceeding, and/or provides unverifiable information in a proceeding. Through its withdrawal from verification, Gerber withheld requested information from the Department, impeded this proceeding, and precluded the Department from verifying information placed on the record in this case. Consistent with Section 776(a) of the Act, the Department has determined to apply total facts available to Gerber for the final results. The application of total facts available is warranted in this case because Gerber's withdrawal from verification made it impossible for the Department to verify all of the information on the record. The Department further finds that by withdrawing from verification, Gerber has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in this proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of Gerber in selecting from among the facts otherwise available with respect to its request for a separate rate. By doing so, we ensure that the companies that fail to cooperate will not obtain a more favorable result than those companies that complied fully with the Department's requests in this review. Furthermore, as noted above, because we were unable to verify Gerber's separate rates information, as adverse facts available (“AFA”), Gerber's request for a separate rate will be denied. Accordingly, as AFA, we are applying the PRC-wide rate to Gerber. *See* below for a discussion of the probative value of the 198.63 percent rate. PRC-Wide Rate (Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, Zhangzhou Jingxiang) In the *Preliminary Results* , we determined that Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang would be subject to the PRC-wide rate. Specifically, Dingyuan and Zhangzhou Jingxiang did not respond to the Department's questionnaires, and Shantou Hongda withdrew from the review after filing an initial questionnaire response. We received no comments regarding our preliminary finding to deny the companies a separate rate. Accordingly, as AFA, we have continued to apply the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent to Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang. *See* below for a discussion of the probative value of this figure. Guangxi Yulin At verification, the Department discovered Guangxi Yulin's name in Gerber's records. 7 On June 3, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Guangxi Yulin allowing it a chance to clarify and explain its relationship with Gerber. Guangxi Yulin was granted an extension to respond to this supplemental, but on June 30, 2005, its counsel informed the Department that it would not participate any further in this review or the ongoing sixth review of this case. Guangxi Yulin acknowledged that it risked a Department finding that it failed to cooperate to the best of its ability under section 776(b) of the Act. 7 *See Memorandum Discussing the On Site Meetings to Verify the Response of Gerber Foods (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. in the Fifth Antidumping Duty Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)* dated June 13, 2005, from Amber Musser, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, to the File. Guangxi Yulin's refusal to respond to the Department's final supplemental questionnaire leaves the record incomplete. The Department finds that due to the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the supplemental questionnaire, the information was critical and necessary to the Department's review of Guangxi Yulin's production and sales during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(A) and

(B)of the Act, the Department finds the lack of this critical information on the record warrants the application of total facts available to Guangxi Yulin's calculations. Furthermore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined that the application of an adverse inference is warranted. Guangxi Yulin refused to respond to the Department's final supplemental questionnaire which related to information covering the entire POR. Therefore, the Department finds that Guangxi Yulin failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. As AFA, we have applied the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent to Guangxi Yulin. *See* below for a discussion of the probative value of the 198.63 percent rate. Corroboration In accordance with the Department's practice, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity (including Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, Zhangzhou Jingxiang, and Gerber) and Guangxi Yulin the rate of 198.63 percent as AFA. *See, e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 1999). In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “ as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Final Results of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). Pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, this rate is the highest dumping margin from any segment of this proceeding and was established in the less-than-fair-value investigation based on information contained in the petition, and corroborated in the final results of the first administrative review. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998); *Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 65 FR 66703 (November 7, 2000); and reinforced in *Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001). For the reasons stated in the *Preliminary Results* , the Department continues to find this rate to be both reliable and relevant, and, therefore, to have probative value in accordance with the *Statement of Administrative Action* , H.R. Doc. 103-316 (“SAA”). *See* SAA at 870, *see also Preliminary Results* at 70 FR 10965. The Department received no comments on the Department's preliminary analysis of this rate for purposes of these final results. Therefore, the Department determines that the rate of 198.63 is still reliable, relevant, and, has probative value within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Final Results of Review We determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist: 8 8 The PRC-wide rate includes Gerber, Guangxi Yizhou, Nanning Runchao, Raoping Yucun, Superlucky, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, Mei Wei, Zhongjia, Shantou Hongda, Dingyuan, Zhangzhou Jingxiang, Minhui, and Zhangzhou Hongning. Exporter Percent China Processed Food Import & Export Company 1.50 Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. 167.72 Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. 22.27 Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation Ltd. 3.97 Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. 0.24 ( *de minimis* ) Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co.; Ltd. 198.63 PRC-Wide Rate 198.63 For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for each company, *see* the respective company's *Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the Fifth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , dated September 6, 2005, on file in the CRU. Assessment of Antidumping Duties The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. 9 For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for *Certain Preserved Mushrooms* from the PRC on a per-unit basis. 10 Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price or constructed export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. In this and future reviews, we will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( *i.e.* , per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. 9 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). 10 In our *Preliminary Results* , for those respondents who reported an entered value, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each applicable importer to calculate an *ad valorem* assessment rate. Cash Deposits For this and all subsequent review segments, we will establish and collect a per-kilogram cash deposit amount which will be equivalent to the company-specific dumping margin published in each review. The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act:

(1)For subject merchandise exported by COFCO, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Jiufa, Guangxi Yulin, and XITIC, we will establish a cash deposit rate which will be equivalent to the company-specific cash deposit established in this review;

(2)the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding (except for Gerber, Guangxi Yulin and Shantou Hongda, whose cash-deposit rates have changed in this review to the PRC-wide entity rate, as noted below);

(3)for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including Gerber, Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda and Zhangzhou Jingxiang), or in the case of Guangxi Yulin, have been assigned the PRC-wide rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent;

(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. These results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 6, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Issues General Issues Comment 1—Can Valuation Comment 2—Surrogate Values A. Soil B. SG&A C. Labor D. Water E. Gypsum F. Salt G. Label Company-Specific Issues Hengxian Comment 3—Clerical Errors in Program Comment 4—Valuation of Can Making Factors of Production Comment 5—Allocation of Growing Factors of Production Comment 6—Valuation of Scrap Mushrooms XITIC Comment 7—Clerical Errors in Program Jiufa Comment 8—Clerical Errors in Program Comment 9—Valuing Jiufa's Affiliated Producer's FOPs for Self-produced Cans, Lids and Cartons Comment 10—Verification Changes COFCO Comment 11—Clerical Error in Program Comment 12—AFA on Soil Comment 13—Jars Provided Free of Charge by U.S. Customer Comment 14—Conversion Rate for Spawn Comment 15—Copper Wire Inclusion in COM Comment 16—FOPs for Brined Mushrooms Produced by Fujian Zishan Comment 17—Weight Averaging the Factor of Production for the Affiliates Green Fresh Comment 18—AFA on CEP Sales Comment 19—Verification Changes Gerber Comment 20—Withdraw From Verification Guangxi Yulin Comment 21—Failure To Participate [FR Doc. E5-5016 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration National Animal Disease Center; Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscope This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, Franklin Court Building, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC. *Docket Number:* 05-030. Applicant: National Animal Disease Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai G 2 12 TWIN/BioTWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 43125, July 26, 2005. Order Date: August 16, 2004. *Comments:* None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as the instrument is intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was ordered. Reasons: The foreign instrument is a conventional transmission electron microscope

(CTEM)and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring a CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States either at the time of order of the instrument OR at the time of receipt of the application by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E5-5017 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Oregon Health and Science University, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, Franklin Court Building, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC. *Comments:* None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as each is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States. *Docket Number:* 05-018. Applicant: Oregon Health and Science University, Beaverton, OR 97006. Instrument: TriMScope Beam Multiplexor System. Manufacturer: La Vision Bio Tech, GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 36117, June 22, 2005. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides pulsed, near infrared light >700 nm which is safer for living biological tissue than visible light and is not damaging to living brain tissue. It also allows deeper penetration into the brain (to <100 μm below the surface). Advice received from: The National Institutes of Health. *Docket Number:* 05-024. Applicant: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Plasma Science and Fusion Center, 150 Albany Street, Cambridge, MA 02139. Instrument: Diagnostic Neutral Beam Injector. Manufacturer: Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 43125, July 26, 2005. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides:

(1)Beam voltage of 55 kV max, 50 kV nominal and operating range of 20-55 kV,

(2)extracted ion current of 7 A max,

(3)pulse duration of 1.5 s constant and 3 s with on/off modulation,

(4)beam diameter at FWHM ≤7 cm at focus (ℓ ≉ 4 m) with ≤0.55° half-angle and

(5)full-energy fraction ≥70% of source ion current. Advice received from: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. *Docket Number:* 05-025. Applicant: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 150 Albany Street, Cambridge, MA 02139. Instrument: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Magnet, Model JMTC-600/140. Manufacturer: Jastec, Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 43125, July 26, 2005. Reasons: The foreign article is a custom-built accessory for an existing instrument with which it will function as a unique persistent-mode, high-homogeneity and high-resolution 600 MHz NMR spectrometer. The domestic manufacturer deemed capable of producing an article meeting the applicant's specifications replied to the request, but declined to offer a bid. Advice received from: A different foreign manufacturer which also submitted an acceptable bid. *Docket Number:* 05-026. Applicant: Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-1301. Instrument: Horizontal Bounce Monochromater. Manufacturer: Oxford-Danfysik, United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 43125, July 26, 2005. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides:

(1)Two highly-stable, monochromatic x-ray beams at 12.66 KeV and 14.78 KeV at the same fixed horizontal exit angle of 29.6 degrees relative to the primary input x-ray beam by vertical translation of one of two liquid-nitrogen cooled silicon single crystals, contained in a high-vacuum enclosure free from mechanical vibrations and

(2)acquisition and analysis of monochromatic x-ray scattering data at energies of 12.66 KeV and 14.78 KeV from frozen, macromolecular single crystals with dimensions typically of 20-100 microns. Advice received from: The National Institutes of Health. *Docket Number:* 05-029. Applicant: University of Illinois, at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607-7509. Instrument: Excimer Laser with Preamplifier. Manufacturer: Laser-Labratorium, Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 43123, July 26, 2005. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides:

(1)Subpicosecond pulse generation (230 fs),

(2)high focusability (1-2 μm) and

(3)high peak power with good spatial characteristics and a low pulse repetition rate (0-10 Hz). Advice received from: The National Institute of Standards and Technology and a university research laboratory (Comparable case, 3/16/05). *Docket Number:* 05-031. Applicant: University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801. Instrument: Qarray2 Microarraying System. Manufacturer: Genetix, Ltd., United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 43126, July 26, 2005. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides:

(1)A high-precision, low-friction print head having pins held precisely in position by two layers of ball bearings with no lateral pin movement for higher accuracy during the printing process,

(2)the small point of contact between the ball bearings and the pin allow free movement in the vertical direction with minimal friction, reducing the problem of pin sticking associated with traditional drilled heads, and

(3)linear servo motors, that control positioning of the head, have very smooth motion and high accuracy. Advice received from: The National Institutes of Health. *Docket Number:* 05-033. Applicant: Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ. Instrument: Excimer Laser, Model ThinFilmStar. Manufacturer: TuiLaser AG, Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 45689, August 8, 2005. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides both:

(1)250mJ @ 100Hz and

(2)a very fast rise time (2.5 ns). Advice received from: The National Institute of Standards and Technology and a university research laboratory (Comparable case, 3/16/05). The capabilities of each of the foreign instruments described above are pertinent to each applicant's intended purpose and we know of no domestic instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value for the intended use of each instrument. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E5-5015 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether an instrument of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instrument shown below is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and

(4)of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100 W, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC. *Docket Number:* 05-038. Applicant: University of California, San Diego, Dept. Of Chemistry/Biochemistry, 9500 Gilman Drive, M.C. 0358, La Jolla, CA 92093-0358 Instrument: Low-Temperature Ultra-High Vacuum Scanning Tunneling Microscope. Manufacturer: Omicron NanoTechnology. GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to:

(1)Develop a basic understanding of chemically selective adsorption onto chemical sensor materials;

(2)Determine how to optimize interfacial bonding in an effort to reduce defects at the crucial oxide/semiconductor interface present in high-k dielectric MOSFETs;

(3)Develop a method to determine concentrations of antibodies that are present on the surfaces of cancer cells;

(4)Optimize the manufacture and processing of mid-IR focal plane arrays for use in night vision applications. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: August 16, 2005. *Docket Number:* 05-039. Applicant: University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 105 Garfield Avenue, Eau Claire, WI 54701. Instrument: Automatic Fusion Machine, Model Autofluxer 4. Manufacturer: Breitlander, GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to dissolve whole rock powder by a combination fusion/acid digestion for trace element analysis by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry for geochemical characterization of geological samples. It will also be used in courses and for student research. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: August 16, 2005. *Docket Number:* 05-040. Applicant: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401. Instrument: Dual Beam Focused Ion Beam Microscope, Model Nova 200 NanoLab. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study the structure and physical chemistry of semiconductors used for photovoltaics (solar cells). The general goal of these investigations is to better understand the structural and chemical properties and relate them to the optical and electrical performance of these thin film devices. In addition, the FIB will also be used to characterize a variety of nano-structured materials such as carbon and metal nano-structures used for the development of hydrogen storage systems. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: August 16, 2005. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E5-5014 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-122-815] Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Canada: Final Results of 2003 Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 10, 2005, the Department of Commerce published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Our analysis of the comments received on the preliminary results did not lead to any changes in the net subsidy rates. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final net subsidy rates for the reviewed companies are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Reviews.” EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-1174. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History On May 10, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of these administrative reviews ( *see Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Canada: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 24530 (May 10, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. (“NHCI”), Magnola Metallurgy Inc. (“Magnola”), the Government of Que bec, and the Government of Canada submitted case briefs on June 9, 2005. On June 14, 2005, U.S. Magnesium, LLC (“the petitioner”) filed a rebuttal brief. Scope of the Orders The products covered by these orders are shipments of pure and alloy magnesium from Canada. Pure magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Magnesium alloys contain less than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight with magnesium being the largest metallic element in the alloy by weight, and are sold in various ingot and billet forms and sizes. The pure and alloy magnesium subject to the orders is currently classifiable under items 8104.11.0000 and 8104.19.0000, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the merchandise subject to the orders are dispositive. Secondary and granular magnesium are not included in the scope of these orders. Our reasons for excluding granular magnesium are summarized in *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure and Alloy Magnesium From Canada* , 57 FR 6094 (February 20, 1992). Period of Reviews The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or POR, is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these administrative reviews are addressed in the September 7, 2005, *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2003 Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews of Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada* (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”) to Joseph Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building (“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 electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the record and comments received, we have made no changes to the preliminary results net subsidy rates. Final Results of Reviews In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to these reviews. For the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, we determine the net subsidy rates for the reviewed companies to be as follows: Manufacturer/exporter Percent Net Subsidy Rate: Pure Magnesium Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. 1.21 Net Subsidy Rate: Alloy Magnesium Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. 1.21 Magnola Metallurgy, Inc. 5.40 Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(g)(5)(c)(i), the Department will not order the liquidation of entries of pure magnesium or alloy magnesium from Canada exported by NHCI or Magnola on or after January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, pending final disposition of a dispute settlement proceeding under NAFTA (USA-CDA-00-1904-09 (panel)) with respect to *Pure and Alloy Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Full Sunset Review* , 65 FR 41436 (July 5, 2000). Liquidation of NHCI and Magnola entries will occur at the rates described in these final results of reviews, if appropriate, following the final disposition of the previously mentioned NAFTA dispute settlement proceedings. Cash Deposit Instructions The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the percentages detailed above of the f.o.b. invoice value on all shipments of the subject merchandise from NHCI and Magnola entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these administrative reviews. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company- specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company (except Timminco Limited, which was excluded from the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada ( *See Countervailing Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada* , 57 FR 39392 (August 31, 1992)). Accordingly, the country-wide cash deposit rate that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by the orders is that established in *Pure and Alloy Magnesium From Canada: Final Results of the Second

(1993)Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 62 FR 48607 (September 16, 1997) or the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results of an administrative review in which a company participated. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. This notice 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 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. These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 7, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Issuance of Liquidations Instructions at the Final Results for NHCI Comment 2: NHCI's Cash Deposit Rate Comment 3: Adjustment of NHCI's CVD Rate Comment 4: MTM Program Benefits for Magnola Comment 5: Magnola's Discount Rate [FR Doc. E5-5018 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 030602141-5037-15; I.D. 090805D] Availability of Grants Funds for Fiscal Year 2006 AGENCY: National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; re-opening of competition solicitation. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service publishes this notice to re-open the competitive solicitation for the Coral Reef Ecosystem Studies

(CRES)program to provide the public more time to submit proposals DATES: The new deadline for the receipt of proposals is October 12, 2005, for both electronic and paper applications. ADDRESSES: The address for submitting Proposals electronically is: *http://www.grants.gov/* . (Electronic submission is strongly encouraged). Paper submissions should be sent to the attention of CRES 2006, Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research (N/SCI2), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1305 East-West Highway, SSMC4, 8th Floor Station 8243, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact: Dr. Michael Dowgiallo, 301-713-3338 X161, *michael.dowgiallo@noaa.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This program was originally solicited in the **Federal Register** on June 30, 2005, as part of the June, 2005 NOAA Omnibus solicitation. The original deadline for receipt of proposals was 3 p.m., EST, on September 1, 2005. NOAA re-opens the solicitation period to provide the public more time to submit proposals. The new deadline for the receipt of proposals is October 12, 2005, for both electronic and paper applications. All applications that are submitted between September 1, 2005, and the date of publication of this notice will be considered timely. All other requirements for this solicitation remain the same. Limitation of Liability Funding for programs listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations. Applicants are hereby given notice that funds have not yet been appropriated for the programs listed in this notice. In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Universal Identifier Applicants should be aware that they are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number during the application process. See 67 FR 66177; October 30, 2002, for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or via the internet ( *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* ). National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA website: *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/* , including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf* , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, *http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm* Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. In some cases if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a project may have on the environment. The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389), are applicable to this solicitation. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/ Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: September 8, 2005. Peter N. Gibson, Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. [FR Doc. 05-18231 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

CFR