Notices. Notice of meeting

25,293 words·~115 min read·/register/2006/01/23/06-595

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Courthouse Access Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has established an advisory committee to advise the Board on issues related to the accessibility of courthouses covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.

The Courthouse Access Advisory Committee (Committee) includes organizations with an interest in courthouse accessibility. This notice announces the date, times and location of the next Committee meeting, which will be open to the public. DATES: The meeting of the Committee is scheduled for February 9, 2006 (beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 5 p.m.) and February 10, 2006 (beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 3 p.m.). ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Yanchulis, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number

(202)272-0026 (Voice);

(202)272-0082 (TTY). E-mail *yanchulis@access-board.gov.* This document is available in alternate formats (cassette tape, Braille, large print, or computer disk). This document is also available on the Board's Internet site ( *http://www.access-board.gov/caac/meeting.htm* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2004, as part of the outreach efforts on courthouse accessibility, the Access Board established a Federal advisory committee to advise the Access Board on issues related to the accessibility of courthouses, particularly courtrooms, including best practices, design solutions, promotion of accessible features, educational opportunities, and the gathering of information on existing barriers, practices, recommendations, and guidelines. On October 12, 2004, the Access Board published a notice appointing 31 members to the Courthouse Access Advisory Committee. 69 FR 60608 (October 12, 2004). Members of the Committee include designers and architects, disability groups, members of the judiciary, court administrators, representatives of the codes community and standard-setting entities, government agencies, and others with an interest in the issues to be explored. The Committee held its initial meeting on November 4 and 5, 2004. Members discussed the current requirements for accessibility, committee goals and objectives and the establishment of subcommittees. The second meeting of the Committee was held in February, 2005. The Committee toured two courthouses and established three subcommittees: Education, Courtrooms and Courthouses (areas unique to courthouses other than courtrooms). Three additional meetings were held in May, August and November of 2005. Members of the Committee toured several courthouses and continued work in the three subcommittees. Minutes of the meetings may be found on the Access Board's web site at *http://www.access-board.gov/caac/index.htm.* At the February meeting of the Committee, members will continue to address issues both as a full Committee and in subcommittees. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons can attend the meetings and communicate their views. Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the Committee on issues of interest to them and the Committee during public comment periods scheduled on each day of the meeting. Members of groups or individuals who are not members of the Committee are invited to participate on the subcommittees. The Access Board believes that participation of this kind can be very valuable for the advisory committee process. The meeting will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Real-time captioning will be provided. Individuals who require sign language interpreters should contact David Yanchulis by January 26, 2006. Notices of future meetings will be published in the **Federal Register** . Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E6-743 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the Secretary Estimates of the Voting Age Population for 2005 AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Commerce. ACTION: General notice announcing population estimates. SUMMARY: This notice announces the voting age population estimates, as of July 1, 2005, for each State and the District of Columbia. We are giving this notice in accordance with the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 2, United States Code, Section 441a(e). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Signe I. Wetrogan, Acting Chief, Population Division, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Room 2019, Federal Building 3, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-2093. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the requirements of the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 2, United States Code, Section 441a(e), I hereby give notice that the estimates of the voting age population for July 1, 2005, for each State and the District of Columbia are as shown in the following table. Estimates of the Population of Voting Age for Each State and the District of Columbia: July 1, 2005 [In thousands] Area Population 18 and over United States 222,940,420 Alabama 3,468,055 Alaska 475,337 Arizona 4,358,856 Arkansas 2,103,532 California 26,430,285 Colorado 3,484,652 Connecticut 2,675,291 Delaware 647,645 District of Columbia 437,684 Florida 13,721,987 Georgia 6,709,854 Hawaii 975,342 Idaho 1,054,916 Illinois 9,522,332 Indiana 4,669,126 Iowa 2,295,533 Kansas 2,070,402 Kentucky 3,193,245 Louisiana 3,375,977 Maine 1,044,169 Maryland 4,197,427 Massachusetts 4,940,707 Michigan 7,596,586 Minnesota 3,903,221 Mississippi 2,172,544 Missouri 4,422,078 Montana 730,676 Nebraska 1,327,158 Nevada 1,793,627 New Hampshire 1,006,789 New Jersey 6,556,124 New Mexico 1,438,902 New York 14,708,746 North Carolina 6,542,201 North Dakota 500,159 Ohio 8,704,930 Oklahoma 2,694,548 Oregon 2,791,112 Pennsylvania 9,612,877 Rhode Island 830,835 South Carolina 3,227,881 South Dakota 587,663 Tennessee 4,572,437 Texas 16,533,683 Utah 1,727,029 Vermont 490,431 Virginia 5,742,897 Washington 4,803,394 West Virginia 1,434,359 Wisconsin 4,240,206 Wyoming 394,973 I have certified these counts to the Federal Election Commission. Dated: January 10, 2006. Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary, Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E6-660 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* 2007 Economic Census General Classification Report. *Form Number(s):* NC-99023, NC-99023-L1, NC-99023-L11, NC-99023-L21, NC-99023-L31. *Agency Approval Number:* None. *Type of Request:* New collection. *Burden:* 33,333 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 200,000. *Avg. Hours per Response:* 10 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* Accurate and reliable industry and geographic codes are critical to the U.S. Census Bureau's economic statistical programs. New businesses are assigned industry classifications by the Social Security Administration (SSA). Over seven percent of these businesses cannot be assigned industry codes because insufficient information is provided on the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)Form SS-4. Since the 2002 Economic Census, the number of unclassified businesses has grown to over 110,000 (over 3% increase). In order to provide detailed industry data for the 2007 Economic Census and the Business Register, the basic sampling frame for many of our current surveys, these unclassified businesses must be assigned North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. During the 2007 Economic Census, the NC-99023 questionnaire will be used to collect information from unclassified single-unit establishments. In 2006, the year prior to the census, this form will be used to collect information from:

(1)Unclassified establishments due to insufficient information provided on their SS-4 forms, and

(2)partially classified establishments. Establishments that are currently unclassified or partially classified could be misclassified in the economic census without a complete NAICS code. This refile operation will determine a complete and reliable classification in order to ensure the establishment is tabulated in the correct detailed industry for the 2007 Economic Census. Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics

(BLS)provides industry codes for establishments that they have classified in their universe but which are unclassified in the Business Register, detailed industry classification would still be missing for the remaining units. If these establishments are not mailed as part of the economic census, economic data for these cases could be lost. Classification information obtained from these establishments will also be included in the Census Bureau's County Business Patterns

(CBP)publications. CBP publications provide annual data on establishment counts, employment, and payroll for all sectors of the economy at national, State, and county levels. The economic census is the primary source of facts about the structure and functioning of the Nation's economy featuring industry and geographic detail. Economic census statistics and their derivatives serve as part of the framework for the national accounts and provide essential information for government, business, and the general public. The Federal Government uses census information as an important part of the framework for the national income and product accounts, input-output tables, economic indexes, and other composite measures that serve as the factual basis for economic policy-making, planning, and program administration. Further, the census provides sampling frames and benchmarks for current surveys of business which track short-term economic trends, serve as economic indicators, and contribute critical source data for current estimates of gross domestic product. State and local governments rely on the economic census as a unique source of small geographic area economic statistics for use in policy-making, planning, and program administration. Finally, industry, business, academia, and the general public use information from the economic census for evaluating markets, preparing business plans and making business decisions; conducting economic research, including forecasting and modeling; and establishing benchmarks for their own sample surveys. The failure to collect this information would result in less reliable source data and benchmarks reflecting today's economy for the national accounts, input-output tables, and other measures of economic activity. This would lead to a substantial degradation in the quality of these important statistics. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* Every 5 years. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* 13 U.S.C. 131 and 224. *OMB Desk Officer:* Susan Schechter,

(202)395-5103. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk Officer, either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *susan_schechter@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: January 17, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-675 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Collection: Request for Comments *Title:* Voluntary Customer Service Survey. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, (or via the Internet at *DHynek@doc.gov.* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6703, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This collection of information is required to obtain feedback on the quality of services BIS delivers to the public. This information will be used to improve the quality of services and to measure Government performance in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act. This survey will be voluntary and not more than one page in length. BIS will offer the survey in paper and electronic formats. II. Method of Collection Submitted on forms or electronically. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-01xx. *Form Number:* BIS-xxx. *Type of Review:* New collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,000. *Estimated Time per Response:* 5 minutes per response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 167 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* No start-up capital expenditures. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide suggestions on how to reduce and/or consolidate the current frequency of reporting. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: January 17, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-673 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-809, A-583-821] Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders: Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India and Taiwan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the Commission) that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on forged stainless steel flanges (flanges) from India and Taiwan. The Department is publishing notice of the continuation of these antidumping duty orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 29, 2005 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah L. Scott or Robert James, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2657 or 482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 1, 2005, the Department initiated and the Commission instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on flanges from India and Taiwan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews* , 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005), and *Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India and Taiwan* , 70 FR 38195 (July 1, 2005). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the Commission of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. *See Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India and Taiwan; Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders; Final Results* , 70 FR 67137 (November 4, 2005). On December 7, 2005, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on flanges from India and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from Taiwan* , 70 FR 76074 (December 22, 2005), and USITC Publication 3827 (December 2005) (Investigations Nos. 731-TA-639 and 640 (Second Review)). Scope of the Orders The products covered by these orders are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connections; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of these orders are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to these orders are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* ( *HTSUS* ). Although the *HTSUS* subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the scope of the orders. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the Commission that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on flanges from India and Taiwan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise from all manufacturers and exporters of flanges from India and Taiwan, except Viraj Forgings, Ltd., for which the order on flanges from India was revoked. The effective date of the continuation for these orders is December 29, 2005. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these antidumping orders not later than December 2010. These sunset reviews and this continuation notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to 777(i) of the Act. Dated: January 17, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-724 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-838] Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or Salim Bhabhrawala, at

(202)482-0631 or

(202)482-1784, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 12, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) determined that certain softwood lumber products from Canada are being sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 73437 (December 12, 2005) (Final Results). On December 14, 2005, the petitioner, 1 the Abitibi Group 2 (Abitibi), Buchanan Lumber Sales Inc. 3 (Buchanan), Canfor Corporation 4 (Canfor), Weyerhaeuser Company (Weyerhaeuser) and, the Quebec Lumber Manufacturers Association

(QLMA)filed timely ministerial error allegations pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2). On December 19 and 21, we received rebuttal comments from the petitioner and Canfor. Also on December 21, we received a request from the Canadian Lumber Remanufacturers Association

(CLRA)that a spelling error in the name of Brittania Lumber Company Limited be corrected. 1 The petitioner in this case is the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports Executive Committee. We note that during the review, submissions have been made interchangeably by the petitioner itself and by the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, a domestic interested party. For ease of reference, we will use the term “petitioner” to refer to submissions by either, although we recognize that the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports is not the actual petitioner. 2 Includes Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada, Produits Forestiers Petits Paris Inc., Produits Forestiers La Tuque Inc. and Societe en Commandite Opitciwan. 3 Including its affiliates Atikokan Forest Products Ltd., Long Lake Forest Products Inc., Nakina Forest Products Limited, Buchanan Distribution Inc., Buchanan Forest Products Ltd., Great West Timber Ltd., Dubreuil Forest Products Ltd., Northern Sawmills Inc., McKenzie Forest Products Inc., Buchanan Northern Hardwoods Inc., Northern Wood, and Solid Wood Products Inc. 4 Including its affiliates and/or subsidiaries, Canfor Wood Products Marketing Ltd., Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., Bois Daaquam Inc./Daaquam Lumber Inc., Lakeland Mills Ltd., The Pas Lumber Company Ltd./Winton Sales, Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Limited Partnership, Winton Global Lumber Ltd., and Skeena Cellulose. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are softwood lumber, flooring and siding (softwood lumber products). Softwood lumber products include all products classified under headings 4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and 4409.1020, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and any softwood lumber, flooring and siding described below. These softwood lumber products include:

(1)Coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness exceeding six millimeters;

(2)Coniferous wood siding (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed;

(3)Other coniferous wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces (other than wood moldings and wood dowel rods) whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed; and

(4)Coniferous wood flooring (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Preliminary scope exclusions and clarifications were published in three separate **Federal Register** notices. Softwood lumber products excluded from the scope: Trusses and truss kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4418.90 I-joist beams Assembled box spring frames Pallets and pallet kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4415.20 Garage doors Edge-glued wood, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.97.40 (formerly HTSUS 4421.90.98.40) Properly classified complete door frames Properly classified complete window frames Properly classified furniture Softwood lumber products excluded from the scope only if they meet certain requirements: *Stringers* (pallet components used for runners): if they have at least two notches on the side, positioned at equal distance from the center, to properly accommodate forklift blades, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.97.40 (formerly HTSUS 4421.90.98.40). *Box-spring frame kits:* if they contain the following wooden pieces—two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying numbers of slats. The side rails and the end rails should be radius-cut at both ends. The kits should be individually packaged, they should contain the exact number of wooden components needed to make a particular box spring frame, with no further processing required. None of the components exceeds 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length. *Radius-cut box-spring-frame components* , not exceeding 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length, ready for assembly without further processing. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the boards and must be substantial cuts so as to completely round one corner. *Fence pickets* requiring no further processing and properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.70, 1″ or less in actual thickness, up to 8″ wide, 6′ or less in length, and have finials or decorative cuttings that clearly identify them as fence pickets. In the case of dog-eared fence pickets, the corners of the boards should be cut off so as to remove pieces of wood in the shape of isosceles right angle triangles with sides measuring 3/4 inch or more. *U.S. origin lumber* shipped to Canada for minor processing and imported into the United States, is excluded from the scope of this order if the following conditions are met:

(1)The processing occurring in Canada is limited to kiln-drying, planing to create smooth-to-size board, and sanding, and

(2)the importer establishes to CBP's satisfaction that the lumber is of U.S. origin. 5 5 For further clarification pertaining to this exclusion, see the additional language concluding the scope description below. *Softwood lumber products contained in single family home packages or kits* , 6 regardless of tariff classification, are excluded from the scope of the orders if the following criteria are met: 6 To ensure administrability, we clarified the language of this exclusion to require an importer certification and to permit single or multiple entries on multiple days, as well as instructing importers to retain and make available for inspection specific documentation in support of each entry. 1. The imported home package or kit constitutes a full package of the number of wooden pieces specified in the plan, design or blueprint necessary to produce a home of at least 700 square feet produced to a specified plan, design or blueprint; 2. The package or kit must contain all necessary internal and external doors and windows, nails, screws, glue, subfloor, sheathing, beams, posts, connectors and, if included in purchase contract, decking, trim, drywall and roof shingles specified in the plan, design or blueprint; 3. Prior to importation, the package or kit must be sold to a retailer of complete home packages or kits pursuant to a valid purchase contract referencing the particular home design plan or blueprint, and signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer; 4. The whole package must be imported under a single consolidated entry when permitted by CBP, whether or not on a single or multiple trucks, rail cars or other vehicles, which shall be on the same day except when the home is over 2,000 square feet; 5. The following documentation must be included with the entry documents: A copy of the appropriate home design, plan, or blueprint matching the entry; A purchase contract from a retailer of home kits or packages signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer; A listing of inventory of all parts of the package or kit being entered that conforms to the home design package being entered; In the case of multiple shipments on the same contract, all items listed immediately above which are included in the present shipment shall be identified as well. We have determined that the excluded products listed above are outside the scope of this order provided the specified conditions are met. Lumber products that CBP may classify as stringers, radius cut box-spring-frame components, and fence pickets, not conforming to the above requirements, as well as truss components, pallet components, and door and window frame parts, are covered under the scope of this order and may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 4418.90.40.90, 4421.90.70.40, and 4421.90.98.40. Due to changes in the 2002 HTSUS whereby subheading 4418.90.40.90 and 4421.90.98.40 were changed to 4418.90.45.90 and 4421.90.97.40, respectively, we are adding these subheadings as well. In addition, this scope language has been further clarified to now specify that all softwood lumber products entered from Canada claiming non-subject status based on U.S. country of origin will be treated as non-subject U.S.-origin merchandise under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, provided that these softwood lumber products meet the following condition: upon entry, the importer, exporter, Canadian processor and/or original U.S. producer establish to CBP's satisfaction that the softwood lumber entered and documented as U.S.-origin softwood lumber was first produced in the United States as a lumber product satisfying the physical parameters of the softwood lumber scope. 7 The presumption of non-subject status can, however, be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the merchandise was substantially transformed in Canada. 7 See the scope clarification message (3034202), dated February 3, 2003, to CBP, regarding treatment of U.S.-origin lumber on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. 8 Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada was inadvertently omitted for the final results. 9 We note that Nakina Forest Products Limited is a division of Long Lake Forest Products, Inc., an affiliate of Buchanan Lumber Sales. 10 Canfor's weighted-average margin is based upon a weighted-average of Canfor's and Slocan's respective cash deposit rates prior to the merger. See Memorandum from Salim Bhabhrawala, International Trade Compliance Analyst to The File, Re: Analysis Memorandum For Canfor Corporation (December 5, 2005). We also note that, during the POR, Sinclar Enterprises Ltd. (Sinclar) acted as an affiliated reseller for Lakeland, an affiliate of Canfor. In this review, we reviewed the sales of Canfor and its affiliates; therefore, Canfor's weighted-average margin applies to all sales of subject merchandise produced by any member of the Canfor Group and sold by Sinclar. As Sinclar also separately requested a review, any sales of subject merchandise produced by another manufacturer and sold by Sinclar will receive the “Review-Specific Average” rate. Finally, we note that Canadian Forest Products, Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Canfor and will receive Canfor's weighted-average margin. Amended Final Results In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act, we have determined that ministerial errors were made in our Final Results margin calculations. For a detailed discussion of the ministerial error allegations and the Department's analysis, see Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, regarding Ministerial Error Allegations, dated January 12, 2006, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B-099 of the main Department building. In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of lumber from Canada to correct these ministerial errors. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for the period May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004, are listed below: Producer/exporter Original weighted-average margin (percentage) Amended weighted-average margin (percentage) Abitibi (and its affiliates Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada, 8 Produits Forestiers Petit Paris Inc., Produits Forestiers La Tuque Inc., Produits Forestiers Sagenay Inc. and Societe En Commandite Scierie Opticiwan) 2.52 2.52 Buchanan (and its affiliates Atikokan Forest Products Ltd., Long Lake Forest Products Inc., Nakina Forest Products Limited, 9 Buchanan Distribution Inc., Buchanan Forest Products Ltd., Great West Timber Ltd., Dubreuil Forest Products Ltd., Northern Sawmills Inc., McKenzie Forest Products Inc., Buchanan Northern Hardwoods Inc., Northern Wood, and Solid Wood Products Inc.) 1.36 1.35 Canfor 10 (and its affiliates Canfor Wood Products Marketing Ltd., Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., Bois Daaquam Inc. / Daaquam Lumber Inc., Lakeland Mills Ltd., The Pas Lumber Company Ltd. / Winton Sales, Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Limited Partnership, Winton Global Lumber Ltd., and Skeena Cellulose) 4.02 4.02 Tembec (and its affiliates Marks Lumber Ltd., Excel Forest Products, Les Industries Davidson Inc., Produits Forestiers Temrex Limited Partnership, Tembec Industries Inc., Spruce Falls Inc.) 3.09 3.09 Tolko (and its affiliates Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd., Compwood Products Ltd., and Pinnacle Wood Products Ltd.) 3.09 3.09 Weldwood 0.61 0.61 West Fraser (and its affiliates West Fraser Forest Products Inc. and Seehta Forest Products Ltd.) 0.51 0.51 Weyerhaeuser (and its affiliate Weyerhaeuser Saskatchewan Ltd.) 4.43 4.43 REVIEW-SPECIFIC AVERAGE RATE APPLICABLE TO THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES 11 : 11 In the Preliminary Results, we listed companies on the review-specific rate list that did not request a review or have a review requested on them for the current review. Therefore, we have removed the following companies from the review specific-rate list for the final results: AFA Forest Products Inc., Associated Cedar Products, Ivis Wood Products, Lazy S Lumber, Mary's River Lumber, New West Lumber Ltd., Quadra Wood Products Ltd., Schols Cedar Products, Standard Building Products Ltd., Still Creek Forest Products Ltd., Taiga Forest Products, Western Cleanwood Preservers Ltd. and Western Wood Preservers Ltd. All of the above companies participated in the 1st Administrative Review and will continue to receive the review-specific average rate (3.78%) from that review. 2 by 4 Lumber Sales Ltd. 605666 BC Ltd. 9027-7971 Quebec Inc. (Scierie Marcel Dumont) 9098-5573 Quebec Inc. (K.C.B. International) A. L. Stuckless & Sons Limited AJ Forest Products Ltd. Alexandre Cote Ltee. Allmac Lumber Sales Ltd. Allmar International Alpa Lumber Mills Inc. American Bayridge Corporation Apex Forest Products, Inc. Apollo Forest Products Limited Aquila Cedar Products Ltd. Arbutus Manufacturing Limited Ardew Wood Products, Ltd. Armand Duhamel & Fils Inc. Ashley Colter

(1961)Limited Aspen Planers Ltd. Atco Lumber Atlantic Pressure Treating Ltd. Atlantic Warehousing Limited/Atlantic Warehousing Ltd. Atlas Lumber (Alberta) Ltd. AWL Forest Products B&L Forest Products Ltd. Bakerview Forest Products Inc. Bardeaux et Cedres St-Honore Inc. (Bardeaux et Cedres) Barrett Lumber Company/Barrett Lumber Company Limited Barrette-Chapais Ltee. Barry Maedel Woods & Timber Bathurst Lumber (Division of UPM-Kymmene Miramichi Inc.) Beaubois Coaticook Inc. Blackville Lumber (Division of UPM-Kymmene Miramichi Inc.) Blanchette et Blanchette Inc. Bloomfield Lumber Limited Bois Cobodex

(1995)Inc. Bois De L'Est F.B. Inc. Bois Granval G.D.S. Inc. Bois Kheops Inc. Bois Marsoui G.D.S. Inc. Bois Neos Inc. Bois Nor Que Wood Inc. Boisaco Inc. Boscus Canada Inc. Boucher Forest Products Ltd. Bowater Canadian Forest Products Inc. Bowater Incorporated Bridgeside Forest Industries, Ltd. Bridgeside Higa Forest Industries Ltd. Brittania Lumber Company Limited Brouwer Excavating Ltd. Brunswick Valley Lumber/Brunswick Valley Lumber Inc. Buchanan Lumber Busque & Laflamme Inc. BW Creative Wood Byrnexco Inc. C. E. Harrison & Son Ltd./C. E. Harrison & Son Limited Caledon Log Homes

(FEWO)Caledonia Forest Products Ltd. Cambie Cedar Products Ltd. Canadian Lumber Company Ltd. Cando Contracting Ltd. Canex International Lumber Sales Ltd. CanWel Building Materials Ltd. CanWel Distribution Ltd. Canyon Lumber Company Ltd. Cape Cod Wood Siding Inc. Cardinal Lumber Manufacturing & Sales Inc. Careau Bois Inc. Carrier & Begin Inc Carrier Forest Products Ltd. Carrier Lumber Ltd. Carson Lake Lumber Cattermole Timber CDS Lumber Products Cedarland Forest Products Ltd. Cedrico Lumber Inc. (Bois d'Oeuvre Cedrico Inc.) Central Cedar Ltd. Centurion Lumber Manufacturing

(1983)Ltd. Chaleur Sawmills Chasyn Wood Technologies Inc. Cheminis Lumber Inc. Cheslatta Forest Products Ltd. Chisholm's (Roslin) Ltd. Choicewood Products Inc. City Lumber Sales and Services Limited Clair Industrial Dev. Corp. Ltd./Clair Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. Clermond Hamel Ltee. Coast Clear Wood Ltd. Colonial Fence Mfg. Ltd. Columbia Mills Ltd. Comeau Lumber Limited Commonwealth Plywood Company Ltd. dba Bois Clo-Val (formerly Bois Clo-Val Inc.), W.C. Edwards Lumber (formerly The W.C. Edwards Co., Ltd.) and Les Enterprises Atlas (formerly Les Enterprises Atlas

(1985)Inc.) Cooper Creek Cedar Ltd. Cottles Island Lumber Co. Ltd. Cowichan Lumber Ltd. Crystal Forest Industries Ltd. Curley Cedar Post & Rail Cushman Lumber Company Inc. D.S. McFall Holdings Ltd. Dakeryn Industries Ltd. Deep Cove Lumber Delco Forest Products/Delco Forest Products Ltd. Delta Cedar Products Devlin Timber Company

(1992)Limited Devon Lumber Co. Ltd. Doman Forest Products Limited Doman Industries Limited Doman Western Lumber Ltd. Domexport Inc. Domtar Inc. Downie Timber Ltd. Dunkley Lumber Ltd. E. Tremblay Et. Fils Ltee. Eacan Timber Canada Ltd. Eacan Timber Limited/Eacan Timber Ltd. Eacan Timber USA Ltd. East Fraser Fiber Co. Ltd. Eastwood Forest Products Inc. Ed Bobocel Lumber 1993 Ltd. Edwin Blaikie Lumber Ltd. Elmira Wood Products Limited Elmsdale Lumber Company Ltd./Elmsdale Lumber Co., Ltd. ER Probyn Export Ltd. Errington Cedar Products Evergreen Empire Mills Incorporated EW Marketing F.L. Bodogh Lumber Co. Ltd. Falcon Lumber Limited Faulkner Wood Specialties Limited Federated Co-operatives Limited Fenclo Ltee. Finmac Lumber Limited Fontaine Inc. (dba J.A. Fontaine et fils Incorporee), Bois Fontaine Inc., Gestion Natanis Inc., and Les Placements Jean-Paul Fontaine Ltee. 12 12 In the Preliminary Results, we incorrectly listed Les Placements Jean-Paul Fontaine Ltee. as Paul Fontaine Ltee. and also as Les Placements Jean-Paul Fontaine Ltee. To correct this error we have removed Paul Fontaine Ltee. from the review-specific average rate list. Forex Log & Lumber Forstex Industries Inc. Forwest Wood Specialties Inc. Fraser Pacific Forest Products Inc. Fraser Pacific Lumber Company Fraser Papers Inc. Fraser Pulp Chips Ltd. Frasierview Cedar Products Ltd. Frontier Mills Inc. G.D.S. Valoribois Inc. Galloway Lumber Co. Ltd. Gerard Crete & Fils Inc. Gestofor Inc. Gogama Forest Products Goldwood Industries Ltd. Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd. Great Lakes MSR Lumber Ltd. Greenwood Forest Products Groupe Lebel H.A. Fawcett & Son Limited H.J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd. Haida Forest Products Ltd. Hainesville Sawmill Ltd. Harrison's Home Building Centers Harry Freeman & Son Ltd./Harry Freeman & Son Limited Hefler Forest Products Ltd. Hi-Knoll Cedar Inc. Hilmoe Forest Products Ltd. Hoeg Brothers Lumber Ltd. Holdright Lumber Products Ltd. Hudson Mitchell & Sons Lumber Inc. Hughes Lumber Specialties Inc. Hyak Specialty Wood Products Ltd. Industrial Wood Specialties Industries G.D.S. Inc. Industries Perron Inc. Interior Joinery Ltd. International Forest Products Ltd. Isidore Roy Limited Ivor Forest Products Ltd. J&G Logworks J.A. Turner & Sons

(1987)Limited J.D. Irving, Ltd. J.S. Jones Timber Ltd. Jackpine Engineered Wood Products Jackpine Forest Products Ltd. Jackpine Group of Companies Jamestown Lumber Company Limited/Jamestown Lumber Company Ltd. Jasco Forest Products Ltd. Jeffery Hanson Julimar Lumber Co. Limited Kenora Forest Products Ltd. Kent Trusses Ltd. Kenwood Lumber Ltd. Kispiox Forest Products Kitwanga Lumber Co. Ltd. Kruger, Inc. La Crete Sawmills Ltd. Lakeburn Lumber Limited Lamco Forest Products Landmark Structural Lumber Landmark Truss & Lumber Inc. Langely Timber Company Ltd. Langevin Forest Products, Inc. Lattes Waska Laths Inc. Lawsons Lumber Company Ltd. Lecours Lumber Co. Limited Ledwidge Lumber Co., Ltd. Leggett & Platt (B.C.) Ltd. Leggett & Platt Inc. Leggett & Platt Ltd. Les Bois d'Oeuvre Beaudoin & Gauthier Inc. Les Bois S&P Grondin Inc. Les Chantiers Chibougamau Ltee Les Produits Forestiers D. G. Ltee. Les Produits Forestiers Dube Inc. Les Produits Forestiers F.B.M. Inc. Les Produits Forestiers Maxibois Inc. Les Produits Forestiers Miradas Inc. (Miradas Forest Products Inc.) Les Scieries Du Lac St-Jean Inc. Les Scieries Jocelyn Lavoie Inc. Leslie Forest Products Ltd. Lignum Ltd. Lindsay Lumber Ltd. Liskeard Lumber Limited Littles Lumber Ltd. Lonestar Lumber Inc. Louisiana Pacific Corporation Lousiana Malakwa LP Canada Ltd. LP Engineered Wood Products Ltd. Lulumco Inc. Lyle Forest Products Ltd. M&G Higgins Lumber Ltd. M.L. Wilkins & Son Ltd. MacTara Limited Maibec Industries Inc. (Industries Maibec Inc.) Manitou Forest Products Ltd. Maple Creek Saw Mills Inc. Marcel Lauzon Inc. Marine Way Marwood Inc. Marwood Ltd. Materiaux Blanchet Inc. Max Meilleur et Fils Ltee. McCorquindale Holdings Ltd. McNutt Lumber Company Ltd. Mercury Manufacturing Inc. Meunier Lumber Company Ltd. MF Bernard Inc. Mid America Lumber Mid Valley Lumber Specialties Ltd. Midway Lumber Mills Ltd. Mill & Timber Products Ltd. Millar Western Forest Products Ltd. Millco Wood Products Ltd. Miramichi Lumber Products Mobilier Rustique (Beauce) Inc. Monterra Lumber Mills Limited Mountain View Specialty Reload Inc. Murray A Reeves Forestry Limited Murray Bros. Lumber Company Limited N.F. Douglas Lumber Limited/N.F. Douglas Lumber Ltd. Nechako Lumber Co., Ltd. Newcastle Lumber Co. Inc. Nexfor Inc. Nexfor Norbord Nicholson and Cates Limited Nickel Lake Lumber Norbord Industries Inc. Norbord Juniper and Norbord's sawmills at La Sarre Senneterre Quebec NorSask Forest Products Inc. North American Forest Products/North American Forest Products Ltd. North American Forest Products Ltd. (Division Belanger) North Atlantic Lumber Inc. North Enderby Distribution Ltd. (N.E. Distribution) North Enderby Timber Ltd. North Mitchell Lumber Co. Ltd., Saran Cedar North Shore Timber Ltd. North Star Wholesale Lumber Ltd. Northchip Ltd. Northland Forest Products Ltd. Olav Haavaldsrud Timber Company Limited Olympic Industries Inc. Optibois Inc. P.A. Lumber & Planning Limited Pacific Lumber Company Pacific Lumber Remanufacturing Inc. Pacific Northern Rail Contractors Corp. Pacific Specialty Wood Products Ltd. (formerly Clearwood Industries Ltd.) Pacific Wood Specialties Pallan Timber Products Ltd. Palliser Lumber Sales Ltd. Pan West Wood Products Ltd. Paragon Ventures Ltd. (Vernon Kiln and Millwork, Ltd. and 582912 BC, Ltd.) Parallel Wood Products Ltd. Pastway Planing Limited Pat Power Forest Products Corporation Patrick Lumber Company Paul Vallee Inc. Peak Forest Products Ltd. Pharlap Forest Products Inc. Phoenix Forest Products Inc. Pleasant Valley Remanufacturing Ltd. Pope & Talbot Inc./Pope & Talbot Ltd. Porcupine Wood Products Ltd. Portbec Forest Products Ltd. (Les Produits Forestiers Portbec Ltee.) Portelance Lumber Capreol Ltd. Power Wood Corp. Precibois Inc. Preparabois

(2003)Inc. Prime Lumber Limited Pro Lumber Inc. P. Proulx Forest Products Inc. (aka Proulx, Proulx Forest Products Inc. and Produits Forestiers P. Proulx Inc.) Produits Forestiers Arbec Inc. 13 13 On October 13, 2005, we found that Produits Forestiers Arbec Inc. was the successor-in-interest to Unforet Inc. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 59721 (October 13, 2005). We inadvertently omitted the new name in the final results and are including it here. Promobois G.D.S. Inc. R. Fryer Forest Products Limited Raintree Forest Products Inc. Raintree Lumber Specialties Ltd. Ramco Lumber Ltd. Redtree Cedar Products Ltd. Redwood Value Added Products Inc. Rembos Inc. Rene Bernard Inc. Ridgewood Forest Products Ltd./Ridgewood Forest Products Limited Rielly Industrial Lumber Inc. Riverside Forest Products Limited Rocam Lumber Inc. (Bois Rocam Inc.) Rojac Cedar Products Inc. Rojac Enterprises Inc. Roland Boulanger & Cie Ltee. Russell White Lumber Limited Sauder Moldings, Inc. (Ferndale) Sauder Industries Limited Scierie A&M St-Pierre Inc. Scierie Adrien Arseneault Ltee. Scierie Alexandre Lemay & Fils Inc. Scierie Chaleur/Scierie Chaleur Associes Scierie Dion et Fils Inc. Scierie Gallichan Inc. Scierie Gauthier Ltee. Scierie La Patrie, Inc. Scierie Landrienne Inc. Scierie Lapointe & Roy Ltee. Scierie Leduc, Division of Stadacona Inc. Scierie Nord-Sud Inc. (North-South Sawmill Inc.) Scierie P.S.E. Inc. Scierie St. Elzear Inc. Scierie Tech Inc. Scieries du Lac St. Jean Inc. Selkirk Specialty Wood Ltd. Sexton Lumber/Sexton Lumber Co. Limited Seycove Forest Products Limited Seymour Creek Cedar Products Ltd. Shawood Lumber Inc. Sigurdson Bros. Logging Company Ltd./Sigurdson Brothers Logging Company Ltd. Silvermere Forest Products Inc. Sinclar Enterprises Ltd.* South Beach Trading Inc. South River Planing Mills Inc. South-East Forest Products Ltd. Spray Lake Sawmills

(1980)Ltd. Spruce Forest Products Ltd. Spruce Products Ltd. St. Anthony Lathing Ltd. Stag Timber Stuart Lake Lumber Co. Ltd. Stuart Lake Marketing Inc./Stuart Lake Marketing Corporation Sunbury Cedar Sales Ltd. Suncoast Lumber & Milling Sundance Forest Industries SWP Industries Inc. Sylvanex Lumber Products Inc. Tall Tree Lumber Company Tarpin Lumber Incorporated Taylor Lumber Company Ltd. Teal Cedar Products Ltd. Teal-Jones Group Teeda Corp. Terminal Forest Products Ltd. T.F. Specialty Sawmill TFL Forest Ltd./TimberWest Forest Corp./Timber West Forest Company Timber Ridge Forest Products TimberWorld Forest Products Inc. T'loh Forest Products Limited Top Quality Lumber Ltd. T. P. Downey & Sons Ltd. Treeline Wood Products Ltd. Triad Forest Products Twin Rivers Cedar Products Ltd. Tyee Timber Products Ltd. Uneeda Wood Products Uniforet Inc. Uniforet Scierie-Pate Vancouver Specialty Cedar Products/Vancouver Specialty Cedar Products Ltd. Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products Vandermeer Forest Products (Canada) Ltd. Vanderwell Contractors

(1971)Ltd. Vanport Canada, Co. Vernon Kiln and Millwork, Ltd. Visscher Lumber Inc. W. C. Edwards Lumber W. I. Woodtone Industries Inc. Welco Lumber Corporation Wentworth Lumber Ltd. Werenham Forest Products West Bay Forest Products & Manufacturing Ltd./West Bay Forest Products and Manufacturing Ltd./West Bay Forest Products & Mfg. Ltd. West Can Rail Ltd. West Chilcotin Forest Products Ltd. West Hastings Lumber Products Western Forest Products Inc. 14 14 On August 19, 2005, we found that Western Forest Products Inc. and its subsidiaries, WFP Products Limited, WFP Western Lumber Ltd., and WFP Lumber Sales Limited, were the successors-in-interest to Doman Industries Limited, Doman Forest Products Limited, and Doman Western Lumber Ltd. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 48673 (August 19, 2005). We inadvertently omitted the new names in the final results and are including them here. WFP Forest Products Limited WFP Lumber Sales Limited WFP Western Lumber Ltd. Weston Forest Corp. West-Wood Industries/West-Wood Industries Ltd. White Spruce Forst Products Ltd. Wilfrid Paquet & Fils Ltee. Wilkerson Forest Products Ltd. Williams Brothers Limited/Williams Brothers Ltd. Winnipeg Forest Products, Inc. Woodko Enterprises, Ltd. Woodland Forest Products Ltd. Woodline Forest Products Ltd. Woodtone Industries Inc. Woodwise Lumber Ltd. Wynndel Box & Lumber Co. Ltd. Zelensky Bros. Forest Products: 2.11, 2.10. Cash Deposit Rates Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the amended final results of this administrative review for all shipments of certain softwood lumber products from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act:

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

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

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

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be 11.54 percent, the “All Others” rate calculated in the Department's recent determination under section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act. See Notice of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Antidumping Measures on Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 22636 (May 2, 2005). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Assessment Rates In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the publication of these amended final results of review to effect the *Final Results* and these amended final results. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(h) and 771(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 12, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-653 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-427-820 Stainless Steel Bar from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a timely request by the petitioners, 1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar

(SSB)from France with respect to Ugitech S.A. (Ugitech). The period of review

(POR)is March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005. 1 The petitioners include the following companies: Carpenter Technology Corporation; Crucible Specialty Metals Division, Crucible Materials Corporation; and Electroalloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc. We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. If the 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 on all appropriate entries. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4136 or

(202)482-4007, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on SSB from France. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from France* , 67 FR 10385 ( *SSB Order* ). On March 31, 2005, both the petitioners and Ugitech submitted letters timely requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of the sales of SSB made by Ugitech, pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to Ugitech. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Reviews* , 70 FR 20862, (April 22, 2005). On April 27, 2005, we issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Ugitech. Responses to the questionnaire were received in June 2005. We issued a supplemental questionnaire in August 2005, and received responses in September and October 2005. Ugitech provided additional information in response to Department requests during November 2005. On November 7, 2005, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until January 13, 2006. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From France* , 70 FR 69319 (November 15, 2005). The petitioners submitted comments for the preliminary results in late December 2005, but they were submitted too late for consideration in the preliminary results. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the term “stainless steel bar” includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 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. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of SSB by Ugitech to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared constructed export price

(CEP)to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Ugitech covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. As section 771(16)(A) and

(B)define “foreign like product” to be merchandise that is produced in the same country and by the same person as the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation, we have excluded from our comparisons SSB sold by Ugitech in France but produced by an unaffiliated party. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Ugitech in the following order: general type of finish; grade; remelting process; type of final finishing operation; shape; and size range. Constructed Export Price We calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold for the account of Ugitech by its subsidiary, Ugine Stainless & Alloy, Inc. (US&A), in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers. In addition, Ugitech reported sales of SSB which were further processed by US&A in the United States. For the subject merchandise further processed in the United States, we used the starting price of the subject merchandise and deducted the costs of further processing to determine CEP for such merchandise, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. To calculate the cost of further manufacturing, we relied on Ugitech's reported cost of further manufacturing materials, labor, and overhead, plus amounts for further manufacturing general and administrative expenses (G&A) and financial expenses. We based CEP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We identified the correct starting price by adjusting for alloy surcharges, freight revenue, other revenue and billing adjustments associated with the sale, and by making deductions for discounts, where applicable, as required by section 772 of the Act. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These expenses included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight (including freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of exportation), brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses (including freight from the U.S. port to the warehouse, freight between warehouses, and freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated customer), and U.S. customs duties and fees (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees). In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (commissions, credit expenses, warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses and repacking expenses) and indirect selling expenses (indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs) incurred in the country of exportation and the United States. For the sales where the payment date was not reported because the customer had not yet paid, we set the payment date equal to October 5, 2005, the date of Ugitech's last submitted sales data base, and recalculated the imputed credit expense accordingly. We also deducted an amount for further-manufacturing costs, where applicable, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, and made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because Ugitech's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that its home market was viable. B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test During the POR, Ugitech sold the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, on a product-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all discounts and rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the Department's practice, where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002) (establishing that the overall ratio calculated for an affiliate must be between 98 percent and 102 percent in order for sales to be considered in the ordinary course of trade and used in the normal value calculation). Sales to affiliated customers in the home market that were not made at arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered these sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade. *See* 19 CFR 351.102(b). Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the export price

(EP)or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing ( *id* .); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) ( *Plate from South Africa* ). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices) 2 , we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 2 Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( *i.e.* , no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR at 61731. We obtained information from Ugitech regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. Ugitech sold SSB to end-users and distributors in both the U.S. and home markets. Ugitech reported that it made CEP sales in the U.S. market (through its U.S. affiliate, US&A) through the following two channels of distribution:

(1)sales of Ugitech-produced SSB purchased from Ugitech, and

(2)sales of Ugitech-produced SSB purchased from Ugitech's Italian affiliate, Trafilerie Bedini, S.r.l (Bedini). We compared the selling activities performed in each channel, and found that the same selling functions ( *e.g.* , production planning, warranty, technical service, and freight & delivery) were performed at the same relative level of intensity in both channels of distribution. Accordingly, we find that all CEP sales constitute one LOT. With respect to the home market, Ugitech reported five channels of distribution (channels 3 through 7) described as follows:

(3)factory direct sales;

(4)ex-inventory sales of standard SSB;

(5)ex-inventory sales of SSB for special applications;

(6)sales of ex-inventory French-origin standard SSB purchased from Bedini; and

(7)sales of ex-inventory French-origin SSB for special applications purchased from Bedini. According to Ugitech, the direct sales (channel 3), the ex-inventory standard SSB sales (channels 4 and 6), and the ex-inventory SSB with special application sales (channels 5 and 7) constitute three distinct LOTs in the home market. 3 3 Ugitech reported the selling functions performed in the home market according to the Ugitech entity responsible for the activity. As we find no basis to differentiate sales functions in this manner for purposes of our LOT analysis, we have “collapsed” this reporting in our analysis and considered the level of intensity performed for each selling function on the basis of the highest intensity performed by any Ugitech entity. In determining whether separate LOTs exist in the home market, we compared the selling functions performed across all channels of distribution. After our analysis of the information submitted for the record of this review, we find that all home market sales were made at the same LOT, consistent with our analysis and findings in the previous administrative review. *See Stainless Steel Bar from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17411, 17414 (April 6, 2005), and *Stainless Steel Bar from France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 46482 (August 10, 2005) ( *SSB from France 2003-2004* ), Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Specifically with respect to this review, we found that, except for inventory maintenance, all selling functions were performed across all channels of distribution with only slight variances in the levels of intensity for a few sales activities listed within certain selling functions. We note that the selling functions ( *e.g.* , strategy planning and marketing, customer sales contact, production/planning/order evaluation, advertising, warranty, technical service, computer systems and freight and delivery) were all generally performed at the same or similar levels of intensity for the direct ex-works sales and both channels of inventory sales (standard and special application). As we noted in the previous review, although the level of intensity varies within a few of the selling activities performed for Ugitech's direct ex-works and inventory sales, these variances are not so significant to constitute distinct LOTs. With respect to inventory maintenance, the Department has determined that sales from an inventory warehouse are not at a separate LOT from sales shipped directly from a mill simply by virtue of the inventory maintenance function ( *see* , *e.g.* , *SSB from France 2003-2004 and Stainless Steel Bar From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 19419 (April 13, 2005), Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2). Instead, we have looked at the variety and intensity of selling functions between these channels of distribution in order to determine whether there are distinguishable LOTs. We have maintained since the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation in this proceeding that we do not consider the activities of light general warehousing services and further manufacturing/special services associated with special application sales that Ugitech has identified under inventory maintenance to be selling functions. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar From France* , 66 FR 40201 (August 2, 2001); continued in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar From France* , 67 FR 3143 (January 23, 2002) ( *SSB from France LTFV Final* ). Thus, these items are not relevant to the LOT analysis. However, we are accounting for some of these activities and the expenses associated with these activities in our calculations by deducting from the home market price the reported warehousing expenses, which include Ugitech's expenses for technical personnel working with the special application sales ( *see* “Price-to-Price Comparisons” below). Ugitech has also reported the size of its sales quantities and the availability of just-in-time delivery to be distinct selling functions for purposes of the LOT analysis. However, the Department does not consider sales quantities ( *i.e.* , lot sizes) to be a selling function for purposes of distinguishing LOT ( *see* , *e.g.* , *Stainless Steel Bar From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 32982 (June 14, 2004), Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1). We also do not consider the just-in-time delivery ability to be a selling function. Rather, we find it to be an element of warehousing activity. We agree that there is a difference in the selling function of pre-sale warehousing, which is offered for ex-inventory sales and not for ex-mill sales. However, as noted above, this selling activity alone is not a sufficient basis to distinguish separate LOTs between factory direct and inventory sales. Accordingly, based on the record evidence of this review and the above analysis, we find few differences in the selling functions offered or in their intensity among Ugitech's three sales channels (factory direct, standard ex-inventory, and special application ex-inventory). Therefore, we have made our preliminary results treating all home market sales at the same LOT. Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the home market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for home market customers are either performed at a higher degree of intensity or are greater in number than the selling functions performed for the U.S. customer. For example, in comparing the selling activities noted under the various selling functions reported ( *e.g.* , strategy planning/marketing and customer sales contact), Ugitech performed each of these selling activities at a higher level of intensity in the home market than in the U.S. market. Similarly, we noted that the advertising selling function was performed at the highest level of intensity in the home market, whereas, in the U.S. market it was not performed at all. Therefore, we conclude that Ugitech's home market sales are at a more advanced LOT than its U.S. sales. As home market and U.S. sales were made at different LOTs, we could not match CEP sales to home market sales at the same LOT. Moreover, as we found only one LOT in the home market, it was not possible to make an LOT adjustment to home market sales because such an adjustment is dependent upon our ability to identify a pattern of consistent price differences between the home market sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. Because the data available do not form an appropriate basis for making an LOT adjustment, but the home market LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset is calculated as the lesser of:

(1)the indirect selling expenses on home market sales, or

(2)the indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP. Cost of Production Analysis In the LTFV investigation, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of April 27, 2005, the date the questionnaire was issued in this review, we found that Ugitech (then known as Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A) had made sales below the cost of production. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Bar From France* , 66 FR 40201, 40205 (August 2, 2001); affirmed in *SSB from France LTFV Final* . Subsequently, the Department also disregarded certain sales made by Ugitech in the 2003-2004 administrative review that were determined to be below the cost of production. *See Stainless Steel Bar from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17411, 17416 (April 6, 2005); affirmed in *SSB from France 2003-2004* . Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Ugitech made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. Accordingly, we instructed Ugitech to respond to the section D (Cost of Production) questionnaire. A. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated Ugitech's cost of production

(COP)and constructed value

(CV)based on the sum of Ugitech's costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses and interest expenses ( *see* “Test of Home Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Ugitech in its most recent supplemental section D questionnaire response, dated October 5, 2005, for the COP calculation, except in the following instances: 1. In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, Ugitech accrued restructuring costs related to a multi-year restructuring plan which is expected to be completed in 2010. Although Ugitech's home-country generally accepted accounting principles

(GAAP)require the company to accrue the total estimated costs during the year in which the costs are probable and reasonably estimable, Ugitech reported that the accrued costs relate to activities which occurred or are expected to occur over multiple fiscal years. In the previous review period, we included the current portion of the accrued restructuring charges in Ugitech's G&A expenses for fiscal year 2003 by amortizing the total accrued charges over the period of restructuring ( *see SSB from France 2003-2004* , Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3). For the current review period, we continued to amortize the remaining accrued restructuring charges over the remaining period of restructuring. 2. In accordance with its home-country GAAP, Ugitech incurred and recognized a loss for the impairment of fixed assets during fiscal year 2004. Ugitech reported its depreciation expenses based on the impaired asset values. However, Ugitech excluded the loss from the company's reported G&A expenses for purposes of this administrative review. Consistent with our treatment of Ugitech's fiscal year 2003 impairment losses in the prior review period ( *see SSB from France 2003-2004* , Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1) and because the impairment loss relates to the general operations of the company, we included Ugitech's fiscal year 2004 impairment in the company-wide G&A expenses for the current review period. 3. Ugitech excluded certain miscellaneous financial expenses from the reported calculation of the financial expense ratio of Ugitech's parent company, Arcelor S.A. (Arcelor). The expenses were recognized in Arcelor's audited financial statement as financial expenses, but were excluded from the calculations in Ugitech's responses. We revised Ugitech's calculations to include Arcelor's miscellaneous financial expenses in the financial expense ratio. Our revisions to Ugitech's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum from Joseph Welton, Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, entitled *Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Ugitech, S.A.* , dated January 12, 2006. B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of alloy surcharges, freight revenue, service charge revenue, processing charge revenue and billing adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate, as discussed below under the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made:

(1)within an extended period of time,

(2)in substantial quantities, and

(3)at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. C. Results of the COP Test In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)or the Act:

(1)whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and

(2)whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because:

(1)they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act, and

(2)based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of Ugitech's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Price-to-Price Comparisons As discussed in the “Normal Value” section above, we calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that were determined to be at arm's length. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for alloy surcharges, freight revenue, service charge revenue, processing charge revenue, billing adjustments, early payment discounts and rebates. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland freight (from the plant to the warehouse or plant to the customer), warehousing expenses, and inland insurance, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. For the sales where the payment date was not reported because the customer had not yet paid, we set the payment date equal to October 5, 2005, the date of Ugitech's last submitted sales data base, and recalculated the imputed credit expense accordingly. We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses, receivables insurance expenses, and warranty expenses. At the Department's request, Ugitech reported per-unit warranty expenses based on two methodologies: one allocating warranty expenses according to its reported sales channels and LOTs, and another allocating warranty expenses over all home market sales. We applied the reported per-unit amount calculated based on the second allocation methodology described above ( *i.e.* , the AVWARRH variable) as Ugitech reported no difference in warranty terms or expenses according to sales channel, and we determined that all home market sales were made at the same LOT. We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. Finally, as discussed above under the “Level of Trade” section, we made a CEP offset pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). We calculated the CEP offset as the lesser of the indirect selling expenses on the comparison-market sales or the indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP. Pursuant to the Department's request, Ugitech reported per-unit home market indirect selling expenses based on multiple expense allocation methodologies in accordance with its reported sales channels and its claimed LOTs. Consistent with our LOT determination explained above, we applied the reported indirect selling expense variables which represented the expense amounts allocated over all home market sales, rather than by reported sales channel and claimed LOT. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for the period March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005, is as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Ugitech S.A. 9.70 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be scheduled after determination of the briefing schedule. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:

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

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted in accordance with a schedule to be determined. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.50 percent). *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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 rate for the reviewed company will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero;

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

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 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)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.90 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See SSB Order* . These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: January 12, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-658 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-807] Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons at

(202)482-0656 or

(202)482-0498, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey for the period of review April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005. * See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request a Review * , 70 FR 16799 (April 1, 2005). The Department received timely requests for review from Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret (collectively “Colakoglu”); Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively “Diler”); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (ICDAS), foreign producers/exporters in this proceeding. The Department also received a timely request for review from Nucor Corporation and Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, domestic producers of rebar and interested parties in this proceeding, covering 34 producers/exporters of rebar from Turkey, including the producers/exporters referenced above. On May 27, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 30694 (May 27, 2005). The Department released the antidumping questionnaire in May and August 2005 to the 34 producers/exporters for which an administrative review was requested. Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S., and Habas responded to the Department's questionnaire in August 2005 and ICDAS responded to the Department's questionnaire in October 2005. The preliminary results for this proceeding are due no later than May 1, 2006. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes

(i)plain round rebar,

(ii)rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, and

(iii)all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS) under item numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Determination To Rescind, in Part On November 8, 2005, the Department published its final results for the April 1, 2003, though March 31, 2004, administrative review and found that ICDAS met the requirements of revocation as described in 19 CFR 351.222. *See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8, 2005). Due to ICDAS' revocation in that review, we are rescinding the April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005, administrative review with respect to ICDAS because there is no statutory or regulatory basis to conduct an administrative review for a producer/exporter that has met the requirements of revocation. Dated: January 12, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-652 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration, North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of decision of panel. SUMMARY: On January 17, 2006 the binational panel issued its decision in the review of the determination on remand made by the International Trade Commission, respecting Magnesium from Canada Full Sunset Review of AD and CVD Orders, Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2000-1904-09. The binational panel affirmed in part and remanded in part to the International Trade Commission. Copies of the panel decision are available from the U.S. Section of the NAFTA Secretariat. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). The panel review in this matter has been conducted in accordance with these Rules. *Panel Decision:* The panel affirmed in part and remanded in part the International Trade Commission's determination on remand respecting Magnesium from Canada. The panel remand in part to the Commission and instructed the Commission as follows: Analyze the price, volume and impact of revocation of the countervailing duty order on alloy magnesium to show how the record supports the Commission's conclusions, providing a reasoned explanation based on all of the evidence on the record to support a decision that revocation of the countervailing duty order on imports of alloy magnesium from Canada would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic alloy magnesium industry within the reasonably foreseeable future due to underselling by Magnola. The Commission must provide further reasoned analysis supported by substantial evidence on the record, including any factual evidence not referred to in its Views on Remand, as to the conclusion that Magnola would enter the market by underselling in order to establish export volumes that would be significant in relation to anticipated demand increases. The Commission is directed to respond to this Order within sixty

(60)days of receipt. Dated: January 17, 2006. Caratina L. Alston, U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E6-655 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Application for Commission in the NOAA Officer Corps AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to LTJG Nicole Manning, 301-713-3453, ext. 119 or *Nicole.Manning@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The NOAA Corps is the smallest of the seven uniformed services of the United States and is an integral part of NOAA. The NOAA Corps provides a cadre of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines who serve in assignments within the five major Line Offices of NOAA. Persons wishing to obtain a NOAA Corps Commission must submit an application package, including an eye test and five references. II. Method of Collection Paper forms are submitted via mail in postage-paid envelopes. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0047. *Form Number:* NOAA Forms 56-42, 56-42A, 56-42C, 56-42D. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 130. *Estimated Time per Response:* 2 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 260. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $5,850. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 17, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-669 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; American Fisheries Act: Recordkeeping and Reporting AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *Hynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7008 or *patsy.bearden@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The American Fisheries Act

(AFA)was signed into law in October of 1998. The AFA established an allocation program for the pollock fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). The purposes of the AFA were to tighten U.S. ownership standards that had been exploited under the Anti-reflagging Act, to provide Alaska's BSAI pollock fleet the opportunity to conduct their fishery in a more rational manner, and to protect non-AFA participants in other fisheries. Reduced bycatch, higher utilization rates, increased economic returns, and improved safety are among the direct benefits of the AFA. The flexibility provided by cooperatives and by individual vessel allocations of pollock and other species has allowed the BSAI pollock fleet to spread their fishing effort in time and space, thus somewhat mitigating the negative impacts of the Steller sea lion

(SSL)conservation and protection measures. The BSAI pollock quota is suballocated to groups of vessel owners who form fishing vessel cooperatives. The cooperative management structure has shifted more of the monitoring and enforcement burden to the cooperatives and their members, allowing NMFS to manage the fishery more precisely. In order to make timely management decisions on closures, NMFS requires shoreside processors and stationary floating processors to use shoreside processor electronic logbook report (SPELR) to provide catcher vessel delivery information describing daily harvests of pollock and sideboard species on a vessel-by-vessel basis. The SPELR software provided by NMFS has automatic features that allow the users to effect file transfer by computer modem to the NMFS communication server, or file transfer can occur as an attachment to an e-mail message. II. Method of Collection Electronic files, paper reports, and paper applications are required from participants. Methods of submittal include transfer by computer modem, transfer by e-mail attachment, and facsimile transmission. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0401. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; business or other for-profits organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 26. *Estimated Time per Response:* 20 hours for Annual preliminary report; 8 hours for Annual final report; 30 minutes for Non-member vessel contract fishing application; 30 minutes to complete and print shoreside processor electronic logbook report (SPELR); 5 minutes to electronically submit SPELR report; 5 minutes for Inshore catcher vessel cooperative pollock catch report; and 5 minutes for Agent for service of process. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,024. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $635. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 17, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-670 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; American Fisheries Act: Vessel and Processor Permit Applications AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7008 or *patsy.bearden@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The American Fisheries Act

(SSL)conservation and protection measures. Finally, the cooperative management structure has shifted more of the monitoring and enforcement burden to the cooperatives and their members, allowing NMFS to manage the fishery more precisely. Under the AFA, only vessels and processors that meet specific qualifying criteria are eligible to fish for and process pollock in the BSAI. The BSAI pollock quota is suballocated to groups of vessel owners who form fishing vessel cooperatives under the AFA. All pollock vessels and processors are required to have a valid AFA permit on board the vessel or at the processing plant. The AFA vessel and processor permits have no expiration date and will remain valid indefinitely unless revoked by NMFS. With the exceptions of applications for inshore vessel cooperatives and for replacement vessels, the AFA permit program had a one-time application deadline of December 1, 2000. Inshore catcher vessel cooperatives must apply for an AFA permit annually, by December 1 for the following fishing year. The information is collected once a year, because NMFS must identify the universe of participating vessels and processors prior to the start of each fishing year in order to assign allocations of pollock to eligible cooperatives. The applications to replace lost or destroyed AFA vessels may be submitted to NMFS at any time. II. Method of Collection Paper applications are required from participants. Methods of submittal include facsimile transmission of paper forms, except where a notary seal is required. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0393. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profits organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20. *Estimated Time per Response:* 2 hours for Application for AFA catcher vessel permit; 30 minutes for Application for AFA permit for replacement vessel; 2 1/2 hours for Application for AFA inshore catcher vessel cooperative permit; 2 hours for Application for AFA mothership permit; and 2 hours for Application for AFA inshore processor permit. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 42. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $59. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 17, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-671 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Limits on Applications of Take Prohibitions AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Steve Stone, at

(503)231-2317, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274 or *steve.stone@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) requires the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)to adopt such regulations as it “deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of” threatened species. Those regulations may include any or all of the prohibitions provided in section 9(a)(1) of the ESA, which specifically prohibits “take” of any endangered species (“take” includes actions that harass, harm, pursue, kill, or capture). The first salmonid species listed by NMFS as threatened were protected by virtually blanket application of the section 9 take prohibitions. There are now 21 separate Evolutionarily Significant Units

(ESUs)of west coast salmonids listed as threatened, covering a large percentage of the land base in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. NMFS is obligated to enact necessary and advisable protective regulations. NMFS makes section 9 prohibitions generally applicable to many of those threatened ESUs, but also seeks to respond to requests from states and others to both provide more guidance on how to protect threatened salmonids and avoid take, and to limit the application of take prohibitions wherever warranted (see 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005, and 71 FR 834, January 5, 2006). The regulations describe programs or circumstances that contribute to the conservation of, or are being conducted in a way that adequately limits impacts on, listed salmonids. The regulations do not apply the take prohibitions to those programs and circumstances. Some of these limits on the take prohibitions entail voluntary submission of a plan to NMFS and/or annual or occasional reports by entities wishing to take advantage of these limits, or continue within them. II. Method of Collection Submissions may be in paper or electronic format. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0399. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* State, local, or tribal government; business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 201. *Estimated Time per Response:* 20 hours for a road maintenance agreement; 5 hours for a diversion screening limit project; 30 hours for an urban development package; 10 hours for an urban development report; 20 hours for a tribal plan; and 5 hours for a report of aided, salvaged, or disposed of salmonids. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 500. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $843. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

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

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

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 17, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-672 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 011806A] Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Application for an Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit. SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit

(EFP)from the Aleut Enterprise Corporation (AEC). If granted, this permit would be used to support a project to investigate the feasibility of using commercial fishing vessels for acoustic surveys of pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea. The project is intended to promote the objectives of the Fishery Management Plan

(FMP)for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area

(BSAI)by improving use of pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea. ADDRESSES: Copies of the EFP application and the environmental assessment

(EA)are available by writing to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Durall. The EA also is available from the Alaska Region, NMFS website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/index/analyses/analyses.asp.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or *melanie.brown@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the BSAI under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. The FMP and the implementing regulations at §§ 679.6 and 600.745(b) authorize issuance of EFPs to allow fishing that would otherwise be prohibited. Procedures for issuing EFPs are contained in the implementing regulations. NMFS received an application for an EFP from the AEC. The purpose of the EFP is to support a project to determine the feasibility of using commercial fishing vessels for acoustic surveys of pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea. The goal of the project is to improve the use of Aleutian Islands pollock. NMFS currently does not have resources to conduct acoustic surveys of Aleutian Islands pollock. This project has been developed in cooperation with stock assessment scientists at the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The acoustic and biological information from the project will be used to determine:

(1)if it is feasible to conduct acoustic surveys in the Aleutian Islands subarea using commercial fishing vessels,

(2)if the data collected in such a manner are of sufficient quality for management purposes, and

(3)if the local aggregations of pollock are stable enough during spawning season to allow for fine scale spatial and temporal management. Additionally, genetic samples will be collected during this study that will be used for stock structure analysis. Improved information may lead to improved conservation and potentially finer spatial and temporal harvest management of Aleutian Islands pollock. More information on the Aleutian Islands pollock stock is needed because of the uncertainty of the stock's structure and the potential effects of the fishery on Steller sea lions. The western distinct population segment

(DPS)of Steller sea lions occurs in the Aleutian Islands subarea and is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Critical habitat has been designated for this DPS, including waters within 20 nautical miles

(nm)of haulouts and rookeries (50 CFR 226.202). Pollock is a principal prey species of Steller sea lions. The U.S. Congress, in section 803 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199), required that the directed fishing allowance of pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea be allocated to the Aleut Corporation. Only fishing vessels approved by the Aleut Corporation or its agents are allowed to harvest this allowance. To harvest the fish, the Aleut Corporation is allowed to contract only with vessels under 60 feet (18.3 m) length overall (LOA), or vessels listed under the American Fisheries Act. The allocation was made to the Aleut Corporation for the purpose of furthering the economic development of Adak, Alaska. Public Law 108-199 requires half of the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation to be harvested by small boats (less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA) in 2013 and beyond. For safety reasons, fishing in waters closer than 20 nm from shore is preferred for the small boat fleet. Aleutian Islands pollock has been harvested primarily in Steller sea lion critical habitat in the past until the Aleutian Islands subarea was closed to pollock fishing in 1999 (64 FR 3437, January 22, 1999). In 2003, the Aleutian Islands subarea was opened to pollock fishing outside of critical habitat under regulations implementing the current Steller sea lion protection measures (68 FR 204, January 2, 2003). In 2005, pollock was allocated to the Aleut Corporation for a directed pollock fishery in the Aleutian Islands subarea outside of Steller sea lion critical habitat. The Aleut Corporation harvested only about 1.2 percent of its initial 2005 pollock allocation due, in part, to difficulty in finding pollock. Based on historical harvests, pollock aggregations necessary to support an acoustic survey likely occur inside Steller sea lion critical habitat. The EFP is necessary to allow the applicants to harvest groundfish to verify the acoustic data collected and to compensate the participants. The acoustic survey must be conducted in an area that is likely to contain concentrations of pollock. The EFP would provide exemptions to Steller sea lion closures to pollock fishing in two areas: Atka Island and Kanaga Sound. Two areas are provided for the project in the event that no aggregations of fish can be found in one of the areas. Only one area may be used for the acoustic survey and verification fishing. No more than 1000 metric tons

(mt)of groundfish may be harvested from a single site in this project. Fishing may occur within 3 nm of Steller sea lion haulouts in the study area to verify acoustic survey data. No more than 10 mt of groundfish may be harvested in a tow within 3 nm of a haulout. All groundfish harvested will be counted towards the TAC amounts specified for the BSAI in § 679.20 and the 2006 harvest specifications (70 FR 8679, February 24, 2005) which are scheduled for revision by the end of February 2006. Nearly all groundfish harvested under the EFP is expected to be pollock with minor amounts of Pacific ocean perch. Any groundfish fishing in the Aleutian Islands subarea closed to directed fishing due to overfishing concerns would include the directed fishing under the EFP. Overall, no more than 1,000 mt of groundfish would be harvested under the EFP by one vessel. The EFP applicant would retain all groundfish species to accurately document the catch amounts by species and compare this information to the acoustic data. The EFP would provide an exemption from maximum retainable amounts specified in Table 11 of 50 CFR part 679 so that the applicant may retain and sell all groundfish harvested. The EFP may be modified to extend the effective date for an additional 12 months if the applicant is unable to complete the project in 2006. Fishing under the EFP is expected to occur during March 2006 for approximately three weeks. Because the activities are limited to one vessel for approximately three weeks in a discrete area with a 1,000 mt limit, significant impacts on the marine environment are not expected. Because the activity is in Steller sea lion critical habitat and includes the harvest of a principal prey species for Steller sea lions, a Section 7 consultation under the ESA has been initiated for this action and must be completed before the issuance of the EFP. In accordance with § 679.6, NMFS has determined that the proposal warrants further consideration and has initiated consultation with the Council by forwarding the application to the Council. The Council will consider the EFP application during its February 6-13, 2006 meeting. The applicant has been invited to appear in support of the application, if the applicant desires. Interested persons may comment on the application at the Council meeting during public testimony. Information regarding the February 2006 Council meeting is available at the Council's website at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/default.htm* . Copies of the application and EA are available for review from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: January 18, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-733 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 031704B] Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Conducting Air-to-Surface Gunnery Missions in the Gulf of Mexico AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of application for an incidental take authorization; request for comments and information. SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB), for authorization to harass marine mammals, incidental to conducting air-to-surface (A-S) gunnery missions in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). As a result of this request, NMFS is proposing to issue a 1-year authorization to take marine mammals by Level B harassment incidental to this activity and will propose regulations at a later time that would govern these incidental takes under a Letter of Authorization

(LOA)issued to Eglin for a period of up to 5 years after the 1-year IHA expires. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an authorization to Eglin AFB to incidentally take, by harassment, several species of cetaceans for a period of 1 year. DATES: Comments and information must be postmarked no later than February 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Steve Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226. The mailbox address for providing email comments on this action is *PR2.031704B@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the application and a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address, by telephoning the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) and is also available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Small_Take/smalltake_info.htm#applications* . A copy of the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (Final PEA) is available by writing to the Department of the Air Force, AAC/EMSN, Natural Resources Branch, 501 DeLeon St., Suite 101, Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5133. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Hollingshead, NMFS, 301-713-2289, ext 128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* )

(MMPA)direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004

(NDAA)(Pub. L. 108-136) amended the definition of “harassment” in section 18(A) of the MMPA as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows:

(i)Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or

(ii)any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment]. Summary of Request On February 13, 2003, Eglin AFB petitioned NMFS, as a precautionary measure, for an authorization under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA for the taking, by harassment, marine mammals incidental to programmatic mission activities within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) for the next five years. The EGTTR is described as the airspace over the Gulf of Mexico that is controlled by Eglin AFB; this area is also sometimes referred to as the “Eglin Water Range.” The A-S gunnery test and training activities currently comprise the majority of Eglin's missions that deploy ordnance into the GOM and have been determined through a review under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)to be the only activity to impact marine mammals (Eglin AFB, 2002). The effects of other components of the mission activities, including supersonic and subsonic noise from aircraft, occasional fuel releases, debris, the release of chemicals into the water from chaff, flares, drones, and missiles, and direct physical impacts (discussed later in this document) were determined not to impact marine mammals (Eglin AFB, 2002). Description of Activities A-S gunnery missions involve surface impacts of projectiles and small underwater detonations with the potential to affect cetaceans that may potentially occur within the EGTTR. These missions typically involve the use of 25-mm (0.98 in), 40-mm (1.57 in), and 105-mm (4.13 in) gunnery rounds containing, 0.0662 lb (1.1 oz 30 g), 0.865 (13.8 oz, 392 g), and 4.7 lbs (2.1 kg) of explosive, respectively. Live rounds must be used to produce a visible surface splash that must be used to “score” the round; the impact of inert rounds on the sea surface would not be detected. The Air Force has developed a 105-mm training round

(TR)that contains less than 10 percent of the amount of explosive material (0.35 lb; 0.16 kg) as compared to the “Full-Up”

(FU)105-mm (4.13 in) round. The TR was developed as one method to mitigate effects on marine life during night-time A/S gunnery exercises when visibility at the water surface would be poor. However, the TR cannot be used in daytime since the amount of explosive material is insufficient to be detected from the aircraft. Water ranges with the EGTTR that are typically used for the gunnery operations are located in the Gulf of Mexico offshore from the Florida Panhandle (areas W-151A, W-151B, W-151C, and W-151D as shown in Figure 1 in Eglin's application). Data indicates that W-151A was the most frequently used water range due to its proximity to Hurlburt Field, but activities may occur anywhere within the EGTTR. The AC-130 gunship aircraft normally transit from Hurlburt Field, FL to the water range at a minimum of 4,000 ft (1.2 km) above surface level. The AC-130 conducts at least two complete orbits at a minimum safe airspeed around a prospective target area at a maximum altitude of 1,500 ft (457 m), with a recommended altitude of 1,000 ft (305 m), spiraling in an upward formation to an operational altitude of approximately 4,500 to 10,000 ft (1372-3048 m). Ascent occurs over a 10-15 minute period. Eglin notes that the search area for these orbits ensures that no vessels or protected species are within an area of 5-nm (9.3 km) of the target. The AC-130 continues orbiting the selected target point as it climbs to the mission-testing altitude. During the low altitude orbits and the climb to testing altitude, aircraft crew visually scan the sea surface within the aircraft's orbit circle for the presence of marine vessels and protected species. Primary responsibility for the surface scan is on the flight crew in the cockpit and personnel stationed in the tail observer bubble and starboard viewing window. The AC-130's optical and electronic sensors will also be employed for target clearance. If any marine mammals are detected within the AC-130's orbit circle, either during initial clearance or after commencement of live firing, the aircraft will relocate to another target area and repeat the clearance procedures. A typical distance from the coast for this activity is at least 15 mi (24 km). When offshore, the crews can scan a 5-mi (9.3-km) radius around the potential impact area to ensure it is clear of surface craft, marine mammals, and sea turtles. Scanning is accomplished using radar, all-light television (TV), infrared sensors (IR), and visual means. An alternative area would be selected if any cetaceans or vessels were detected within a 5-mi (9.3 km) search area. Once the scan is completed, Mk-25 flares are dropped and the firing sequence is initiated. A typical gunship mission lasts approximately 5 hours without refueling and 6 hours when air-to-air refueling is accomplished. A typical mission includes:

(1)30 minutes for take off and to perform airborne sensor alignment, align electro-optical sensors (IR and TV) to heads-up display;

(2)1.5 to 2 hours of dry fire (no ordnance expended), and includes transition time;

(3)1.5 to 2 hours of live fire, and includes clearing the area and transiting to and from the range (actual firing activities typically do not exceed 30 minutes);

(4)1 hour air-to-air refueling, if and when performed; and

(5)30 minutes of transition work (take-offs, approaches, and landings-pattern work). The guns are fired during the live-fire phase of the mission. The actual firing can last from 30 minutes to 1.5 hours but is typically completed in 30 minutes. The number and type of A-S gunnery munitions deployed during a mission varies with each type of mission flown. In addition to the 25-, 40-, and 105-mm rounds, marking flares are also deployed as targets. All guns are fired at a specific target in the water, usually an Mk-25 flare, starting with the lowest caliber ordnance or action with the least impact and proceeding to greater caliber sizes. To establish the test target area, two Mk-25 flares are deployed into the center of the 5-nm (9.3-km) radius cleared area (visually clear of aircraft, ships, and surface marine species) on the water's surface. The flare's burn time normally lasts 10 to 20 minutes but could be much less if actually hit with one of the ordnance projectiles; however, some flares have burned as long as 40 minutes. Live fires are a continuous event with pauses during the firing usually well under a minute and rarely from 2 to 5 minutes. Firing pauses would only exceed 10 minutes if surface boat traffic or marine protected species caused the mission to relocate; if aircraft, gun, or targeting system problems existed; or if more flares needed to be deployed. The Eglin Safety Office has described the gunnery missions as having 95-percent containment with a 99-percent confidence level within a 5-m (16.4-ft) area around the established flare target test area. Live-Fire Event: Phase I: 10 Minutes The 25-mm (0.98-in) round is fired first. The 25-mm firing event in a typical mission includes approximately 500 to 1000 rounds. These rounds are first in short bursts. These bursts last approximately 2-3 seconds with approximately 100 rounds per burst. Based on the very tight target area and extremely small miss distance, these bursts of rounds all enter the water within a 5-m (16.4-ft) area. Therefore, when calculations of the marine mammal Zone of Impact

(ZOI)and take estimates are made later in this document for the 25-mm rounds, calculations will be based on the total number of rounds fired per year divided by 100. Live-Fire Event: Phase II: 10 Minutes The 40-mm (1.57 in) round is fired second. The 40-mm firing event of a typical mission includes approximately 10 seconds with approximately 20 rounds per burst. Based on the very tight target area and extremely small miss distance, these bursts of rounds all enter the water within a 5-m (16.4 ft) area. Therefore, when calculations of the marine mammal ZOI and take estimates are made later in this document for the 40-mm rounds, calculations will be based on the total number of rounds fired per year divided by 20. Live-Fire Event: Phase III: 10 Minutes The 105-mm round is fired last. The 105-mm firing event of a typical mission includes approximately 20 rounds. These rounds are not fired in bursts, but as single shots. The 105-mm firing event lasts approximately 5 minutes with approximately two rounds per minute. Due to the single firing event of the 105-mm round, the peak pressure of each single 105-mm round is measured at a given distance (90 m (295 ft)) for the 105mm TR and 216 m (709 ft) for the 105mm FU). As described in Eglin's application, gunnery testing in this request includes historical baseline yearly amounts in addition to proposed nighttime gunnery missions. Daytime gunnery testing uses the 105-mm FU round and nighttime gunnery training is proposed using the 105-mm TR. The number of 105-mm rounds including nighttime operations would amount to 1,742. As shown in detail in Tables 1 and 2, Eglin proposes to conduct a total of 28 daytime missions and 263 nighttime missions annually, expending 3,832 rounds in daytime and 30,802 rounds nighttime (242 105-mm FU and 1,500 rounds would be the 105-mm TR). BILLING CODE 3510-22-P EN23JA06.049 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Description of Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity There are 29 species of marine mammals documented as occurring in Federal waters of the GOM. General information on these species can be found in Wursig *et al* .

(2000)and in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (Waring *et al.* , 2004). This latter document is available at: *http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm182/* Of these 29 species of marine mammals, approximately 21 may be found within the EGTTR. These species are the Bryde's whale, sperm whale, dwarf sperm whale, pygmy sperm whale, Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, pan-tropical spotted dolphin, Blainville's beaked whale, Cuvier's beaked whale, Gervais' beaked whale, Clymene dolphin, spinner dolphin, striped dolphin, killer whale, false killer whale, pygmy killer whales, Risso's dolphin, Fraser's dolphin, melon-headed whale, rough-toothed dolphin, and pilot whale. Supplementary information on those species that may be impacted by the A-S gunnery exercises are discussed in the Eglin application (Eglin AFB, 2003) and the Eglin's Final PEA. Potential Impacts to Marine Mammals A/S gunnery operations may potentially impact marine mammals at the water surface. Marine mammals could potentially be harassed, injured or killed by exploding and non-exploding projectiles, and falling debris (Eglin, 2002 (Final PEA)). However, based on an analysis provided in the Eglin Final PEA) Eglin believes that gunnery exercises are not likely to result in any injury or mortality to marine mammals (Eglin, 2003 (Supplemental Information Request)). Explosive criteria and thresholds for assessing impacts of explosions on marine mammals were discussed by NMFS in detail in its issuance of an IHA for Eglin's Precision Strike Weapon testing activity (70 FR 48675, August 19, 2005) and are not repeated here. Please refer to that document for this background information. Estimation of Take and Impact Direct Physical Impacts

(DPI)Potential impacts resulting from air-to-surface test operations include DPI resulting from ordnance. DPI could result from inert bombs, gunnery ammunition, and shrapnel from live missiles falling into the water. Marine mammals and sea turtles swimming at the surface could potentially be injured or killed by projectiles and falling debris if not sighted and firing discontinued. Small arms gunnery operations may offer a worst case scenario for evaluating DPI of EGGTR operations, mainly due to the comparatively large number of rounds expended. Some contain small amounts of explosives, but the majority do not. The assumptions made by Eglin for DPI calculations can be found in Eglin's Final PEA under Alternative 1 for this action. Approximately 606 small-arms gunnery firing events comprise the estimated level of potential DPI events, as shown in Table 3. DPI impacts are anticipated to affect only marine species at or very near the ocean surface. As a result, in order to calculate impacts, Eglin used corrected species densities (Table 4-23 in Eglin's Final PEA) to reflect the surface interval population, which is approximately 10 percent of densities calculated for distribution in the total water column. As shown here in Table 4 (correcting PEA Table 4-23), the impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles swimming at the surface that could potentially be injured or killed by projectiles and falling debris was determined to be an average of 0.2059 marine mammals and 0.0414 sea turtles per year. However, mitigation measures that Eglin proposes under this action would reduce even these low levels significantly. In addition to small arms, Eglin calculated the potential for other non-explosive items (bombs, missiles, and drones) to impact marine mammals and sea turtles. The number of annual events expected are 551 bombs, 1183 missiles, and 99 drones (Table 5). As shown in Eglin's Final PEA and Table 6 in this document, the potential for any DPI to marine mammals and sea turtles is extremely remote and can, therefore, be discounted. BILLING CODE 3510-22-P EN23JA06.050 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Table 6.—Potential Non-Small Arms/Non-Gunnery DPI Impacts (Annual) to Marine Species Species Density (#km 2 ) Adjusted density (#km 2 ) Impact zone area 1 (km 2 ) Animals in impact zone (#) Years to impact 1 animals 2 (#) Cetaceans 4.381 0.4381 0.00688 0.003014128 332 T&E Cetaceans 0.011 0.0011 0.00688 0.000007568 132,135 Sea Turtles 0.869 0.0869 0.00688 0.000597872 1,673 Similar to non-gunnery/non-small arms DPI impacts, DPI impacts from gunnery activities may also affect marine mammals and sea turtles in the surface zone. Again, DPI impacts are anticipated to affect only marine species at or near the ocean surface. Accordingly, the density estimates have been adjusted to indicate surface animals only being potentially affected. Using the firing methodology explained earlier in this document, Tables 7 and 8 demonstrate that the potential for any DPI from gunnery activities are extremely remote and can be discounted. BILLING CODE 3510-22-P EN23JA06.051 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Marine Mammal Take Estimates From Gunnery Activities Estimating the impacts to marine mammals from underwater detonations is difficult due to complexities of the physics of explosive sound under water and the lack of understanding with respect to hearing in marine mammals. Therefore, the assessments made in this document use, and improve upon, the criteria and thresholds for marine mammal impacts that were developed for the shock trials of the *USS SEAWOLF* submarine and the destroyer *USS Winston S. Churchill* (DDG-81) (Navy, 1998; 2001). The criteria and thresholds used in these documents have been adopted by NMFS for use in calculating incidental takes from explosives. Criteria for assessing impacts include:

(1)Mortality, as determined by exposure to a certain level of positive impulse pressure (expressed as pounds per square inch per millisecond or psi-msec);

(2)injury, both hearing related and non-hearing related; and

(3)harassment, as determined by temporary loss of hearing ability and behavioral reactions. Due to the small amounts of net explosive weight

(NEW)for each of the rounds fired in the EGTTR and the mitigation measures proposed here, mortality resulting from sounds generated in the water column was determined to be highly unlikely, and not considered further. Permanent hearing loss is considered an injury and is defined as a permanent threshold shift (PTS). NMFS categorizes PTS as Level A harassment. “Temporary loss of hearing ability is termed a temporary threshold shift (TTS), meaning a temporary reduction of hearing sensitivity which abates following noise exposure”. TTS is categorized as a Level B type of harassment and is considered here as non-injurious. NMFS recognizes dual criteria for TTS, one based on peak pressure and one based on the greatest 1/3 octave sound exposure level

(SEL)or energy flux density level (EFDL), with the more conservative (i.e., larger) of the two criteria being selected for impacts analysis (note: SEL and EFDL are used interchangeably, but with increasing scientific preference for SEL). The peak pressure metric used in the shock trials to represent TTS was 12 pounds per square inch

(psi)which, for the NEW used, resulted in a zone of possible Level B harassment approximately equal to that obtained by using a 182 decibel

(dB)re 1 micro Pa 2 -s, total EFDL/SEL metric. The 12-psi metric is largely based on anatomical studies and extrapolations from terrestrial mammal data (see Ketten, 1995; Navy, 1999 (Appendix E, *Churchill* FEIS; and 70 FR 48675 (August 19, 2005)) for background information). However, the results of a more recent investigation involving marine mammals suggest that, for charges considerably smaller than those used in the Navy shock trials, the 12 psi metric is not an adequate predictor of the onset of TTS. Finneran *et al.*

(2002)measured TTS in a bottlenose dolphin and a beluga whale exposed to single underwater impulses produced by a seismic water gun in San Diego Bay. The water gun was chosen over other seismic sources, such as air guns, because the impulses contain more energy at high frequencies where odontocete hearing thresholds are relatively low (i.e., more sensitive). Hearing thresholds were measured at 0.4, 4, and 30 kilohertz (kHz). A relatively small and short-term level of masked TTS

(MTTS)(7 dB at 0.4 kHz and 6 dB at 30 kHz) occurred in the beluga whale at a peak pressure of 160 kilopascals (kPa), which is equivalent to 23 psi, 226 dB re 1 micro Pa peak-peak pressure, and 186 dB re 1 microPa 2 -s. The maximum experimental peak pressure exposure of 207 kPa (30 psi, 228 dB re 1 microPa peak-peak pressure, 188 dB re 1 microPa 2 -s) did not cause any measurable masked TTS in the bottlenose dolphin. The results of these field experiments represent the most current science available for the relationship between peak pressure and TTS in marine mammals. It is also considered precautionary for this project since the bottlenose dolphin did not receive an MTTS at the higher level of 30 psi. Therefore, until additional information becomes available, 23 psi is considered an appropriate and conservative metric for predicting the onset of pressure-related TTS from small explosive charges. Documented behavioral reactions occur at noise levels below those considered to cause TTS in marine mammals (Finneran *et al.* , 2002; Schlundt *et al.* , 2000; Finneran and Schlundt, 2004). In controlled experimental situations, behavioral effects are typically defined as alterations of trained behaviors. Behavioral effects in wild animals are more difficult to define but may include decreased ability to feed, communicate, migrate, or reproduce. Abandonment of an area due to repeated noise exposure is also considered a behavioral effect. Analyses in subsequent sections of this document refer to such behavioral effects as sub-TTS Level B harassment. Schlundt *et al.*

(2000)exposed bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales to various pure-tone sound frequencies and intensities in order to measure underwater hearing thresholds. Masking is considered to have occurred because of ambient noise environment in which the experiments took place. Sound levels were progressively increased until behavioral alterations were noted (at which point the onset of TTS was presumed). It was found that decreasing the sound intensity by 4 to 6 dB greatly decreased the occurrence of anomalous behaviors. The lowest sound pressure levels, over all frequencies, at which altered behaviors were observed, ranged from 178 to 193 dB re 1 micro Pa for the bottlenose dolphins and from 180 to 196 dB re 1 micro Pa for the beluga whales. Thus, it is reasonable to consider that sub-TTS (behavioral) effects occur at approximately 6 dB below the TTS-inducing sound level, or at approximately 176 dB in the greatest 1/3 octave band EFDL/SEL. Table 9 summarizes the relevant thresholds (summarized from information in 70 FR 48675 (August 19, 2005) and in this document), which are specified levels of noise that may result in injury, TTS or harassment to marine mammals. Mortality and injury thresholds are designed to be conservative by considering the impacts that would occur to the most sensitive life stage (e.g., a dolphin calf). Table 10 provides the estimated ZOI radii for the EGTTR ordnance. Table 9.—EGTTR Criteria and Thresholds for Impact of Explosive Noise on Marine Mammals Criterion Criterion definition Threshold Level A Harassment-Auditory Injury 50% of Animals Exposed Would Experience Ear-Drum Rupture, Resulting in Approximately 30% PTS 205 dB Total EFDL/SEL. Level B Harassment Temporary Threshold Shift (NMFS Dual Criterion) 23 PSI Peak Pressure. Level B Harassment Temporary Threshold Shift (NMFS Dual Criterion) 182 dB 1/3 Octave Band EFDL/SEL. Level B Harassment Sub-TTS Behavioral Disruption 176 dB 1/3 Octave Band EFDL/SEL. Table 10.—Estimated Range for a Zone of Impact

(ZOI)Distance for the EGTTR Ordnance Ordnance Level A harassment injurious (205 dB) EFD

(m)Level B harassment non-injurious (182 dB) EFD for TTS

(m)Level B harassment non-injurious (23 psi) for TTS

(m)Level B harassment non-injurious (176 dB) EFD for behavior

(m)105-mm FU 0.79 11.1 216 22.1 105-mm TR 0.22 3.0 90 6.0 40-mm HE 0.33 4.7 122 9.4 25-mm HE 0.11 1.3 49 2.6 FU=Full-up; TR=Training Round; HE=High Explosive As mentioned previously, the EGTTR live fire events are continuous events with pauses during the firing usually well under a minute and rarely from 2 to 5 minutes. Live fire typically occurs within a 30 minute time frame, including all ordnance fired: 25-mm (Phase I), 40-mm (Phase II), and 105-mm (Phase III), and where the 105-mm are fired as separate rounds with up to 30-second intervals, the 25-mm and the 40-mm are often fired in multiple bursts. These burst include multiple rounds (25 to 100) within a 10-to 20-second time frame. Eglin notes that even if the avoidance concept of animals evading the area once firing commences is not considered, an average swim speed (1.5 m/s) of animals would not allow sufficient time for new animals to re-enter the Level B harassment ZOI (23 psi) within the time frame of a single burst. As such, only the peak pressure of a single round is measured per burst and experienced at a given distance (49 m (Phase I), 122 m (Phase II)). For daytime firing it is assumed that the average swim speed per cetacean is approximately 3 knots or 1.5 m/sec. As a conservative scenario, Eglin assumes that there is one animal present within or near the 216-m ZOI (FU 105-mm round ZOI) which may be potentially ensonified within the 23-psi TTS exposure at the time that the 105-mm live firing begins. Density distributions have assumed an even distribution (or approximately 500 m (1640 ft) apart) of approximately 4.38 animals/km2 (all species) for the approach of impact analyses for a take estimation. At this density distribution and typical swim speed, the next available cetacean would approach the perimeter of the 216-m ZOI (23-psi TTS ZOI) in approximately 5.5 minutes assuming a straight line path. With live fire events of the 105-mm occurring at a rate of approximately 2 rounds per minute, nearly one half (or 10 rounds) of the total 105-mm rounds (20 rounds) would potentially be expended within this 5.5 minute time frame. If the concept that marine mammals will evade an area once firing commences is not considered, an average swim speed (1.5 m/s) of animals would allow sufficient time for new animals to re-enter the 23-psi TTS impact area. Allowing for a potential 2 minute break in firing after 10 rounds are expended, it is, therefore, conservative and reasonable to assume that nearly 3 to 4 individual animals may be potentially exposed to the 23-psi TTS sound level during a typical 20 round firing event. Therefore, the ZOI and Level B harassment take estimate calculations are based on the total number of rounds fired per year divided by 5, or approximately 20 percent. This approach assumes that although single animals may be ensonified more than once due to the time required to exit the 23 psi TTS ZOI, animals are not considered to be “taken” more than once for the purposes of estimating take levels. Similarly, as a conservative approach for nighttime firing, Eglin assumes that there is one animal present within or near the 90-m ZOI (105-mm TR ZOI) which may be potentially ensonified within the 23-psi TTS exposure zone at the time that the 105-mm round live firing phase begins. Density distributions have assumed an even distribution of approximately 4.38 animals/km2 (all species) for the approach of impact analyses for estimation of take. At this density distribution and typical swim speed, the next available cetacean would approach the perimeter of the 90-m ZOI (23-psi TTS ZOI) in approximately 5.5 minutes or the same time as with the 216-m ZOI (used for the 105-mm FU). The difference is the amount of time it takes the animal to exit the ZOI or in other words, how long the animal resides within the ZOI on a straight line path. With live fire events of the 105-mm round occurring at a rate of approximately 2 rounds per minute, nearly one half (or 10 rounds) of the total 105-mm rounds (20 rounds) would potentially be expended within this 5.5-minute time frame. If the concept that marine mammals will evade an area once firing commences is not considered, an average swim speed (1.5 m/s) of animals would allow sufficient time for new animals to re-enter the 23-psi TTS impact area. Allowing for a potential 2-min break in firing after 10 rounds are expended, it is conservative and reasonable to assume that nearly 3 to 4 individual animals may be potentially exposed to the 23-psi TTS sound level during a typical 20 round firing event. Therefore, the ZOI and take estimate calculations are based on the total number of rounds fired per year divided by 5, or approximately 20 percent. This approach assumes that, although single animals may be ensonified more than once due to the time required to exit the 23-psi TTS ZOI, individual animals are not considered to be “taken” more than once for the purposes of estimating take levels. Based on this discussion, Table 11 provides Eglin's estimates of the annual number of marine mammals, by species, potentially affected by the gunnery mission noise. It should be noted that these estimates are derived without consideration of the effectiveness of Eglin's proposed mitigation measures (except use of the TR), which are discussed next. BILLING CODE 3510-22-P EN23JA06.052 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Mitigation Eglin AFB will employ a number of mitigation measures in an effort to substantially decrease the number of animals potentially affected. Eglin AFB is committed to assessing the mission activity for opportunities to provide operational mitigations (i.e., ramping up and using nighttime training rounds), while potentially sacrificing some mission flexibility. Even though the forfeit of some mission aspects may improve overall mitigation effectiveness, Eglin AFB believes that the gunnery mission itself does not accommodate typical mitigation, such as independent aerial or vessel surveys. As such, the use of conservative analyses serves in this application as a functional mitigation technique. Visual Mitigation Areas to be used in gunnery missions will be visually monitored for marine mammal presence from the AC-130 aircraft prior to commencement of the mission. If the presence of one or more marine mammals is detected, the target area will be avoided. In addition, monitoring will continue during the mission. If marine mammals are detected at any time, the mission will be either immediately halted and/or relocated as necessary or suspended until the marine mammal has left the area. While visual monitoring at a height of 1000-1500 ft (305-457 m), is expected to be effective, standard visual monitoring is not very effective at 20,000 ft (6.1 km) unless there is a large pod of marine mammals. Daytime and nighttime visual monitoring will be supplemented with IR and TV monitoring and nighttime visual monitoring, which is generally considered to be ineffective at any height, has been altered to incorporate the TR. Development of the TR The largest type of ammunition used during typical gunnery missions is the 105-mm (4.13-in) round containing 4.7 lbs (2.1 kg) of HE. This is several times more HE than that found in the next largest round (40 mm/1.57 in). As a mitigation technique, the Air Force developed a 105-mm TR that contains only 0.35 lb (0.16 kg) of HE. The TR was developed to significantly reduce the effects of nighttime operations, when visual surveying for marine mammals is of limited effectiveness. Use of the TR at night dramatically reduces the risk of harassment, and Eglin anticipates a 96 percent reduction in impact by using the 105-mm TR. Ramp-Up Eglin proposes to ramp-up activities by beginning with the smallest, or the round having least impact and proceeding to subsequently larger size rounds (in this case the lowest caliber of munition up to the 105-mm round). Theoretically, this allows animals to perceive steadily increasing sounds and to react, if necessary. Alerting animals in advance of injurious sound waves by transmitting low-power “warning” signals a short time before the action provides a safeguard where there is a potential for the risk of injury. Other Mitigation NMFS has recommended additional measures to protect marine life as part of its section 7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)with Eglin. NMFS proposes to continue the following requirements under an IHA:

(1)Test firing will be conducted only when sea surface conditions are sea state 3 or less on the Beaufort scale.

(2)Prior to each firing event, the aircraft crew will conduct a visual survey of the 5-nm (9.3-km) wide prospective target area to attempt to sight any protected species that may be present (e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, and Sargassum rafts). The AC-130 gunship will conduct at least two complete orbits at a minimum safe airspeed around a prospective target area at a maximum altitude of 1,500 ft (457 m), with a recommended altitude of 1,000 ft (305 m). The AC-130 will then continue orbiting the selected target point as it climbs to the mission testing altitude. During the low altitude orbits and the climb to testing altitude, aircraft crew will visually scan the sea surface within the aircraft's orbit circle for the presence of listed and non-listed marine mammals and sea turtles. Primary emphasis for the surface scan will be upon the flight crew in the cockpit and personnel stationed in the tail observer bubble and starboard viewing window. The AC-130's optical and electronic sensors will also be employed for target clearance. If any marine mammals are detected within the AC-130's orbit circle, either during initial clearance or after commencement of live firing, the aircraft will relocate to another target and repeat the clearance procedures. If multiple firing events occur within the same flight, these clearance procedures will precede each event.

(3)The aircrews of the air-to-ground gunnery missions will initiate location and surveillance of a suitable firing site immediately after exiting U.S. territorial waters (> 12 nm). This would potentially restrict most gunnery activities to the shallower continental shelf waters of the GOM where marine mammal densities are typically lower, and thus potentially avoid the slope waters where the more sensitive species (e.g., endangered sperm whales) typically reside.

(4)Observations will be accomplished using all-light TV, IR sensors, and visual means for at least 60 minutes prior to each exercise.

(5)Aircrews will utilize visual, night vision goggles (NVGs), and other onboard sensors to search for marine mammals and sea turtles while performing area clearance procedures during night-time pre-mission activities.

(6)If any marine mammals, sea turtles, or Sargassum rafts are sighted during pre-mission surveys or during the mission, activities will be immediately halted until the area is clear of all protected marine species for 60 minutes or the mission location relocated and resurveyed. Monitoring and Reporting NMFS proposes to require Eglin to monitor the target area for impacts to marine mammals and to report on its activities on an annual basis. Accordingly, NMFS' Biological Opinion on this action has recommended certain monitoring measures to protect marine life. NMFS proposes to require the same requirements under an IHA:

(1)Eglin will develop and implement a marine species observer-training program in coordination with NMFS. This program will primarily provide expertise to Eglin's testing and training community in the identification of protected marine species during surface and aerial mission activities in the GOM. Additionally, the A-S gunnery mission aircrews will participate in the proposed species observation training. As a result, designated crew members will be selected to receive training as protected species observers. Observers will receive training in protected species survey and identification techniques through a NMFS-approved training program.

(2)Aircrews will initiate the post-mission clearance procedures beginning at the operational altitude of approximately 15,000 to 20,000 ft (4572 to 6096 m) AGL, and initiating a spiraling descent down to an observation altitude of approximately 1,500 ft. (457 m) AGL. Rates of descent will occur over a 3 to 5 minute time frame.

(3)Eglin will track their use of the EGTR for test firing missions and protected resources (marine mammal/ sea turtle) observations, through the use of mission reporting forms.

(4)A-S gunnery missions will coordinate with next-day flight activities to provide supplemental post-mission observations for marine mammals and sea turtles in the operations area of the previous day.

(5)A summary annual report of marine mammal/sea turtle observations and A-S activities will be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office

(SERO)and the Office of Protected Resources by January 31 of each year.

(6)If any marine mammal or sea turtle is observed or detected to be deceased prior to testing, or injured or killed during live fire, a report must be made to the NMFS by the following business day.

(7)Any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., serious injury or mortality) must be immediately reported to the NMFS representative and to the respective stranding network representative. ESA Consultation under section 7 of the ESA on Eglin was completed on December 18, 1998. Consultation was reinitiated by Eglin AFB with NMFS on February 13, 2003 and concluded on October 20, 2004. A NMFS Biological Opinion issued on October 20, 2004, concluded that the A-S gunnery exercises in the EGTTR are unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of species listed under the ESA that are within the jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The proposed IHA to Eglin is a federal action; accordingly, prior to issuance of an IHA, NMFS will determine whether additional consultation is necessary. NEPA In November, 2002, the U.S. Air Force prepared a Final Programmatic EA for the activities on the EGTTR. NMFS is reviewing this EA and will either adopt it or prepare its own NEPA document before making a determination on the issuance of an IHA and rulemaking. A copy of Eglin's Final PEA for this activity is available upon written request (see ADDRESSES ). Preliminary Conclusions NMFS has preliminarily determined that the A-S gunnery exercises that are conducted by Eglin AFB in the EGTTR in the northern GOM, is unlikely to result in the mortality or serious injury of marine mammals ( *see* Table 11) and, would result in, at worst, a temporary elevation in hearing sensitivity (known as TTS). NMFS estimates that up to 271 marine mammals may incur this form of Level B harassment annually. Also, these gunnery exercises have the potential to result in a temporary modification in behavior by marine mammals. NMFS estimates that up 25 marine mammals may experience a behavioral response to these exercises during the time-frame of an IHA. While behavioral modifications may be made by these species as a result of these air-to-surface gunnery activities, any behavioral change is expected to result in no more than a negligible impact on the affected species. In addition, the potential for temporary hearing impairment is very low and will be mitigated to the lowest level practicable through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document. Proposed Authorization NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Eglin AFB for conducting A-S gunnery exercises within the EGTTR in the northern GOM provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed activity is unlikely to result in serious injury or mortality to marine mammals; would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks; and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of stocks for subsistence uses. Information Solicited NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information concerning this proposed IHA and Eglin's IHA/LOA application for incidental take regulations (see ADDRESSES ). As this document is being published in conformance with NMFS regulations implementing the incidental take program (50 CFR 104(b)(1)(ii)), NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning both the request and the structure and content of future regulations to allow this taking. As requested by 50 CFR 216.105, NMFS will consider this information in developing proposed regulations to authorize the taking. If NMFS proposes regulations to allow this take, interested parties will be provided with a 45-day comment period within which to submit comments on the proposed rule. Dated: January 17, 2006. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-595 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 19

Traces to 19 documents

U.S. Code

CFR