Notices. Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part

11,192 words·~51 min read·/register/2005/12/22/05-24346·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1426] Extension of Nonprivileged Foreign Status Authority, Five Oil Refinery/Petrochemical Subzones Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “ . . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S.

Customs ports of entry; *Whereas* , the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest; *Whereas* , the Board approved the oil refinery/petrochemical complex subzones listed below to conduct certain activity under zone procedures, subject to three conditions; *Whereas* , applications were submitted from the FTZ grantees of the subzones listed below, requesting a time extension of authority (removing Condition No. 3) to elect nonprivileged foreign status

(NPF)on crude oil and related inputs used in the production of certain petrochemical feedstocks and refinery by-products at the crude oil refineries/petrochemical complexes listed below; *Whereas* , Conditions No. 1 and No. 2 of the original Board Orders would remain in effect, with Condition No. 2 updated to conform to the standard FTZ oil refinery/petrochemical restrictions on eligible foreign inputs and finished products as listed below; *Whereas* , the applications were filed by the Board on November 30, 2004, and notice describing the applications and inviting public comment was given in the **Federal Register** (FTZ Docket 54-2004, 69 FR 70996, 12/8/2004); and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the applications would be in the public interest if approval were subject to the conditions listed below; Now, therefore, the Board hereby amends the Board Orders listed below, authorizing an extension of authority for the listed subzones, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28, and further subject to the following conditions: 1. Foreign status (19 CFR 146.41, 146.42) products consumed as fuel for the refinery shall be subject to the applicable duty rate. 2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be elected on all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone, except that nonprivileged foreign

(NPF)status (19 CFR 146.42) may be elected on refinery inputs covered under HTSUS Subheadings 2709.00.10, 2709.00.20, 2710.11.25, 2710.11.45, 2710.19.05, 2710.19.10, 2710.19.45, 2710.91.00, 2710.99.05, 2710.99.10, 2710.99.16, 2710.99.21 and 2710.99.45 which are used in the production of: --petrochemical feedstocks and refinery by-products (examiner's report, Standard Appendix “C''); --products for export; --and, products eligible for entry under HTSUS #9808.00.30 and #9808.00.40 (U.S. Government purchases). Grantee: Port of Long Beach, California Board Order Subzone Company Location 1050 50G Shell Oil ProductsU.S. Los Angeles, CA Grantee: Port of Corpus Christi Authority, Texas Board Order Subzone Company Location 1086 122N Equistar Chemicals, LP Nueces Co., TX Grantee: Port of Freeport, Texas Board Order Subzone Company Location 1087 149F Equistar Chemicals, LP Brazoria Co., TX 1088 149G Dow Chemical Company Brazoria Co., TX Grantee: Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, California Board Order Subzone Company Location 1032 202C ConocoPhillips Company Los Angeles, CA Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of December 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-7709 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1424] Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 74, Baltimore, Maryland Area Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Baltimore Development Corporation on behalf of the City of Baltimore, Maryland, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 74, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 74 in the Baltimore, Maryland area, to include new sites in Baltimore, Anne Arundel County and Harford County, within the Baltimore Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 4-2005, filed 1/7/2005); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment was given in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 2997, 1/19/2005) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby orders: The application to expand FTZ 74 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28; Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of December 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-7706 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1425] Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 40, Cleveland, Ohio, Area Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 40, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 40 to include a new site at the Oakwood Commerce Center (Site 10B, 20 acres) in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, within the Cleveland Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 30-2005, filed 6/9/05); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 34743, 6/15/05) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby orders: The application to expand FTZ 40 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the Board's standard 2,000 acre limit for the overall zone project. Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of December 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-7708 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [T-3-2005] Foreign-Trade Zone 77 Memphis, Tennessee, Expansion of Manufacturing Authority Subzone 77B. Brother Industries (U.S.A.) Inc. (Manufacture/Refurbish Toner Cartridges), Notice of Approval On September 29, 2005, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones

(FTZ)Board filed an application submitted by the City of Memphis and Shelby County, Division of Planning and Economic Development, grantee of FTZ 77, requesting temporary/interim manufacturing (T/IM) authority for manufacturing/refurbishing toner cartridges within Subzone 77B, at the Brother Industries (U.S.A.) Inc. plant in Bartlett, Tennessee. Brother later amended the application with the following statement: “Privileged foreign status (19 CFR Part 146.41) shall be elected on foreign merchandise admitted to the zone, which is classifiable in HTSUS headings or subheadings 2821, 2823, 3901.20, chapter 32, or where the foreign merchandise in question is described as a pigment, pigment preparation, masterbatch, plastic concentrate, flush color, paint dispersion, coloring preparation, or colorant.” The application has been processed in accordance with T/IM procedures, as authorized by FTZ Board Order 1347, including notice in the **Federal Register** inviting public comment (70 FR 58371-58372, 10/6/05). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval under T/IM procedures. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary in Board Order 1347, the application, as amended, is approved, effective this date, until December 9, 2007, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Dated: December 9, 2005. Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-7707 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1419] Grant of Authority, Establishment of a Foreign-Trade Zone, Dane County, Wisconsin Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ”. . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; *Whereas* , Dane County, Wisconsin (the Grantee), has made application to the Board (FTZ Docket 16-2005, filed 3/17/05), requesting the establishment of a foreign-trade zone at sites in Dane County, Wisconsin, adjacent to the Milwaukee Customs port of entry; *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 15066, 3/24/05); and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby grants to the Grantee the privilege of establishing a foreign-trade zone, designated on the records of the Board as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 266, at the sites described in the application, and subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of December 2005. FOREIGN-TRADE ZONES BOARD Secretary of Commerce Chairman and Executive Officer. Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-7705 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with November anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. The Department also received a request to revoke one antidumping duty order in part. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:

(202)482-4697. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2004), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with November anniversary dates. The Department also received a timely request to revoke in part the antidumping duty order on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania. Initiation of Reviews: In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than November 30, 2006. Antidumping Duty Proceedings Period to be Reviewed MEXICO: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod A-201-803 10/1/04 - 9/30/05 Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas las Truchas S.A. (SICARTSA) 1 MEXICO: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube A-201-805 11/1/04 - 10/31/05 Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. Niples Del Norte, S.A. de C.V. Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V. NETHERLANDS: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products A-421-807 11/1/04 - 10/31/05 Corus Staal B.V. ROMANIA: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products A-485-806 11/1/04 - 10/31/05 Mittal Steel Galati S.A. (formerly known as S.C. Ispat Sidex S.A., including Sidex O.O. Trading S.A.) THAILAND: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products A-549-817 11/1/04 - 10/31/05 Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Company Ltd. Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Co., Ltd. G Steel Public Co., Ltd. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 2 A-570-849 11/1/04 - 10/31/05 Angang New Steel Co, Ltd. Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Limited China Metallurgical Import & Export Liaoning Company THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 3 A-570-865 11/1/04 - 10/31/05 Angang Group International Trade Corporation New Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. Baosteel Group International Trade Corporation THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Fresh Garlic 4 A-570-831 11/1/04 - 10/31/05 Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. Clipper Manufacturing Ltd. Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. Taian Fook Huat Tong Kee Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company) H&T Trading Company Huaiyang Huamei Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable Company Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. Jinxiang Hongyu Freezing and Storing Co., Ltd. Jinxiang Tianshan Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. Jining Yun Feng Agriculture Products Co., Ltd. Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd. Linyi Sanshan Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. Pizhou Guangda Import and Export Co., Ltd. Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd. Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce Trading Co., Ltd. Shandong Dongyue Produce Co., Ltd. Shandong Jining Jinshan Textile Co., Ltd. Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., Ltd. Sunny Import & Export Co., Ltd. Taiyan Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. Tancheng County Dexing Foods Co., Ltd. Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Xi'an XiongLi vFoodstuff Co., Ltd. Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. Xiangcheng Yisheng Foodstuffs Co. XuZhou Simple Gasrlic Industry Co., Ltd. Zhangqui Qingyuan Vegetable Co., Ltd. Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. Countervailing Duty Proceedings None. Suspension Agreements UKRAINE: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate A-823-808 11/1/04 - 10/31/05 OJSC Alchevsk Iron and Steel Works Dnepropetrovsk Iron and Steel Works OPSC Dneprovsky Iron and Steel Integrated Works (named after F.E. Dzhershinsky (OPSC DMKD)) Azovstal Iron & Steel Works JSC Ilyich Iron & Steel Works, Mariupol 1 Company inadvertently omitted from initiation notice that published December 1, 2005 (70 FR 72107) 2 If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the People's Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part 3 If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the People's Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part 4 If one of the above-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part. During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with *FAG Italia v. United States* , 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 USC 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: December 16, 2005. Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director,AD/CVD Operations Office 4 for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7712 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-703, A-588-707] Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin (“PTFE Resin”) from Italy and Japan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and to material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing notice of continuation of these antidumping duty orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Dana Mermelstein, 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)482-5050 or

(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 1, 2004, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PTFE Resin from Italy and Japan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). 1 1 *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 69 FR 69891 (December 1, 2004), and ITC *Investigation Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386 (Second Review)* , 69 FR 69954 (December 1, 2004). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. 2 On December 8, 2005, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PTFE Resin from Italy and Japan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 3 2 *See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan; Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders; Final Results* , 70 FR 38872 (July 6, 2005). 3 *See Investigation Nos. 731-TA-385 and 386 (Second Review)* , 70 FR 73026 (December 8, 2005). Scope of the Orders Italy (A-475-703) The merchandise covered by this order is PTFE Resin, filled or unfilled, from Italy. The antidumping duty order also covers PTFE Resin wet raw polymer exported from Italy to the United States. *See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order* , 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). This order excludes PTFE dispersions in water and fine powders. The subject merchandise is classified under subheading 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). Japan (A-588-707) The merchandise covered by this order is PTFE Resin, filled or unfilled, from Japan. PTFE Resin dispersions in water and PTFE Resin fine powders are excluded from the order. The merchandise covered by this antidumping duty order is currently classifiable under subheading 3904.61.00 of the HTS. Determinations As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and to material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on PTFE Resin from Italy and Japan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this “Notice of Continuation.” Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year reviews of these orders not later than November 2010. These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 15, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7710 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-506] Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 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 porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The Department has preliminarily determined that Shanghai Watex Metal Products Co. Ltd. (“Watex”), the only respondent in this review, is not entitled to a separate rate. In addition, the Department has determined to apply adverse facts available to Watex. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. *See* the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: P. Lee Smith or Scot Fullerton, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1655 or

(202)482-1386, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In response to a request from Columbian Home Products, LLC (“petitioner”), the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) initiated an administrative review of Shanghai Watex Metal Products Co., Ltd.'s (“Watex”) exports of merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from the PRC. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005) (“Initiation Notice”). On February 3, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Watex, and received the company's response to section A on February 24, 2005, and sections C and D on March 14, 2005. The Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires to Watex and received responses on April 11, May 23, July 19, September 12, and October 5, 2005. The Department conducted verification of Watex's questionnaire responses from October 24 to October 26, 2005. *See* “Verification Report for Shanghai Watex Metal Co., Ltd.,” dated December 12, 2005 (“Watex Verification Report”). The Department conducted verification of Watex's questionnaire responses regarding its producer Shanghai Ping An Enamel Products Co. (“Ping An”), from October 26 to October 28, 2005. *See* “Verification Report for Shanghai Ping An Enamel Products Co.,” dated December 12, 2005 (“Ping An Verification Report”). On December 13, 2005, petitioner submitted comments on the Department's verification reports. Period of Review The POR is December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. Scope of Order The merchandise covered by this order is porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from the PRC, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. The merchandise is currently classifiable under the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“USHTS”) item 7323.94.00. USHTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope remains dispositive. Non-Market Economy In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”). Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part* , 69 FR 70638 (December 7, 2004). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (“NV”) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country On April 15, 2005, the Department provided interested parties the opportunity to submit comments regarding the selection of a surrogate country and factor valuation in these preliminary results. On July 1, 2005, Watex submitted publicly available information for factor valuation. In its submission, Watex included publicly available Indonesian import statistics obtained from the World Trade Atlas. On May 6, 2005, petitioner submitted publicly available information for surrogate country selection. In its submission, petitioner argued that India should be selected as the surrogate country in this review because India is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC, a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has better availability and quality of data to value the factors of production than Indonesia. On August 5, 2005, petitioner submitted publicly available information for factor valuation. In its submission, petitioner included the financial statements for Kishco Cutlery Ltd., an Indian producer of comparable merchandise, and publicly available Indian import statistics. On September 29, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting both petitioner and respondent to clarify their surrogate value submissions. On October 5, 2005, petitioner and respondent submitted their responses to the Department's surrogate value supplemental questionnaire. The Department received no other comments regarding surrogate country or factor valuation. Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production (“FOP”), to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that:

(1)are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and

(2)are significant producers of comparable merchandise. Import Administration's Office of Policy issued a memorandum listing appropriate surrogate countries. *See* Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Carrie Blozy regarding the Administrative Review of Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware (“Cooking Ware”) from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated April 5, 2005. The memorandum lists five countries, including India and Indonesia. In previous reviews of this order the Department has chosen Indonesia as a surrogate country for the PRC. However, during this review, information was placed on the record demonstrating that India was a more appropriate surrogate country. Based on this information, the Department has selected India as the primary surrogate country for purposes of this review. For further discussion of our surrogate country selection, *see* Memorandum from Joshua T. Pierce through Christopher Riker and James C. Doyle to the File regarding the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated December 9, 2005. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department conducted verification of the responses of Watex. The Department verified the questionnaire responses of Watex from October 24, 2005, through October 26, 2005, and its affiliated producer, Ping An, from October 26, 2005, through October 28, 2005, using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. For more information, *see* Watex Verification Report, Ping An Verification Report, and the “Application of Adverse Facts Available” section below. The verification results are on file in the main Department of Commerce building, in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099. Separate Rates To establish whether a company operating in an NME is sufficiently independent from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). Under the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. De Jure Control Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of absence of *de jure* government control over export activities includes:

(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. In its questionnaire responses, Watex stated that it is an independent legal entity. The business license of Watex indicates that it is permitted to engage in the exportation of porcelain-on-steel cooking ware. Evidence placed on the record provides no indication of *de jure* governmental control restricting Watex's exportation of porcelain-on-steel cooking ware. Specifically, the *Company Law of the People's Republic of China* , made effective on July 1, 1994, with the amended version promulgated on August 28, 2004, states that a company is an enterprise legal person, that shareholders shall assume liability towards the company to the extent of their shareholdings and that the company shall be liable for its debts to the extent of all its assets. Therefore, based on the record evidence, the Department preliminarily determines that there is an absence of *de jure* control over the export activities of Watex. De Facto Control A determination of absence of *de facto* government control over exports is based on the following four factors:

(1)whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority;

(2)whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;

(3)whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and

(4)whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine* , 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997). Watex asserted the following:

(1)it establishes its own export prices;

(2)it negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations;

(3)it makes its own personnel decisions; and

(4)it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. However, Watex provided the Department with information about its corporate structure and ownership that could not be verified and withheld information regarding an affiliate. *See* Memorandum from James C. Doyle to Stephen J. Claeys: Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Shanghai Watex Metal Products Co., Ltd., dated December 15, 2005 (“AFA Memo”). Because we have been unable to fully analyze Watex's corporate structure due to the respondent's uncooperativeness, and have been unable to establish who the true owners of the respondent are, the Department must conclude that the company has not satisfactorily demonstrated it has the ability to select its own management and make personnel decisions, as well as to make its own decisions on the use of its profits, independent of any governmental authority. Therefore, the Department has determined that Watex has not demonstrated that it qualifies for a separate rate. Because Watex did not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, we have preliminarily determined that it is part of the PRC-wide entity. In the initiation notice, the Department stated that if one of the companies that we initiated a review for does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity, of which the named exporter is a part. *See Initiation Notice* at footnote 3. Watex did not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate; therefore, the Department finds that Watex is part of the PRC-wide entity. As a result, we determine that it is necessary to review the single PRC entity, including Watex, in this segment of the proceeding. As adverse facts available (“AFA”), the Department is assigning the rate of 66.65 percent to the PRC entity, the highest rate determined in any previous segment of this proceeding. Application of Adverse Facts Available Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),

(C)and (D), and section 776(b) of the Act, the Department determines that the application of total AFA is warranted for the PRC-wide entity, including Watex. When an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, significantly impedes the proceeding, or provides information, but that information cannot be verified, sections 776(a)(2)(A),

(C)and

(D)of the Act provide for the use of facts otherwise available. Specifically, the Department could not verify the information regarding Watex's corporate structure and ownership due to the company's failure to provide the Department with a complete and official version of the capital verification report or signed copies of the company's articles of association and joint venture agreement that established Watex. Watex withheld specifically requested information concerning the existence of an affiliate. Finally, Watex significantly impeded the proceeding by repeatedly making inaccurate statements concerning the interests of various owners in both their questionnaire responses and at verification. *See* Watex Verification Report. The Department finds that facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),

(C)and (D), is warranted. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that if the Department determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party. The Department finds that by not providing accurate information regarding affiliates of Watex despite multiple opportunities to do so and by failing to provide the Department with information regarding its corporate structure and ownership that could be verified, Watex failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. For a detailed analysis of the Department's decision to apply AFA, *see* AFA Memo. Selection of AFA Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from:

(1)the petition;

(2)a final determination in the investigation;

(3)any previous review or determination; or

(4)any information placed on the record. In reviews, it is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. *See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). The Court of International Trade (“CIT”') and the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Rhone Poulenc* ”); *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) (upholding a 73.55% total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a less than fair value investigation); *see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States* , 24 CIT 678, 689

(2000)(upholding a 51.16% total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and *Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States* , Slip Op. 05-22, at 16 (CIT February 17, 2005) (upholding a 223.01% total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “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.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). *See also Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); *see also D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *Rhone Poulenc* , 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 66.65 percent, the highest rate calculated in any segment of the proceeding, to Watex 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). As discussed further below, this rate has been corroborated. Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The *SAA* states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. *See SAA* at 870. The Department has determined that to have probative value, information must be reliable and relevant. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). The *SAA* also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. * See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan * , 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine from Canada* , 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005). To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both reliable and relevant. Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are administrative determinations. The information upon which the AFA rate we are applying for the current review was calculated during the Less Than Fair Value Investigation. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 51 FR 36419 (October 10, 1986) (“ *LTFV Investigation* ”). Furthermore, the AFA rate we are applying for the current review was applied in reviews subsequent to the *LTFV Investigation* and the Department received no information that warranted revisiting the issue. *See, e.g., Porcelain-On-Steel Cookware from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 54825 (October 22, 1997). No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D &L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these circumstances are present here. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, 66.65 percent, meets the corroboration criteria established in section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information have probative value. Preliminary Results of the Review The Department preliminarily finds that the following margins exist for the following exporters under review during the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the PRC Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) PRC-wide Rate 66.65 Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than January 17, 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due not later than January 24, 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument:

(1)a statement of the issue; and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations and cases cited. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should include:

(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs and rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment of Antidumping Duties The Department will determine, and 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. Cash Deposits The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the 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 the PRC, including Watex, the cash-deposit rate will be equal to 66.65 percent;

(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;

(3)for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 66.65 percent;

(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. 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 serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: December 15, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7703 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-866] Antidumping Duty Order: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce is issuing an antidumping duty order on superalloy degassed chromium from Japan. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janis Kalnins or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1392, or

(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2005, we published the final determination of sales at less than fair value of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan* , 70 FR 65886 (November 1, 2005). On December 16, 2005, the International Trade Commission

(ITC)notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its final determination pursuant to section 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan. See letter from the ITC to the Secretary of Commerce, Notification of Final Affirmative Determination of Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan (Investigation No. 731-TA-1090 (Final)), dated December 16, 2005. Pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act, the Department is publishing an antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise. Scope of Order The product covered by this order is all forms, sizes, and grades of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan. Superalloy degassed chromium is a high-purity form of chrome metal that generally contains at least 99.5 percent, but less than 99.95 percent, chromium. Superalloy degassed chromium contains very low levels of certain gaseous elements and other impurities (typically no more than 0.005 percent nitrogen, 0.005 percent sulphur, 0.05 percent oxygen, 0.01 percent aluminum, 0.05 percent silicon, and 0.35 percent iron). Superalloy degassed chromium is generally sold in briquetted form, as “pellets” or “compacts,” which typically are 1½ inches x 1 inch x 1 inch or smaller in size and have a smooth surface. Superalloy degassed chromium is currently classifiable under subheading 8112.21.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This order covers all chromium meeting the above specifications for superalloy degassed chromium regardless of tariff classification. Certain higher-purity and lower-purity chromium products are excluded from the scope of this order. Specifically, the order does not cover electronics-grade chromium, which contains a higher percentage of chromium (typically not less than 99.95 percent), a much lower level of iron (less than 0.05 percent), and lower levels of other impurities than superalloy degassed chromium. The order also does not cover “vacuum melt grade”

(VMG)chromium, which normally contains at least 99.4 percent chromium and contains a higher level of one or more impurities (nitrogen, sulphur, oxygen, aluminum and/or silicon) than specified above for superalloy degassed chromium. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Antidumping Duty Order In accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or the constructed export price) of the merchandise for all relevant entries of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan. These antidumping duties will be assessed on

(1)all entries of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after August 18, 2005, the date on which the Department published its *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan* , 70 FR 48538 (August 18, 2005), and before December 16, 2005, the date on which the Department is required, pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act, to terminate the suspension of liquidation, and

(2)on all subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the **Federal Register** . Entries of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan made between December 16, 2005, and the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the **Federal Register** are not liable for the assessment of antidumping duties. On and after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the **Federal Register** , CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, cash deposits for the subject merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping margins listed below. The all-others rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise except for entries from the company that is identified below. Manufacturer or exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) JFE Material Co., Ltd. 129.32 All Others 129.32 This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to superalloy degassed chromium from Japan, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect. This order is issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b). Dated: December 16, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7700 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 120505C] Large Coastal Shark 2005/2006 Stock Assessment Workshop AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; public workshop. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the time and location for the large coastal shark

(LCS)stock assessment workshop, the second of three workshops for the LCS stock assessment to be conducted in 2005/2006. DATES: The Assessment workshop will start at 1 p.m. on Monday, February 6, 2006, and will conclude at 1 p.m. on Friday, February 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: The Assessment workshop will be held at the Doubletree Hotel Coconut Grove, 2649 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, FL 33133. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Neer at

(850)234-6541; or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at

(301)713-2347, fax

(301)713-1917. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Stock assessments are periodically conducted to determine stock status relative to current management criteria. Collection of the best available scientific data and conducting stock assessments are critical to determine appropriate management measures for rebuilding stocks. Based on the last LCS stock assessment in 2002, NMFS determined that the LCS complex is overfished and overfishing is occurring. LCS are currently under a 26-year rebuilding plan. Potential changes to existing management measures will be based, in large part, on the results of this 2005/2006 stock assessment. This assessment will be conducted in a manner similar to the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process. SEDAR is a cooperative process initiated in 2002 to improve the quality and reliability of fishery stock assessments in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean. SEDAR emphasizes constituent and stakeholder participation in assessment development, transparency in the assessment process, and a rigorous and independent scientific review of completed stock assessments. SEDAR is organized around three workshops. The first is a Data workshop where datasets are documented, analyzed, reviewed, and complied for conducting assessment analyses. This workshop was held from October 31 through November 4, 2005, in Panama City, Florida. The second is an Assessment workshop where quantitative population analyses are developed and refined and population parameters are estimated. The third and final is a Review workshop where a panel of independent experts reviews the data and assessment and recommends the most appropriate values of critical population and management quantities. All workshops are open to the public. More information on the SEDAR process can be found at *http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/* . NMFS announces the Assessment workshop, the second of three workshops for the LCS 2005/2006 stock assessment, which will be held from February 6 - February 10, 2006, at the Doubletree Hotel Coconut Grove, Miami, FL (see DATES and ADDRESSES ). Prospective participants and observers will be contacted with the Assessment workshop details. This workshop is open to the public. Persons interested in participating or observing the Assessment workshop should contact Julie Neer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). The final workshop, the Review workshop, will be announced at a later date in the **Federal Register** . Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Julie Neer at

(850)234-6541 by January 30, 2006. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* Dated: December 16, 2005. Emily Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E5-7697 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Rules for Patent Maintenance Fees 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 take this opportunity to comment on the revision of a 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 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Brown@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0016 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 Robert J. Spar, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7700; or by e-mail at *Bob.Spar@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Under 35 U.S.C. 41 and 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(i) and 1.362-1.378, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) charges fees for maintaining in force all utility patents based on applications filed on or after December 12, 1980. Payment of these maintenance fees is due at 3 1/2 , 7 1/2 , and 11 1/2 years after the date the patent was granted. If the USPTO does not receive payment of the appropriate maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge within a grace period of six months following each of the above due dates (at 4, 8, or 12 years after the date of grant), the patent will expire at that time as set forth in 37 CFR 1.362(g). After a patent expires, it is no longer enforceable. Maintenance fees are not required for design or plant patents, or for reissue patents if the patent being reissued did not require maintenance fees. Payments of maintenance fees that are submitted during the six-month grace period must include the appropriate surcharge as indicated by 37 CFR 1.20(h). Submissions of maintenance fee payments and surcharges must include the relevant patent number and the corresponding United States application number in order to identify the correct patent and ensure proper crediting of the fee being paid. If the USPTO refuses to accept and record a maintenance fee payment that was submitted prior to the expiration of a patent, the patentee may petition the Director under 37 CFR 1.377 to accept and record the maintenance fee. This petition must be accompanied by the fee indicated in 37 CFR 1.17(g), which may be refunded if it is determined that the refusal to accept the maintenance fee was due to an error by the USPTO. If a patent has expired due to nonpayment of a maintenance fee, the patentee may petition the Director to accept a delayed payment of the maintenance fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(c) and 37 CFR 1.378. The Director may accept the payment of a maintenance fee after the expiration of the patent if the petitioner shows to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay in payment was unavoidable or unintentional. Petitions to accept unavoidably or unintentionally delayed payment must also be accompanied by the required maintenance fee and appropriate surcharge under 37 CFR 1.20(i). If the Director accepts the maintenance fee payment upon petition, then the patent is reinstated. If the USPTO denies a petition to accept delayed payment of a maintenance fee in an expired patent, the patentee may petition the Director to reconsider that decision under 37 CFR 1.378(e). This petition must be accompanied by the fee indicated in 37 CFR 1.17(f), which may be refunded if it is determined that the refusal to accept the maintenance fee was due to an error by the USPTO. Customers may submit maintenance fee payments and surcharges incurred during the six-month grace period before patent expiration by using the Maintenance Fee Transmittal Form or by paying online through the USPTO Web site. However, to pay a maintenance fee after patent expiration, the maintenance fee payment and the appropriate surcharge must be filed together with a petition to accept unavoidably or unintentionally delayed payment. These delayed payments and petitions cannot be filed electronically. The USPTO accepts online maintenance fee payments by credit card, electronic funds transfer (EFT), or deposit account through the USPTO Web site. Otherwise, non-electronic payments may be made by check, credit card, or USPTO deposit account. The rules of practice (37 CFR 1.33(d) and 1.363) permit applicants, patentees, assignees, or their representatives of record to specify a “fee address” for correspondence related to maintenance fees that is separate from the correspondence address associated with a patent or application. A fee address must be an address that is associated with a USPTO customer number. Customer numbers may be requested by using the Request for Customer Number form (PTO/SB/125), which is covered under OMB Control Number 0651-0035 “Representative and Address Provisions.” Maintaining a correct and updated address is necessary so that fee-related correspondence from the USPTO will be properly received by the applicant, patentee, assignee, or authorized representative. If a separate fee address is not specified for a patent or application, the USPTO will direct fee-related correspondence to the correspondence address of record. The USPTO offers forms to assist the public with providing the information covered by this collection, including the information necessary to submit a patent maintenance fee payment (PTO/SB/45), to file a petition to accept an unavoidably or unintentionally delayed maintenance fee payment (PTO/SB/65 and PTO/SB/66), and to designate or change a fee address (PTO/SB/47). No forms are provided for the petitions under 37 CFR 1.377 and 1.378(e). II. Method of Collection By mail, facsimile, or hand delivery to the USPTO. Maintenance fee payments and surcharges for payments made during the six-month grace period before patent expiration may be submitted electronically. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-0016. *Form Number(s):* PTO/SB/45/47/65/66. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions; farms; the Federal Government; and state, local or tribal governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 374,706 responses per year. *Estimated Time Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 20 seconds (0.006 hours) to 8 hours to complete this information, depending on the form or petition. This includes time to gather the necessary information, prepare the form or petition, and submit the completed request. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 30,362 hours per year. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $3,369,522 per year. The USPTO expects that the petitions included in this collection will be prepared by attorneys. Using the professional rate of $286 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for submitting these petitions will be approximately $1,269,840 per year. The USPTO expects that the other items in this collection will be prepared by paraprofessionals. Using the paraprofessional rate of $81 per hour, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for submitting the other items in this collection will be approximately $2,099,682 per year, for a total annual respondent cost burden of approximately $3,369,522. Item Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Maintenance Fee Transmittal Transactions (PTO/SB/45) 5 minutes 228,487 18,279 Electronic Maintenance Fee Transactions 20 seconds 52,439 315 Petition to Accept Unavoidably Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(b)) (PTO/SB/65) 8 hours 250 2,000 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)) (PTO/SB/66) 1 hour 1,800 1,800 Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377)) 4 hours 100 400 Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(e)) 8 hours 300 240 “Fee Address” Indication Form (PTO/SB/47) 5 minutes 91,600 7,328 Total 374,706 30,362 Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden: $436,485,591. There are no capital start-up costs or maintenance costs associated with this information collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of recordkeeping costs, postage costs, and filing costs. The recordkeeping costs for this collection are associated with submitting electronic maintenance fee payments through the USPTO Web site. It is recommended that customers who pay maintenance fees online print and retain a copy of the updated payment statement that appears on the screen after the transaction has been completed as a receipt and proof of timely payment. The USPTO estimates that it will take 5 seconds (0.001 hours) to print a copy of the payment statement and that approximately 52,439 maintenance fee payments per year will be submitted online, for a total of 52 hours per year for printing this receipt. Using the paraprofessional rate of $81 per hour, the USPTO estimates that the recordkeeping cost associated with this collection will be approximately $4,212 per year. The public may submit the forms and petitions in this collection to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. If the submission is sent by first-class mail, the public may also include a signed certification of the date of mailing in order to receive credit for timely filing. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 39 cents, and that customers filing a Maintenance Fee Transmittal Form, a “Fee Address” Indication Form, or any of the petitions included in this collection may choose to mail their submissions to the USPTO. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that up to 322,267 submissions per year may be mailed to the USPTO, for a total postage cost of $125,684 per year. This collection also has filing costs in the form of patent maintenance fees, surcharges for late payment of maintenance fees, and petition fees. Under 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(g), the patent maintenance fees due at 3 1/2 years, 7 1/2 years, and 11 1/2 years after the date of grant are $900, $2,300, and $3,800 respectively ($450, $1,150, and $1,900 for small entities). The surcharge under 37 CFR 1.20(h) for paying a maintenance fee during the six-month grace period following the above intervals is $130 ($65 for small entities). The surcharge under 37 CFR 1.20(i) for a petition to accept a maintenance fee after the six-month grace period for these intervals has expired is $700 where the delayed payment is shown to be unavoidable and $1,640 where the delayed payment is shown to be unintentional. The filing fee listed in 37 CFR 1.17(g) for a petition to review the refusal to accept the payment of a maintenance fee filed prior to the expiration of a patent is $200. The filing fee listed in 37 CFR 1.17(f) for a petition for reconsideration of the decision on a petition refusing to accept the delayed payment of a maintenance fee in an expired patent is $400. The USPTO estimates that the total filing costs associated with this collection will be $436,355,695 per year as calculated in the accompanying table. Fee or surcharge Estimated annual responses Amount of fee or surcharge Estimated annual filing costs Patent maintenance fee at 3 1/2 years 104,016 $900 $93,614,400 Patent maintenance fee at 3 1/2 years (small entity) 34,552 450 15,548,400 Patent maintenance fee at 7 1/2 years 62,950 2,300 144,785,000 Patent maintenance fee at 7 1/2 years (small entity) 17,061 1,150 19,620,150 Patent maintenance fee at 11 1/2 years 37,545 3,800 142,671,000 Patent maintenance fee at 11 1/2 years (small entity) 8,118 1,900 15,424,200 Surcharge for paying maintenance fee during the six-month grace period 6,909 130 898,170 Surcharge for paying maintenance fee during the six-month grace period (small entity) 9,775 65 635,375 Petition to Accept Unavoidably Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(b)) 250 700 175,000 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)) 1,800 1,640 2,952,000 Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377) 100 200 20,000 Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(e)) 30 400 12,000 “Fee Address” Indication Form 91,600 0 0 Total 374,706 436,355,695 The total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of recordkeeping costs, postage costs, and filing costs is estimated to be $436,485,591 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

(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 16, 2005. Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Data Architecture and Services, Data Administration Division. [FR Doc. 05-24346 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 20

Traces to 20 documents

CFR