Notices. Notice of allocation of 2006 worsted wool fabric tariff rate quota

11,988 words·~54 min read·/register/2005/12/08/05-23766

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

BILLING CODE 3510-33-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-485-806) Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania.

The period of review is November 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Ispat Sidex, S.A. (now known as Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (MS Galati) 1 ), have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue(s) and

(2)a brief summary of the argument(s). We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the publication of this notice. 1 On July 15, 2005, we determined that MS Galati was the successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidex, S.A. See *Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania* , 70 FR 40982 (July 15, 2005). EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dunyako Ahmadu at

(202)482-0198 or David Dirstine at

(202)482-4033, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 29, 2001, the Department published an antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania. See *Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania* , 66 FR 59566 (November 29, 2001). On November 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania for the period November 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004. See *Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 69 FR 63359 (November 1, 2004). On November 30, 2004, the Department received three timely requests for an administrative review of this order. The Department received a timely request from Nucor Corporation, a domestic interested party, requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of shipments exported to the United States from MS Galati and Metalexportimport, S.A. (MEI). In addition, the Department received a timely request from MS Galati, Sidex Trading S.r.l. (Sidex Trading), and Ispat North America Inc. (INA), requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise produced by MS Galati and exported to the United States by Sidex Trading. Also, the Department received a timely request on behalf of United States Steel Corporation (USSC), the petitioner in this proceeding, to conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise produced or exported by MS Galati or MEI. On December 27, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania for the period November 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004 ( *Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 77181 (December 27, 2004)). On July 13, 2005, due to the complexity of the case and pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the deadline for the completion of the preliminary results in this administrative review until no later than November 30, 2005. See *Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania* , 70 FR 40318 (July 13, 2005). Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight length, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at the following subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products are covered by this order, including vacuum degassed fully stabilized, high strength low alloy, and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this proceeding is dispositive. For further information on the scope of the order, see *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 70644 (December 7, 2004). Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we will rescind an administrative review in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer if we conclude that during the period of review there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. MEI submitted a letter indicating that there were no sales or shipments of subject merchandise during the 2003-2004 period of review. We have examined data maintained by CBP and are satisfied that MEI made no shipments during the period of review. We intend to rescind this review at the time of our final results if we continue to find no evidence of sales during the period of review. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307, we conducted a home-market cost and sales verification of the questionnaire responses of MS Galati. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of MS Galati's production facility. Our cost and home-market sales verification results are outlined in the Memorandum to File, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by Mittal Steel Galati S.A. (formerly known as Ispat Sidex SA) in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania, dated November 30, 2005, and Memorandum to the File, Home-Market Sales Verification of Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Mittal Steel Galati S.A. in the 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania, dated November 30, 2005. The report concerning the verification of MS Galati's U.S. sales response will be available to the parties and put on the record shortly following the issuance of these preliminary results of review. Public versions of these reports are on file in the Central Records Unit

(CRU)located in room B-099 of the main Commerce building. Date of Sale In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on some other date. As such, the date of the invoice is the presumptive date although this presumption may be overcome. In the home market, MS Galati reported the date of invoice as the date of sale. For its constructed export-price

(CEP)sales in the United States, MS Galati reported the date of INA's customer order acknowledgment as the date of sale. In the prior review covering November 1, 2002, through October 30, 2003, MS Galati had reported the date of invoice as the date of sale for U.S. sales. In response to the Department's June 14, 2005, supplemental questionnaire requesting an explanation of the change in practice, MS Galati stated that, previously, sales were made by Ispat Sidex directly to its U.S. customers (INA was not involved in sales of subject merchandise made by Ispat Sidex) and there was no such similar document—a customer order acknowledgment —used for such sales. MS Galati also stated that its first sales of subject merchandise during the period of review were made after March 2004. According to MS Galati, these sales were made using the customer order acknowledgment INA issued to unaffiliated U.S. customers. MS Galati also indicated that INA's customer order acknowledgments contained language which made the prices and quantities final. It also provided sample cover letters sent with the customer order acknowledgment, INA's customer terms and conditions, and affidavits of employees as evidence of notice of the change in INA's business practice. Based on our review of INA's customer order acknowledgments during the verifications we conducted at MS Galati's headquarters in Romania along with our close examination of the customer order acknowledgments INA placed on the record in MS Galati's response to our supplemental questionnaire, we conclude that all substantive terms of sale, *i.e.* , price, quantity, terms of delivery, and payment, were fixed and not susceptible to change after the date of INA's customer order acknowledgment. As such, we conclude that MS Galati has provided satisfactory evidence to support its assertion that the material terms of sale are fixed at the time of INA's customer order acknowledgment and, for these preliminary results, we have used the date of the customer order acknowledgment as the appropriate date of sale for reporting U.S. sales. Fair-Value Comparisons To determine whether MS Galati's sales of the subject merchandise from Romania to the United States were made at prices below normal value, we compared the CEP to the normal value, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(i) of the Act, we considered all products within the “Scope of the Order” section above which were produced and sold by MS Galati in the home market during the period of review to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We relied on the following eleven characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product: 1) painted; 2) quality; 3) carbon content; 4) yield strength; 5) thickness; 6) width; 7) form; 8) temper rolled; 9) pickled; 10) edge trim; and 11) patterns in relief. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions we identified in our questionnaire. See Appendix V of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to MS Galati dated January 21, 2005. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d). For purposes of this administrative review, we have treated sales by MS Galati as CEP transactions because MS Galati's U.S. affiliate, INA, made the first sale to an unaffiliated party in the United States. Therefore, we based CEP on the packed duty-paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States in accordance with sections 772(b), (c), and

(d)of the Act. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation expenses ( *i.e.* , U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, and surveying), and U.S. customs duty. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , imputed credit expenses) and indirect selling expenses. We revised the calculation of U.S. credit expense from the amount MS Galati claimed to reflect the seller's cost of extending credit between the date of shipment from Romania and final payment from the first unaffiliated customer. Credit expense is the interest expense incurred (or interest revenue foregone) between shipment of merchandise to a customer and receipt of payment from the customer. Inventory carrying costs are the interest expenses incurred (or interest revenue foregone) between the time the merchandise leaves the production line at the factory to the time the goods are shipped to the first unaffiliated customer. In CEP cases where the merchandise does not enter inventory of a U.S. affiliate in the United States prior to sale to an unaffiliated U.S. customer, the Department calculates the credit period from the time the merchandise is shipped from the producer's country to the date of payment. See, *e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago* , 70 FR 12648 (March 15, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. For these CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets. Normal Value A. Home-Market Viability We compared the aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to determine whether the volume of the foreign like product sold in Romania was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act, to form a basis for normal value. Because the volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based the determination of normal value upon the home-market sales of the foreign like product. Thus, we used as normal value the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Romania, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade as the CEP sales, as appropriate. After testing home-market viability, we calculated normal value as discussed in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice. B. Cost-of-Production Analysis On March 31, 2005, USSC submitted an allegation that home-market sales by the former Ispat Sidex, now MS Galati, were at prices below the cost of production. Upon review of USSC's allegation, we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that MS Galati made sales at below the cost of production so we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation on May 24, 2005, and instructed MS Galati to provide cost-of-production information concerning its sales. The Department has now conducted an investigation to determine whether MS Galati made home-market sales at prices below the cost of production during the period of review within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average cost of production based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product plus amounts for home-market general and administrative (G&A) expenses, interest expenses, and packing expenses. We relied on the cost-of-production data MS Galati submitted in its questionnaire responses with the following exceptions: - We disallowed the claimed offset to G&A expenses for the reversal of a certain provision. This amount is not actual income for the company but rather is a reversal of a provision for expenses accrued prior to the period of review. Since the reversal of the provision does not appear to relate to current period costs, we do not consider it appropriate to offset the current period costs with this reversal. See Memorandum to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting: Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results Mittal Steel Galati dated November 30, 2005. - We adjusted the transfer prices for certain inputs MS Galati purchased from affiliated suppliers to reflect the higher of the transfer price or the market price pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act. *Id* . - We adjusted MS Galati's reported cost of manufacturing to include two accounts which MS Galati used to offset its cost of manufacturing. These two accounts were also reported in the sales listing for the home market. *Id* . We then compared the weighted-average cost of production for MS Galati to its home-market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the cost of production within an extended period of time ( *i.e.* , a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised cost of production to the home-market prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses. We disregarded below-cost sales where 20 percent or more of MS Galati's sales of a given product during the period of review were made at prices below the cost of production and, thus, such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(c)of the Act, and where, based on comparisons of the price to the weighted-average cost of production for the period of review, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. C. Arm's-Length Test MS Galati reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated and unaffiliated customers. The Department did not require MS Galati to report its affiliated party's downstream sales because these sales represented less than five percent of total home-market sales. We excluded sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made in the ordinary course of trade from our analysis pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. To determine whether sales to affiliated customers were made in the ordinary course of trade, we tested whether sales to each affiliated customer were made at arm's length. As such, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments, movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length, consistent with *Antidumping Proceedings—Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). D. Price-to-Price Comparisons We based normal value on the home-market sales to unaffiliated purchasers and sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm's-length test. We adjusted gross unit price for reported freight revenue. We made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments for movement expenses ( *i.e.* , inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse and warehousing expenses) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for imputed credit, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the CEP transaction. See also 19 CFR 351.412. The normal-value level of trade is the level of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, the level of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative expenses and profits. For CEP sales, the U.S. level of trade is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1). To determine whether home-market sales are at a different level of trade than CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the home-market sales are at a different level of trade than CEP sales and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales on which normal value is based and home-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the normal-value level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels between normal value and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust normal value under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset). See *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In this review, we obtained information from MS Galati regarding the marketing stages involved in sales to the reported home and U.S. markets. MS Galati reported that it sells to unaffiliated distributors and end-users in Romania as well as to affiliated end-users for consumption and affiliated distributors. In the United States, MS Galati had sales to an affiliate, INA, that resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. MS Galati reported one level of trade in the home market with the following three channels of distribution: 1) direct sales to customers; 2) consignment sales; 3) sales through its affiliated warehouse. Home-market sales were made to two classes of customers, end-users and distributors. Along with MS Galati's home-market sales of merchandise stored at its affiliated warehouse, MS Galati also had sales to affiliated end-users for consumption. Based on our review of evidence on the record, we find that home-market sales through the three channels of distribution to both customer categories, whether affiliated or not, were substantially similar with respect to selling functions and stages of marketing. MS Galati performed the same selling functions at the same level for sales to all home-market customers. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that MS Galati had only one level of trade for its home-market sales. MS Galati reported one CEP level of trade with one channel of distribution in the United States which consists of its U.S. affiliate's direct sales to end-users and distributors of merchandise shipped directly from Romania. As such, we preliminarily determine that MS Galati made CEP sales to the United States through one channel of distribution—direct sales to end-users and distributors. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we reviewed the selling functions and services MS Galati reported it performed on CEP sales and we have determined that the selling functions performed on all CEP sales were identical. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is one CEP level of trade in the U.S. market. We then compared the selling functions performed by MS Galati on its CEP sales (after deductions) to the selling functions it provided in the home market. We found that MS Galati performs more selling functions for its home-market sales than those it provides to its U.S. affiliate, INA. MS Galati reported that it provided minimal selling functions and services for the CEP level of trade and that, therefore, the home-market level of trade is more advanced than the CEP level of trade. Based on our analysis of the channels of distribution and MS Galati's selling functions for sales in the home market and CEP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily find that the home-market level of trade is at a more advanced stage of distribution when compared to CEP sales because MS Galati provides many selling functions in the home market at a higher level of service as compared to selling functions it performed for its CEP sales. We examined whether a level-of-trade adjustment or CEP offset may be appropriate. In this case, MS Galati sold at one level of trade in the home market. Therefore, there is no information available to determine a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which we base normal value and the home-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, in accordance with our normal methodology as described above. See 19 CFR 351.412(d). We do not have record information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on MS Galati's sales of other products, and there are no other respondents or other record information on which such as analysis could be based. Accordingly, because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a level-of-trade adjustment but the level of trade in the home market is at a more advanced state of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP transactions, we made a CEP-offset adjustment to normal value in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the home-market indirect selling expenses from normal value for home-market sales that we compared to U.S. CEP sales. As such, we limited the deduction for home-market indirect selling expenses by the amount of the indirect selling expenses we deducted in calculating the CEP as required under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 based on the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for MS Galati during the period November 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004, is 0.94 percent. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. If requested, a hearing will be held at the main Department building. We will notify parties of the exact date, time, and place for any such hearing. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be filed no later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs. Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. The Department will publish a notice of final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days from the date of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.50 percent), we will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. To determine whether the duty-assessment rate covering the period is *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment *ad valorem* rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to the sole importer of MS Galati's subject merchandise and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. Where the importer-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* and because the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we will instruct CBP to apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's entries during the period of review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Romania entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)for subject merchandise produced or exported by MS Galati, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review;

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

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

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous administrative review or in the original less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash-deposit rate will be 17.84 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective on June 14, 2005. See *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 34448 (June 14, 2005). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 these review periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 30, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7081 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-814] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum-Page or Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0197 or

(202)482-3964, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 8, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils

(SSSS)from France for the period of July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004 ( *see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France* , 70 FR 45668 (August 8, 2005) ( *Preliminary Results* )). The current deadline for the final results of this review is December 6, 2005. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Review Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to issue the final results in an administrative review within 120 days of the date on which the preliminary results were published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the final results to 180 days from the date of publication of the preliminary results. Due to the complex nature of certain issues raised in the parties' comments to the *Preliminary Results* related to the calculation of specific adjustments (such as warranty expenses) and assessment rates, additional time is required to complete our analysis. Therefore, the Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the review within the original time frame. Consequently, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the final results of the review until no later than January 30, 2006, or 175 days from the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Dated: December 2, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7082 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Allocation of Tariff Rate Quotas

(TRQ)on the Import of Certain Worsted Wool Fabrics for Calendar Year 2006 AGENCY: Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. ACTION: Notice of allocation of 2006 worsted wool fabric tariff rate quota. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) has determined the allocation for Calendar Year 2006 of imports of certain worsted wool fabrics under tariff rate quotas established by Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106-200), as amended by the Trade Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-210) and the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-249). The companies that are being provided an allocation are listed below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sergio Botero, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-4058. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 as amended by the Trade Act of 2002 and the Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004 creates two tariff rate quotas, providing for temporary reductions in the import duties on two categories of worsted wool fabrics suitable for use in making suits, suit-type jackets, or trousers. For worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters greater than 18.5 microns (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) heading 9902.51.11), the reduction in duty is limited to 5,500,000 square meters in 2006. For worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters of 18.5 microns or less (HTSUS heading 9902.51.15), the reduction is limited to 5,000,000 square meters in 2006. The Act requires the President to ensure that such fabrics are fairly allocated to persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who cut and sew men's and boys' worsted wool suits and suit-like jackets and trousers in the United States and who apply for an allocation based on the amount of such suits cut and sewn during the prior calendar year. Presidential Proclamation 7383, of December 1, 2000, authorized the Secretary of Commerce to allocate the quantity of worsted wool fabric imports under the tariff rate quotas. The Miscellaneous Trade Act of 2004 also authorized Commerce to allocate a new HTS category, HTS 9902.51.16. This HTS refers to worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameter of 18.5 microns or less. The amendment further provides that HTS 9902.51.16 is for the benefit of persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who weave worsted wool fabric in the United States. For HTS 9902.51.16, the reduction in duty is limited to 2,000,000 square meters in 2006. On January 22, 2001 the Department published interim regulations establishing procedures for applying for, and determining, such allocations (66 FR6459) and (15 CFR 335). These interim regulations were adopted, without change, as a final rule published on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61363). On September 2, 2005, the Department published notices in the Federal Register (70 FR 52365) and (70 FR 52366) soliciting applications for an allocation of the 2006 tariff rate quotas with a closing date of October 3, 2005. The Department received timely applications for the HTS 9902.51.11 tariff rate quota from 12 firms. The Department received timely applications for the HTS 9902.51.15 tariff rate quota from 15 firms. The Department received timely applications for the HTS 9902.51.16 tariff rate quota from 1 firm. All applicants were determined eligible for an allocation. Most applicants submitted data on a business confidential basis. As allocations to firms were determined on the basis of this data, the Department considers individual firm allocations to be business confidential. **FIRMS THAT RECEIVED ALLOCATIONS** FIRMS THAT RECEIVED ALLOCATIONS: HTS 9902.51.11, fabrics, of worsted wool, with average fiber diameter greater than 18.5 micron, certified by the importer as suitable for use in making suits, suit-type jackets, or trousers (provided for in subheading 5112.11.60 and 5112.19.95). Amount allocated: 5,500,000 square meters. Companies Receiving Allocation: Adrian Jules LTD-Rochester, NY Hartmarx Corporation-Chicago, Ill Hartz & Company, Inc.-Frederick, MD Hugo Boss Cleveland, Inc-Brooklyn, OH JA Apparel Corp.-New York, NY John H. Daniel Co.-Knoxville, TN Majer Brands Company, Inc.-Hanover, PA Saint Laurie Ltd-New York, NY Sewell Clothing Company, Inc.-Bremen, GA Southwick Clothing L.L.C.-Lawrence, MA Toluca Garment Company-Toluca, IL The Tom James Co.-Franklin, TN HTS 9902.51.15, fabrics, of worsted wool, with average fiber diameter of 18.5 micron or less, certified by the importer as suitable for use in making suits, suit-type jackets, or trousers (provided for in subheading 5112.11.30 and 5112.19.60). Amount allocated: 5,000,000 square meters. Companies Receiving Allocation: Adrian Jules LTD-Rochester, NY Elevee Custom Clothing-Van Nuys, CA Retail Brand Alliance, Inc. d/b/a Brooks Brothers-New York, NY Hartmarx Corporation-Chicago, IL Hartz & Company, Inc.-Frederick, MD Hugo Boss Cleveland, Inc.-Brooklyn, OH JA Apparel Corp.-New York, NY John H. Daniel Co.-Knoxville, TN Majer Brands Company, Inc.-Hanover, PA Martin Greenfield-Brooklyn, NY Saint Laurie Ltd-New York, NY Sewell Clothing Company, Inc.-Bremen, GA Southwick Clothing L.L.C.-Lawrence, MA Toluca Garment Compan-Toluca, IL The Tom James Co.-Franklin, TN HTS 9902.51.16, fabrics, of worsted wool, with average fiber diameter of 18.5 micron or less, certified by the importer as suitable for use in making men's and boys suits (provided for in subheading 5112.11.30 and 5112.19.60). Amount allocated: 2,000,000 square meters. Companies Receiving Allocation: Warren Corporation.-Stafford Springs, CT Dated: December 2, 2005. James C. Leonard III, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles, Apparel and Consumer Goods Industries, Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E5-7080 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Electronic Response to Office Action and Preliminary Amendment Forms ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing and proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: E-mail: Susan.Brown@uspto.gov. Include “0651-0050 comment” in the subject line of the message. Fax: 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Brown. Mail: Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Data Architecture and Services, Data Administration Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of Sharon Marsh, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, by telephone at 571-272-8900, or by e-mail at *Sharon.Marsh@uspto.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1051 et. seq and Chapter 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issues Office Actions to applicants that have applied for a trademark application requesting additional information that is required before the issuance of a registration that was not provided with the initial submission of the application. Also, the USPTO may determine that the mark may not be entitled to registration, pursuant to one or more provisions of the Act. In such cases, the USPTO may issue Office Actions advising applicants of the refusal to register the mark. Applicants reply to these Office Actions by providing the required information and/or by putting forth legal arguments as to why the refusal of registration should be withdrawn. Additionally, applicants may supplement their applications by providing additional information voluntarily. When such information is provided before the USPTO has reviewed the application, the submission is in the nature of a Preliminary Amendment. The forms in this collection are available only in electronic format through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). The Response to Office Action form may be used to reply to an Office Action that was issued in connection with either an application for registration or after the submission of a Statement of Use. II. Method of Collection By electronic transmission. III. Data OMB Number: 0651-0050. Form Number(s): PTO Forms 1957 and 1966. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection. Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other non-profit; not-for-profit institutions; farms; the Federal Government; and state, local or tribal government. Estimated Number of Respondents: 109,152 responses per year. Estimated Time Per Response: The USPTO estimates that the public will require approximately 10 minutes (0.17 hours) to supply the information requested in the Office Action, and approximately 10 minutes (0.17 hours) to supply the information for the Preliminary Amendment. Completion times may vary, depending upon the nature and amount of information requested in a particular Office Action. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 18,555 burden hours per year. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $5,306,730. Using the professional hourly rate of $286 for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates $5,306,730 per year for salary costs associated with respondents. However, it is noted that a respondent is not required to retain an attorney to assist in responding to an Office Action. This collection contains two electronic forms. Item Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Response to an Action Form 10 minutes 100,155 17,026 Preliminary Amendment 10 minutes 8,997 1,529 Total 109,152 18,555 Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden: $0. There are no maintenance costs associated with this information collection. Capital start-up costs of $900 reported in the collection approved by OMB on April 18, 2003 are being deleted. The USPTO no longer reports the cost of purchasing scanners and digital cameras as part of the capital start-up costs of a collection, so the $900 is being deleted from the inventory. There are no filing fees or postage costs associated with either a Response to Office Action or a Preliminary Amendment. However, filing fees that were incurred but not paid when another document was submitted may be provided together with Responses to Office Actions or Preliminary Amendment. The USPTO calculates these fees as part of another collection. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 1, 2005. Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Data Architecture and Services, Data Administration Division. [FR Doc. E5-7037 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Fastener Quality Act Insignia Recordal Process ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *Susan.Brown@uspto.gov* . Include “0651-0028 comment” in the subject line of the message. • Fax: 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Brown. • Mail: Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Data Architecture and Services, Data Administration Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of Sharon Marsh, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451; by telephone at 571-272-8900; or by e-mail at *Sharon.Marsh@uspto.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Under Section 5 of the Fastener Quality Act (FQA), 15 U.S.C. 5401 et seq. (as amended by Pub. L. 104-113, Pub. L. 105-234, and Pub. L. 106-34), certain industrial fasteners are required to bear an insignia identifying the manufacturer. The manufacturers of these fasteners are required to record the insignia with the USPTO to ensure that a fastener can be traced back to its manufacturer. The procedures for the recordal of insignias under the FQA are set forth in 15 CFR 280.300-280.326. It is mandatory for manufacturers of fasteners covered by the FQA to submit an application to the USPTO for recordal of an insignia on the Fastener Insignia Register. The insignia may be either a unique alphanumeric designation that the USPTO will issue upon request, or a trademark that is either

(1)registered at the USPTO or

(2)the subject of an application to obtain a registration. Upon successful application for recordal of a fastener insignia, the USPTO will issue a Certificate of Recordal, which remains active for five years and then must be renewed. If ownership of a recorded alphanumeric designation is assigned to another entity, the designation becomes “inactive” and the new owner must submit an application in order to reactivate the designation within six months of the date of assignment. If the recordal is based on a trademark application or registration that is subsequently assigned to a new owner, the recordal becomes “inactive” and cannot be reactivated. Instead, the new owner of the trademark application or registration must apply for a new recordal. This information collection includes one form, the Application for Recordal of Insignia or Renewal/Reactivation of Recordal Under the Fastener Quality Act (PTO-1611), which provides manufacturers with a convenient way to submit a request for the recordal of a fastener insignia or to renew or reactivate an existing Certificate of Recordal. Use of Form PTO-1611 is not mandatory, and applicants may instead prepare requests for recordal using their own format. The public uses this information collection to comply with the insignia recordal provisions of the FQA. The USPTO uses the information in this collection to maintain the Fastener Insignia Register, which is open to public inspection. The public may download the Fastener Insignia Register from the USPTO Web site or purchase printed copies from the USPTO. II. Method of Collection By mail, facsimile, or hand delivery to the USPTO. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-0028. *Form Number(s):* PTO-1611. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profits. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 37 responses per year. *Estimated Time Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 10 minutes (0.17 hours) to gather the necessary information, prepare the form, and submit the request for recordal or renewal of a fastener insignia to the USPTO. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 6 hours per year. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $486 per year. The USPTO expects that the information in this collection will be prepared by paraprofessionals at an estimated rate of $81 per hour. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for this collection will be $486 per year. Item Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Application for Recordal of Insignia or Renewal/Reactivation of Recordal Under the Fastener Quality Act (PTO-1611) 10 minutes 37 6 Total 37 6 Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden: $863. There are no capital start-up costs, recordkeeping costs, or maintenance costs associated with this information collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of filing fees and postage costs. Under 37 CFR 2.7, the filing fee for a recordal of fastener insignia or a renewal of an insignia recordal is $20. The USPTO estimates that it will receive 37 recordals or renewals of fastener insignia per year for a total of $740 in filing fees. If a manufacturer submits a renewal after the expiration date but within six months of that date, then the manufacturer must pay an additional $20 late renewal surcharge. The USPTO estimates that approximately 5 of the estimated 37 responses per year will be late renewals that incur the surcharge, for a total of $100 in additional charges. Therefore, the total estimated filing costs for this collection will be $863 per year. The public may submit the information for this collection to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 63 cents, for a total postage cost of $23 per year. The total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of filing costs and postage costs is estimated to be $863 per year. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(202)482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection Web site ( *http://www.cbp.gov* ), or call

(202)344-2650. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel Web site at *http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. The Bilateral Textile Agreement of July 22, 1998, as amended and extended by exchange of notes on November 19, 2004, December 31, 2004, and February 7, 2005, between the Governments of the United States and Ukraine establishes limits for certain wool textile products, produced or manufactured in Ukraine and exported during the period beginning on January 1, 2006 and extending through December 31, 2006. In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to establish the 2006 limits. The limit for Category 435 is being reduced for carryforward applied to the 2005 limit. These limits may be revised if Ukraine becomes a member of the World Trade Organization

(WTO)and the United States applies the WTO agreement to Ukraine. A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel Web site at *http://otexa.ita.doc.gov* ). James C. Leonard III, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements December 2, 2005. Commissioner, *Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229.* Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the Bilateral Textile Agreement of July 22, 1998, as amended and extended by exchange of notes on November 19, 2004, December 31, 2004, and February 7, 2005, between the Governments of the United States and Ukraine, you are directed to prohibit, effective on January 1, 2006, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of wool textile products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in Ukraine and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2006 and extending through December 31, 2006, in excess of the following levels of restraint: Category Twelve-month limit 435 103,680 dozen. 442 17,575 dozen. 444 76,158 numbers. 448 76,158 dozen. The limits set forth above are subject to adjustment pursuant to the current bilateral agreement between the Governments of the United States and Ukraine. These limits may be revised if Ukraine becomes a member of the World Trade Organization

(WTO)and the United States applies the WTO agreement to Ukraine. Products in the above categories exported during 2005 shall be charged to the applicable category limits for that year (see directive dated February 17, 2005) to the extent of any unfilled balances. In the event the limits established for that period have been exhausted by previous entries, such products shall be charged to the limits set forth in this directive. In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Sincerely, James C. Leonard III, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. FR Doc. E5-7078 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Request for Public Comment on Short Supply Petition Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) December 2, 2005. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA)ACTION: Request for Public Comments concerning a request for modification of the NAFTA rules of origin for nonwoven wipes made from viscose rayon staple fiber. SUMMARY: On October 28, 2005, the Chairman of CITA received a request from Alston & Bird LLP, on behalf of Polymer Group, Inc. (PGI), alleging that rayon viscose staple fiber, classified in subheading 5504.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rule of origin for nonwoven wipes classified under HTSUS subheadings 5603.91, 5603.92, 5603.93 and 5603.94 should be modified to allow the use of non-North American viscose rayon staple fiber. The President may proclaim a modification to the NAFTA rules of origin only after reaching an agreement with the other NAFTA countries on the modification. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this request, in particular with regard to whether woven fabrics of the type described below can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by **January 9, 2006** to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin J. Walsh, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202)482-2818. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 USC 1854); Section 202(q) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 USC 3332(q)); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. BACKGROUND: Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), NAFTA countries are required to eliminate customs duties on textile and apparel goods that qualify as originating goods under the NAFTA rules of origin, which are set out in Annex 401 to the NAFTA. The NAFTA provides that the rules of origin for textile and apparel products may be amended through a subsequent agreement by the NAFTA countries. *See* Section 202(q) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. In consultations regarding such a change, the NAFTA countries are to consider issues of availability of supply of fibers, yarns, or fabrics in the free trade area and whether domestic producers are capable of supplying commercial quantities of the good in a timely manner. The Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA)that accompanied the NAFTA Implementation Act stated that any interested person may submit to CITA a request for a modification to a particular rule of origin based on a change in the availability in North America of a particular fiber, yarn or fabric and that the requesting party would bear the burden of demonstrating that a change is warranted. NAFTA Implementation Act, SAA, H. Doc. 103-159, Vol. 1, at 491 (1993). The SAA provides that CITA may make a recommendation to the President regarding a change to a rule of origin for a textile or apparel good. SAA at 491. The NAFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim modifications to the NAFTA rules of origin as are necessary to implement an agreement with one or more NAFTA country on such a modification. *See* section 202(q) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. On October 28, 2005 the Chairman of CITA received a request from Alston & Bird LLP, on behalf of Polymer Group, Inc. (PGI), alleging that rayon viscose staple fiber, classified in subheading 5504.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the NAFTA rule of origin for nonwoven wipes classified under HTSUS subheadings 5603.91, 5603.92, 5603.93 and 5603.94 should be modified to allow the use of non-North American viscose rayon staple fiber. The petitioner requested that the modification be effective for entries made on or after October 1, 2005, the date they alleged all rayon production ended in the United States. CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether viscose rayon staple fiber can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than **January 9, 2006.** Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. If a comment alleges that viscose rayon staple fiber can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer stating that it produces fiber that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production. CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked “business confidential” from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non- confidential version and a non-confidential summary. James C. Leonard III, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E5-7077 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Request for Public Comment on Short Supply Petition under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) December 2, 2005. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA)ACTION: Request for Public Comments concerning a request for modification of the NAFTA rules of origin for chenille fabric of acrylic fiber. SUMMARY: On October 24, 2005 the Chairman of CITA received a request from Quaker Fabrics alleging that certain acrylic staple fibers, classified in subheading 5503.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rule of origin for chenille fabric classified under HTSUS 5801.36.0000 should be modified to allow the use of non-North American acrylic staple fiber. The President may proclaim a modification to the NAFTA rules of origin only after reaching an agreement with the other NAFTA countries on the modification. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this request, in particular with regard to whether acrylic staple fiber can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by **January 9, 2006.** to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin J. Walsh, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(SAA)that accompanied the NAFTA Implementation Act stated that any interested person may submit to CITA a request for a modification to a particular rule of origin based on a change in the availability in North America of a particular fiber, yarn or fabric and that the requesting party would bear the burden of demonstrating that a change is warranted. NAFTA Implementation Act, SAA, H. Doc. 103-159, Vol. 1, at 491 (1993). The SAA provides that CITA may make a recommendation to the President regarding a change to a rule of origin for a textile or apparel good. SAA at 491. The NAFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim modifications to the NAFTA rules of origin as are necessary to implement an agreement with one or more NAFTA country on such a modification. *See* section 202(q) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. On October 24, 2005 the Chairman of CITA received a request from Quaker Fabrics alleging that certain acrylic staple fibers, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning, classified in subheading 5503.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the NAFTA rule of origin for chenille fabric classified under HTSUS 5801.36.0000 should be modified to allow the use of non-North American acrylic staple fiber. CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether acrylic staple fiber can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than **January 9, 2006.** Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. If a comment alleges that acrylic staple fiber can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer stating that it produces acrylic fiber that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production. CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked “business confidential” from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary. James C. Leonard III, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E5-7079 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary TRICARE Formerly Known as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); Fiscal Year 2006 Mental Health Rate Updates AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Notice of updated mental health per diem rates. SUMMARY: This notice provides for the updating of hospital-specific per diem rates for high volume providers and regional per diem rates for low volume providers; the updated cap per diem for high volume providers; the beneficiary per diem cost-share amount for low volume providers for FY 2006 under the TRICARE Mental Health Per Diem Payment System; and the updated per diem rates for both full-day and half-day TRICARE Partial Hospitalization Programs for fiscal year 2006. EFFECTIVE DATE: The fiscal year 2006 rates contained in this notice are effective for services occurring on or after October 1, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Covie, Office of Medical Benefits and Reimbursement Systems, TRICARE Management Activity, telephone

(303)676-3841. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final rule published in the **Federal Register** on September 6, 1988, (53 FR 34285) set forth reimbursement changes that were effective for all inpatient hospital admissions in psychiatric hospitals and exempt psychiatric units occurring on or after January 1, 1989. The final rule published in the **Federal Register** on July 1, 1993 (58 FR 35-400), set forth maximum per diem rates for all partial hospitalization admissions on or after September 29, 1993. Included in these final rules were provisions for updating reimbursement rates for each federal fiscal year. As stated in the final rules, each per diem shall be updated by the Medicare update factor for hospitals and units exempt from the Medicare Prospective Payment System. For fiscal year 2006, Medicare has recommended a rate of increase of 3.8 percent for hospitals and units excluded from the prospective payment system. TRICARE will adopt this update factor for FY 2006 as the final update factor. Hospitals and units with hospital-specific rates (hospitals and units with high TRICARE volume) and regional specific rates for psychiatric hospitals and units with low TRICARE volume will have their TRICARE rates for FY 2005 updated by 3.8 percent for FY 2006. Partial hospitalization rates for full day and half day programs will also be updated by 3.8 percent for FY 2006. The cap amount for high volume hospitals and units will also be updated by the 3.8 percent for FY 2006. The beneficiary cost-share for low volume hospitals and units will also be updated by the 3.8 percent for FY 2006. Consistent with Medicare, the wage portion of the regional rate subject to the area wage adjustment is 71.035 percent for FY 2006. The following reflect an update of 3.8 percent for FY 2006: Regional Specific Rates for Psychiatric Hospitals and Units With Low TRICARE Volume United States census region Rate 1 Northeast: New England $662 Mid-Atlantic 637 Midwest: East North Central 550 West North Central 519 South: South Atlantic 656 East South Central 701 West South Central 598 West: Mountain 597 Pacific 705 Puerto Rico 450 1 Wage portion of the rate, subject to the area wage adjustment 71.035 percent. *Beneficiary Cost-Share:* Beneficiary cost-share (other than dependents of active duty members) for care paid on the basis of a regional per diem rate is the lower of $175 per day or 25 percent of the hospital billed charges effective for services rendered on or after October 1, 2005. *Cap Amount:* Updated cap amount for hospitals and units with high TRICARE volume is $832 per day for FY 2006. The following reflect an update of 3.8 percent for FY 2006. Partial Hospitalization Rates for Full-Day and Half-Day Programs FY 2006 United States census region Full-day rate (6 hours or more) Half-day rate (3-5 hours) Northeast: New England (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT) $266 200 Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA) 288 216 Midwest: East North Central (OH, IN, IL, MI, WI) 253 190 West North Central (MN, IA, MO, ND, SD, NE, KS) 253 190 South: South Atlantic (DE, MD, DC, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, FL) 273 205 East South Central (KY, TN, AL, MS) 295 221 West South Central (AR, LA, TX, OK) 295 211 West Mountain (MT, ID, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, NV) 298 224 Pacific (WA, OR, CA, AK, HI) 292 219 Puerto Rico 190 143 The above rates are effective for services rendered on or after October 1, 2005. Dated: December 2, 2005. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 05-23766 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

CFR