Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2005-12-28 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice of Intent to prepare environmental impact statement; request for comments

31,940 words·~145 min read·/register/2005/12/28/05-24600

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-827] Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has preliminarily determined that sales by the respondents in this review, covering the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004, have been made at prices less than normal value (NV).
In addition, we are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Tianjin Custom Wood Processing Co., Ltd. (TCW), because TCW reported that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). 1 If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department invites interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. 1 We reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)data and found no evidence that TCW made shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Cathy Feig, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-4474 and
(202)482-3962, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 1, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils from the People's Republic of China
(PRC)(the order) covering the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 69889 (December 1, 2004). On December 28, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), a PRC exporter, Shandong Rongxin Import and Export Co., Ltd. (Rongxin), requested an administrative review of the order on certain cased pencils from the PRC. On December 30, 2004, CSR Industries, doing business as American Business Technology (CSR), requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Weijun International Trading/Grand World Inc. (Weijun). Also on December 30, 2004, domestic interested parties, Sanford L.P., Musgrave Pencil Company, RoseMoon Inc., and General Pencil Company, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of exports of subject merchandise made by ten producers/exporters. 2 In addition, on January 3, 2005, China First Pencil Company, Ltd, SFTC, and Shanghai Three Star requested a review of their exports of subject merchandise to the United States. 3 2 The ten producers/exporters covered by the domestic interested parties' request are Anhui Import/Export Group Corporation, Beijing Light Industrial Products Import/Export Corporation, Beijing Yixunda Technology and Trade Co., Ltd., China First Pencil Company, Ltd. (CFP), Guangdong Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export Corp. (GSSG), Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd., (SFTC), Rongxin, Sichuan Light Industrial Products Import/Export Corporation, Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp. (Three Star), and TCW. 3 The Department was closed on December 31, 2004, a legal holiday. January 3, 2005 was the next business day. The Department published a notice announcing its initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review covering the exports of the above-referenced companies during the POR. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005). 4 On February 1, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the exporters/producers subject to this review. 4 The Department initiated separate reviews of China First Pencil Company, Ltd.
(CFP)and Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp. (Three Star) based on timely requests from interested parties. In the final results of the 2001-2002 administrative review the Department collapsed CFP and Three Star for purposes of its antidumping analysis. *See Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 29266 (May 21, 2004) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. The Department continued to collapse CFP and Three Star in the final results of the 2002-2003 administrative review. *See Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 42301 (July 22, 2005) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (Pencils 02/03). For this review, the Department continues to consider CFP and Three Star (hereinafter referred to as CFP/Three Star) to be a single entity. In their respective February 22, 2004, responses to the Department's questionnaire, TCW and GSSG stated that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. CFP/Three Star, Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (SFTC), and Rongxin submitted timely questionnaire responses. On March 10, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), CSR withdrew its request for review. The remaining exporters/producers did not submit questionnaire responses and did not request that we extend the applicable deadlines for doing so. 5 5 On April 18, 2005, we sent letters by commercial courier to Anhui Import/Export Group Corp. (Anhui), Beijing Yixunda Technology and Trade Co., Ltd. (Yixunda), and Sichuan Light Industrial Products (Sichuan) notifying them that the applicable deadlines for them to respond to our questionnaire had passed and that we had not received their questionnaire responses or requests to extend the deadline for receipt of their questionnaire responses. We confirmed by the courier's shipment tracking that these companies received our questionnaire. We asked them to notify us in writing if they had no shipments, sales or entries of subject merchandise. We notified Anhui, Yixunda, and Sichuan that, if they did not respond, we may use facts available which could be adverse to their interests. We also sent a letter to the Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & Exports, Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) informing it that Anhui, Yixunda, and Sichuan had not responded to our questionnaire and that we may use facts available which could be adverse to the companies' interests. In addition, we informed MOFCOM that the questionnaires that we sent to Beijing Light Industrial Products Import Export Corporation (Beijing Light) and Guangdong Provincial Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export Corporation (Guangdong Provincial) had been returned as undeliverable and asked that MOFCOM forward copies of the questionnaire to Beijing Light and Guangdong Provincial. We confirmed using courier tracking that MOFCOM received this letter. On July 22, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this review until December 16, 2005. *See Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 42303 (July 22, 2005). The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act. Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain cased pencils of any shape or dimension (except as described below) which are writing and/or drawing instruments that feature cores of graphite or other materials, encased in wood and/or man-made materials, whether or not decorated and whether or not tipped ( *e.g.* , with erasers, etc.) in any fashion, and either sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifically excluded from the scope of the order are mechanical pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, non-cased crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals, chalks, and pencils produced under U.S. patent number 6,217,242, from paper infused with scents by the means covered in the above-referenced patent, thereby having odors distinct from those that may emanate from pencils lacking the scent infusion. Also excluded from the scope of the order are pencils with all of the following physical characteristics: 1) length: 13.5 or more inches; 2) sheath diameter: not less than one-and-one quarter inches at any point (before sharpening); and 3) core length: not more than 15 percent of the length of the pencil. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Intent to Rescind Review in Part We are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to TCW because it reported that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department reviewed CBP data which did not indicate that TCW exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Rescission of Review We are rescinding this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) with respect to Weijun. CSR withdrew its request for review of Weijun on March 10, 2005. There was no other request for a review of Weijun and CSR's letter withdrawing its request for a review was timely filed. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during September 2005, the Department conducted verifications of SFTC and Rongxin. During the verification of SFTC and Rongxin, the Department followed standard procedures in order to test the information submitted by the respondents. These procedures include on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of relevant source documentation as exhibits. We adjusted reported data used in our preliminary results based on our findings at verification as applicable. *See Memoranda from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, to the file, Margin Calculation Analysis: Orient Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. and Margin Calculation Analysis: Shandong Rongxin Import and Export Co., Ltd.* , both dated December 16, 2005 (Calculation Memoranda). Our verification findings are on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, room B099, of the main Commerce building (CRU-Public File). *See Memoranda from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, to Wendy Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Verification Reports: U.S. Sales and Factors-of-production* , dated December 13, 2005 (Verification Reports). Separate-Rates Determination In proceedings involving non-market-economy
(NME)countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to governmental control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that its export activities are sufficiently independent so that it should be granted a separate rate. Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC provided the separate-rates information we requested and reported that their export activities are not subject to governmental control. We examined the separate-rates information the respondents provided in order to determine whether the companies are eligible for separate rates. The Department's separate-rates test, which is used to determine whether an exporter is independent from governmental control, does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from governmental control of its export activities so as to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( *Sparklers* ) at Comment 1, 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, 22587 (May 2, 1994) ( *Silicon Carbide* ). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. 1. Absence of *De Jure* Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(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. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20588 (May 6, 1991). Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC reported that the merchandise under review was not subject to restrictive stipulations associated with their business license ( *e.g.* , pencils were not on the government's list of products subject to export restrictions or subject to export licensing requirements). Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC submitted copies of their business licenses in their questionnaire responses. We found no inconsistencies in their statements regarding the absence of restrictive stipulations associated with their business licenses. Furthermore, Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC submitted copies of PRC legislation demonstrating the statutory authority for establishing the *de jure* absence of governmental control over the companies. This legislation included the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China, and other legislation. Thus, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of the absence of *de jure* governmental control based on an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the business licenses of Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC, and the applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of PRC companies. 2. Absence of *De Facto* Control As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See Silicon Carbide* , 56 FR at 22587 (May 2, 1994). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. Typically, the Department considers the following four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:
(1)whether the export prices are set by, or are subject to, the approval of a governmental agency;
(2)whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management;
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22586-87; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). CFP/Three Star and SFTC reported that they determine prices for sales of the subject merchandise based on market principles, the cost of the merchandise, and profit. Rongxin reported that it set prices “via direct competitive negotiation.” Moreover, Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC stated that they negotiated their prices directly with their customers. In addition, the record indicates that Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC have the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements. Further, these companies claimed that their negotiations are not subject to review or guidance from any governmental organization. Finally, there is no evidence on the record to suggest that there is any governmental involvement in the negotiation of their contracts. Furthermore, Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC reported that they have autonomy in making decisions regarding the selection of management. All three companies indicated that their selection of management is not subject to review or guidance from any governmental organization. Finally, Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC reported that there are no restrictions on the use of their export revenues. There is no evidence on the record with respect to any of these companies to suggest that there is any governmental involvement in decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. Therefore, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of the absence of *de facto* governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following:
(1)Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC set their own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a governmental authority;
(2)Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC have the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC have adequate autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management; and
(4)Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC retain the proceeds from their sales and make independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. The evidence placed on the record of this review by Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC demonstrates an absence of governmental control, both in law and in fact, with respect to their exports of the merchandise under review in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide* . Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are granting separate rates to Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC. Fair-Value Comparisons To determine whether the respondents' sales of subject merchandise were made at less than NV, we compared the export price
(EP)to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department calculated EPs for sales by Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC to the United States because the subject merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States (or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States) prior to importation, and constructed export-price methodology was not otherwise indicated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c), we made deductions from the net sales price for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling. Each of these services was provided by an NME vendor and, thus, as explained in the “Normal Value” section below, we based the deductions for these movement charges on values from a surrogate country. For the reasons stated in the “Normal Value” section below, we selected India as the primary surrogate country. To value brokerage and handling, the Department used an average of the publicly summarized data from the following two sources which we have placed on the record of this review: 1) data reported in the U.S. sales listing in the February 28, 2005, submission from Essar Steel Ltd. (Essar Steel) in the antidumping duty administrative review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, A-533-820 (covering December 2003 - November 2004), and 2) data reported in Pidilite Industries' March 9, 2004, public version response submitted in the AD investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, A-533-838 (covering the period November 2002 - September 2003). We identify the source used to value foreign inland freight in the “Normal Value” section of this notice, below. We adjusted these values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation adjustments for these values using the wholesale price indices
(WPI)for India as published in the *International Financial Statistics Online Service* maintained by the Statistics Department of the International Monetary Fund at the website http://www.imfstatistics.org on May 17, 2005 ( *IFS* ). For Rongxin we also made deductions to two invoices for billing adjustments discovered by the Department during verification. For a full discussion of these expenses see the Rongxin verification report. Normal Value For exports from NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-production
(FOP)methodology if the subject merchandise is exported from an NME country and available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Section 351.408 of the Department's regulations sets forth the methodology the Department uses to calculate the NV of merchandise exported from NME countries. The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in every proceeding involving the PRC. Because none of the parties to this proceeding contested such treatment, we calculated NV in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, the FOPs the parties used in producing pencils include but are not limited to the following inputs:
(1)hours of labor required,
(2)quantities of raw materials employed,
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and
(4)representative capital costs, including depreciation. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department valued the FOPs, to the extent possible, using the costs of the FOP in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. We determined that India is comparable to the PRC in terms of *per capita* gross national product and the national distribution of labor. Furthermore, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. In instances where we were unable to use Indian surrogate-value information, we relied on Indonesian or Filipino import data, and U.S. values as discussed below. Indonesia and the Philippines are also comparable to the PRC in terms of *per capita* gross national product and the national distribution of labor, and both are significant producers of comparable merchandise. See *Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Office Director, China/NME Group, Office 8* , dated March 15, 2005, regarding potential surrogate countries, and *Memorandum from Paul Stolz to File* , dated December 16, 2005, regarding significant producers of pencils, which are available in the CRU - Public File. In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for purposes of calculating NV, we attempted to value the FOPs using surrogate values that were in effect during the POR. If we were unable to obtain surrogate values that were in effect during the POR, we adjusted the values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation adjustments for all factor values, as applicable, except labor, using the WPI for the appropriate surrogate country as published in the *IFS* . We valued the FOPs as follows: 1) For producers that purchased Chinese lindenwood pencil slats, we valued slats using publicly available, published U.S. prices for American basswood lumber because price information for Chinese lindenwood and American basswood is not available from any of the potential surrogate countries. 6 The U.S. lumber prices for basswood are published in the *2005 Hardwood Market Report* for the period December 2003 through November 2004. 6 In the antidumping investigation of certain cased pencils from the PRC, the Department found Chinese lindenwood and American basswood to be virtually indistinguishable and thus used U.S. prices for American basswood to value Chinese lindenwood. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 55625, 55632 (November 8, 1994). This methodology was upheld by the Court of International Trade. *See Writing Instrument Manufacturers Association, Pencil Section, et al. v. United States* , 984 F. Supp. 629, 639 (CIT 1997), *aff'd* 178 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 2) For producers that manufactured slats from Chinese lindenwood timber, we valued the timber using publicly available, published U.S. prices for American basswood timber because price information for Chinese lindenwood and American basswood is not available from any of the potential surrogate countries. The U.S. timber prices for basswood are published in the *Sawlog Bulletin* . Timber prices contemporaneous with the POR were not available for use in the preliminary results. We will attempt to obtain contemporaneous timber prices for use in the final results. For the preliminary results we inflated timber prices published in the *Sawlog Bulletin* in the months of January, February, April, May, July, August, October, and November 2003 using U.S. WPI data. 3) We valued the following material inputs using Indian import data from the World Trade Atlas
(WTA)for December 2003 through November 2004: acetone, alkyds resin, butanes, butanol, butter, butyl ester, calcium carbonate, carbon black, erasers, eraser caps, ethanol, ethyl ester, foam grips, foil, formaldehyde, glitter, glue, graphite powder, gum arabic, hardening oil, heat transfer film, hooks, ink oil, lacquer, lithopone, malice acid ester, methanol, methyl benzene, oxalic acid, penetrating agent, petroleum jelly, plastic, plastic topper, printing ink, propylene, pyroxylin, sawdust/wood, sealing paper, sharpeners, soap, soft agent, stearic acid, syrup, talcum powder, tallow, thinner, titanium, velvet wrap and wooden boxes. 4) We valued the following material inputs using inflated Indian import data from the WTA for December 2002 through November 2003 because contemporaneous data were not available: beeswax, clear wax, dibutyl ester, diluent, dyestuff, ferrules, kaolin clay, key chains, nitro-paint/lacquer, pigment, sticker paper, wax, and yellow dye. 5) We valued the castor oil using inflated Indian import data from the WTA for December 2001 through November 2002 because contemporaneous data were not available. 6) We valued black and color cores using inflated Indonesian import data from the WTA for January 2002 through December 2002 because contemporaneous data were not reliable. We were not able to calculate separate surrogate values for black versus color cores based on information on the record of this review. 7) In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408 (c)(1), we valued color cores, erasers, eraser material, foam grips, and lacquer used by CFP/Three Star at acquisition cost because it purchased these inputs from market-economy suppliers and paid for them using a market-economy currency. 8) We valued the following packing materials using inflated Indian import data from the WTA for December 2002 through November 2003 because contemporaneous data were not available/reliable: cardboard cartons, master cartons, packing boxes, paper labels, plastic boxes, plastic canisters, polypropylene film. 9) We valued the following packing materials using Indian import data from the WTA for December 2003 through November 2004: packing tape, plastic shrink wrap, plastic straps, and polybags. 10) We valued electricity using rates from *Energy Prices and Taxes: Second Quarter 2003 (Energy Prices)* , published by the International Energy Agency. We valued coal using the *Teri Energy Data Directory & Yearbook* (2004). We adjusted these values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR. We valued steam using the value for natural gas, as adjusted, based on the ratio of British thermal units
(BTU)generated by natural gas to the BTUs generated by steam. We inflated the surrogate value for steam using the U.S. wholesale price index for the POR as published in the *IFS* . 11) We valued labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), using the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, and posted to Import Administration's website at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages* . The source of this wage rate data on Import Administration's website is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, International Labor Office, (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing ( *http://laborsta.ilo.org* ). The years of the reported wage rates range from 1998 to 2003. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. 12) We derived ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit using the 2003 financial statements of Asia Wood International Corporation (Asia Wood), a wood-products producer in the Philippines. As stated above, the Philippines is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Asia Wood's financial statements represent the best available record information with which to derive financial ratios because Asia Wood employs a number of the same production processes as those used by the respondents, including, for example, cutting wood, sanding wood, glueing wood, and painting wood. From this information, we were able to calculate factory overhead as a percentage of direct materials, labor, and energy expenses, SG&A expenses as a percentage of the total cost of manufacturing, and profit as a percentage of the sum of the total cost of manufacturing and SG&A expenses. 13) We used the following sources to value truck and rail freight services provided to transport the finished product to the port and direct materials, packing materials, and coal from the suppliers of the inputs to the producers. To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published at *http://www.infreight.com* . We valued rail-freight services using the April 1995 rates published by the Indian Railway Conference Association. We adjusted these values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR using the WPI published by the Reserve Bank of India. For further discussion of the surrogate values we used for these preliminary results of review, see the *Memorandum From Paul Stolz Regarding Factors-of-Production Valuation for Preliminary Results* (December 16, 2005), which is on file in the CRU - Public File. Use of Partial Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person:
(A)withholds information that has been requested;
(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
(AFA)information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. For the reasons explained below, and pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to apply partial AFA for certain U.S. sales that SFTC failed to report. On February 1, 2005, the Department requested that SFTC report all shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In section A(4)(a) of the February 1, 2005, questionnaire, the Department requested that SFTC describe the date selected as the date of sale to be used in the POR. In section C of the questionnaire, the Department also requested that SFTC report the date of sale as defined in the Glossary of Terms at Appendix I, which states the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business. On March 8, 2005, and April 7, 2005, SFTC submitted questionnaire responses to sections A and C, respectively, and responded that its date of sale is the date of invoice. On July 29, 2005, in a supplemental questionnaire response, SFTC stated that it compiled its reported U.S. sales list through a manual inspection of invoices. On April 7, 2005, SFTC submitted to the Department what it reported to be all sales of subject merchandise sold to the United States during the POR, based upon invoice date. Prior to the start of verification, SFTC provided the Department with its submission of clerical errors and minor corrections. 7 However, during verification, the Department discovered several sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR which were not reported to the Department by SFTC. SFTC explained that it did not report these sales, which it deemed outside the POR, because SFTC did not believe the merchandise associated with these sales would have entered the United States until after the end of the POR. Nevertheless, the sales invoices were clearly dated within the POR. Therefore, because SFTC withheld information the Department requested, that is the sales in question, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department is applying facts available to those transactions. 7 SFTC placed this submission on the record on September 21, 2005. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the “best of its ability” standard “requires the respondent to do the maximum it is able to do.” *See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon Steel* ). The Department has determined that SFTC did not act to the best of its ability because it neither included nor notified the Department in a timely manner that it was not including these sales in its filing. This information was within SFTC's control. The company itself explained that the U.S. sales date should be based on invoice date. Under these circumstances, it is fully reasonable for the Department to expect that SFTC would be forthcoming with this information, and that its failure to do so demonstrates that SFTC failed to put forth the maximum effort. *Nippon Steel* , 337 F.3d at 1382; *see also Neuberg Fertigung GmbH v. United States* , 797 F. Supp. 1020, 1024 (CIT 1992) (“{u}ltimately it is the respondent's responsibility to make sure that {Commerce} understands, and correctly uses, any information provided by the respondent.”) Section 776(b) of the Act states that AFA may include information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. As AFA for the preliminary results, and in accordance with section 776(b), the Department is applying the highest transaction margin for SFTC from the current administrative review to SFTC's unreported sales. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available The PRC Entity Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering authority. Four producers/exporters named in the notice of initiation did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own calculated rate. Companies that have not demonstrated their entitlement to a separate rate are appropriately considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, we determine it is necessary to review the PRC-wide entity because it did not provide information necessary to the instant proceeding. In doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the facts available if necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party or any other person:
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Because the PRC-wide entity provided no information, we determine that sections 782(d) and
(e)of the Act are not relevant to our analysis. According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 1
(1994)at 870. Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). As above stated, the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information in the form or manner requested, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide entity. In addition, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. As noted above, the PRC-wide entity failed to respond in the proper format or in a timely manner to the Department's questionnaire, despite repeated requests that it do so. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review. An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding as total AFA when a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Final Rescission In Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38873 (July 6, 2005). Specifically, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-entity 114.90 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate. GSSG Application of AFA to GSSG is appropriate in this review because GSSG withheld or failed to provide information specifically requested by the Department. In our original questionnaire (at C-1) we asked GSSG to “Report for each U.S. sale of merchandise entered for consumption during the POR, except:
(1)for EP sales, if you do not know the entry dates, report each transaction involving merchandise shipped during the POR. . . .” See the antidumping questionnaire issued to GSSG on February 1, 2005. On February 22, 2005, GSSG submitted a letter requesting an extension of the due date to file its Section A response. GSSG further stated that no extension for Sections C and D was required because ” . . . it had no exports to the United States during the period December 1, 2003 to November 30, 2004, and for at least several months prior to that time.” On March 4, 2005, GSSG certified that it “had no exports to the United States during 2003 and 2004.” We reviewed CBP data and found information indicating that subject merchandise exported by GSSG entered the U.S. during the POR. On November 16, 2005, we issued a supplemental questionnaire (GSSG supplemental) to GSSG which included the CBP entry number, entry date, export date, and the quantity and value of the entry in question. The CBP data indicated that the entry date and export date are clearly within the POR. We specifically asked GSSG to “Please review GSSG's sales, exports, and shipments made during the POR (and prior to the POR as applicable) and clarify whether GSSG had any exports, sales or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.” On November 23, 2005, GSSG responded to our supplemental questionnaire stating that “Because the date of the invoice is prior to the POR, the transaction is not a 'sale' that need have been reported.” However, the invoice GSSG submitted as support was undated and did not cover subject merchandise. Moreover, GSSG did not dispute that the subject merchandise was exported during the POR and entered the United States during the POR. Neither did GSSG claim that it was unaware that the merchandise was destined for the United States. On November 18, 2005, we requested from CBP entry documents covering the transaction in question. We received these documents on December 5, 2005. The entry documents show that the merchandise was destined for the United States and originated in the PRC. The CBP entry documents confirm that GSSG exported subject merchandise during the POR. Although given ample opportunity to provide the requested information which any producer/exporter would be expected to keep in the ordinary course of business, GSSG failed to provide this information. Accordingly, because GSSG failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the Department is using information adverse to GSSG's interests as facts otherwise available. In its supplemental questionnaire response GSSG stated that “The reference in GSSG's earlier submission to the fact that it had 'no sales, exports or entries' of subject merchandise was . . . slightly inaccurate.” *See* GSSG's supplemental questionnaire response dated November 23, 2005. However, GSSG did not clarify or correct the inaccuracies. Notwithstanding this, evidence on the record clearly substantiates the fact that GSSG exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and that the merchandise entered the United States during the POR. See the GSSG supplemental and the memorandum from Paul Stolz to the file dated December 13, 2005 regarding customs entry documents. GSSG has not disputed these facts. In addition, GSSG stated in its supplemental response dated November 23, 2005, that it is attempting to locate additional records related to this transaction and will attempt to provide them to the Department as they are located. To date, GSSG has not submitted any information in this regard. Moreover, the commercial invoice GSSG submitted in support of its supplemental questionnaire response did not cover the transaction in question and was undated. GSSG made no attempt to explain this or to link this invoice to the sale of subject merchandise. Therefore, because the evidence shows that GSSG had at least one export of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, but GSSG did not submit any sales or factors of production data as requested in the questionnaire, it is appropriate to use AFA. Furthermore, we find that GSSG does not merit a separate rate and will be subject to the PRC-wide rate. As stated above, with respect to the PRC-wide entity (including GSSG) we are applying as AFA, the current PRC-wide rate, which is 114.90 percent. Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870. Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *Id.* To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. However, the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *Id.* at 869. In this review, we are using as AFA the highest dumping margin from this or any prior segment of the proceeding, the current PRC-wide rate of 114.90 percent. This rate was calculated in the 1999 - 2000 administrative review of the order on certain cased pencils from the PRC. *See Notice of Amended Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 59049 (September 19, 2002). Therefore, the PRC-wide rate of 114.90 percent constitutes secondary information within the meaning of the SAA. *See* SAA at 870. Unlike other types of information such as input costs or selling expenses, however, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated dumping margin from the current or from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin if it was calculated from verified sales and cost data. The 114.90 percent PRC-wide rate is based on verified information provided by Kaiyuan Group Corporation in the 1999 - 2000 administrative review of the order on certain cased pencils from the PRC. This rate has not been invalidated judicially. Therefore, we consider this rate to be 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. Nothing in the record of this review calls into question the relevance of the margin we have selected as AFA. Moreover, the selected margin is the current PRC-wide rate and is currently applicable to exporters who do not have a separate rate. Thus, it is appropriate to use the selected rate as AFA in the instant review. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Shandong Rongxin Import and Export Co., Ltd 5.47 China First Pencil Company, Ltd./Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp 7.67 Shanghai First Writing Instrument Co., Ltd 7.67* Shanghai Great Wall Pencil Co., Ltd 7.67* China First Pencil Fang Zheng Co., Ltd 7.67* Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd 27.43 PRC-Wide Rate 114.90 * We collapsed CFP with its subsidiaries Shanghai First Writing Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai Great Wall Pencil Co., Ltd., and China First Pencil Fang Zheng Co., Ltd. in the previous segment of this proceeding. For this review we consider these parties to constitute a single entity. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice the calculations it performed for the preliminary results. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issue;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public version of those comments. We will issue a memorandum identifying the date of a hearing, if one is requested. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated customer-specific antidumping duty assessment amounts for subject merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. We calculated these assessment amounts because there is no information on the record which identifies entered values or the importers of record. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment amounts, calculated as described above, on each of the applicable entries during the review period. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will apply to all shipments of pencils from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies named above will be the rates for those firms established in the final results of this administrative review;
(2)for any previously reviewed or investigated PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this review, with a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the most recent segment of this proceeding;
(3)for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate established in the final results of this review; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC 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 Interested Parties 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. We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 16, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7881 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-822, A-428-815] Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada and Germany AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and section 351.216(b) of the U.S. Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations, Eutectic Corporation (Eutectic), a U.S. importer, filed a request for a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty
(AD)orders on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada and Germany. Petitioners and domestic interested parties have affirmatively expressed a lack of interest in the continuation of the orders with respect to this product. 1 In response to this request, the Department is initiating changed circumstances reviews on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada and Germany with respect to “wear plate” (marketed as “CastoDur Diamond Plate”) as described below. 1 Petitioners include: United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) and Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (formerly Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Ispat Inland Steel, and LTV Steel Company, Inc.). Domestic interested parties include: Nucor Plate Group of Nucor Corporation and Ipsco Inc. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angelica Mendoza or Abdelali Elouaradia, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3019 and
(202)482-1374, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 7, 2005, Eutectic, a U.S. importer, requested that the Department exclude a product commonly known as “wear plate” and marketed under the name of “CastoDur Diamond Plate.” *See* Eutectic's letters to the Secretary, dated November 7, 2005 (Eutectic Request Letters). Specifically, Eutectic requested that the Department exclude from the AD orders on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada and Germany, imports meeting the following description: certain flat-rolled wear plate ranging from 30 inches to 50 inches in width, from 45 inches to 110 inches in length and from 0.187 inch to 0.875 inch in total thickness, having a layer on one side composed principally of a combination of boron carbides, chromium carbides, nickel carbides, silicon carbides, manganese carbides, niobium carbides, iron carbides, tungsten carbides, vanadium carbides, titanium carbides and/or molybdenum carbides fused to a non-alloy flat-rolled steel substrate. The carbides are in the form of MxCx where M stands for the metal and x for the atomic ratio. An example of a common carbide would be (Cr7C3). The carbide layer will be a visually distinct layer ranging in thickness from 0.062 inch to 0.312 inch with hardness at the surface of the carbide layer in excess of 55 HRC. *See* Eutectic Request Letters at 1. Additionally, Eutectic included in its request letters from petitioners and domestic interested parties attesting to their lack of interest in having this merchandise, as described above, continue to be subject to the AD orders on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada and Germany. *See* Eutectic Request Letters at Attachments 1-4. The Department contacted these parties and confirmed their expressed lack of interest for this merchandise to be subject to the AD orders. *See* Memorandum to the File, from Angelica L. Mendoza, Senior Case Analyst, Office 7, “Confirmation of Interested Parties' Lack of Interest for “Wear Plate” (marketed as “CastoDur Diamond Plate”) to Be Subject to the Above-Captioned Antidumping Duty Orders,” dated December 7, 2005. Scope of the Orders The products covered by each of these orders are corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (corrosion-resistant steel) from Canada and Germany, respectively. This scope includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in these orders are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”) for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from these orders are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from these orders are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from these orders are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. On September 22, 1999, the Department issued the final results of a changed circumstances review partially revoking the order with respect to certain corrosion-resistant steel from Germany. 2 This partial revocation applies to certain corrosion-resistant deep-drawing carbon steel strip, roll-clad on both sides with aluminum
(AlSi)foils in accordance with St3 LG as to EN 10139/10140. The merchandise's chemical composition encompasses a core material of U St 23 (continuous casting) in which carbon is less than 0.08; manganese is less than 0.30; phosphorous is less than 0.20; sulfur is less than 0.015; aluminum is less than 0.01; and the cladding material is a minimum of 99% aluminum with silicon/copper/iron of less than 1%. The products are in strips with thicknesses of 0.07mm to 4.0mm (inclusive) and widths of 5mm to 800mm (inclusive). The thickness ratio of aluminum on either side of steel may range from 3%/94%/3% to 10%/80%/10%. 2 *See Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany* , 64 FR 51292 (September 22, 1999). The Department noted that the affirmative statement of no interest by petitioners, combined with the lack of comments from interested parties, is sufficient to warrant partial revocation. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Reviews Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an AD duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. As noted above, on November 7, 2005, Eutectic requested a ruling from the Department in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(b) to exclude the “wear plate” product described above from these AD orders. Therefore, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b), we are initiating changed circumstances reviews. Although petitioners and domestic interested parties have expressed a lack of interest in the orders with respect to the “wear plate” product in question, they did not claim that they represent substantially all of the production of the domestic like product, nor has the Department made such a determination. Therefore, the Department is not, at this time, preliminarily revoking the AD orders with respect to the product in question pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i). Interested parties are invited to comment on this initiation, or to demonstrate that the petitioners and domestic interested parties account for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product. Public Comment Interested parties may submit comments which the Department will take into account in the preliminary results of these reviews. The due date for filing any such comments is no later than 15 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 7 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. The Department will issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 351.221(b) of the Department's regulations. Dated: December 21, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7983 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-485-803] Notice of Extension of Final Results of the 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-8029. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 8, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of this administrative review of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“cut-to-length plate”) from Romania. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission* , 70 FR 53333 (September 8, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). In the *Preliminary Results* we stated that we would make our final determination for the antidumping duty review no later than 120 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results ( *i.e.* , January 6, 2006). Extension of Time Limit for Final Results The Department is extending the time limit for the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length plate from Romania. This review covers the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified, the administering authority may extend the 120-day period, following the date of publication of the preliminary results, to issue its final results by an additional 60 days. Due to the complexity of issues raised in this review segment, including the respondent's notification of unreported sales following the Department's preliminary results, and the respondent's withdrawal of its business proprietary versions of all information submitted on the record of this review, the completion of the final results within the 120-day period is not practicable. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by an additional 31 days until no later than February 6, 2006. Dated: December 21, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7985 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-831 Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has determined that requests for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), received in September and November 2005, meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) of these new shipper reviews is November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan A. Douglas or Jim Nunno, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1277 and
(202)482-0783, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC was published on November 16, 1994. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 59209 (November 16, 1994). The Department received five timely requests for a new shipper review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), dated as follows: Date Requester September 30, 2005 Qingdao Camel Trading Co., Ltd.(“Qingdao Camel”) November 2, 2005 Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods Co., Ltd.(“Qingdao Xintianfeng”) November 15, 2005 XuZhou Simple Garlic Industry Co., Ltd.(“XuZhou Simple”) November 29, 2005 Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd.(“Qingdao Saturn”) November 30, 2005 Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd. (“Longtai”) Qingdao Xintianfeng, XuZhou Simple, and Longtai certified that they grew and exported the garlic on which they based their requests for a new shipper review. Qingdao Camel certified that Jinxiang County Lufeng Agricultural Production Material Co., Ltd. (“Lufeng”) grew the subject merchandise it exported. Qingdao Saturn certified that Changshan County Taifeng Agricultural By-Products Processing Co., Ltd. (“Taifeng”) grew the subject merchandise that it exported. Initiation of New Shipper Reviews Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Qingdao Camel, Qingdao Saturn, Qingdao Xiantianfeng, Longtai, and XuZhou Simple certified that they did not export fresh garlic to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, Lufang and Taifeng, producers of the subject merchandise, exported by Qingdao Camel and Qingdao Saturn, respectively, provided certifications that they did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), all companies discussed above certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any exporter or grower who exported fresh garlic to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), these companies also certified that their export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC. In addition to the certifications described above, each exporter submitted documentation establishing the following:
(1)the date on which it first shipped fresh garlic for export to the United States and the date on which the fresh garlic was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption;
(2)the volume of its first shipment and the volume of subsequent shipments; and
(3)the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating five new shipper reviews for shipments of fresh garlic from the PRC:
(1)grown by Lufeng and exported by Qingdao Camel,
(2)grown by Taifeng and exported by Qingdao Saturn,
(3)grown and exported by Qingdao Xiantianfeng,
(4)grown and exported by XuZhou Simple, and
(5)grown and exported by Longtai. *See* Memoranda to the File titled, “New Shipper Initiation Checklist” for Qingdao Camel, Qingdao Saturn, Qingdao Xiantianfeng, Longtai, and XuZhou Simple, dated December 20, 2005. The POR is November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A). We intend to issue preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final results of these reviews no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Because Qingdao Xiantianfeng, Longtai, and XuZhou Simple have certified that they grew and exported the fresh garlic on which they based their requests for a new shipper review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of fresh garlic both grown and exported by Qingdao Xiantianfeng, Longtai, and XuZhou Simple, respectively, until the completion of the new shipper review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. With respect to Qingdao Camel and Qingdao Saturn, they have certified that they exported, but did not grow, the subject merchandise on which they based their requests for a new shipper review. Therefore, until completion of these new shipper reviews, we will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise
(1)grown by Lufeng and exported by Qingdao Camel, or
(2)grown by Taifeng and exported by Qingdao Saturn. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: December 20, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7882 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-357-812] Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping order on honey from Argentina. The review covers six firms. The period of review
(POR)is December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. We preliminarily determine that sales of honey from Argentina have been made below the normal value
(NV)in the case of Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA). For Seylinco S.A. (Seylinco), we preliminary find a zero margin. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to Nutrin S.A. (Nutrin), Radix S.A. (Radix), Compania Europea Americana S.A. (CEASA), and HoneyMax S.A. (HoneyMax) because they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price
(EP)and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Strom for ACA, Brian Sheba for Seylinco, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-2704,
(202)482-0145, or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 10, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Honey from Argentina* , 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). On December 1, 2004, the Department published its opportunity to request a review. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 69889. On December 30, 2004, the petitioners 1 requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina in response to the Department's notice of opportunity to request a review. Petitioners requested that the Department review entries of subject merchandise made by 24 Argentine producers/exporters. In addition, the Department received individual requests for review from four Argentine exporters, three of which were included as part of petitioners' request for review. 2 The Department initiated the review for all 24 companies included in petitioners' request for review plus El Mana S.A. (El Mana), a Argentine exporter of honey. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005), *corrected in Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 7143 (February 10, 2005). 1 The petitioners are American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association. 2 The one Argentine exporter not included in petitioners' request for review was El Mana S.A. (El Mana). On February 22, 2005, petitioners withdrew their request for review with respect to fifteen of the 24 exporters that comprised petitioners' request for administrative review. On March 3, 2005, El Mana, an exporter not included in petitioners' request for review, submitted a withdrawal of its request for administrative review. On March 24, 2005, petitioners and Nexco S.A. (Nexco) submitted a withdrawal of request for administrative review for Nexco. On March 31, 2005, petitioners submitted a withdrawal request for a further two companies. On April 15, 2005, the Department rescinded its administrative review for El Mana and eighteen of the 24 companies in petitioners' December 30, 2004, request for review. *See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 19927 (April 15, 2005). The following exporters submitted letters claiming no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR: Nutrin on March 9, 2005; Radix on March 14, 2005; CEASA on March 14, 2005; and HoneyMax on March 16, 2005. For further discussion, see the “Partial Rescission of Review” section of this notice, below. On February 23, 2005, the Department issued Sections A, B, and C of the antidumping questionnaire to all exporters subject to the review. 3 We received responses on March 29 and April 22, 2005, for ACA and on March 24 and April 8, 2005, for Seylinco. 3 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires for ACA on May 17, 2005, and on May 18, 2005, for Seylinco. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires from ACA on May 31, 2005, and from Seylinco on June 1, 2005. On July 8, 2005, petitioners filed comments on ACA's questionnaire responses and on July 13, 2005, ACA filed a response to petitioners' comments. On August 2, 2005, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to ACA. On August 19, 2005, ACA filed its response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. On August 25, 2005, the Department determined a “particular market situation” existed in Argentina during the POR. *See* the discussion of “Selection of Comparison Market” under “Normal Value” below. On November 10, 2005, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to ACA, which ACA timely responded to on November 28, 2005. On July 1, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review to December 20, 2005. *See Honey from Argentina; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38102 (July 1, 2005). Scope of the Review The merchandise covered by this order is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise covered by this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above, Nutrin, Radix, CEASA, and HoneyMax informed the Department that they did not have shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed with CBP that these exporters did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Nutrin, Radix, CEASA, and HoneyMax. *See e.g.* , *Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 51008, 51009 (October 5, 2001) and *Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998). Intent Not To Revoke In Part Section 351.222(e) of the Department's regulations requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation submit the following:
(1)a certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future;
(2)a certification that the company sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the receipt of such a request; and
(3)an agreement that the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. In determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the Department must ascertain that the party sold merchandise at not less than normal value ( *i.e.* , zero or *de minimis* margins) for a period of at least three consecutive years. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). *See* , *e.g.* , *Oil Country Tubular Goods From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part* , 66 FR 15832 (March 21, 2001). On December 27, 2004, ACA submitted a request for revocation of the antidumping duty order with the requisite certifications set forth in 19 CFR 351.222(e). ACA based its request on the absence of dumping for three consecutive review periods, that is, the first, second and current administrative reviews. The Department found zero dumping margins in both the first and second administrative reviews. *See Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 19926 (April 15, 2005) *and Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004). In the current administrative review, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin of 2.95 percent for ACA. The margin calculated during the current review period constitutes one of the three consecutive reviews cited by ACA to support its request for revocation. Consequently, we preliminarily find that ACA is not eligible for revocation of the order under section 351.222(b) of the Department's regulations and preliminarily determine not to revoke the order with respect to ACA. Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1) we have examined ACA's shipments over the past three PORs and have preliminarily determined that ACA has not shipped in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the request for revocation. *See* Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, through Robert James, Program Manager, from Angela Strom, Case Analyst: “Request by Asociation of Coopertivas Argentinas
(ACA)for Revocation in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Honey from Argentina,” dated December 20, 2005. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we verified sales information provided by ACA, using standard verification procedures such as the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public and proprietary versions of our verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU)in room B-099 of the main Department building. *See* ACA's Sales Verification Report, dated December 13, 2005. Product Comparison In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all sales of honey covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, *supra* , which were sold in the respective third-country markets during the POR to be the foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to honey sold in the United States. We matched products based on the physical characteristics reported by ACA and Seylinco. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third-country market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to constructed value (CV), as appropriate. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. In this review, both ACA and Seylinco claimed only EP sales. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. ACA reported two LOTs in the third-country market corresponding to differing channels of distribution: 1) sales to packers and 2) sales to importers. Differing channels of distribution, alone, do not qualify as separate LOTs when selling functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). We found that the selling functions ACA provided to its reported channels of distribution in the third-country and U.S. markets were virtually the same, varying only by the degree to which testing and warranty services were provided. We do not find the varying degree of testing and warranty services alone sufficient to determine the existence of different marketing stages. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina* , 66 FR 50611 and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 18 (October 4, 2001); *Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 621 (January 6, 2004). Thus, we have determined that there is only one LOT for ACA's sales to all markets. *See* ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005. Seylinco reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country sales. Seylinco claimed that its selling activities in both markets are identical, although we note Seylinco sold to two general classes of customers in both the U.S. and its comparison market. For Seylinco, we preliminarily determine that all reported sales are made at the same LOT, and we therefore have no need to make an LOT adjustment. *See* Seylinco's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005. Transactions Investigated Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the Department normally will use date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the date of invoice if it better reflects the date on which material terms of sale are established. For ACA, the Department, consistent with its practice, used the reported shipment date as the date of sale for both its third-country and U.S. markets since shipment occurred prior to invoice date. *See Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada* , 68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 3. For Seylinco, the Department used the invoice date as the date of sale for both its comparison and U.S. market sales. Export Price and Constructed Export Price Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. . . .,” as adjusted under section 772(c). Section 772(b) of the Tariff Act defines CEP as “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). ACA and Seylinco have classified their U.S. sales as EP because all of their sales were made before the date of importation directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the U.S. market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have accepted these classifications. Normal Value 1. Selection of Comparison Market In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act, to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compare each company's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Because Seylinco did not have home market sales, we preliminarily find that Seylinco's home market did not provide a viable basis for calculating NV. ACA, however, did have home market sales in excess of five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales. Section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department may determine that home market sales are inappropriate as a basis for determining NV if a particular market situation would not permit a proper comparison with EP or CEP. During the first and second reviews of this order, the Department found a particular market situation rendered the Argentine market inappropriate for the calculation of NV because of, among other reasons, the export-oriented nature of the Argentine honey industry. 4 In the first supplemental questionnaire dated May 17, 2005, the Department asked ACA to provide further information in order to evaluate the market situation in Argentina with respect to honey, and on May 31, 2005, ACA responded to the Department's request. ACA states that the circumstances in this review are the same as in the first two reviews and that the Department should find a “particular market situation” in Argentina. 4 *See Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Anti-Dumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 621 (January 6, 2004); *Honey From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004); *Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Anti-Dumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 77195 (December 27, 2004); and *Honey From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 19926 (April 15, 2005). On August 25, 2005, the Department determined that a particular market situation does, in fact, exist with respect to ACA's sales of honey in Argentina, rendering the Argentine market inappropriate for purposes of determining NV. *See* Decision Memorandum “Analysis of Particular Market Place Situation” from Angela Strom through Robert James to Richard Weible, dated August 25, 2005. When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that sales to a third-country market may be utilized if
(i)the prices in such market are representative;
(ii)the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third-country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and
(iii)the Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the third-country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price. ACA reported France as its largest third-country market during the POR, in terms of volume of sales (and the aggregate quantity of such sales is five percent or more of sales to the United States). Seylinco reported Germany as its largest third-country market during the POR, in terms of volume of sales (and the aggregate quantity of such sales is five percent or more of sales to the United States). *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination To Revoke the Order in Part, and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile* , 67 FR 51186, 51186 (August 7, 2002) (selecting the largest third-country market as the basis for NV). The Department preliminarily determines that the prices in France and Germany are representative and no particular market situation exists that would prevent a proper comparison to EP. As a result, for ACA, NV is based on sales to France and for Seylinco NV is based on sales to Germany. In summary, therefore, NV for all companies is based on third-country market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For NV, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same LOT as the EP. We calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice. 2. Cost of Production The Department disregarded certain sales made by ACA to its comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the subject merchandise during the investigation. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina* , 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001) and *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina* , 66 FR 58434 (Nov 21, 2001) (Final Determination). However, because we did not find sales below cost in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding and because petitioners made no allegation of sales below cost in the context of this review, the Department determined there were not reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that ACA made sales in the comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in this review. *See* section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. As a result, on May 17, 2005, we informed ACA that ACA would not be required to submit cost information. Price-to-Price Comparisons ACA We based NV on the third-country market prices to unaffiliated purchasers. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act, we made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling expenses, where appropriate. We note that for certain claimed direct expenses in the third-country market, the Department has re-classified them as indirect for the reasons outlined in the accompanying Analysis Memorandum. As in previous segments of this proceeding, ACA originally reported warranty expenses on a customer-specific basis. ACA allocated warranty claims corresponding to POR sales to total tons of honey sold to a particular customer during the POR. In response to our first request for information, ACA also submitted transaction-specific warranty expenses. *See* Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated May 31, 2005. In response to our most recent request for information, ACA reported its historical experience for warranties by market. *See* Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated November 28, 2005. Notwithstanding ACA's reporting of warranty expenses both on a customer-specific and transaction-specific basis, the Department finds that these allocation methodologies fail to reflect the nature and terms of warranty costs as incurred by ACA, *i.e.* , at the time of sale, warranty claims for specific customers or transactions cannot be known or quantified and the terms for such claims did not vary from customer to customer. Indeed, in the less than fair value investigation involving honey from Argentina, the Department recalculated ACA's warranty expense over total sales to the market in question. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from Argentina* , 66 FR 24108 (May 11, 2001), *unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina* , 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001). In the second administrative review, the Department accepted ACA's reported warranty expenses on a customer-specific basis. *See* ACA's Sales Verification Report, dated November 26, 2004,and ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2004. However, based upon our review of the facts in this case, this is not the appropriate methodology. If the warranty terms offered by a respondent at the time of sale vary significantly from customer to customer, a customer-specific allocation of warranty expenses may be appropriate. However, as in this case, if the warranty terms offered by the respondent at the time of sale are not significantly different from customer to customer, an allocation of warranty expenses over total sales or sales to the market in question is more reflective of the nature of the expense and the respondent's expectation that its pricing behavior will allow it to recoup these costs over time. Furthermore, because warranty expenses are not incurred until after a warranty claim has been received from a customer, can vary greatly from year to year, and can occur months or years after the relevant date of sale, the Department often bases warranty expenses on historical data rather than the expenses incurred during a single POR. ( *See* , *e.g.* , *Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 11557 (February 26, 2001) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.) Based on the foregoing considerations, we have re-calculated ACA's reported warranty expenses. In order to capture warranty expenses reflective of ACA's historical experience for the market in question, we used warranty expenditures incurred in that market in the three most recently completed fiscal years 5 and allocated those expenses over ACA's total sales to that market for the same three-year period. The resulting ratio which we applied to the gross unit price for these Preliminary Results represents a three year historical average of ACA's warranty expenses with respect to the market in question. In addition, we revised certain warranty expenses for the reasons outlined in the accompanying Analysis Memorandum. *See* ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005. 5 The three most recent fiscal years were chosen as the calculated time period because this is in accord with the Department's standard questionnaire. Furthermore, the three-year average is not inconsistent with ACA's historical warranty claims for the market in question. *See* Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated November 28, 2005. Seylinco We based NV on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. Where appropriate, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for other direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. *See* Seylinco's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005. Currency Conversion The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. *See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France* , 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Argentine peso. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service. Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday only. We used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for conversion dates involving Saturday through Sunday where necessary. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (percentage) Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas 2.95 Seylinco S.A. 0.00 All Others 30.24 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issues,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon completion of the review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of honey from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
(1)the cash deposit rates for all companies reviewed will be the rates established in the final results of review;
(2)for any previously reviewed or investigated company not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate from the investigation (30.24 percent). *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina* , 66 FR 50611 (Oct. 4, 2001), *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina* , 66 FR 58434 (Nov. 21, 2001), and *Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina* , 66 FR 63672 (Dec. 10, 2001). 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 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. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: December 20, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7981 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-337-806] Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile. This review covers sales of individually quick frozen red raspberries to the United States during the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Based on the withdrawal of requests for review with respect to certain companies, we are rescinding, in part, the third administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington DC. 20230; telephone
(202)482-3813. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the *Notice of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005), for the above-cited segment of this antidumping duty proceeding. We received a timely filed request for review for 57 companies from the Pacific Northwest Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and each of its individual members, Curt Maberry Farm; Enfield Farms, Inc.; Maberry Packing; and Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, “the petitioners”). We also received timely filed requests for review from Fruticola Olmue, S.A. (“Olmue”); Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda. (“SANCO”); Valles Andinos, S.A. (“Valles Andinos”); Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. (“VBM”); and Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A. (“Vitafoods”). On August 29, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the *Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005), initiating this review for all 57 companies. On September 23, 2005, we received a submission from the petitioners withdrawing their request for review for all of the companies for which they had requested an administrative review, except for the following companies: Arlavan, S.A. (“Arlavan”), Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio, Ltda. (“Valle Frio”), Olmue, Valles Andinos, VBM, SANCO, and Vitafoods. Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review The petitioners filed their withdrawal request within the deadline established by the Department. Therefore, we are rescinding the above-cited administrative review with respect to the following companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1): Agricola Nova, Ltda. Agrocomercial Las Tinajas, Ltda. Agrofruta Chilena, Ltda. Agroindustria Framberry, Ltda. Agroindustria Niquen, Ltda. Agroindustria Sagrada Familia, Ltda. Agroindustria y Frigorifico M y M, Ltda. Agroindustrial Frisac, Ltda. Agroindustrial Frutos del Maipo, Ltda. Agroindustrial Merco Trading, Ltda. Agroindustrias San Francisco, Ltda. Agross, S.A. Alimentos Prometeo, Ltda. Alimentos y Frutos, S.A. Andesur, S.A. Angloeuro Comercio Exterior, S.A. Armijo Carrasco, Claudio del Carmen Bajo Cero, S.A. Certified Pure Ingredients (Chile) Inc. y Cia., Ltda. Chile Andes Foods, S.A. Comercializadora Agricola Berries & Fruit, Ltda. Comercializadora de Alimentos del Sur, Ltda. Comercio y Servicios, S.A. Copefrut, S.A. C y C Group, S.A. Exportaciones Meyer, S.A. Exportadora Fragaria Ltda. Exportadora Pentagro, S.A. Exportadora South Berries Ltda. Francisco Nancuvilu Punsin Frigorifico Ditzler, Ltda. Frutas de Guaico, S.A. Fruticola Viconto, S.A. Hassler Monckeberg, S.A. Hortifrut, S.A. Interagro Comercio y Ganado, S.A. Kugar Export, Ltda. Maria Teresa Ubilla Alarcon Multifrigo Valparaiso, S.A. Nevada Export, S.A. Prima Agrotrading, Ltda. Procesadora y Exportadora de Frutas y Vegetales Rio Teno, S.A. Sociedad Agricola Valle del Laja, Ltda. Sociedad Comercial C y C, S.A. Sociedad Exportaciones Antiquina, Ltda. Sociedad San Ernesto, Ltda. Surfrut Terra Natur, S.A. Terrazas Export, S.A. The following companies remain subject to this administrative review: Olmue, SANCO, VBM, Valles Andinos, Vitafoods, Arlavan and Valle Frio. We intend to issue our preliminary results in this administrative review for Olmue, SANCO, VBM, Valles Andinos, Vitafoods, Arlavan, and Valle Frio by April 3, 2006. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. Cash Deposit Rates For the companies for which this review is rescinded, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 6.33 percent, the “all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile* , 67 FR 40270 (June 12, 2002). These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of this administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a 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 doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: December 21, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7978 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Second Amended Final Results of Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 17, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published the notice of amended final results of the antidumping duty administrative review: certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period of review
(POR)February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. *See Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 60280 (October 17, 2005) (“ *Amended Final Results* ”). 1 We are amending the final results of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC to correct ministerial errors made in the calculations of the dumping margins for China Processed Food Import & Export Company and its affiliates (collectively, “COFCO”) pursuant to section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005) (“Final Results”). 1 The Department did not address comments pertaining to clerical error allegations relating to COFCO's margin in the *Amended Final Results* because the U.S. Court of International Trade had obtained jurisdiction of those results pursuant to COFCO's complaint. *See China Processed Food Import & Export Company v. United States* , Court No. 05-00515 (Complaint filed September 19, 2005); *see also* , *Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States* , 884 F.2d 556, 561 (Fed. Cir. 1989). However, on December 14, 2005, the Court granted leave to the Department to make the necessary corrections to COFCO's margin. *See China Processed Food Import & Export Company v. United States* , Court No. 05-00515 (Order issued December 14, 2005). EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Pierce or Christopher Riker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0961 or
(202)482-3441, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of Order The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species *Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis* . “Certain Preserved Mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:
(1)All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms;
(2)all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”;
(3)dried mushrooms;
(4)frozen mushrooms; and
(5)“marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives. 2 2 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. *See* “Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling of Request by Tak Fat, *et al.* for Exclusion of Certain Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this decision was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. *See Tak Fat v. United States* , 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Background On September 14, 2005, the Department published the final results of this administrative review in the **Federal Register** . *See Final Results* . After analyzing all interested parties' comments, we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that ministerial errors existed in the calculations for the *Final Results* , with respect to COFCO. A ministerial error is defined in Section 751(h) of the Act and further clarified in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” For a detailed discussion of these ministerial errors, as well as the Department's analysis, *see* memorandum from Christopher D. Riker to James C. Doyle, *Analysis of COFCO Ministerial Error Allegations* , dated December 21, 2005, on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 in the main Department building. Therefore, in accordance with Section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the *Final Results* of the administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC for COFCO. The revised weighted-average dumping margin is detailed in the chart below. For the company-specific calculation *see* memorandum from Christopher D. Riker to the File, *Analysis for the Second Amended Final Results of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: COFCO* , dated December 21, 2005. Exporter Percent COFCO 2.67 The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries based on the amended final results. For details on the assessment of antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, *see Final Results* . These amended final results are published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(I)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 21, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7982 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-820] Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Germany AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by United States Steel Corporation (“US Steel”), petitioner in this review, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe (“seamless line and pressure pipe”) from Germany with respect to Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes - V&M Deutschland GmbH (“VMD”), Mannesmann Pipe & Steel Corporation (“Mannesmann”), Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH (“Benteler Stahl”), and Benteler Steel and Tube Corporation (“Benteler Tube”) (collectively, “respondents”). No other interested party requested a review. The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. On December 13, 2005, US Steel withdrew its request for an administrative review of the four respondents. Accordingly, the Department is now rescinding the administrative review of these companies. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angelica Mendoza or Patrick Edwards, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3019 and
(202)482-8029, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 3, 1995, the Department published an antidumping duty order on seamless line and pressure pipe from Germany. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Germany* , 60 FR 39704 (August 3, 1995). On August 1, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering seamless line and pressure pipe from Germany. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005, the Department received a timely filed request for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless line and pressure pipe from Germany with respect to VMD, Mannesmann, Benteler Stahl, and Benteler Tube from US Steel, a domestic producer of the subject merchandise. On September 28, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of VMD, Mannesmann, Benteler Stahl and Benteler Tube, covering the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 6, 2005, the Department released the antidumping duty questionnaire to VMD, Mannesmann, Benteler Stahl, and Benteler Tube. On December 13, 2005, the petitioner withdrew its request in a timely manner for an administrative review of the four named respondents. No other party requested a review. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are seamless pipes produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of this order also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters below, regardless of specification. For purposes of this order, seamless pipes are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. These pipes are commonly known as standard pipe, line pipe or pressure pipe, depending upon the application. They may also be used in structural applications. Pipes produced in non-standard wall thickness are commonly referred to as tubes. The seamless pipes subject to this antidumping duty order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The following information further defines the scope of this order, which covers pipes meeting the physical parameters described above. *Specifications, Characteristics and Uses* : Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM standard A-106 may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM standard A-335 must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for A-106 and the ASME codes. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipelines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications. Such triple certification of pipes is common because all pipes meeting the stringent ASTM A-106 specification necessarily meet the API 5L and ASTM A-53 specifications. Pipes meeting the API 5L specification necessarily meet the ASTM A-53 specification. However, pipes meeting the A-53 or API 5L specifications do not necessarily meet the A-106 specification. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers triple-certify the pipes. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple-certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, or API 5L standards shall be covered if used in a standard, line or pressure application. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in A-106 applications. These specifications generally include A-162, A-192, A-210, A-333, and A-524. When such pipes are used in a standard, line or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Rescission of the Administrative Review Pursuant to the Department's regulations, the Department will rescind an administrative review “if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review.” *See* 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Since the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review on December 13, 2005, which is within the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested a review with respect to these companies, the Department is rescinding this administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. The Department is issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: December 21, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7980 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-838] Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received a request to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty
(AD)order on certain softwood lumber from Canada. In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(d) (2005), we are initiating an AD new shipper review for International Forest Products Corporation (IFP Corp.). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or Alexander De Filippi at
(202)482-0631 and
(202)482-1832, respectively; Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 18, 2005, the Department received a timely request from IFP Corp., in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214, for a new shipper review of the AD order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada, which has a May anniversary month. 1 IFP Corp. is a U.S. corporation that purchases Canadian dimensional hemlock lumber for export to customers in the United States. IFP Corp. buys the subject merchandise at the mill from Terrace Lumber Company (Terrace), a newly-opened mill in British Columbia, Canada. IFP Corp. is the exporter (and importer), and Terrace is the producer. Terrace was incorporated in Canada on April 7, 2005. 1 *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 67 FR 36068, 36070 (May 22, 2002). As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)
(A)and (iii)(A), IFP Corp. certified that it did not export certain softwood lumber to the United States during the period of investigation (POI), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported certain softwood lumber during the POI. 2 Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214 (b)(2)(ii)(B), Terrace certified that it did not export certain softwood lumber to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), the company submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States, the date of entry of that first shipment, the volume of that and subsequent shipments and, the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. In the context of this review, the Department intends to solicit and carefully examine information concerning the first party in the chain of distribution with knowledge of U.S. destination and IFP Corps.' role as the exporter of the shipment(s) under review. Our findings may result in the rescission of this review if we find the party requesting the review was not eligible to make the request. 2 *See* Submission from IFP Corp. to the Department regarding Request for New Shipper Review, dated November 18, 2005. Initiation of Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and based on information on the record, we are initiating an AD new shipper review for IFP. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this new shipper review not later than 180 days after initiation of this review. We intend to issue final results of this review no later than 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results are issued. See 19 CFR 351.214(i). New Shipper Review Proceeding Period to be Reviewed International Forest Products Corporation Ltd. 05/01/05 - 10/31/05 We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from the above-listed company in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because IFP Corp., certified that it exports the subject merchandise produced by Terrace, the sale of which is the basis for these new shipper review request, we will permit the bonding privilege only with respect to entries of subject merchandise produced by Terrace and exported by IFP Corp. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214(d) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(i). Dated: December 21, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7979 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-824] Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. and the United Steelworkers (collectively, petitioners), the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSS in coils) from Italy with respect to ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (TKAST), and its affiliates. No other interested party requested a review. The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. On December 6, 2005, all of the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of TKAST. Accordingly, the Department is now rescinding the administrative review of TKAST. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angelica Mendoza or Judy Lao, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3019 and
(202)482-7924, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 27, 1999, the Department published an antidumping duty order on SSSS in coils from Italy. *See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy* , 64 FR 40567 (July 27, 1999). On July 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSS in coils from Italy. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 29, 2005, the Department received a timely request for an administrative review from petitioners of the antidumping duty order on SSSS in coils from Italy with respect to TKAST and its affiliates for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. On August 29, 2005, the Department published the initiation of an administrative review of SSSS in coils from Italy covering the period of July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation In Part* , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). This review covers imports of SSSS in coils from one producer/exporter, TKAST. On November 28, 2005, three of the five original petitioners withdrew their request for review (i.e., Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, and the United Steelworkers). On December 1, 2005, the Department informed petitioners' counsel that it would not rescind the review unless all five petitioners withdraw their request. *See* Memorandum to the File from Richard O. Weible, Office Director, Regarding “Phone Conversation with David Hartquist,” dated December 6, 2005. On December 6, 2005, all five of the petitioners withdrew their request that the Department conduct an administrative review of TKAST. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, *etc* .) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81, 1 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive. 1 Due to changes to the HTSUS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:
(1)sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this review. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2 2 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3 3 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4 4 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI)grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” 6 The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” 7 steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 8 5 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 6 “GIN4 Mo” is the proprietary grade of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. 7 “GIN5” is the proprietary grade of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. 8 “GIN6” is the proprietary grade of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Rescission of Review The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of the initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. It further states that the Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary finds it reasonable to do so. As noted above, three of the five petitioners that requested this review timely withdrew their request for review. On December 1, 2005, the Department informed counsel to petitioners that the instant review cannot be rescinded unless all five petitioners withdraw their request. *See* Memorandum to the File from Richard O. Weible, Office Director, Regarding “Phone Conversation with David Hartquist,” dated December 6, 2005. By December 6, 2005, one week after the 90-day deadline, all five petitioners (Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc., and the United Steelworkers), withdrew their request for review. The Department finds it reasonable to extend the time limit by which a party may withdraw its request for review in the instant proceeding. The Department has not yet devoted considerable time and resources to this review, all five petitioners have withdrawn their request, and no other party requested the review. Therefore, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on SSSS in coils from Italy covering the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of publication of this notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's assumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification of Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return on destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversation to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: December 21, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7984 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-05-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 120805B] Notice of Intent to Conduct Public Scoping Meetings and Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the Activities of the National Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare environmental impact statement; request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)to analyze the environmental impacts of the national administration of the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP). Publication of this notice begins the official scoping process that will help identify alternatives and determine the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. This notice requests public participation in the scoping process, provides information on how to participate, and identifies a set of preliminary alternatives to serve as a starting point for discussions. ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates, times, and locations of public scoping meetings for this issue. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: All comments, written statements and questions regarding the scoping process, NEPA process, and preparation of the EIS must be postmarked by February 28, 2006, and should be mailed to: P. Michael Payne, Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13635, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Fax: 301-427-2584 ATTN: MMHSRP EIS or e-mail at *mmhsrpeis.comments@noaa.gov* with the subject line MMHSRP EIS. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background NMFS proposes to continue to coordinate and operate the National Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP) for response to stranded marine mammals and research into questions related to marine mammal health, including causes and trends in marine mammal health and the causes of strandings, pursuant to Title IV of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1421). Title IV of the MMPA established the MMHSRP under NMFS. The mandated goals and purposes for the program are to:
(1)facilitate the collection and dissemination of reference data on the health of marine mammals and health trends of marine mammal populations in the wild;
(2)correlate the health of marine mammals and marine mammal populations, in the wild, with available data on physical, chemical, and biological environmental parameters; and
(3)coordinate effective responses to unusual mortality events by establishing a process in the Department of Commerce in accordance with section 404. To meet the goals of the MMPA, the MMHSRP carries out several important activities, including the National Marine Mammal Stranding Network, the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program, the Marine Mammal Disentanglement Program, the Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Event and Emergency Response Program, the Marine Mammal Biomonitoring Program, the Marine Mammal Tissue and Serum Bank Program, the Marine Mammal Analytical Quality Assurance Program, the MMHSRP Information Management Program, and the facilitation of several regional health assessment programs on wild marine mammals. A marine mammal is defined as “stranded” under the MMPA if it is dead and on the beach or shore or floating in waters under US jurisdiction, or alive and on the beach and unable to return to the water, in need of medical assistance, or out of its natural habitat and unable to return to its natural habitat without assistance. NMFS is currently developing and plans to issue national protocols that will help standardize the stranding network across the country while maintaining regional flexibility. These protocols are proposed to be issued in one consolidated manual, titled *Policies and Best Practices for Marine Mammal Stranding Response, Rehabilitation and Release* (Policies and Practices). This document is currently released on an interim basis, and will be available on our website after January 9, 2006, at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/* for reference and review. The future development of these policies may involve issuance of regulations, but none are currently proposed. Individuals, groups and organizations throughout the country have been responding to stranded marine mammals for decades. After the passage of Title IV, NMFS codified the roles and responsibilities of participant organizations in the National Marine Mammal Stranding Network through a Letter of Agreement
(LOA)or Stranding Agreement (SA), issued under MMPA section 112(c). By issuing SAs, NMFS allows stranding network response organizations, acting as 'agents' of the government, an exemption to the prohibition on “takes” of marine mammals established under the MMPA. Federal, state and local government officials already have an exemption to the take prohibition under section 109(h) of the MMPA, which allows the taking of marine mammals (not listed as threatened or endangered) during the course of official duties, provided such taking is for the protection or welfare of the mammal, for public health, or for the nonlethal removal of nuisance animals. SAs (as conceived) extend the same exemption to organizations and individuals that are outside of the government. Stranding Agreements are issued by NMFS Regional Administrators, and in the past a high level of variability has occurred between regions. A standardized national template for the format of the SA has been developed, including sections that may be customized by each region in order to maintain flexibility. This SA template has been subject to public comment on several occasions after publication on NMFS' public website and distribution to interested parties (most recently on Nov. 8, 2004). NMFS has also developed a list of minimum criteria for organizations wishing to obtain a SA and participate in the stranding network, and these have also been distributed for public comment. These criteria differ based on the level of involvement of the participant (response only; response and transport; rehabilitation, etc.). Substantive comments received on these documents have been either incorporated or responded to, if the authors chose not to incorporate them. The LOA Template and Minimum Eligibility Criteria are the first two elements of the “Policies and Practices” manual. While the MMPA provides an exception to the take prohibition for the health and welfare of stranded marine mammals, no similar exemption is contained in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Not all, but many, species of marine mammals are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and are therefore protected by both laws. Therefore, the MMHSRP has obtained a permit from the Permits, Conservation and Education Division of the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, issued under the MMPA and section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, to provide the necessary exemption to the take prohibition where the stranded animal in question is listed under the ESA, or when response to a stranded animal would or could incidentally harass a listed species. The permit covers stranding and emergency response activities, including for example, disentanglement, hazing, close approaches, and humane euthanasia. Captures of wild (presumably healthy) animals are also permitted to conduct health assessment studies, where such activities are part of an investigation into a morbidity or mortality issue in the wild population, but this is a rare occurrence (not routine procedure). Stranding network responders are listed as co-investigators under this permit. The permit also authorizes a variety of research projects utilizing stranded animals, tissue samples, and marine mammal parts for investigations into die-offs and other questions regarding marine mammal health and stranding. The current permit issued to the MMHSRP will expire on June 30, 2007, and a NEPA analysis of the activities covered under the permit must be completed prior to the issuance of a new permit. This EIS will serve as the NEPA analysis of these permitted activities. Marine mammals that are undergoing rehabilitation, and the facilities that are conducting rehabilitation activities, are not subject to inspection or review by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under the United States Department of Agriculture, provided that they are not also a public display facility (separate from their rehabilitation activities) or a research facility. These facilities are therefore not subject to APHIS minimum requirements for facilities, husbandry, or veterinary standards. NMFS has developed minimum standards for marine mammal rehabilitation facilities that will be required of all facilities operating under a SA with NMFS, and the interim rehabilitation facility standards document is the third element of the Policies and Practices manual. Section 402
(a)of the MMPA charges NMFS with providing “guidance for determining at what point a rehabilitated marine mammal is releasable to the wild.” Interim standards for release of rehabilitated marine mammals have been developed by NMFS and the US Fish and Wildlife Service in consultation with marine mammal experts through review and public comments, including publication in the **Federal Register** on April 8, 1998 (63 FR 17156). Three panels of experts were also assembled in 2001 to provide individual recommendations, which have been incorporated into the current interim document. These guidelines provide an evaluative process for the veterinarians and animal husbandry staff at rehabilitation facilities to use in determining if a stranded marine mammal is suitable for release to the wild, and under what conditions such a release should occur. The interim standards are provided in the Policies and Practices manual. Purpose and Scope of the Action NMFS will prepare an EIS to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the activities of the MMHSRP, including the issuance of a final Policies and Procedures manual and a new MMPA/ESA permit for the program. This EIS will assess the likely environmental effects of marine mammal health and stranding response under a range of alternatives characterized by different methods, mitigation measures, and level of response. In addition, the EIS will identify potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on geology and soils, air quality, water quality, other fish and wildlife species and their habitat, vegetation, socioeconomics and tourism, treaty rights and Federal trust responsibilities, environmental justice, cultural resources, noise, aesthetics, transportation, public services, and human health and safety, and other environmental issues that could occur with the implementation of the proposed action. For all potentially significant impacts, the EIS will identify avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, where feasible, to a level below significance. Major environmental concerns that will be addressed in the EIS include: NMFS' information needs for the conservation of marine mammals; the types and levels of stranding response and rehabilitation activities, including level of effort; and the cumulative impacts of MMHSRP activities on marine mammals and the environment. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties to ensure that the full range of issues related to the MMHSRP and its activities are identified. NMFS is therefore seeking public comments especially in the following areas:
(1)*Types of activities.* What sort of activities in response to stranded marine mammals or outbreaks of disease in marine mammals should be conducted on a national level? Are there critical research needs that may be met by stranding investigations, rehabilitation, biomonitoring, disentanglement, and other health-related research activities? If so, are these needs currently being met? If there are additional needs, what are they, how are they likely to benefit the marine mammal species, and how should they best be met?
(2)*Level of response effort.* For example, should there be different standards or levels of effort for different species or groups of species (i.e. pinnipeds vs. cetaceans; threatened or endangered species vs. increasing populations, etc.)? How should NMFS set these standards or limits?
(3)*Organization and qualifications.* How should the national stranding network be organized at the local, state, regional, eco-system, and national levels? How should health assessment research be coordinated or organized nationally? What should the minimum qualifications of an individual or organization be prior to becoming an SA holder or researcher (utilizing samples from stranded animals) to ensure that animals are treated successfully, humanely, and with the minimum of adverse impacts?
(4)*Effects of activities.* NMFS will be assessing possible effects of the activities conducted by, for, and under the authorization of the MMHSRP using all appropriate available information. Anyone having relevant information they believe NMFS should consider in its analysis should provide a complete citation or reference for retrieving the information. We seek public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including th range of reasonable alternatives; associated impacts of any alternatives on the human environment, including geology and soils, air quality, water quality, other fish and wildlife species and their habitat, vegetation, socioeconomics and tourism, treaty rights and Federal trust responsibilities, environmental justice, cultural resources, noise, aesthetics, transportation, public services, and human health and safety, and suitable mitigation measures. We ask that comments be as specific as possible. Alternatives NMFS has identified several preliminary alternatives for public comment during the scoping period and encourage information on additional alternatives to consider. Alternative 1, the Proposed Action Alternative, would result in the publication of the Practices and Protocols Handbook and the establishment of required minimum standards for the national marine mammal stranding and disentanglement networks. The MMHSRP permit would also be issued under this alternative to permit response activities for endangered species, disentanglement activities, biomonitoring projects, other research projects conducted by or in cooperation with the program, and import and export of tissue and other diagnostic or research samples. Alternative 2, the No Action Alternative, would continue the activities of the national stranding and disentanglement networks without issuance of the Policies and Practices. No new or renewal Stranding Agreements would be issued or extended, and the MMHSRP would not apply for or receive a new permit. As Stranding Agreements with organizations expired, the network would cease to function. The No Action Alternative is required to be included for consideration by CEQ regulations. Alternative 3 is considered the Status Quo alternative and would allow for the continuation of the stranding and disentanglement networks currently in place in the country, and the Policies and Practices documents would not be issued. However, under the Status Quo alternative, Stranding Agreements could be renewed or extended (though not modified), such that the current level of response would continue. No new SAs would be issued to facilities that are not currently part of the national stranding network. This would preclude adaptive changes in the stranding network as organizations change priorities and wish to leave the network, or as new facilities are created and wish to become involved. The MMHSRP permit could be renewed or reissued as written, with no modifications. There could be no adaptive changes to the research protocols as new issues were raised or advances made in technology. Other alternatives considered by NMFS may be eliminated from detailed study because they would limit or prohibit activities necessary for the conservation of the species by NMFS. The other alternatives that have been considered but may be eliminated from further study are:
(1)An alternative that allows for biomonitoring activities only (tissue sampling and study of animals caught during targeted health assessment projects, subsistence hunts, and as incidental bycatch in fishery activities only);
(2)an alternative that allows for a stranding response only (no rehabilitation activities; response to live animals would be limited to euthanasia or release; no disentanglement or health assessment activities; );
(3)an alternative that allows for response and rehabilitation for cetaceans only; and
(4)an alternative that allows for response and rehabilitation for ESA-listed marine mammals only. The elimination of any of these activities would impede data collection regarding strandings and the health of marine mammals that is necessary for NMFS conservation and recovery efforts for many species. In addition to the alternatives listed above, NMFS will also utilize the scoping process to identify other alternatives for consideration. It should be noted that although several of the listed alternatives would not allow for the mandated activities listed in the MMPA, under 40 CFR 1506.2(d), reasonable alternatives cannot be excluded strictly because they are inconsistent with Federal or state laws, but must still be evaluated in the EIS. For additional information about the MMHSRP, the national stranding network, and related information, please visit our website at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/* . Public Involvement and Scoping Meetings Agenda Public scoping meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. Tuesday, January 24, 2006, 7 - 10 p.m., Santa Barbara Natural History Museum, 2559 Puesta del Sol, Santa Barbara, CA; 2. Wednesday, January 25, 2006, 2 - 5 p.m.; Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 50 California Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA; 3. Friday, January 27, 2006, 3 - 6 p.m., Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary O'ahu Office, 6600 Kalaniana'ole Highway, Honolulu, HI; 4. Monday, January 30, 2006, 2 - 5 p.m., NMFS Northwest Regional Office, Building 9, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA; 5. Wednesday, February 1, 2006, 2 - 5 p.m., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK; 6. Tuesday, February 7, 2006, 5 - 8 p.m., NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue, South, St. Petersburg, FL; 7. Monday, February 13, 2006, 5 - 8 p.m., New England Aquarium, Conference Center, Central Wharf, Boston, MA; 8. Friday, February 17, 2006, 2 - 5 p.m., Silver Spring Metro Center, Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD. Comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and can be mailed to NMFS by February 28, 2006 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). We will consider all comments received during the comment period. All hardcopy submissions must be unbound, on paper no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches (216 by 279 mm), and suitable for copying and electronic scanning. We request that you include in your comments:
(1)Your name and address;
(2)Whether or not you would like to receive a copy of the Draft EIS (please specify electronic or paper format of the Draft EIS); and
(3)Any background documents to support your comments as you feel necessary. All comments and material received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. Special Accommodations These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Sarah Howlett or Sarah Wilkin, 301-713-2322 (voice) or 301-427-2522 (fax), at least 5 days before the scheduled meeting date. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E5-7990 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 122005C] Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on Impacts of Research on Steller Sea Lions and Northern Fur Seals Throughout Their Range in the United States AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)to analyze the environmental impacts of administering grants and issuing permits associated with research on endangered and threatened Steller sea lions ( *Eumetopias jubatus)* and depleted northern fur seals ( *Callorhinus ursinus* ). Publication of this notice begins the official scoping process that will help identify alternatives and determine the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. This notice requests public participation in the scoping process and provides information on how to participate. The purpose of conducting research on threatened and endangered Steller sea lions is to promote the recovery of the species' populations such that the protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) are no longer needed. Consistent with the purpose of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the purpose of conducting research on northern fur seals is to contribute to the basic knowledge of marine mammal biology or ecology and to identify, evaluate, or resolve conservation problems for this depleted species. Research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals considered in this EIS is funded and permitted by NMFS, which are both federal actions requiring National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) compliance. The need for these actions is to facilitate research to:
(1)Prevent harm and avoid jeopardy or disadvantage to the species;
(2)promote recovery;
(3)identify factors limiting the population;
(4)identify reasonable actions to minimize impacts of human-induced activities;
(5)implement conservation and management measures; and
(6)make data and results available in a timely manner for management of the species. As part of this action, NMFS is developing measures that will improve efficiency and avoid unnecessary redundancy in Steller sea lion and northern fur seal research, utilize best management practices, facilitate adaptive management, and standardize research protocols. ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates, times, and locations of public scoping meetings for this issue. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Written statements and questions regarding the scoping process must be postmarked by February 13, 2006, and should be mailed to: Steve Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Fax: 301-427-2583 or e-mail at *ssleis.comments@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is the Federal agency responsible for management of Steller sea lions and northern fur seals under the ESA and the MMPA. NMFS currently administers grants and issues permits to various individuals and institutions to conduct research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals in lands and waters under U.S. jurisdiction. The grant monies administered by NMFS have been designated by Congress and allocated within NMFS annual budgets for the purpose of facilitating research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. The agency has determined that the act of awarding grants is a federal action requiring NEPA compliance. Similarly, issuance of permits for research activities on marine mammals is a federal action requiring NEPA compliance. These permits are issued pursuant to the provisions of the ESA, the MMPA, and NMFS regulations implementing these statutes. This EIS would satisfy the NEPA compliance requirements for awarding grants and issuing permits for research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. The statutory requirements for permits to allow research on marine mammals and on threatened and endangered species are described in Section 104 of the MMPA and Section 10 of the ESA, respectively. Specifically, Section 104(c)(3)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS may issue a permit for scientific research purposes to an applicant, which submits with its permit application information indicating that the taking is required to further a bona fide scientific purpose. The MMPA defines bona fide scientific research as scientific research on marine mammals, the results of which:
(1)likely would be accepted for publication in a refereed scientific journal;
(2)are likely to contribute to the basic knowledge or marine mammal biology or ecology; or
(3)are likely to identify, evaluate, or resolve conservation problems. Section 104 of the MMPA specifies additional conditions and requirements for permits including requiring permit applicants to demonstrate that the permit will be consistent with the purposes of the MMPA, which are specified in Section 2 of the statute. For marine mammals listed as threatened or endangered, the provisions of Section 10 of the ESA apply to permit issuance in addition to the provisions of the MMPA. Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA states that NMFS may issue permits for otherwise prohibited acts for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species. Section 10(d) of the ESA further states that NMFS may grant exceptions under subsection 10(a)(1)(A) only if the agency finds that:
(1)Such exceptions were applied for in good faith,
(2)if granted and exercised will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species, and
(3)will be consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the Act. The purposes of the ESA, which are stated in Section 2 of the statute, are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in section 2(a) of the ESA. In addition to the requirements of section 10 of the ESA, NMFS must comply with section 7 of the ESA in issuing permits. According to Section 7 of the ESA, NMFS must insure that any action it authorizes (such as by permit), funds (such as by grants), or carries out, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The purpose of issuing permits is to allow an exemption to the prohibitions on “takes” established under the ESA and MMPA. The ESA and the MMPA prohibit “takes” of threatened and endangered species, and of marine mammals, respectively. The ESA defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Under the MMPA, “take” is defined as to “harass, hunt, capture, collect or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, collect or kill any marine mammal.” Many research activities, including aerial and vessel-based surveys, tagging and marking procedures, attachment of scientific instruments, and collection of tissue samples require approaching or capturing animals and may result in harassment or other acts prohibited under the ESA and MMPA except where allowed by permit. Because some of the proposed research may result in adverse effects on threatened and endangered Steller sea lions and depleted northern fur seals, NMFS has decided to prepare an EIS to evaluate the cumulative impacts of continuing to fund and permit research activities on these species. This EIS will assess the likely environmental and socioeconomic effects of funding and permitting research under a range of alternatives and will address compliance of the alternatives with the ESA, MMPA, and other applicable laws. This notice initiates a public scoping period that will help determine the structure of each alternative considered in the EIS. The final scope and structure of the alternatives will reflect the combined input from the public, research institutions, affected state and federal agencies, and NMFS administrative and research offices. Based on comments received on Environmental Assessments prepared in 2002 and 2005 for permitting research on Steller sea lions, the following issues that NMFS is seeking public comments on have been identified and may be incorporated into the analysis of alternatives in the EIS:
(1)*Types of research methods and protocols permitted.* For example, are there critical research needs for these species other than those identified in the Recovery or Conservation Plans? If so, what are they and how are they likely to benefit the species? Of the research, information, and monitoring needs identified in the Recovery and Conservation Plans, what are the most appropriate methods to conduct the study or obtain the information? What criteria for developing and incorporating new research techniques should be used?
(2)*Level of research effort.* For example, how much of a specific research activity (e.g., aerial survey, tagging, biopsy sampling, etc.) is enough for management and conservation needs? Can there be too much? If so, how should NMFS set limits? Are the current methods to assess and document numbers of different “takes” that occur as a result of permitted research appropriate? Should there be different standards or more restrictions placed on research conducted on certain age, sex, or life-history stages or on the geographic or temporal distribution of research effort? If so, what should those limitations be?
(3)*Coordination of research.* For example, assuming permits are issued to multiple individuals, what are the most appropriate mechanisms for ensuring research is coordinated to maximize information and reduce adverse impacts? Alternatively, should NMFS consider limiting the number of permits to increase coordination and cooperation? If so, how should this be accomplished? Should researchers operating under different permits (but studying the same or related questions such as aerial survey for population census or biopsy for population genetics) be required to use the same or similar methods to ensure the information collected is comparable and useful for NMFS conservation of the species? If so, what methods are most appropriate (e.g., for aerial surveys; capture and restraint; tissue sampling; marking; etc.)? If not, how should NMFS compare or use the data from various permit holders in its management decisions?
(4)*Effects of research.* NMFS will be assessing possible effects of the various research methods using all appropriate available information. Anyone having relevant information they believe NMFS should consider in its analysis should provide a complete citation or reference for retrieving the information. In addition, NMFS is seeking recommendations for study designs that could detect or predict the effects of research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals.
(5)*Qualification of researchers.* For example, to ensure the study is conducted successfully and with the minimum of adverse impacts, how much prior experience should a permit applicant, principal investigator, or anyone else operating under a permit have with the specific methods for which they seek a permit?
(6)*Criteria for allowing modifications or amendments to existing grants and permits; for denying permit amendments; and for suspending or revoking permits.* In addition to the existing statutory and regulatory criteria for permit issuance and denial, should there be restrictions on the number or type of permit modifications or amendments issued over the life of a permit? With respect to environmental impacts, under what conditions should a permit be modified, revoked or suspended by NMFS? The exact number and structure of the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIS will be determined based on information gathered during scoping. To provide a framework for public comments, the range of potential alternatives currently includes the Proposed Action and several other action alternatives, as well as a No Action alternative. The Proposed Action alternative would result in issuance of permits to qualified individuals and institutions to conduct those research activities determined critical or essential to NMFS' conservation and recovery of Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. To minimize the cumulative impacts of research on these species, no permits would be issued for lower priority research activities until the highest priority tasks identified for species conservation and recovery were completed or unless there was sufficient information to determine that the cumulative impacts of allowing additional takes for research would not adversely impact, disadvantage, or jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The Proposed Action could thus be viewed as a minimum take alternative, allowing the least amount of research practicable to meet NMFS' needs for recovery and conservation of the species. In addition to the Proposed Action, NMFS will consider other alternatives for issuing permits for research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. One alternative to the Proposed Action is to issue all permits requested regardless of their relative potential contribution to conservation and recovery of the species, provided they meet all permit issuance criteria and would not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in significant adverse effects on depleted species. In contrast to the Proposed Action, this could be viewed as the maximum allowable take alternative. Another alternative to the Proposed Action is the No Action alternative, which CEQ regulations require be included for consideration. The No Action alternative would only allow conduct of that research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals already allowed under existing permits, which are valid through 2010. No new permits would be issued to replace the expiring permits, nor would existing permits be amended to allow modifications in research activities, sample sizes, or objectives. A fourth alternative considered is the Status Quo. As with the No Action alternative, the Status Quo alternative would allow conduct of research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals already identified under existing permits, and no permits would be amended to change research activities, sample sizes, or objectives. However, under the Status Quo Alternative, new permits would be issued to replace existing permits as they expire such that the current level of research and types of research activities would continue. Since the Status Quo would not allow issuance of permits for any research activities, objectives, or sample sizes not currently permitted, it would preclude adaptive changes in the research program that may be responsive to changes in the population status or threats to the recovery of the species. The Status Quo and two other alternatives considered by NMFS may be eliminated from detailed study because they would not allow conduct of research identified by NMFS as necessary for conservation of the species. The other two alternatives that may be eliminated from further study are:
(1)imposing a research permit moratorium (i.e., suspending or revoking existing permits and not issuing new ones) and
(2)suspending all intrusive research activities (i.e., stopping biopsy sampling, instrument attachment, and other activities that could result in physical injury). In addition to preventing collection of information about Steller sea lions and northern fur seals needed for NMFS conservation and recovery efforts for these species, a research permit moratorium would hinder NMFS ability to monitor the status of these populations, which is important in making informed management decisions. Suspending permits for intrusive research would impede collection of information on Steller sea lion and northern fur seal habitat use and population structure which is needed for NMFS' conservation and recovery efforts for these species. The EIS will assess the direct and indirect effects of the alternative approaches to funding and permitting Steller sea lion and northern fur seal research. The EIS will assess the effects on these species as well as other components of the marine ecosystem and human environment. The EIS will assess the contribution of research activities to the cumulative effects on these resources, including effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events and activities that are external to the research activities. The EIS will also assess the potential beneficial impacts of the research as it relates to conservation of Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. Anyone having relevant information they believe NMFS should consider in its analysis should provide a description of that information along with complete citations for supporting documents. For additional information about Steller seal lions, northern fur seals, the permit process, and related information for these species, please visit our website at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/steller.htm* . Scoping Meetings Agenda Public scoping meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations: 1. January 18, 2006, 1 - 4 p.m., Silver Spring Metro Center, Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD; 2. January 20, 2006, 4 - 7 p.m., Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Building 9, Seattle, WA; and 3. January 23, 2006, 5 - 8 p.m., Hilton Anchorage, 501 West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK. Comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and can be mailed to NMFS by February 13, 2006 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). NMFS will consider all comments received during the comment period. All hardcopy submissions must be unbound, on paper no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches (216 by 279 mm), and suitable for copying and electronic scanning. NMFS requests that you include in your comments:
(1)Your name and address;
(2)Whether or not you would like to receive a copy of the Draft EIS; and
(3)Any background documents to support your comments as you feel necessary. Special Accommodations These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tammy Adams or Andrew Wright, 301-713-2289 (voice) or 301-427-2583 (fax), at least 5 days before the scheduled meeting date. Dated: December 20, 2005. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E5-7989 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 121905E] Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings/Workshop AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a public workshop to review and critique its groundfish stock assessment process in 2005. DATES: The Groundfish Stock Assessment Process Review Workshop will commence at 8 a.m., Friday, January 13, 2006, and continue until business for the day is completed. ADDRESSES: The Groundfish Stock Assessment Process Review Workshop meeting will be held at the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel, Columbian A Room, 8235 NE Airport Way, Portland, OR 97220; telephone:
(503)281-2500. *Council address* : Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 N.E. Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384; telephone:
(503)820-2280. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Groundfish Stock Assessment Process Review Workshop is for participants in the Council's 2005 stock assessment process to consider the procedures used in 2005 to assess and update groundfish stock abundance and develop recommendations for improving the process for future assessments. No management actions will be decided in this workshop. Any recommendations developed at the workshop will be submitted for consideration by the Council at its March meeting in Seattle, WA. Although non-emergency issues not identified in the workshop agenda may come before the workshop participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this workshop. Formal action at the workshop will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the workshop participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at
(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the workshop date. Dated: December 21, 2005. Emily Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E5-7851 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 122005A] 50 CFR Part 660 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings and Hearings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of reports; public meetings, and hearings. SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has begun its annual preseason management process for the 2006 ocean salmon fisheries. This document announces the availability of Council documents as well as the dates and locations of Council meetings and public hearings comprising the Council's complete schedule of events for determining the annual proposed and final modifications to ocean salmon fishery management measures. The agendas for the March and April Council meetings will be published in subsequent **Federal Register** documents prior to the actual meetings. DATES: Written comments on the salmon management options must be received by March 28, 2006, at 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time. ADDRESSES: Documents will be available from and written comments should be sent to Mr. Donald Hansen, Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384, telephone: 503-820-2280 (voice) or 503-820-2299 (fax). Comments can also be submitted via e-mail at *PFMC.comments@noaa.gov* address, or through the internet at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments, and include the I.D. number in the subject line of the message. For specific meeting and hearing locations, see supplementary information. *Council Address:* Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Tracy, telephone: 503-820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Schedule for Document Completion and Availability *February 28, 2005:* “Review of 2005 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and “Preseason Report I-Stock Abundance Analysis for 2006 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” will be available to the public from the Council office and posted on the Council website at *http://www.pcouncil.org* . *March 21, 2006:* “Preseason Report II-Analysis of Proposed Regulatory Options for 2006 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and public hearing schedule will be mailed to the public and posted on the Council website at *http://www.pcouncil.org* . The report will include a description of the adopted salmon management options and a summary of their biological and economic impacts. *April 21, 2006:* Council adopted ocean salmon fishing management measures will be posted on the Council website at *http://www.pcouncil.org* . *May 1, 2006:* Federal regulations will be implemented and “Preseason Report III-Analysis of Council-Adopted Ocean Salmon Management Measures for 2006 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” will be available from the Council office and posted on the Council web site at *http://www.pcouncil.org* . Meetings and Hearings *January 17-20, 2006:* The Salmon Technical Team
(STT)will meet at the Council office in a public work session to draft “Review of 2005 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and to consider any other estimation or methodology issues pertinent to the 2006 ocean salmon fisheries. *February 7-10, 2006:* The STT will meet at the Council office in a public work session to draft “Preseason Report I-Stock Abundance Analysis for 2006 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and to consider any other estimation or methodology issues pertinent to the 2006 ocean salmon fisheries. *March 5-10, 2006:* The Council and advisory entities will meet at the Seattle Marriott Hotel, Sea Tac, 3201 S. 176th Street, Seattle, WA 98188 Phone: 206-241-2000, to adopt the 2006 salmon management options for public review. *March 27-28, 2006:* Public hearings will be held to receive comments on the proposed ocean salmon fishery management options adopted by the Council. All public hearings begin at 7 p.m. at the following locations: *March 27, 2006:* Chateau Westport, Beach Room, 710 W Hancock, Westport, WA 98595, telephone 360-268-9101. *March 27, 2006:* Red Lion Hotel, South Umpqua Room, 1313 N Bayshore Drive, Coos Bay, OR 97420, telephone 541-267-4141. *March 28, 2006:* Flamingo Hotel, Flamingo Ballroom, 2777 Fourth Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95405, telephone 707-545-8530. *April 3-7, 2006:* Council and advisory entities meet at the Doubletree Hotel Sacramento, 2001 Point West Way, Sacramento, CA 95815, Phone: 916-929-8855, to adopt 2006 management measures for implementation by NMFS. *April 4, 2006:* Testimony on the management options is taken during the Council meeting at the Doubletree Hotel Sacramento, Sacramento, CA. Although non emergency issues not contained in the STT meeting agendas may come before the STT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STT action during these meetings. STT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and to any issues arising after publication of this document requiring emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the STT's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 (voice), or 503-820-2299
(fax)at least five days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et. seq.* Dated: December 22, 2005. Alan D. Risenhoover Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E5-7988 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Wool Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Belarus December 21, 2005. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection adjusting limits. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call
(202)344-2650, or refer to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection website at *http://www.cbp.gov* . For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website 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 current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing pursuant to paragraph 5(A) of the Memorandum of Understanding agreement between the governments of the Republic of Belarus and the United States. 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. See 69 FR 57270 (September 24, 2004). James C. Leonard III, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements December 21, 2005. Commissioner, *U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229.* Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on September 20, 2004, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain wool and man-made fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in Belarus and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2005 and extends through December 31, 2005. Effective on December 28, 2005, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, pursuant to paragraph 5(A) of the Memorandum of Understanding agreement between the Governments of the United States and Belarus, dated January 10, 2003, as amended May 13, 2004: Category Twelve-month restraint limit 1 435 72,099 dozen. 448 28,943 dozen. 1 The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December 31, 2004. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to 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. E5-7946 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Entry of Shipments of Wool and Man-Made Fiber Textiles and Apparel in Excess of 2005 Agreement Limits December 21, 2005. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (the Committee). ACTION: Directive to Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854). In the letter to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection published below, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is directed to implement staged entry limits for Belarus for shipments in excess of 2005 agreement limits. CITA has previously established a policy of only allowing entry of shipments in excess of quota limits once a new quota year has begun, and there is an agreement with the exporting country that allows overshipments to be charged to the subsequent year's quotas. In a **Federal Register** Notice published on June 25, 2004, CITA announced that it had come to CITA's attention that some textile and apparel products may be shipped in excess of agreed quota limits in 2004 with the expectation that those shipments will be allowed entry upon the expiration of the limits, and CITA noted that shipments exported in excess of agreed limits are a violation of the terms of those agreements. (69 FR 35586) In that Notice, CITA expressly reserved the right to deny entry to goods that have been shipped in excess of agreed limits or to stage entry for goods exported in excess of agreed limits. In the absence of an arrangement with Belarus to allow the entry in 2006 of overshipments of the 2005 textile agreement limits, to be charged to 2006 quota limits, and until such time as such an arrangement is agreed upon, shipments in excess of the 2005 limits for imports of textile products from Belarus will be subject to delayed and staged entry. For all shipments exported in 2005 that exceed the applicable 2005 agreed quota limits from Belarus, entry will not be permitted until February 1, 2006. From February 1 through February 28, 2006, entry will be permitted to goods in an amount equal to 5 percent of the applicable 2005 base quota limit. For each succeeding month, beginning on the first day of the month and extending through the last day of the month, entry will be permitted to goods in an amount equal to 5 percent of the applicable base 2005 quota limit, until all shipments in excess of the quota limits have been entered. The 5 percent staged entry limits described above are published in the following letter to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. James C. Leonard III, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements December 21, 2005. Commissioner, *Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229.* Dear Commissioner: This directive provides instructions on permitting entry to goods shipped in excess of 2005 quota limits for Belarus. For all shipments exported in 2005 that exceed the applicable 2005 agreed quota limits for Belarus, you are directed to deny entry until February 1, 2006, subject to the following procedure. From February 1 through February 28, 2006, you are directed to permit entry to goods in an amount equal to 5 percent of the applicable 2005 base quota limit. For each succeeding month, beginning on the first day of the month and extending through the last day of the month, you are directed to permit entry to goods in an amount equal to 5 percent of the applicable base 2005 quota limit, until all shipments in excess of the quota limits have been entered. The monthly 5 percent staged entry limits described above are listed below: Category 5 percent of 2005 base limit 435 3,433 dozen. 448 1,769 dozen. 622 511,238 square meters. (622-L) 1 84,270 square meters. (622-N) 2 32,400 square meters. 1 Category 622-L: only HTS numbers 7019.51.9010, 7019.52.4010, 7019.52.9010, 7019.59.4010, and 7019.59.9010. 2 Category 622-N: only HTS numbers 7019.52.40.21, 7019.52.90.21, 7019.59.40.21, 7019.59.90.21. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that this action falls within the foreign affairs exception to 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. E5-7947 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Headquarters United States Air Force (HQ USAF) Scientific Advisory Board; Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY: Department of the Air Force (Air Force), DoD. ACTION: Notice of Closed Meeting of the HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, and in keeping with one or more of the exemptions as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and (4); notice is hereby given of the forthcoming meeting of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. The purpose of the meeting is to present the findings/results of the Science and Technology Quality reviews accomplished in FY 2005 to the assembled SAB. Because contractor-proprietary information will be discussed, this meeting will be closed to the public. DATES: Closed Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Major Kyle Gresham, Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat, 1180 Air Force Pentagon, Room 5D982, Washington, DC 20330-1180,
(703)697-4811. Lawrence Shade, Acting, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 05-24600 Filed 12-23-05; 11:59 am]
Connectionstraces to 24
Traces to 24 documents
CFR
9 references not yet in our index
  • 984 F. Supp. 629
  • 178 F.3d 1311
  • 337 F.3d 1373
  • 797 F. Supp. 1020
  • 884 F.2d 556
  • 396 F.3d 1378
  • 40 CFR 1506.2(d)
  • 50 CFR 660
  • Pub. L. 94-409
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Intent to prepare environmental impact statement; request for comments
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.216
C.F.R.§ 351.222
F. Supp.984 F. Supp. 629
F. App'x178 F.3d 1311
F. App'x337 F.3d 1373
Cites 33 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.