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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-02-13 · Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice

34,629 words·~157 min read·/register/2006/02/13/06-1370

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Applications for Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Grants and Guaranteed Loans AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service
(RBS)announces the availability of funds for fiscal year
(FY)2006 to purchase renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements for agriculture producers and rural small businesses in eligible rural areas. The amount available for competitive grants is $11.385 million. Approximately $176.5 million in guaranteed loan authority is also available. Any guarantee loan funds that are not obligated by August 1, 2006, will be pooled and revert to the National Office reserve for grant use. USDA is currently in the process of evaluating the potential for a direct loan program to help finance renewable energy and energy efficiency projects for rural small businesses and agricultural producers. Therefore, for purposes of FY 2006, funding will be limited to grants and guaranteed loans. For renewable energy systems, the minimum grant request is $2,500 and the maximum is $500,000. For energy efficiency improvements, the minimum acceptable grant request is $1,500 and the maximum is $250,000. The maximum amount of a guaranteed loan made to a borrower will be $10 million. For FY 2006, the guarantee fee amount is 1.0% (one percent) of the guaranteed portion of the loan and the annual renewal fee is 0.125% (one-eighth of one percent) of the guaranteed portion of the loan. DATES: The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)will conduct one competitive grant solicitation in 2006. Applications must be completed and submitted to the appropriate USDA Rural Development State Office postmarked no later than May 12, 2006. Grant applications postmarked after this date will be returned to the applicant with no action. Any guaranteed loan funds not obligated by August 1, 2006 will be made available for competitive grants under this notice. Guaranteed loans will be awarded on a continuous basis. Applications are due to the National Office for funding consideration by July 3, 2006. In accordance with RD Instructions 1940-G, all environmental assessments must be completed prior to submission to the National Office. ADDRESSES: Submit applications to the USDA Rural Development State Office in the State where your project is located or, in the case of rural small businesses, where your business is headquartered. A list of the Rural Development State Offices and Energy Coordinators addresses and telephone numbers follow. For further information about this solicitation, please contact the applicable State Office. This document is available on our Web site at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/farmbill/index.html.* USDA State Rural Development Offices Alabama Mary Ann Clayton, USDA Rural Development, Sterling Centre, Suite 601, 4121 Carmichael Road, Montgomery, AL 36106-3683,
(334)279-3615. Alaska Dean Stewart, USDA Rural Development, 800 West Evergreen, Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645-6539,
(907)761-7722. Arizona Alan Watt, USDA Rural Development, 230 N. First Avenue, Suite 206, Phoenix, AZ 85003-1706,
(602)280-8769. Arkansas Shirley Tucker, USDA Rural Development, 700 West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416, Little Rock, AR 72201-3225,
(501)301-3280. California Joseph Choperena, USDA Rural Development, 430 G Street, 4169, Davis, CA 95616-4169,
(530)792-5826. Colorado Linda Sundine, USDA Rural Development, 655 Parfet Street, Room E-100, Lakewood, CO 80215,
(720)544-2929. Delaware-Maryland James Waters, USDA Rural Development, 1221 College Park Drive, Suite 200, Dover, DE 19904,
(302)857-3626. Florida/Virgin Islands Joe Mueller, USDA Rural Development, 4440 NW. 25th Place, P.O. Box 147010, Gainesville, FL 32614-7010,
(352)338-3482. Georgia J. Craig Scroggs, USDA Rural Development, 333 Phillips Drive, McDonough, GA 30253,
(678)583-0866. Hawaii Tim O'Connell, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 311, 154 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720,
(808)933-8313. Idaho Brian Buch, USDA Rural Development, 725 Jensen Grove Drive, Suite 1, Blackfoot, ID 83221,
(208)785-5840, Ext. 118. Illinois Patrick Lydic, USDA Rural Development, 2118 West Park Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821,
(217)403-6211. Indiana Jerry Hay, USDA Rural Development, 2411 N. 1250 W., Deputy, IN 47230,
(812)873-1100. Iowa Teresa Bomhoff, USDA Rural Development, 873 Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50309,
(515)284-4447. Kansas F. Martin Fee, USDA Rural Development, 1303 SW First American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, KS 66604-4040,
(785)271-2744. Kentucky Scott Mass, USDA Rural Development, 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40503,
(859)224-7435. Louisiana Kevin Boone, USDA Rural Development, 3727 Government Street, Alexandria, LA 71302,
(318)473-7960. Maine John F. Sheehan, USDA Rural Development, 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4, P.O. Box 405, Bangor, ME 04402-0405,
(207)990-9168. Massachusetts/Rhode Island/Connecticut Sharon Colburn, USDA Rural Development, 451 West Street, Suite 2, Amherst, MA 01002-2999,
(413)253-4303. Michigan Rick Vanderbeek, USDA Rural Development, 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI 48823,
(517)324-5218. Minnesota Lisa Noty, USDA Rural Development, 1408 21st Avenue, Suite 3, Austin, MN 55912,
(507)437-8247 ext. 150. Mississippi G. Gary Jones, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Suite 831, 100 West Capitol Street, Jackson, MS 39269,
(601)965-5457. Missouri D Clark Thomas, USDA Rural Development, 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203,
(573)876-0995. Montana John Guthmiller, USDA Rural Development, 900 Technology Blvd., Unit 1, Suite B, P.O. Box 850, Bozeman, MT 59771,
(406)585-2540. Nebraska Cliff Kumm, USDA Rural Development, 201 North, 25 Street, Beatrice, NE 68310,
(402)223-3125. Nevada Dan Johnson, USDA Rural Development, 555 West Silver Street, Suite 101, Elko, NV 89801,
(775)738-8468, Ext. 112. New Hampshire (See Vermont) New Jersey Michael Kelsey, USDA Rural Development, 8000 Midlantic Drive, 5th Floor North, Suite 500, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054,
(856)787-7700, Ext. 7751. New Mexico Eric Vigil, USDA Rural Development, 6200 Jefferson Street, NE., Room 255, Albuquerque, NM 87109,
(505)761-4952. New York Scott Collins, USDA Rural Development, The Galleries of Syracuse, Suite 357, 441 South Salina Street, Syracuse, NY 13202-2541,
(315)477-6409. North Carolina H. Rossie Bullock, USDA Rural Development, 4405 Bland Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609,
(910)739-3349 Ext. 4. North Dakota Dale Van Eckhout, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser Avenue, P.O. Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502-1737,
(701)530-2065. Ohio Randy Monhemius, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 507, 200 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215-2418,
(614)255-2424. Oklahoma Jody Harris, USDA Rural Development, 100 USDA, Suite 108, Stillwater, OK 74074-2654,
(405)742-1036. Oregon Don Hollis, USDA Rural Development, 1229 SE. Third Street, Suite A, Pendleton, OR 97801-4198,
(541)278-8049, Ext. 129. Pennsylvania J. Gregory Greco, USDA Rural Development, One Credit Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996,
(717)237-2289. Puerto Rico Luis Garcia, USDA Rural Development, IBM Building, 654 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 601, Hato Rey, PR 00918-6106,
(787)766-5091, Ext. 251. South Carolina R. Gregg White, USDA Rural Development, Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007, Columbia, SC 29201,
(803)765-5881. South Dakota Gary Korzan, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 210, 200 4th Street, SW., Huron, SD 57350,
(605)352-1142. Tennessee Will Dodson, USDA Rural Development, 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300, Nashville, TN 37203-1084,
(615)783-1350. Texas Daniel Torres, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Suite 102101, South Main Street, Temple, TX 76501,
(254)742-9756. Utah Richard Carrig, USDA Rural Development, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT 84111,
(801)524-4328. Vermont/New Hampshire Lyn Millhiser, USDA Rural Development, City Center, 3rd Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT 05602,
(802)828-6069. Virginia Laurette Tucker, USDA Rural Development, Culpeper Building, Suite 238, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Richmond, VA 23229,
(804)287-1594. Washington Chris Cassidy, USDA Rural Development, 1835 Black Lake Blvd. SW., Suite B, Olympia, WA 98512,
(360)704-7707. West Virginia Cheryl Wolfe, USDA Rural Development, 75 High Street, Room 320, Morgantown, WV 26505-7500,
(304)284-4882. Wisconsin Mark Brodziski, USDA Rural Development, 4949 Kirschling Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481,
(715)345-7615, Ext. 131. Wyoming Milton Geiger, USDA Rural Development, Dick Cheney Federal Building, 100 East B Street, Room 1005, P.O. Box 820, Casper, WY 82602,
(307)672-5820 Ext. 4. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This solicitation is issued pursuant to Section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act), which established the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program. The program is designed to help agricultural producers and rural small businesses reduce energy costs and consumption and help meet the Nation's critical energy needs. The 2002 Act mandates the maximum percentage Rural Development will provide in funding for these types of projects. Rural Development grants under this program will not exceed 25 percent of the eligible project costs. Rural Development guaranteed loans will not exceed 50 percent of the eligible project costs. Rural Development combined grant and guaranteed loan funding packages will not exceed 50 percent of eligible project cost, with the grant portion not to exceed 25 percent of eligible project costs. Information required to be in the application package is contained in 7 CFR 4280.111. Awards are made on a competitive basis using specific evaluation criteria contained in 7 CFR 4280.112(e). To ensure that projects are accurately scored by USDA, applicants are expected to tab and number each evaluation criteria and include in that section, its corresponding supporting documentation and calculations according to 7 CFR 4280.112. Only projects that have completed the environmental review process according to 7 CFR 4280.114(d), demonstrated project eligibility according to 7 CFR 4280.108, and demonstrated technical feasibility will be eligible for funding consideration. State Offices will submit eligible funding requests, with the state score sheets, including supporting documentation to the National Office for funding consideration. The National Office will form a Second Tier Review Committee comprised of representatives from Rural Development State Offices, U.S. Forest Service National Office staff, the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Environmental Protection Agency National Office staff. The Second Tier Review Committee will conduct independent reviews of proposals based on the grant evaluation criteria contained in 7 CFR 4280.112(e). These reviews will be conducted based on the information provided in the State Office request for funding. The Second Tier Review Committee will only award points when properly organized supporting documentation and fully understandable calculations are provided. Final scores and ranking will be based on the reviews completed by the Second Tier Review Committee. To reduce scoring bias by technology and scale, a standard statistical normalization process will be applied to all scores. All applicants will be notified by the Rural Development State Offices of the Agency's decision on the awards. This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.755 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden has been cleared by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB Control Number 0570-0050. Nondiscrimination Statement USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call
(800)795-3272 (voice), or
(202)720-6382 (TDD). “USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.” Dated: February 2, 2006. Jackie J. Gleason, Acting Administrator, Business and Cooperative Programs. [FR Doc. E6-1923 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Chemical Weapons Convention, Amendment to the Export Administration Regulations (End-Use Certificates and Advanced Notifications and Annual Reports) ACTION: Notice and request for comments. 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 April 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230, or via 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, Room 6703, Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC)is a multilateral arms control treaty that seeks to achieve an international ban on chemical weapons (CW). The CWC prohibits, the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and direct or indirect transfer of chemical weapons. This collection implements that following provision of the treaty: *Schedule 1 notification and report:* Under Part VI of the CWC Verification Annex, the United States is required to notify the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international organization created to implement the CWC, at least 30 days before any transfer (export/import) of Schedule 1 chemicals to another State Party. The United States is also required to submit annual reports to the OPCW on all transfers of Schedule 1 Chemicals. *End-Use Certificates:* Under Part VIII of the CWC Verification Annex, the United States is required to obtain End-Use Certificates for transfers of Schedule 3 chemicals to Non-States Parties to ensure the transferred chemicals are only used for the purposes not prohibited under the Convention. II Method of Collection Written reports. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0117. *Form Number:* Not Applicable. *Type of Review:* Regular submission for extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 107. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 30 minutes per response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 54 hours . *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* No capital expenditures are required. 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 will also become a matter of public record. Dated: February 7, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-1937 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-403-801, C-403-802] Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway 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 “ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon (“salmon”) from Norway would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping; that revocation of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on salmon from Norway would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy; and that revocation of these AD and CVD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of the continuation of these AD and CVD orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor (AD order), Tipten Troidl (CVD order), AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4114 and
(202)482-1767, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 2, 2005, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the AD and CVD orders on salmon from Norway, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), respectively. *See Notice of Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 5415 (February 2, 2005). As a result of its reviews, the Department found that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidization, and notified the ITC of the margins of dumping and the subsidy rates likely to prevail were the orders revoked. *See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway: Final Results of the Full Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order* , 70 FR 77378 (December 30, 2005) and *Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order: Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway* , 70 FR 53345 (September 8, 2005) (collectively, “ *Final Results* ”). On February 1, 2006, the ITC determined that revocation of the AD and CVD orders on salmon from Norway would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway* , 71 FR 5373 (February 1, 2006) (“ *ITC Determination* ”) and USITC Publication 3835 (January 2006), entitled *Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway* (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-302 and 731-TA-454 (Second Review)). Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by the AD and CVD orders is the species Atlantic salmon (Salmon Salar) marketed as specified herein; the order excludes all other species of salmon: Danube salmon, Chinook (also called “king” or “quinnat”), Coho (“silver”), Sockeye (“redfish” or “blueback”), Humpback (“pink”) and Chum (“dog”). Atlantic salmon is a whole or nearly-whole fish, typically (but not necessarily) marketed gutted, bled, and cleaned, with the head on. The subject merchandise is typically packed in fresh-water ice (“chilled”). Excluded from the subject merchandise are fillets, steaks and other cuts of Atlantic salmon. Also excluded are frozen, canned, smoked or otherwise processed Atlantic salmon. Atlantic salmon is currently provided for under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 0302.12.0003 and 0302.12.0004. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of these AD and CVD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy, and of 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 AD and CVD orders on salmon from Norway. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these orders is the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than January 2011. These five-year (sunset) reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 7, 2006. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-1983 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-816] Notice of Final Results of the Eleventh Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the *Preliminary Results* of the antidumping duty administrative review for certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
(CORE)from the Republic of Korea (Korea). *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 53153 (September 7, 2005) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers five manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise: Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union); Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, the POSCO Group); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu) (collectively, respondents); and Dongshin Special Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongshin). The period of review
(POR)is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. As a result of our analysis of the comments received, these final results differ from the *Preliminary Results* . For our final results, we have found that during the POR, the POSCO Group, Union and Dongbu sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). We have also found that HYSCO did not make sales of the subject merchandise at less than NV ( *i.e.* , it has a zero or *de minimis* dumping margin). Regarding Dongshin, because it failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we have preliminarily determined to resort to adverse facts available and assigned to Dongshin the “All Others” rate in effect for this order (17.70 percent), which is the highest margin upheld in this proceeding. *See Preliminary Results* at 53155-56. Since the publication of the *Preliminary Results* , we have not received any comments regarding Dongshin from interested parties that would warrant reconsideration of our finding. Therefore, we have continued to assign a rate of 17.70 percent to Dongshin. The final results are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. Furthermore, we rescinded the request for review of the antidumping order for SeAH Steel Corporation
(SeAH)because neither SeAH nor its affiliates had exports or sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. For more information, *see Preliminary Results* at 53154. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska (Union), Preeti Tolani (Dongbu), Victoria Cho (the POSCO Group), and Joy Zhang (HYSCO), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-8362,
(202)482-0395,
(202)482-5075, and
(202)482-1168, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 7, 2005, the Department published the *Preliminary Results* . On December 5, 2005, the Department published the notice of extension of final results of the antidumping administrative review of CORE from Korea, extending the date for these final results to February 6, 2006. *See Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 70 FR 72424 (December 5, 2005). Comments from Interested Parties We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . On November 15, 2005, Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc. (Mittal) filed a case brief concerning all respondents; United States Steel Corporation (US Steel) filed case briefs concerning the POSCO Group, HYSCO, and Union; and all respondents filed a case brief. 1 On November 22, 2005, Mittal and US Steel filed rebuttal briefs concerning all respondents, and all respondents also filed a rebuttal brief. 1 The Nucor Corporation, another domestic interested party, did not submit a case brief or a rebuttal brief. Scope of the Order This order covers cold-rolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this order are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”) for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal brief by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margins exist: Producer/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Dongbu 2.26 % Union 1.54 % The POSCO Group 2.16 % HYSCO 0.00 % Dongshin 17.70 % Assessment The Department will determine, and Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CORE from Korea 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 other than those covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 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 subject merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 17.70 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402
(f)to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping and/or countervailing duties reimbursed. Administrative Protective Order This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 3, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX I List of Comments in the Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum A. General Issues Comment 1: *Model-Match Methodology and Laminated Products* Comment 2: *Adjustments to U.S. Prices for Duty Drawback Paid in Korea* Comment 3: *Section D Costs As Weighted-Average Values for the Entire POR* Comment 4: *Adjustments to the Difference-In-Merchandise (DIFMER) Calculation* B. Company-Specific Issues Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. Comment 5: *Treatment of Dongbu's Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in Korea* Comment 6: *Treatment of Dongbu's Constructed Export Price
(CEP)Offset* Comment 7: *Dongbu's Treatment of Short-term Interest Rate* Hyundai HYSCO Comment 8: *CEP Offset for HYSCO* Comment 9: *U.S. Sales Reconciliation for HYSCO* Comment 10: *U.S. Indirect Selling Expense Ratio for HYSCO* Comment 11: *HYSCO's Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in Korea* Comment 12: *Customs Instructions for HYSCO* Comment 13: *HYSCO's Home Market Sales of Non-prime Merchandise* Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Comment 14: *Treatment of Union's CEP Offset* Comment 15: *Treatment of Union's Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in Korea* Comment 16: *Treatment of Union's Indirect Selling Expense Ratio* Comment 17: *Union's Treatment of Bad Debt Expenses Incurred by Dongkuk International Inc.* Comment 18: *Union's Treatment of Factory Warehousing Expenses in Korea for its U.S. Sales* Comment 19: *Treatment of Union's Warranty Expenses* Comment 20: *Treatment of Certain Estimated Shipment Dates and/or Estimated Payment Dates for Certain U.S. Warehoused Sales* Comment 21: *Treatment of Union Coating Co., Ltd.'s (Unico's) Home Market Credit Expense* Comment 22: *Union's Treatment of “Oxidized Steel”
(Rust)in its Cost Calculations* Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. Comment 23: *Treatment of the POSCO Group's Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in Korea* Comment 24: *Treatment of the POSCO Group's CEP Offset* Comment 25: *The POSCO Group's Treatment of Advertising Expenses as Indirect Selling Expenses* Comment 26: *The POSCO Group's Rebates for Home Market Sales* Comment 27: *Revision of the POSCO Group's Indirect Selling and Commission Expense* Comment 28: *Treatment of the POSCO Group's Home Market Sales As Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade* Comment 29: *Treatment of the POSCO Group's Home Market Credit Expense* Comment 30: *The POSCO Group's “Window Period” Sales Adjustment* [FR Doc. E6-1984 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-878] Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 8, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the People's Republic of China. *See Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Recession of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 45657 (August 8, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The period of review is December 27, 2002, through June 30, 2004. We invited interested parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to our calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the *Preliminary Results* . The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed company is listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5047 or
(202)482-4207, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 8, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Preliminary Results* . Since the publication of the preliminary results, the following events have occurred. On August 29, 2005, Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Fortune”) requested a hearing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). On December 22, 2005, Shanghai Fortune withdrew its request for a hearing. *See* Memorandum to the File from Ann Fornaro Through Blanche Ziv “Withdrawal of Hearing Request,” dated December 22, 2005, which is available in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. As there were no other requests for a hearing, the Department did not hold a hearing in this proceeding. On August 31, 2005, the Department received submissions on surrogate value data from the petitioner, PMC Specialties Group (“Petitioner”), and Shanghai Fortune. On September 12, 2005, the Department received timely filed information for rebuttal and clarification from Petitioner. On August 22, 2005, Shanghai Fortune submitted its response to the remaining information requested by the Department in its supplemental questionnaire issued on July 22, 2005. The first portion of this supplemental questionnaire was submitted on July 26, 2005. *See* Shanghai Fortune's “Saccharin from the People's Republic of China; Submission of Shanghai Fortune's Seventh Supplemental Response,” dated July 26, 2005. 1 1 For discussion of previous supplemental questionnaire responses, *see Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 45658. On December 5, 2005, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the final results until February 6, 2006. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Administrative Review: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 72424 (December 5, 2005). On December 13, 2005, the Department received case briefs from the Petitioner and Shanghai Fortune. On December 20, 2005, the Department received rebuttal briefs from Petitioner and Shanghai Fortune. On January 19, 2006, the Department placed updated surrogate value information on the record of this review in order to allow parties an opportunity to comment on the new information. *See* Memorandum to the File From Jennifer Moats “Updated Surrogate Value Information,” dated January 19, 2006. On January 23, 2006, the Department received timely filed comments on surrogate values from Petitioner and Shanghai Fortune. On January 19, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Fortune requesting information on certain by-products that it claimed to have produced and sold during the POR. On January 20, 2006, the Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Fortune requesting further information on certain by-products at issue. On January 24, 2006, the Department received a timely filed response to these supplemental questionnaires from Shanghai Fortune. We have conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213. Scope of the Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is saccharin. Saccharin is defined as a non-nutritive sweetener used in beverages and foods, personal care products such as toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and animal feeds. It is also used in metalworking fluids. There are four primary chemical compositions of saccharin:
(1)Sodium saccharin (American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) Registry #128-44-44);
(2)calcium saccharin (CAS Registry #6485-34-34);
(3)acid (or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry #81-07-07); and
(4)research grade saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced and imported grades of saccharin from the PRC are sodium and calcium saccharin, which are available in granular, powder, spray-dried powder, and liquid forms. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheading 2925.11.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) and includes all types of saccharin imported under this HTSUS subheading, including research and specialized grades. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments submitted by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated February 6, 2006, (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”) which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the *Decision Memorandum* is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The *Decision Memorandum* is a public document which is on file in the CRU in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building and is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Partial Recession of Administrative Reviews In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department issued a notice of intent to rescind the administrative reviews with respect to Daiwa Kenko Company Limited (“Daiwa-Kenko”), Kenko Corporation, and Productos Aditivos, S.A. (“Productos Aditivos”) because we found no evidence that these companies made shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. *See Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 45659. The Department received no comments on this issue, and we did not receive any further information since the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* that provides a basis for reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review with respect to Daiwa-Kenko, Kenko Corporation, and Productos Aditivos. Separate Rates In our *Preliminary Results* , we determined that Shanghai Fortune met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. We determined that Suzhou Fine Chemicals Group Co. (“Suzhou Chemicals”), Kaifeng Xinghua Fine Chemical Factory (“Kaifeng Chemical”), Tianjin North Food, Tianjin Changjie Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin Changjie”), and Beta Udyog Ltd. (“Beta Udyog”) did not qualify for a separate rate and, therefore, are deemed to be included in the PRC-entity rate. *See Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 45660-62. The Department received no comments on this issue, and we did not receive any further information since the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* that provides a basis for reconsideration of these determinations. Therefore, for the *Final Results* , the Department included Suzhou Chemicals, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin Changjie, and Beta Udyog in the PRC-entity. The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Adverse Facts Available Suzhou Chemicals, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, Tianjin Changjie, and Beta Udyog In the *Preliminary Results* , we determined that the PRC-entity did not respond to the questionnaire and, therefore, failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in this administrative review. Accordingly, we determined that the use of facts otherwise available in reaching our determination is appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(B)of the Act and that the use of an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available is appropriate pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. In accordance with the Department's practice, as adverse facts available, we assigned to the PRC-entity the rate of 329.33 percent. For detailed information on the Department's corroboration of this rate, *see Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 45662. The Department received no further information or comments on this issue since the issuance of the *Preliminary Results* that provides a basis for reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, we continued to assign the PRC-entity the rate of 329.33 percent for the *Final Results* . Other Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of information on the record of this review and comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculations for Shanghai Fortune. We have also revalued several of the surrogate values used in the *Preliminary Results* . The values that were modified for these final results are those for ammonia water, liquid chlorine, steam coal, sulfur dioxide, and activated carbon. In the *Preliminary Results* , we determined that India is the preferred surrogate country for purposes of calculating the factors of production. *See* Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. While India remains our primary surrogate country for this review, we found the publicly available information in India for sulfur dioxide to be unreliable because of small quantities and aberrant values. As such, we used data from Indonesia to value this input. The use of a secondary source country when data from the primary surrogate country is unreliable is consistent with the Department's practice. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Dtuy Administrative Review* , 70 FR 34448 (June 14, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2, and *Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the PRC; Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 58514, 58517-18 (November 15, 1996). For further details *see* “Factors Valuations for the Final Results of the Administrative Review,” dated February 6, 2006. In the *Preliminary Results* , because of the lack of clarity in Shanghai Fortune's responses as to whether its phthalic anhydride was supplied from a market economy, the Department used surrogate values to value all of Shanghai Fortune's reported factors. *See Preliminary Results* at 45664 and Memorandum to the File From Steve Williams Through Brian Ledgerwood “Preliminary Results of First Administrative Review of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Analysis of Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd.,” which is available in the CRU in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. Subsequent to the Department's *Preliminary Results* , Shanghai Fortune clarified that the phthalic anhydride inputs used in its production of subject merchandise during the POR were, in fact, sourced from a market economy country and paid for in a market economy currency. *See* Shanghai Fortune's “Saccharin from the People's Republic of China; Submission of Publicly Available Data For Use As Surrogate Values,” dated August 31, 2005, at page 13. When a non-market economy producer purchases an input from market economy suppliers and pays for that input in a market economy currency, the Department normally uses the actual price paid for these inputs, where possible. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). Because Shanghai Fortune provided sufficient documentation on the record of this review demonstrating that the phthalic anhydride used was sourced from a market economy and paid for in a market economy currency, we are using the actual average price paid by Shanghai Fortune for this input for the final results. For further details, *see* Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3, and Memorandum to the File From Jennifer Moats Through Wendy Frankel “Analysis for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Fortune Final Analysis Memo”),” dated February 6, 2006, which is available in the CRU in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. Since our issuance of the *Preliminary Results* , we have reviewed our calculations of surrogate values and found some to contain clerical errors, which we have corrected for the *Final Results* . These values are for the products sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, sodium bicarbonate, sodium hypochlorite, cardboard drums and cartons, inner plastic bags, plastic film, and pallets. For further details, *see* “Factors Valuations for the Final Results of the Administrative Review,” dated February 6, 2006. For further information detailing all of the changes to Shanghai Fortune's calculations in the final results, *see* Shanghai Fortune Final Analysis Memo. Final Results of the Review The Department has determined that the following final dumping margins exist for the period December 27, 2002, through June 30, 2004: Saccharin from the PRC Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. 17.05% PRC-Wide Entity 2 329.33% 2 The PRC-wide entity includes: Suzhou Fine Chemicals Group Co., Kaifeng Xinghua Fine Chemical Factory, Tianjin North Food, Tianjin Changjie Chemical Co., Ltd., and Beta Udyog Ltd. The Department will disclose calculations performed for these final results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Duty Assessment and Cash-Deposit Requirements The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates or values for merchandise subject to this review. Because Shanghai Fortune reported entered values, for these final results, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value for the reviewed sales for each applicable importer. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the applicable importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Further, the following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of the administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)For subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Fortune, the cash-deposit rate will be 17.05 percent;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 329.33 percent;
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification of Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO as explained in the administrative protective order itself. *See* 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. *See* 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. These final results of administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: February 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1 Decision Memorandum 1. Bona Fides 2. By-Product Offset 3. Valuation of Phtalic Anhydride 4. Valuation of Brokerage and Handling 5. Valuation of Ammonia Water 6. Valuation of Liquid Chlorine 7. Valuation of Sulfur Dioxide 8. Valuation of Ocean Freight 9. Valuation of Steam Coal 10. Valuation of Activated Carbon [FR Doc. E6-1985 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-806] Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal from Brazil AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 8, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the administrative review of the order on silicon metal from Brazil. *See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 45665 (August 8, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Camargo Correa Metais (CCM). The merchandise covered by this order is silicon metal from Brazil as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice. The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the margin calculation. Therefore, the final results have changed from the preliminary results of this review. The final weight-averaged dumping margin is listed below in the section titled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5831. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department's preliminary results of review were published on August 8, 2005. *See Preliminary Results* . As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we verified sales and cost information provided by CCM, from September 12, 2005, through September 23, 2005, using standard verification procedures such as the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public and proprietary versions of our verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Commerce building. We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* and our verification findings. We received written comments on November 14, 2005, from Globe Metallurgical (the petitioner). On December 9, 2005, we received rebuttal comments from CCM, the respondent. On January 26, 2006, the Department held a public hearing concerning these final results. The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is silicon metal from Brazil containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Also covered by this order is silicon metal from Brazil containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to the order. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, as well as the Department's findings, in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from Brazil (“Decision Memorandum”), dated February 6, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which we have responded to in the Decision Memorandum, is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the calculations for the final dumping margin. The changes are discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum. Additional detail regarding these changes is provided in the Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from Brazil; Calculation Memorandum for the Final Results,” dated February 6, 2006, and the Memorandum from Michael P. Harrison, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results,” dated February 6, 2005. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted- Average Margin (Percentage) Camargo Correa Metais 0.00 percent Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales for each importer to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise produced by CCM. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of silicon metal from Brazil 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 CCM we will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits;
(2)for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from the most recently completed review;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be 91.06 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 3, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX - Issues in Decision Memorandum I. Programa de Integracao Social and Contribuicao do Financiamento Social Taxes II. Per-Unit Cost Calculation III. General & Administrative Expense/Ratio IV. Financial Expenses V. Depreciation of Deferred Charges for Restarting Idled Furnaces VI. Depreciation of Idled Assets VII. Taxes Included in Constructed Value [FR Doc. E6-1987 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-831] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 9, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results and partial rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan. This review covers 16 manufacturers/exporters. The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. We provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of review. After analyzing the comments received, we made changes to the margin calculations for two respondents, Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far) and Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO). Therefore, the final results of review differ from the preliminary results of review. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge or Karine Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3518 or
(202)482-4081, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The following events occurred after the Department published the preliminary results of the instant administrative review in the **Federal Register** . *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 46137 (August 9, 2005) ( *Preliminary Results* ). In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the *Preliminary Results* , the petitioners 1 filed case briefs on September 8, 2005, and September 12, 2005. Chia Far filed case brief on September 12, 2005. YUSCO filed rebuttal brief on September 13, 2005, while the petitioners and Chia Far filed rebuttal brief on September 19, 2005. On November 16, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for completing the final results of review until February 5, 2006. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 69514 (November 16, 2005). 1 The petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation, Butler Armco Independent Union, J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., United Steelworks of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization (collectively, “petitioners”). Period of Review The POR is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, *etc* .) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States*
(HTS)at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 2 , 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. 2 Due to changes to the HTS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the scope of the order are the following:
(1)sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* Chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of the order. These excluded products are described below. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 3 3 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 4 4 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 5 5 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 6 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 7 6 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 7 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Partial Rescission of Review In the *Preliminary Results* notice, we stated that we were preliminarily rescinding the instant review with respect to Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen), Yieh Mau Corp. (Yieh Mau), Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd. (Chain Chon), Tung Mung Development Co. Ltd. (Tung Mung), Tang Eng Iron Works Company, Ltd. (Tang Eng), Yieh Loong Enterprise Company, Ltd. (Yieh Loong), and China Steel Corporation (China Steel), because record evidence supported their claims that they made no shipments of subject merchandise (for Tung Mung, no U.S. sales through Ta Chen) during the POR. The record evidence relied upon by the Department included U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)data and customs entry documents which the Department placed on the record. Parties did not comment on this evidence. Because the record evidence does not call into question the parties' no shipments claims, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Ta Chen, Yieh Mau, Chain Chon, Tung Mung, Tang Eng, Yieh Loong, and China Steel. See Comment 21 of the accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* . We have already rescinded this review with respect to Emerdex Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc., Emerdex Stainless Steel, Inc., and the Emerdex Group. See *Preliminary Results* , 70 FR 46137, 46140 and Comment 22 of the accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* . Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the parties' case and rebuttal briefs commenting on this administrative review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 3, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review, and the corresponding recommendations, in the public *Issues and Decision Memorandum* that is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Use of Facts Available In the preliminary results of review, we assigned a dumping margin based on total adverse facts available
(AFA)to the following companies because they failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire: PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd., Yieh Trading Corporation, Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd., and Chien Shing Stainless Steel Company Ltd. That margin, 21.10 percent, is the highest appropriate dumping margin from this or any prior segment of the instant proceeding. No parties commented on the Department's decision to apply total AFA to these companies. For the reasons noted in the *Preliminary Results* notice, we have continued to assign the above-mentioned companies an AFA rate of 21.10 percent. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in calculating the dumping margins for two respondents, Chia Far and YUSCO. For additional information, see Analysis Memorandum for Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan covering the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, dated February 3, 2006, and the Analysis Memorandum for Yieh United Steel Company Ltd. for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan covering the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, dated February 3 2006. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004: Manufacturer/Exporter/Reseller Weighted-Average Margin (percentage) Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO) 0.00 Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far) 1.36 Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd. 21.10 PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. 21.10 Yieh Trading Corporation 21.10 Chien Shing Stainless Steel Company Ltd. 21.10 Assessment The Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b)(1), where possible, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly on the entered customs value of all entries of subject merchandise made by the importer during the POR. Since YUSCO did not report the entered value of its sales, we calculated per-unit assessment rates for its merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the per-unit duty assessment rates were *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent *ad valorem* ), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the export prices. For the respondents receiving dumping margins based upon AFA, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries according to the AFA *ad valorem* rate. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies will be the rate listed for the company in the “Final Results of Review” section above (except if the rate for a particular company is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);
(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 less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous reviews conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate, which is 12.61 percent. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's regulations 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APOs)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the Act. Dated: February 3, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I—Issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum List of Issues Discussed A. Issues with Respect to Chia Far *Comment 1:* Home Market Discounts *Comment 2:* Home Market Credit Expenses *Comment 3:* Export Sales Classified as Home Market Sales *Comment 4:* U.S. Date of Sale *Comment 5:* Home Market Warranty Expenses *Comment 6:* Home Market Inventory Carrying Costs *Comment 7:* U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses *Comment 8:* Reimbursement of Dumping Duties *Comment 9:* Affiliation with Lucky Medsup, Inc. *Comment 10:* Identifying the Producer B. Issues with Respect to YUSCO *Comment 11:* Unreported Affiliates *Comment 12:* Unreliable Financial Statements *Comment 13:* Misclassified Home Market Sales *Comment 14:* Use of Total Adverse Facts Available *Comment 15:* U.S. Direct Selling Expenses *Comment 16:* Home Market Rebates *Comment 17:* Under-Reported Production Costs *Comment 18:* General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses *Comment 19:* Yieh Mau's Packing Expenses *Comment 20:* Commercial Quantities C. Issues with Respect to Other Respondents *Comment 21:* Investigating No-Shipments Claims *Comment 22:* Reviewing the Emerdex Companies and Their Affiliates [FR Doc. E6-1982 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-845] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan: Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 29, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** a notice announcing the initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) from Japan. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51009 ( *Initiation Notice* ). The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005. We are preliminarily rescinding this review because there were no entries of SSSSC for consumption in the United States during the POR that are subject to review. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-4007 or
(202)482-4929, respectively. SCOPE OF THE ORDER: For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS)at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:
(1)Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note”' 1(d). Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 1 1 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 2 2 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 3 3 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 4 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 5 4 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 5 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 1, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Japan for the period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38099. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on July 29, 2005, the petitioners ( *i.e.* , Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. and the United Steelworkers) requested a review of this order with respect to Kawasaki Steel Corporation (Kawasaki) and its alleged successor-in-interest, JFE Steel Corporation (JFE). 6 The Department initiated an administrative review and issued a questionnaire to Kawasaki and JFE on August 29, 2005. *See Initiation Notice* . On October 5, 2005, JFE notified the Department that it had not made sales or exported subject merchandise during the POR and requested that the Department rescind the review. However, information obtained from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)import database indicated the possibility of an entry of merchandise subject to this review. On November 17, 2005, we issued a letter to JFE inquiring about this particular entry. 7 Also on this date, we released, subject to an administrative protective order (APO), the entry documentation obtained from CBP to counsel for JFE and counsel for the petitioners. JFE responded to our request for information on December 5, 2005. In this submission, JFE claimed that the record contained no evidence that JFE either knew or should have known of the U.S. destination of the SSSSC at issue at the time of the sale to the first unaffiliated customer. 6 While the Department initiated this administrative review with respect to merchandise manufactured and/or exported by Kawasaki as well as its alleged successor-in-interest, JFE, due to Kawasaki/JFE's no-shipment claim, the Department did not have the opportunity to conduct a successor-in-interest analysis in order to confirm whether, for antidumping purposes, JFE is the successor-in-interest to Kawasaki with respect to the subject merchandise. However, both the petitioners and respondent have consistently referred to JFE as the successor-in-interest to Kawasaki in their submissions to the Department with respect to this and the previous review. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 18369 (April 11, 2005). 7 The results of the data query showed no entries of subject merchandise by Kawasaki. Analysis After analyzing the data contained in the CBP-provided customs entry documentation and JFE's comments, we find that there is no evidence on the record that the entry in question was shipped to the United States with JFE's knowledge at the time of sale. Although APO restrictions on the CBP entry documents prevented JFE's counsel from sharing the information with his client, the arguments and supporting documentation JFE placed on the record support the contention that JFE had no knowledge that the entry in question was destined for the United States. Specifically, a production document contained in the CBP entry documentation indicates the name of the customer to whom JFE sold the SSSSC in question, and JFE's name does not appear on any of the other entry documents. Furthermore, the record includes documentation submitted for prior segments of the proceeding that support counsel's contention that the distribution channel for the sale appears to be contrary to JFE's normal selling practices. For further discussion, *see* Memorandum to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, Office 2, from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor, Case Analysts, regarding Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan: Rescission Analysis Memorandum. We find that there is no evidence on the record that JFE had knowledge of the U.S. destination of the SSSSC shipment in question, and therefore, had no sales/shipments to the United States during this POR. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios from Iran* , 70 FR 7470 (February 14, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1. Preliminary Rescission of Review Because neither Kawasaki nor JFE made shipments to the United States of subject merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Japan for the period of July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. If the recission is confirmed in our final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the entry in question at the All-Others rate, 40.18 percent, as it was made by an intermediary company ( *e.g.* , a reseller) not covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation. *See* , *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). The cash deposit rate for Kawasaki and JFE will continue to be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. Interested parties may submit comments for consideration in the Department's final results not later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 10 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, and must be served on interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results, and will publish these results in the **Federal Register** . This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: February 7, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-1986 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-560-819] Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from Indonesia AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain lined paper products from Indonesia. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton or David Neubacher, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0371 or
(202)482-5823, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The petitioner in this investigation is the Association of American School Paper Suppliers and its individual members (petitioner). The following events have occurred since the publication of the Department of Commerce's (the Department) notice of initiation in the **Federal Register** . *See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products from India (C-533-844) and Indonesia (C-560-819)* , 70 FR 58690 (October 7, 2005) ( *Initiation Notice* ). On October 20, 2005, we issued the countervailing duty
(CVD)questionnaire to the Government of Indonesia (GOI). The questionnaire informed the GOI that it was responsible for forwarding the questionnaire to producers/exporters of certain lined paper products (CLLP). The Department also provided courtesy copies of the questionnaire to PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk (TK), an Indonesian company that entered an appearance at the Department and the International Trade Commission (ITC), on the same day. On November 8, 2005, we published a postponement of the preliminary determination of this investigation until February 6, 2006. *See Certain Lined Paper Products from India and Indonesia: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Determinations in the Countervailing Duty Investigations* , 70 FR 67668 (November 8, 2005). We received responses from the GOI and TK on December 5, 2005. On December 13, 2005, the petitioner submitted comments regarding these questionnaire responses. We issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOI and TK on December 23, 2005. We received responses to the supplemental questionnaires on January 12, 2006. We issued a second supplemental questionnaire to TK on January 23, 2006, and received a response to the questionnaire on January 30, 2006. As stated in the Department's January 23 rd letter 1 to TK, due to time constraints, we were unable to use the response to our 2 nd supplemental in our analysis for the preliminary determination. However, we will consider TK's submitted information for the final determination. 1 *See* Letter from Constance Handley, Program Manager to TK, Re: Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Lined Paper Products from Indonesia (January 23, 2006). On October 20, 2005, the petitioner submitted several new subsidy allegations. The GOI filed comments on these new allegations on October 28, 2005. We addressed these subsidy allegations in a November 17, 2005, memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Office Director, *New Subsidy Allegation* (“ * November 17 th New Subsidy Allegations Memo * ”), which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”). Because we decided to include one of these newly-alleged programs, a loan guarantee, in our investigation (as discussed in the * November 17 th New Subsidy Allegations Memo * ), we issued a questionnaire to each of the respondents with respect to the new program on November 28, 2005. We received a response to these questionnaires on December 28, 2005. We issued a supplemental questionnaire to the GOI and TK and received a response to the supplemental questionnaires on January 20, 2006. On November 28, 2005, the petitioner in the above-referenced investigation requested that the Department make an expedited finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of certain lined paper products from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China (PRC). On February 1, 2006, the Department found that the petitioner's allegation does not in itself provide a sufficient factual basis for making an affirmative finding. *See* Memorandum from Susan H. Kubach, Melissa Skinner and Wendy Frankel to Stephen J. Claeys: Whether Critical Circumstances Exist with Respect to Imports of Certain Lined Paper Products (February 1, 2006). The Department determined that it will monitor imports of subject merchandise from all countries under investigation and will request that U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)compile information on an expedited basis regarding entries of subject merchandise to determine at the earliest possible date whether the criteria for a finding of critical circumstances exist. As we found no indication that the respondent in the Indonesian case has received subsidies inconsistent with the WTO Subsidies Agreement, we stated in the memorandum that we would issue a negative preliminary determination of critical circumstances as part of this preliminary determination. On December 23, 2005, the petitioner submitted additional new subsidy allegations. The GOI and TK did not comment on these new allegations. The Department is continuing to analyze these allegations. Finally, the petitioner submitted comments for consideration in the preliminary determination on January 26 and 27, 2006, and the GOI submitted a letter on February 1, 2006, in response to the petitioner's above submissions. Period of Investigation The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or the period of investigation (POI), is calendar year 2004. Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies, 2 composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets, 3 including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8-3/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or “tear-out” size), and are measured as they appear in the product ( *i.e.* , stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of this petition whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated , included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing thereto. 2 For purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic. 3 There shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf filler paper. Specifically excluded from the scope of this petition are: • unlined copy machine paper; • writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper; • three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper; • index cards; • printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap; • newspapers; • pictures and photographs; • desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”); • telephone logs; • address books; • columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data; • lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: preprinted business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books; • lined continuous computer paper; • boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to products commonly known as “fine business paper,” “parchment paper, “ and “letterhead”), whether or not containing a lined header or decorative lines; • Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled, 4 measuring 6 inches by 9 inches; 4 “Gregg ruling” consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the left of the book. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are the following trademarked products: • Fly TM lined paper products: A notebook, notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly TM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly TM . 5 5 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • Zwipes TM : A notebook or notebook organizer made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes TM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes TM . 6 6 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • FiveStar®Advance TM : A notebook or notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of specific thickness; front cover is .019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is .028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1” wide elastic fabric band. This band is located 2-3/8” from the top of the front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks FiveStar®Advance TM . 7 7 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • FiveStar Flex TM : A notebook, a notebook organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is .019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is .028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid trademark FiveStar Flex TM . 8 8 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. Merchandise subject to this investigation is typically imported under headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 9 The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and CBP purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. 9 During the investigation additional HTS codes may be identified. Injury Test Because Indonesia is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act), section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Indonesia materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On October 31, 2005, the ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United states is materially injured by reason of imports from China, India, and Indonesia. * See Certain Lined Paper School Supplies From China, India and Indonesia * , 70 FR 62329 (October 31, 2005). Critical Circumstances On November 28, 2005, the petitioner in the above-referenced investigations requested the Department make an expedited finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of certain lined paper products from India, Indonesia, and the PRC. Section 703(e)(1) of the Act states that if the petitioner alleges critical circumstances, the Department will determine, on the basis of information available to it at the time, if there is a reason to believe or suspect the alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the Subsidies Agreement. We find no indication that the respondent in the Indonesian case has received subsidies inconsistent with the WTO Subsidies Agreement, *i.e.* export subsidies, and therefore, in accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of CLPP from Indonesia. Subsidies Valuation Information Allocation Period The average useful life (“AUL”) period in this proceeding as described in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2) is 13 years according to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System. No party in this proceeding has disputed this allocation period. Attribution of Subsidies The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that the Department will normally attribute a subsidy to the products produced by the corporation that received the subsidy. However, 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6) directs that the Department will attribute subsidies received by certain other companies to the combined sales of those companies if
(1)cross-ownership exists between the companies, and
(2)the cross-owned companies produce the subject merchandise, are a holding or parent company of the subject company, produce an input that is primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product, or transfer a subsidy to a cross-owned company. According to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially the same ways it can use its own assets. This section of the Department's regulations states that this standard will normally be met where there is a majority voting interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two (or more) corporations. The *Preamble* to the Department's regulations further clarifies the Department's cross-ownership standard. ( *See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 63 FR 65348, 65401 (November 25, 1998) ( *Preamble* ).) According to the *Preamble* , relationships captured by the cross-ownership definition include those where the interests of two corporations have merged to such a degree that one corporation can use or direct the individual assets (or subsidy benefits) of the other corporation in essentially the same way it can use its own assets (or subsidy benefits) * * * Cross-ownership does not require one corporation to own 100 percent of the other corporation. Normally, cross-ownership will exist where there is a majority voting ownership interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two (or more) corporations. In certain circumstances, a large minority voting interest (for example, 40 percent) or a “golden share” may also result in cross-ownership. *See Preamble* 63 FR at 65401. Thus, the Department's regulations make clear that the agency must look at the facts presented in each case in determining whether cross-ownership exists. The Court of International Trade
(CIT)has upheld the Department's authority to attribute subsidies based on whether a company could use or direct the subsidy benefits of another company in essentially the same way it could use its own subsidy benefits. *See Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi v. United States* , 166 F.Supp 2d, 593, 603 (CIT 2001). Our preliminary findings regarding cross-ownership and attribution follow. The relationships that exist between the responding company in this investigation, TK, who is the producer of the subject merchandise, and its affiliated suppliers present the Department with a novel situation. TK is the only known Indonesian producer/exporter of subject merchandise. *See* Letter from Arnold & Porter to Secretary of Commerce, the GOI's Response to the Department's October 20, 2005 Questionnaire, at 15 (December 5, 2005) ( * GOI's December 5 th Response * ). Based on information submitted by TK and the GOI, TK is part of a group of pulp and paper and forestry companies linked by varying degrees of common ownership involving the Widjaja family. These companies and others are commonly referred to as the Sinar Mas Group (SMG). TK has responded to the Department's questionnaire on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries, and its parent company, PT. Purinusa Ekapersada (Purinusa). TK acknowledges that it is cross-owned with its pulp suppliers, PT. Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Tbk
(IK)and Lontar Papyrus Pulp & Paper Industry (Lontar). However, TK has not responded on behalf of these cross-owned pulp suppliers because TK maintains that neither supplies an input which is primarily dedicated to the production of the subject merchandise ( *see* 19 CFR 525(b)(6)(iv)). TK's position is explained more fully below. In response to further questions from the Department, TK has provided certain information regarding IK, Lontar, Asia Pulp & Paper Company Ltd. (APP, the parent of Purinusa), PT. Ekamas Fortuna (Ekamas, another input supplier), PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills (Pindo Deli, Lontar's Parent), “to be as comprehensive as possible.” *See* Letter from Arnold & Porter to Secretary of Commerce, TK's Response to the Department's December 23, 2005 Questionnaire, at 2 (January 12, 2006) ( * TK's January 12 th Response * ). TK has acknowledged its affiliation with two forestry companies in Indonesia, PT. Arara Abadi
(AA)and PT. Wirakarya Sakti (WKS). These companies harvest Indonesian timber and are the suppliers of logs to IK and Lontar. * See TK's January 12 th Response * at 3. The GOI has indicated on behalf of TK that the affiliated forestry companies, AA and WKS, supply all of the logs used by TK's two pulp suppliers, IK and Lontar, and the two pulp producers only produce pulp from the hardwood logs they purchase from these two logging companies. *See GOI's January 12 Response* at 1. The GOI reports that a third forestry company, PT. Satria Perkasa Agung (SPA), has a concession to cut public timber and sells logs to WKS. Input Products Both TK and the GOI have argued that TK does not have to report on behalf of IK, Lontar, AA, WKS or SPA because none of these companies produces an input product that is primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product, as specified under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv). Specifically, respondents argue that neither the logs produced by the forestry companies nor the pulp produced from those logs by IK and Lontar can be considered “primarily dedicated” to the production of downstream product, which TK defines specifically as the subject merchandise, CLPP. TK maintains that the affiliates' pulp production is not primarily dedicated to the production of CLPP because it is also used for most of TK's other paper production as well as other paper production and pulp sales by the pulp producers. 10 Respondents additionally claim that the logs that IK and Lontar use to produce the pulp are not an input to CLPP at all because they are used to make pulp and not paper, and TK also states that TK never buys logs. 10 Letter from Arnold & Porter to Secretary of Commerce, TK's Response to the Department's October 20, 2005 Questionnaire, at Exhibit TK-A-2 ( * TK's December 5 th Response * ). We preliminarily determine that the pulp logs harvested by AA, WKS, and SPA, and the pulp produced by IK and Lontar are input products whose production “is primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product” within the meanings of 19 CFR 325(b)(6)(iv). Contrary to TK's claim, the issue is not whether the potentially subsidized inputs are used exclusively or nearly exclusively for the production of the subject merchandise. Rather, it is a question of whether the inputs are primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product. In this case, pulp logs harvested by AA, WKS, and SPA, are turned into pulp by IK and Lontar. The pulp, in turn, is used by TK to make paper and paper products, including the subject merchandise. Because pulpwood is primarily dedicated to the production of pulp, and pulp is primarily dedicated to the production of paper, it is reasonable to conclude that a subsidy to pulpwood production also subsidizes pulp production and, in turn, paper production where the producers in this chain are cross-owned. (The cross-ownership between TK, IK, Lontar, AA, WKS, and SPA is discussed further below.) Furthermore, although we have characterized our analysis above along these lines, it is important to note that the “primarily dedicated” regulation does not *require* that the “input” and the “downstream product” be directly connected or sequentially linked in the production process. In other words, in looking at the production process as a whole, it is reasonable to find that pulpwood is primarily dedicated to the production of paper, even though that primary input must be further processed through various intermediate steps ( *e.g.* , turned into pulp) before it can ultimately be made into paper. Clearly, pulpwood is used primarily to make paper in a paper-making process which includes pulp-making as an intermediate step. Moreover, it is irrelevant to this “primarily dedicated” analysis that this overall paper-making production process may be segmented among separately-incorporated entities, as the analysis of the corporate structure is addressed under the cross-ownership prong of the regulation. TK has pointed to prior determinations by the Department to argue that the input must be primarily dedicated to production of the subject merchandise, *i.e.* , that pulp must be primarily dedicated to the production of CLPP. While we acknowledge that the Department has referred to subject merchandise in prior cases, we believe such references merely described the facts of those particular cases. TK's reading of our practice is overly narrow and would inappropriately constrain our ability to take action against subsidies that benefit a limited group of products, such as paper products. (These precedents are discussed further below.) We note further that 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv) specifically refers to an input being primarily dedicated to a “downstream product.” Thus, the regulation does not limit the Department to “the subject merchandise.” Nor are we limited in our analysis to just those subsidies, received by the respondent, that are tied solely to the subject merchandise. The Department's regulations at 351.525(b)(3) indicate that normally the Department will attribute domestic subsidies received by the firm to all the products sold by the firm. We only attribute a firm's subsidy to a particular product produced by that firm if the subsidy is shown to be tied to that product alone. In this instance, as the respondent itself has noted, any subsidy from the subsidized pulpwood is not tied to the production of subject merchandise alone but, rather, would benefit all of the paper products that respondent produces. In *Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from India* , 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15 ( *PET Film from India* ) and in *Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 70657 (December 7, 2004), we described inputs covered by 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv) as inputs that were primarily dedicated to the production of the “subject merchandise.” However, in neither case was the Department addressing the issue of whether subsidies on the production of the input product may have benefitted downstream products other than the subject merchandise. Instead, it appears that pasta and PET film were the downstream products as well as the subject merchandise. In the case of this investigation, based on the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that the logs harvested by AA, WKS and SPA and sold to the pulp producers, IK and Lontar, are primarily dedicated to the production of pulp, and thus to the production of the TK's downstream product, paper, which includes CLPP. Therefore, we find the condition outlined in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv) that the production of the input product is primarily dedicated to production of the downstream product is satisfied, and we now turn to the question of whether the input suppliers are cross-owned. Cross-Ownership Based on information currently on the record, we preliminarily find that cross-ownership exists between TK and Purinusa, IK, Lontar, APP, Pindo Deli, Ekamas, and SPA, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi). For the other two pulp log suppliers, AA and WKS, TK has failed to submit information that would allow the Department to determine whether these companies satisfy the criteria for cross-ownership outlined in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi). Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that * * * if an interested party or any other person -
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority * * *;
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 * * *;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this subtitle; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority * * * shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this subtitle. The statute requires that certain conditions be met before the Department may resort to the facts available (FA). Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) if:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. As described below, TK has withheld certain information, failed to respond to portions of the Department's requests for information by the deadlines established or provide the complete information required, and has impeded the investigation of allegations regarding subsidized inputs. Pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department advised TK of its deficiencies, but TK and its affiliates failed to respond to the Department's request that they report certain company- specific information on the forestry companies. By not providing the Department with the requested company-specific information, TK and its affiliates prevented the Department from conducting the analysis necessary to determine whether AA and WKS meet the criteria for establishing cross-ownership as outlined in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi). In the original October 20, 2005, questionnaire, we requested financial statements as well as information on their respective owners, boards of directors, and managers of companies that produced and supplied inputs for the production of CLPP. TK, on the basis of the position that such information was not relevant to the investigation because these inputs were not primarily dedicated to CLPP, declined to provide the requested information in its first response. In our supplemental questionnaire dated December 23, 2005, we specifically requested financial statements and background information on the owners, board members and managers for the affiliated pulp producers and forestry companies including AA, WKS and SPA. We also stated that if TK failed to cooperate, the Department might use information that is adverse to TK's interest. TK still declined to provide the information necessary to analyze the cross-ownership criteria. We issued a second supplemental questionnaire regarding affiliation and stumpage on January 23, 2006, in which we repeated our request for specific information on AA and WKS, again warning that if TK failed to cooperate, the Department would consider the use of adverse information. 11 11 In the January 23, 2006 letter, we indicated that due to the proximity of the preliminary determination deadline, we may not have time to consider any information that TK provided in its response to the January 23, 2006, supplemental questionnaire in the preliminary determination analysis, the response to which was due only one week before this preliminary determination. This preliminary determination is based in information on the record prior to January 30, 2006. The limited information on the record shows that the respondent has acknowledged some common ownership among TK, the pulp producers, and the forestry companies. Indeed, the IK and Lontar financial statements demonstrate that pulp producers IK and Lontar have long-term pulpwood purchase agreements with AA and WKS, which suggest a very close supplier relationship, including some financing commitments on the part of IK in AA's forestry operations. While this information indicates that cross-ownership is likely to exist, the information that TK has failed to provide, despite our repeated requests, is necessary to make a definitive finding. Therefore, section 776(a)(2) of the Act requires the use of FA. Use of an Adverse Inference Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. *See also Statement of Administrative Action (SAA)* accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). The statute provides, in addition, that in selecting from among the FA the Department may, subject to the corroboration requirements of section 776(c), rely upon information drawn from the petition, a final determination in the investigation, any previous administrative review conducted under section 751 (or section 753 for countervailing duty cases), or any other information on the record. We find that the application of an adverse inference in this determination is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As discussed above, TK has failed to cooperate by failing to comply with repeated requests for company-specific information necessary to analyze the extent of affiliation and ascertain the costs of certain input suppliers. For the reasons described above, we believe that TK did not act to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's requests for information and that, consequently, an adverse inference is warranted under section 776(b) of the Act. 12 12 *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany* , 64 FR 30710, (June 8, 1999) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 (sustained *Grupp Thyssen Nirosta Gmbh v. United States* , 24 CIT 666 (2000)), *see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 6682 (February 13, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 24. Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. As adverse facts available, we have drawn an adverse inference from the information supplied by TK in its questionnaire responses. To determine whether AA and WKS meet the definition of cross-owned companies in accordance 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), we have considered a combination of facts available on the record, including proprietary information on common ownership, 13 the fact that the forestry companies are the exclusive suppliers of pulp logs to IK and Lontar, TK's conceded cross-ownership with IK and Lontar, and public information regarding the pulpwood purchase agreements between IK and AA and Lontar and WKS. As discussed above, these facts, taken on their face, may not be sufficient to establish that one or more of the corporations involved can manipulate the assets of the others. However, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that cross-ownership exists between TK and AA and WKS. 13 * See TK's December 5 th Response * at Exhibit TK-A Because information to which we apply the adverse inference is from the current segment of the proceeding, is provided by the respondent, and is, in part, from publicly-available audited financial statements, we find that there is no further need to corroborate this information pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. Consequently, because we have primarily determined that TK is cross-owned with the forestry companies AA and WKS, and that pulp logs harvested by these companies are primarily dedicated to pulp and paper, subsidies received are properly attributed to the sales of AA, WKS, IK, Lontar, and TK. Based on record information and, in the case of AA and WKS, the application of adverse inferences regarding record information, we have a preliminarily determined that TK and the input suppliers AA, WKS, SPA, IK and Lontar meet the criteria of cross-ownership in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv) and (vi). Benchmark for Interest Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a), the Department will use the actual cost of comparable borrowing by a company as a loan benchmark, when available. According to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2), a comparable commercial loan is defined as one that, when compared to the government-provided loan in question, has similarities in the structure of the loan ( *e.g.* , fixed interest rate v. variable interest rate), the maturity of the loan ( *e.g.* , short-term v. long-term), and the currency in which the loan is denominated. In instances where no applicable company-specific comparable commercial loans are available, 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii) permits the Department to use a national average interest rate for comparable commercial loans. In the 1990's, the GOI set-up a joint venture forest plantation, PT. Riau Abadi Lestari (RAL), with AA, a cross-owned company of TK under the Hutan Tanaman Industria
(HTI)Program, described in the “Analysis of Programs” sections below. Under the terms of the program, RAL was able to secure an interest-free loan from the GOI. Information on the record stated that RAL would begin repaying the loan ten years after the initial agreement, when the plantation started to have substantial harvest. We have no information indicating whether RAL obtained loans from any other sources in the year it received the loan. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii), we used a national average interest rate for comparable commercial loans, *i.e.* , the 1994/1995 national average interest rate on investment loans, taken from the Bank of Indonesia 1994/95 Annual Report. Benchmark for Stumpage Section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act and section 351.511(a) of the CVD regulations govern the determination of whether a benefit has been conferred from subsidies involving the provision of a good or service. Pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act, a benefit is conferred when the government provides a good or service for less than adequate remuneration. Section 771(5)(E) further states that the adequacy of remuneration: shall be determined in relation to prevailing market conditions for the good or service being provided * * * in the country which is subject to the investigation or review. Prevailing market conditions include price, quality, availability, marketability, transportation, and other conditions of sale. Section 351.511(a)(2) of the regulations sets forth three categories of comparison benchmarks for determining whether a government good or service is provided for less than adequate remuneration. These potential benchmarks are listed in hierarchical order by preference:
(1)market prices from actual transactions within the country under investigation;
(2)world market prices that would be available to purchasers in the country under investigation; or
(3)an assessment of whether the government price is consistent with market principles. This hierarchy reflects a logical preference for achieving the objectives of the statute. The most direct means of determining whether the government required adequate remuneration is by comparison with private transactions for a comparable good or service in the country. Thus, the preferred benchmark in the hierarchy is an observed market price for the good, in the country under investigation, from a private supplier (or, in some cases, from a competitive government auction) located either within the country, or outside the country (the latter transaction would be in the form of an import). This is because such prices generally would be expected to reflect most closely the commercial environment of the purchaser under investigation. The Department has preliminarily found that there were no market-determined prices in Indonesia upon which to base a “first tier” benchmark. According to the GOI, it owns all harvestable forest land. The GOI controls and administers 57 million hectares of public harvestable forest land while only 1.6 million hectares of Indonesia forest land is reported to be in private hands. We have not identified any private sales of standing timber in Indonesia. The “second tier” benchmark relies on world market prices that would be available to the purchasers in the country in question, though not necessarily reflecting prices of actual transactions involving that particular producer. In selecting a world market price under this second approach, the Department will examine the facts on the record regarding the nature and scope of the market for that good to determine if that market price would be available to an in-country purchaser. As discussed in the Preamble to the regulations, the Department will consider whether the market conditions in the country are such that it is reasonable to conclude that a purchaser in the country could obtain the good or service on the world market. For example, a European price for electricity normally would not be an acceptable comparison price for electricity provided by a Latin American government, because electricity from Europe in all likelihood would not be available to consumers in Latin America. However, as another example, the world market price for commodity products, such as certain metals and ores, or for certain industrial and electronic goods commonly traded across borders, could be an acceptable comparison price for a government-provided good, provided that it is reasonable to conclude from record evidence that the purchaser would have access to such internationally traded goods. *See* “Explanation of the Final Rules” of *Countervailing Duties, Final Rule* , 63 FR 65348, 65377 (November 25, 1998) ( *Preamble* ). We note that we have insufficient evidence of world market prices for standing timber on the record of the investigation. Consequently, we are not able to conduct our analysis under tier two of the regulations and, consistent with the hierarchy, and are preliminarily measuring the adequacy of remuneration by assessing whether the government price is consistent with market principles. This approach is set forth in section 351.511(a)(2)(iii) of the regulations, which is explained further in the Preamble: Where the government is the sole provider of a good or service, and there are no world market prices available or accessible to the purchaser, we will assess whether the government price was set in accordance with market principles through an analysis of such factors as the government's price-setting philosophy, costs (including rates of return sufficient to ensure future operations), or possible price discrimination. 63 FR at 65378. The regulations do not specify how the Department is to conduct such a market principle analysis. By its nature the analysis depends upon available information concerning the market sector at issue and, therefore, must be developed on a case-by-case basis. The information submitted by the parties regarding potential benchmarks consists of Malaysian log market prices for red meranti and some other species from a report published by the International Tropical Timber Association and an Australian stumpage price. We have also examined the GOI-calculated “reference prices” for logs which the GOI states represent an average of Indonesian and international market prices. Because these reference prices are at least in part based on domestic Indonesian prices in a market where the GOI has direct influence over the supply and pricing of almost all stumpage, we do not consider them to be market-determined. Regarding the Australian stumpage price, there is insufficient information about what the stumpage price represents. It is generally accepted that the market value of timber is derivative of the value of the downstream products. The species, dimension and growing condition of a tree largely determine the downstream products that can be produced from a tree; the value of a standing tree is derived from the demand for logs produced from that tree and the demand for logs is in turn derived from the demand for the products produced from these logs. 14 14 *See Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 69 FR 75917 (December 20, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum ( *Lumber First Review* ) (Issues and Decision Memorandum at 16). As a result of the similarities of forest conditions, climate, geographic position and tree species in Indonesia and Malaysia, we have selected Malaysian log prices as the most appropriate basis for evaluating whether Indonesian pulp logs are priced consistent with market principles. *See* 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(iii). The petitioner proposed that we use red meranti log prices in Malaysia as our benchmark. Based on our understanding that red meranti is more commonly used in the production of flooring, paneling, furniture, joinery, mouldings, plywood, turnery and carving, 15 we have instead used as an alternative, the value of pulp log exports from Malaysia during the POI, as reported in the World Trade Atlas. Malaysian pulp log export prices provide the best available measure of consistency with market principles in this instance because the prices are from private transactions between Malaysian pulp log sellers and pulp log buyers in the international market and are, thus, market-determined prices. 15 *See* Memo from David Layton and David Neubacher, International Trade Compliance Analysts, through Constance Handley, Program Manager, to the File, Re: Calculations for the Preliminary Determination for PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk (February 6, 2006) (Analysis Memo) at Attachment 7. We find that the species used for pulp logs in Malaysia are representative of the species used in Indonesia. The GOI has indicated that acacia and eucalyptus are species commonly harvested from HTI plantations for pulp and paper production in Indonesia. *See* , *e.g.* , *GOI's January 12th Response* at 17-18. TK has also noted that AA, WKS and SPA harvest off of plantations. *See id* . at 15. The Malaysian export data we have used to calculate the benchmark covers the same two species specifically identified as providing plantation pulp logs in Indonesia, acacia and eucalyptus. We adjusted the average unit value of the Malaysian pulp logs to reflect prevailing market conditions in Indonesia. We did this by deducting amounts for the Indonesian logging operation's extraction costs and profit. These amounts were taken from the petition, as the respondents did not provide information on their costs and profits. The result of these adjustments was a derived market stumpage price that is consistent with market principles. Analysis of Programs Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our questionnaires, we determine the following: I. Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Countervailable A. GOI Provision of Logs at Less Than Adequate Remuneration According to the GOI all harvestable forest land in Indonesia is owned by the GOI. * See GOI's January 12 th Response * at 17. Numerous products, timber and non-timber, are harvested from this land. *See id.* at 2. Timber can be harvested from the GOI land under two main types of licenses: licenses to harvest timber in the natural forest and licenses to establish and harvest from plantations. The latter licenses are known as “HTI licenses.” * See GOI's January 12 th Response * at 8. TK and the GOI reported that AA, WKS and SPA, forestry companies that the Department preliminarily determines to be cross-owned with downstream producers TK, IK and Lontar, harvested pulp logs from public forest concessions under an HTI license. TK did not provide information on the charges and fees actually paid by these forestry companies during the POI or the costs of harvesting pulp logs. However, the GOI provided laws that outline the types of fees and royalties assessed for the harvest of public timber in Indonesia. The government also stated that HTI licenses require the holder of an HTI license to pay an initial license fee, cash stumpage fees and a tax for land use. * See GOI's December 12 th Response * at 22. Record information indicates that the license fee to which the GOI refers is the Forest Utilization Business Permit Fee or IIUPH, a one-time fee paid at the granting of each concession. *See* , *e.g.* , Letter form Wiley Rein & Fielding to Secretary of Commerce, Response to Request for Information by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, at Exhibit VI (Indonesian Ministry of Forestry presentation on Forest Fiscal Reform (Ministry of Forestry presentation) (September 22, 2005) and GOI's * January 12 th Response * at Exhibit GOI-S-2, GOI Regulations No. 34, 2002 Article 1, Item 20). The Ministry of Forestry presentation indicates that the IIUPH is calculated at U.S.$3-10 per hectare for the entire area of the concession granted. Based on the information submitted by the GOI regarding the land area and agreed duration of each of the three HTI concessions held by the cross-owned companies, we have calculated the IIUPH fee on these concessions during the POI. *See GOI's January 12 Response* at Exhibit GOI-S-5 for concession approval agreements. The cost per cubic meter was so small as to be immaterial. *See* Analysis Memo at Attachment 5. The “cash stumpage fees” for the HTI licenses appear to be the PSDH royalty fee which is paid per unit of timber harvested and may include a per unit Rehabilitation Fee (Dana Reboisasi or DR) for the Ministry of Forestry Reforestation Fund. Alternatively, HTI license holders may incur the costs of reforestation. However, we are not able to quantify these costs using the evidence on the record. Based on the fee schedules provided by the GOI, we are able to calculate PSDH royalties and DR fees for specific types of timber. *See* GOI's *January 12th Response* at Exhibit GOI-S-2 (Government Regulation No. 59 1998 (PSDH Rates); Decree of the Ministry of Industry and Trade Republic of Indonesia No. 436/MPP/Kep/7/2004: The Reference Price Decision for PSDH (Forest Royalty) Calculation on Logs and Rattan (July 9, 2004), Government Regulation No. 92 1999 (DR Fees)). We did not have sufficient information to estimate the land use tax. We preliminarily find that the GOI's provision of a good, pulp logs, to the input suppliers of the pulp and paper producers confers a countervailable subsidy on TK. The provision of the pulp logs provides a financial contribution as described in section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act (providing goods or services other than general infrastructure). Moreover, we preliminarily determine that this good was provided for less than adequate remuneration. *See* 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act and section 771(5)(D)(iii) above. We also preliminarily determine that there is a *de facto* limitation of stumpage benefit to a group of industries, namely pulp and paper mills, saw mills and remanufacturers. Therefore, the subsidy is specific as a matter of fact to this group of industries as they are the predominant users of timber and receive a disproportionate amount of the subsidy. *See* sections 771(5A)(D)(iii)
(II)and
(III)of the Act. To determine the existence and extent of the benefit, we compare the estimated stumpage price of Indonesian pulp logs to the stumpage benchmark derived from the average unit value of 2004 exports of acacia and eucalyptus pulp logs from Malaysia, as reported in the World Trade Atlas. We calculated an estimated cost of Indonesian pulp log stumpage relying on information reported by the GOI and facts available because respondents did not provide the actual company-specific costs of the cross-owned forestry companies. The GOI has stated that the “small wood for chips and pulp that can be cultivated on HTI plantations is typically a particular type of acacia or eucalyptus.” *See GOI's January 12th Response* at 18. As TK has informed us that the cross-owned forestry companies harvest their pulp logs from HTI plantations, we are using the published PSDH rate for acacia and eucalyptus from HTIs as our estimate of the unit stumpage price applicable to AA, WKS and SPA. *See* GOI's *January 12th Response* at Exhibit GOI-S-2 (Government Regulation No. 59 1998 (PSDH Rates); Decree of the Ministry of Industry and Trade Republic of Indonesia No. 436/MPP/Kep/7/2004: The Reference Price Decision for PSDH (Forest Royalty) Calculation on Logs and Rattan (July 9, 2004), Government Regulation No. 92 1999 (DR Fees)). Because the cross-owned forestry companies have not provided their actual costs for reforestation and other maintenance obligations in the HTI concessions, we are using as a surrogate, the published Rehabilitation Fee
(DR)for chip wood (GOI defines chip wood as timber of any length whose diameter is less than 29 centimeters. * See GOI's January 12 th Response * Exhibit GOI-LER-1) given that the GOI has indicated that this mix of species is also used as a pulp log source. * See GOI's January 12 th Response * at 17 and Exhibit GOI-S-2 (Government Regulation No. 92 1999 (DR Fees)). We added the PSDH HTI royalty and the mixed tropical hardwood DR fee together to obtain the estimated unit cost of stumpage for the cross-owned input suppliers. We have not added the allocated cost of the one-time IIUPH fee for the forest utilization business permit because the cost is negligible. To obtain an aggregate POI benefit for Indonesian stumpage, we multiplied the estimated unit stumpage cost times the estimated volume of the log harvest which we extrapolated from proprietary information on pulp production. We then multiplied the volume of the log harvest by the per unit benchmark to get an aggregate benchmark value. The difference between these aggregate values is the total benefit which we divided by the combined sales of the cross-owned corporations (excluding affiliated sales). This calculation yields an *ad valorem* rate of 33.30%% for TK. B. Government Ban on Log Exports The GOI provided the Department with copies of the legislation concerning the log export ban and argued that the log export ban did not influence the price of pulp logs in Indonesia because wood fiber for paper production is more commonly shipped in chip form and the export of chips is allowed. The information provided by the respondents and relied upon for this preliminary determination does not indicate whether TK's cross-owned forestry companies purchased logs from unaffiliated parties. However, for purpose of calculating any benefit for this preliminary determination the issue is moot. Because, in calculating the countervailable subsidy conferred by the GOI's provision of logs for a less than adequate remuneration, we were limited by the data on the record and necessarily treated all pulp used by TK as subsidized. Moreover, under the methodology proposed by the petitioner ( *see* Letter from Wiley Rein & Fielding to Secretary of Commerce, Re: Response to the Request for Information by the U.S. Department of Commerce, at Table 3 ( * petitioner's September 22 nd submission * ), the amount of the benefit to TK from stumpage and the log export ban is identical. Therefore, whether TK's cross-owned forestry companies harvested or purchased logs (or harvested and purchased logs), it would not change the benefit amount given the data available for this preliminary determination. 16 16 This is consistent with the Department's approach in the Canadian lumber investigation where we found that “any conceivable benefit provided through a log ban would already be included in the denominator of the stumpage benefit based upon our selected market-based benchmark prices for stumpage.” *See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 67 FR 15545 (April 2, 2002) and Issues and Decisions Memorandum at page 26, footnote 5. If we determine that TK's cross-owned suppliers purchased Indonesian logs from other companies in Indonesia, we intend to issue an interim analysis of the log-export ban to allow parties an opportunity to comment before our final determination. C. Subsidized Funding for Reforestation (HTI Program) According to the GOI, in the 1990s the government decided to use money collected as reforestation charges to create public-private joint ventures with HTI holders. Through these joint ventures, the government could learn from the private sector and attract private companies into the business, while giving the government more direct control over operations. In addition, the government decided to start a policy of transmigration, moving populations from over-crowded cities in Java to less populated areas of Indonesia. The joint venture program was used to create jobs for these displaced people. There were two types of participants in the joint venture program: private participants that chose to partner with the GOI, and other HTI holders that were required to shift a portion of their licensed area into a public-private joint venture. In the latter case, the private company was required to contribute 60 percent of the equity and the government was required to contribute 40 percent. Despite these ownership shares, control of the joint venture was not given to the private investor, according to the GOI. Instead, government officials were placed in key positions of the joint venture such as production director and president of the board of directors, and key decisions required government approval. The joint venture also had to provide monthly and annual reports to the government on its operations, and operational issues faced by the joint venture had to be resolved on a consensus basis between the government and the private partner. In addition to the government's equity contribution, the joint venture could also apply for interest-free loans from the Reforestation Fund to establish the plantation. In our *Initiation Notice* , we stated that we were investigating interest-free loans provided under this program. The GOI has responded that neither WKS nor SPA participated in this program, but that AA did and was a mandatory participant. The public/private joint venture they formed is called RAL. As discussed above in the “Benchmark for Interest Rates” section, the GOI provided an interest-free loan to RAL. We preliminarily determine that this loans confers a countervailable subsidy on TK. The loan is a financial contribution as described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, which gives rise to a benefit in the amount of the difference between what the borrower paid and what the borrower would have paid on a comparable commercial loan (section 771(5)(E)(ii)). The loan program is specific because within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) because it is limited to public/private joint venture tree plantations. To calculate the benefit, we applied the benchmark interest rate described above to the average loan balance outstanding during the POI. We divided this by the combined POI sales of the cross-owned corporations (excluding affiliated sales). This calculation yields an *ad valorem* rate of 0.01%% for TK. In its submission dated January 26, 2006, the petitioner has alleged additional subsidies in the form of the GOI-provided equity to RAL as well as the equity provided by AA. 17 Regarding the latter, the petitioner alleges that AA was entrusted or directed to provide equity that normally would have been provided by the GOI. 17 *See* Letter from Wiley Rein & Fielding to Secretary of Commerce, RE: Comments on Stumpage Programs, at pages 24 - 26 (January 26, 2006). For this preliminary determination, we find no benefit to the subject merchandise produced by TK from these alleged equity subsidies. First, petitioner's January 26 th allegations relating to the equity investments are untimely filed ( *see* 19 CFR 351.301(d)(4)(i)(A)). Second, while we recognize the Department's obligation to investigate subsidies discovered in the course of an investigation ( *see* 19 CFR 351.311), the information on the record does not provide a basis for considering these investments to be subsidies. Specifically, there is no information indicating that the investments gave rise to a benefit as defined in 19 CFR 351.507(a)(1) and (4). For example, if the joint venture could be considered cross-owned with the respondents, the petitioner has not clearly articulated how an equity infusion by the respondent into the joint venture conferred a benefit on the respondent. Finally, the amounts would make no difference in the countervailing duty rate even if the entire amount of each were found to be a countervailable subsidy. ( *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order; Certain Textile Mill Products From Mexico* , 50 FR 10824 (March 18, 1985) and *Live Swine From Canada; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 63 FR 2204 (January 14, 1998)). II. Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Not Countervailable A. Accelerated Depreciation The Indonesian tax code allows two options for calculating depreciation for tax purposes, straight line depreciation or double declining balance depreciation (DDBD). Companies elect which method to use. Also, according to the Indonesian tax code, all companies that have tangible capital assets with a useful life of more than one year are eligible for the DDBD. It is calculated using the GOI's issued tax depreciation schedule. Two cross-owned companies, TK and Purinusa, used double declining balance depreciation on their 2004 tax returns. With regard to the DDBD, we examined whether this program was specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. Use of DDBD is not contingent upon exportation or import substitution ( *see* sections 771(5A)(B) and
(C)of the Act). Furthermore, as noted above, the DDBD was available to any company that had tangible capital assets with a useful life of one year or more. Therefore, there is no basis to find that the applied tax credit was *de jure* specific according to section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. We next examined whether the DDBD was *de facto* specific according to section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. The GOI stated that several industries ( *e.g.* , oil and gas, mining, chemicals, cement, automobiles, textiles) used this standard provision. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the DDBD is also not *de facto* specific. We therefore find that this program is available to all Indonesian firms regardless of geographic location or type of industry. On this basis, and because we have no evidence that the GOI exercises discretion through an application and approval process in administering this program, we preliminary determine that this program is not limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries, within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, is not countervailable during the POI. B. Government of Indonesia Loan Guarantee to Sinar Mas/APP In 1999, SMG/APP's affiliated bank, Bank Internasional Indonesia (BII), qualified for a GOI recapitalization program run by the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA). As part of the agreement, IBRA took a majority ownership of BII and all SMG/APP debt owed to BII was restructured. A subsequent debt restructuring agreement was signed by SMG/APP, BII and IBRA the following year. In February 2001, SMG/APP negotiated a new restructuring agreement on its debt to BII. The terms of the agreement stated that BII would retain SMG/APP's debt on its books, but the GOI extended a loan guarantee on the debt. SMG/APP also agreed to put up assets equaling 145 percent of the value of the debt as collateral. The petitioner alleges that the loan guarantee conferred a benefit on APP because the company was uncreditworthy at the time and SMG/APP would not have been able to secure similar financial terms on a commercial loan. Based on record information, BII transferred SMG/APP's debt to IBRA in November 2001. When this occurred, the loan guarantee ceased to exist, as the guarantor became the creditor on the debt, according to TK. Therefore, the guarantee was not outstanding during the POI and conferred no benefit on TK during the POI. *See* 19 CFR 351.506(a). Verification In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual rate for each exporter/manufacturer of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be: Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk. 33.31% All Others 33.31% In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have set the “all others” rate as TK's rate because it is the only exporter/manufacturer investigated. In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and
(2)of the Act, we are directing the CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain lined paper products from Indonesia which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated above. ITC Notification In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and nonproprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination. Public Comment Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than one week after the issuance of the last verification report. Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. A list of authorities relied upon, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. 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, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1)the party's name, address, and telephone;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: February 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-1993 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-825] Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 10, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from India for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. *See Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* , 70 FR 46483 (August 10, 2005) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Based on information received since the *Preliminary Results* and our analysis of the comments received, the Department has revised the net subsidy rates for Jindal Polyester Limited/Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex), as discussed in the “Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration concerning the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India” (Decision Memorandum) dated concurrently with this notice and hereby adopted by this notice. The final net subsidy rates for the reviewed company are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen at
(202)482-2769 or Drew Jackson at
(202)482-4406, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 10, 2005, the Department published its *Preliminary Results* in the **Federal Register** . We invited interested parties to comment on the results. On September 12, 2005, Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, Toray Plastics (America) and SKC America, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), the Government of India (the GOI), as well as Polyplex and Jindal, filed case briefs. Polyplex, Jindal, and the petitioners filed rebuttal briefs on September 19, 2005. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers Jindal and Polyplex, and evaluates sixteen programs. The period of review (“POR”) is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues contained in the Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual subsidy rates for the producer/exporters, Jindal and Polyplex, subject to this review. We determine the net subsidy for Jindal to be 15.07 percent *ad valorem* , and the net subsidy for Polyplex to be 9.24 percent *ad valorem* . Assessment and Cash Deposit Instructions We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess countervailing duties as indicated above. The Department will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties as detailed above, based upon the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from the producer/exporters under review, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India* , 67 FR 44179 (July 1, 2002). These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry. In the *Preliminary Results* we determined that Jindal Polyester Limited had changed its name to Jindal Poly Films Limited. We stated that if we found no reason to reverse this decision, we would update our instructions to CBP to reflect this name change. No parties commented on this and no other new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented to warrant reconsideration of this finding. Thus we plan to issue instructions to CBP to reflect this name change. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I—Issues and Decision Memorandum I. List of Issues *Comment 1:* Whether the Advance License Program Provides a Countervailable Subsidy *Comment 2:* Sales Tax Incentives *Comment 3:* Whether the Department Should Exclude an IDBI Loan in Calculating the Short-Term Benchmark *Comment 4:* Whether the Department Should Consider a Certain EPCGS License as a Grant or as an Interest-Free Loan *Comment 5:* Calculation of the Countervailing Duty Rate Under the Advance License Program *Comment 6:* Interest Rates Used to Calculate the Countervailing Duty Rate Under the EPCGS Program *Comment 7:* The Proper Allocation of EPCGS and EOU Benefits *Comment 8:* Whether the Cash Deposit Rate Should Include the 80 HHC Tax Exemption Countervailing Duty Rate *Comment 9:* Inclusion of Benefits Received by Non-Producing Units in Calculating Jindal's EOU Countervailing Duty Rate *Comment 10:* Calculation of Jindal's Countervailing Duty Rate Under the EOU Program II. Background Information and Subsidies Valuation Information III. Subsidies Valuation Information IV. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Conferring Subsidies 1. Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Export Financing 2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme
(DEPS)3. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) 4. Income Tax Exemption Scheme 80 HHC 5. Capital Subsidy 6. Sales Tax Incentives I. State of Uttaranchal/Uttar Pradesh II. State of West Bengal III. State of Gujurat IV. State of Madhya Pradesh V. State of Maharashtra VI. State of Himachal Pradesh B. Programs Determined to Be Not Used 1. Export Oriented Units Programs not used A. Duty Drawback on Furnace Oil Procured from Domestic Oil Companies 2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme
(DEPS)3. The Sale and Use of Special Import Licenses
(SILs)for Quality and SILs for Export Houses, Trading Houses, Star Trading Houses, or Superstar Trading Houses (GOI Program) 4. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes 5. Loan Guarantees from the GOI 6. Capital Incentive Schemes (SOM and SUP Program) 7. Waiving of Interest on Loan by SICOM Limited (SOM Program) 8. Infrastructure Assistance Schemes (State of Gujarat Program) V. Analysis of Comments [FR Doc. E6-1989 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 020706A] Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Application for an Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of exempted fishing permit
(EFP)application; announcement of the intent to issue the EFP; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the receipt of applications, and the intent to issue EFPs for vessels participating in an observation program to monitor the incidental take of salmon and groundfish in the shore-based component of the Pacific whiting fishery. The EFPs are necessary to allow trawl vessels fishing for Pacific whiting to delay sorting their catch, and thus to retain prohibited species and groundfish in excess of cumulative trip limits, until the point of offloading. These activities are otherwise prohibited by Federal regulations. DATES: Comments must be received by February 28, 2006. The EFPs will be effective no earlier than March 15, 2006, and would expire no later than May 31, 2007, but could be terminated earlier under terms and conditions of the EFPs and other applicable laws. ADDRESSES: Send comments or requests for copies of the EFP applications to Becky Renko, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115 0070 or e-mail *2006WhitingEFP.nwr@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10 megabyte file size. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Renko at (206)526 6110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provisions at 50 CFR 600.745, which state that EFPs may be used to authorize fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited. At the November 2005 Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) meeting in San Diego, California, the Pacific Council received applications for these EFPs from Del Mar Seafoods, Inc. and the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. An opportunity for public testimony was provided during the Pacific Council meeting. The Pacific Council recommended that NMFS issue the EFPs, as requested by Del Mar Seafoods Inc. and the States, and forwarded the EFP applications to NMFS. NMFS is working with Del Mar Seafoods, Inc., the States, and participants who will be fishing under the EFP to resolve funding, retention, and monitoring issues affecting this EFP. Issuance of these EFPs, to about 40 vessels, will continue an ongoing program to collect information on the incidental catch of salmon and groundfish in whiting harvests delivered to shore-based processing facilities by domestic trawl vessels. Because whiting flesh deteriorates rapidly once the fish are caught, whiting must be minimally handled and immediately chilled to maintain the flesh quality. As a result, many vessels dump catch directly or near directly into the hold and are unable to effectively sort their catch. The issuance of EFPs will allow vessels to delay sorting of groundfish catch in excess of cumulative trip limits and prohibited species until offloading. These activities are otherwise prohibited by regulation. In 2004 and 2005, NMFS provided electronic monitoring systems to catcher vessels fishing under the whiting EFP as part of a pilot study to evaluate if these systems would be useful tools to verify retention and/or document discard at sea. Based on the results from the 2004 and 2005 pilot studies, electronic monitoring systems may be useful tools to monitor retention and discard at sea. NMFS will continue to evaluate the usefulness of electronic monitoring tools during the 2006 whiting EFP and once again intends to provide electronic monitoring systems to participating vessels. Delaying sorting until offloading will allow samplers located at the processing facilities to collect incidental catch data for total catch estimates and will enable whiting quality to be maintained. Without an EFP, groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.306(a)(2) require vessels to sort their prohibited species catch and return them to sea as soon as practicable with minimum injury. Similarly, regulations at 50 CFR 660.306(a)(10) prohibit the retention of groundfish in excess of the published trip limits. In addition to providing information that will be used to monitor the attainment of the shore-based whiting allocation, information gathered through these EFPs is expected to be used in a future rulemaking. In the near future, NMFS is considering implementing, through Federal regulation, a monitoring program for the shore-based Pacific whiting fleet. The Pacific Council recommended using EFPs only until a permanent monitoring program could be developed and implemented. NMFS is developing a preliminary draft Environmental Assessment that includes a range of alternative monitoring systems for the shore-based Pacific whiting fishery. At its June 2004 meeting, the Pacific Council considered a preliminary range of alternatives for a shore-based fishery monitoring program. Based on information learned during the 2004 and 2005 EFPs, NMFS is revising that range of alternatives and is tentatively scheduled to present a revised range of alternatives to the Pacific Council at their April 2006 meeting. Provided the Pacific Council adopts the revised range of alternatives for public review in April, the Pacific Council is tentatively expected to make final recommendations to NMFS regarding this monitoring program at its June 2006 meeting. NMFS would then publish a proposed rule, which would include a public comment period, followed by a final rule implementing a monitoring program before the start of the 2007 shore-based primary Pacific whiting season. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: February 7, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-1916 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 020206A] Incidental Take of Marine Mammals; Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Missile Launch Operations from San Nicolas Island, CA AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of a letter of authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, notification is hereby given that a letter of authorization
(LOA)to take 3 species of marine mammals incidental to missile launch operations from San Nicolas Island, CA
(SNI)has been issued to the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWC-WD), Point Mugu, CA. DATES: This authorization is effective from February 3, 2006, through February 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: The application and LOA are available for review in the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hollingshead or Layne Bolen, NMFS,
(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) directs NMFS to allow, on request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers 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 by NMFS and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “taking” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill marine mammals. Authorization may be granted for periods up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after notification and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. The regulations must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking incidental to target missile operations on San Nicolas Island, CA, were published on September 2, 2003 (68 FR 52132), and remain in effect until October 2, 2008. Pursuant to these regulations, NMFS has issued an LOA to the NAWC-WD. Issuance of the LOA is based on findings made in the preamble to the final rule that the total takings by this project will result in only small numbers (as the term is defined in 50 CFR 216.103) of marine mammals being taken. In addition, given the implementation of the mitigation requirements contained in the LOA, the resultant incidental harassment will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks or habitats and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses. NMFS also finds that the applicant will meet the requirements contained in the implementing regulations and LOA, including monitoring and reporting requirements. This LOA will be renewed annually based on a review of the activity, completion of monitoring requirements and receipt of reports required by the LOA. Dated: February 3, 2006. James H. Lecky, Director Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-1975 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 013006B] International Whaling Commission; 58 th Annual Meeting; Nominations AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for nominations. SUMMARY: This notice is a call for nominees for the U.S. Delegation to the June 2006 International Whaling Commission
(IWC)annual meeting. The non-federal representative(s) selected as a result of this nomination process is(are) responsible for providing input and recommendations to the U.S. IWC Commissioner representing the positions of non-governmental organizations. Generally, only one non-governmental position is selected for the U.S. Delegation. DATES: All written nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC annual meeting must be received by March 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: All nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC annual meeting should be addressed to Bill Hogarth, U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, and sent via post to: Cheri McCarty, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of International Affairs, 1315 East West Highway, SSMC3 Room 12603, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Prospective Congressional advisors to the delegation should contact the Department of State directly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri McCarty, 301-713-9090, ext. 183. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Commerce is charged with the responsibility of discharging the obligations of the United States under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. The U.S. Commissioner has primary responsibility for the preparation and negotiation of U.S. positions on international issues concerning whaling and for all matters involving the IWC. He is staffed by the Department of Commerce and assisted by the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, the Marine Mammal Commission, and by other agencies. The non-federal representative(s) selected as a result of this nomination process is(are) responsible for providing input and recommendations to the U.S. IWC Commissioner representing the positions of non-governmental organizations. Generally, only one non-governmental position is selected for the U.S. Delegation. The IWC is hosting its 58 th annual meeting from June 16-20, 2006, in St. Kitts & Nevis. Dated: February 7, 2006. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-1977 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 020706B] South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Snapper Grouper Committee, Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, Scientific and Statistical Selection Committee (CLOSED SESSION), Advisory Panel Selection Committee (CLOSED SESSION), Protected Resources Committee, Joint Executive/Finance Committees, Information and Education Committee, and a meeting of the full Council. DATES: The meeting will be held on February 27 through March 3, 2006. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Jekyll Island Club, 371 Riverview Drive, Jekyll Island, GA 31527; telephone: (1-800) 535-9547 or
(912)635-2600, fax:
(912)635-2818. *Council address* : South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407- 4699. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer; telephone:
(843)571-4366 or toll free at
(866)SAFMC-10; fax:
(843)769-4520; email: *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting Dates 1. Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting: February 27, 2006, 1:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. and February 28, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. - 12 noon The Snapper Grouper Committee will receive a report and recommendations from the Law Enforcement Committee and Advisory Panel regarding Amendments 14 and 15 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 14 addresses the use marine protected areas for deepwater snapper grouper species; Amendment 15 addresses rebuilding schedules for snowy grouper, golden tilefish, black sea bass, and red porgy; recreational sale; permit issues (incorporation and 60-day renewal), size limits for queen triggerfish, and fishing year changes for golden tilefish. The Committee will develop recommendations on the final list of alternatives for both draft Amendment 14 and draft Amendment 15. In addition, the Committee will review and revise appointments to the Oculina Evaluation Team and receive presentations from NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the use of electronic logbooks in the snapper grouper fishery, and evaluation of paper logbooks versus trip tickets in both the snapper grouper and mackerel fisheries. 2. Ecosystem-Based Management Committee Meeting: February 28, 2006, 1:30 p.m. - 6 p.m. and March 1, 2006, 8:30 a.m. - 12 noon The Ecosystem-Based Management Committee will receive an update on the development of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), and presentations on the following: Mapping data from the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), ocean observing systems and fisheries oceanography, NOAA's Ocean Exploration Program, and the Council's Habitat and Ecosystem web page and internet mapping system. The Committee will participate in an interactive demonstration of the Council's Ecosystem/Internet Mapping website. In addition, the Committee will review and revise a list of items to be included in the Council's FEP Comprehensive Amendment. 3. Advisory Panel Selection Committee Meeting: March 1, 2006, 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. (CLOSED SESSION) The Advisory Panel Selection Committee will meet to review applications for open seats on the advisory panels and develop recommendations for Council. 4. Scientific and Statistical Selection Committee Meeting: March 1, 2006, 3:30 p.m. until 5 p.m. (CLOSED SESSION) The Scientific and Statistical Selection Committee will meet to review policy recommendations, review applications for members of the SSC, and develop recommendations for the Council. 5. Protected Resources Committee Meeting: March 2, 2006, 8:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. The Protected Resources Committee will receive a presentation on the feasibility of offshore wind energy production off the coast of Georgia, receive an update from NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office's Protected Resources Division, and an update on the Council's accomplishments. 6. Joint Executive/Finance Committee Meeting: March 2, 2006, 10:30 a.m. - 12 noon The Executive Committee will meet jointly with the Finance Committee and receive updates on the Council's Calendar Year
(CY)2006 budget and activities schedule and the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget. The Committees will also review a draft Regional Operating Agreement between the Council and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service's Southeast Regional Office regarding fishery management plan development teams. The Committees will also discuss attendance at upcoming workshops for the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) stock assessment process. 7. Information and Education Committee Meeting: March 2, 2006, 1:30 p.m. - 3 p.m. The Information and Education Committee will meet to review and develop recommendations on the Council's website redesign and upgrade and review the Council's current newsletter regarding options for printing and distribution. 8. Council Session: March 2, 2006, 3 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. and March 3, 2006, 8:30 a.m. - 12 noon *From 3 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.* , the Council will call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, and approve the December 2005 meeting minutes. *From 3:15 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.* , the Council will receive a presentation from the U.S. Coast Guard regarding the use of Automatic Identification Systems
(AIS)and the mandatory use aboard commercial fishing vessels. *From 4:15 p.m. - 5 p.m.* , the Council will receive a presentation regarding a proposed Navy sonar range off the coast of North Carolina. *From 5 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.* , the Council will hear a report from the Protected Resources Committee and take other action as appropriate. *From 5:15 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* , the Council will hear a report from the Ecosystem-Based Management Committee and take action as appropriate. Council Session: March 3, 2006, 8:30 a.m. - 12 noon. *From 8:30 a.m. - 9 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee and take action as appropriate. *From 9 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the Joint Executive/Finance Committees and take action as appropriate. *From 9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the Scientific and Statistical Selection Committee and take action as appropriate. *From 9:45 a.m. - 10 a.m.* , the Council will receive a report from the Advisory Panel Selection Committee and take action as appropriate. *From 10 a.m. - 12 noon* , the Council will receive a report on the Council Chairmen's/NMFS Leadership meetings and receive status reports from NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office, NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Fisheries Science Center, agency and liaison reports, and discuss other business including upcoming meetings. Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES ). Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305
(c)of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Except for advertised (scheduled) public hearings and public comment, the times and sequence specified on this agenda are subject to change. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) by February 24, 2006. Dated: February 8, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-1968 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 060202024-6024-01; I.D. 012506C] Whaling Provisions; Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Quotas AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for bowhead whales, and other limitations deriving from regulations adopted at the 2002 Special Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). For 2006, the quota is 75 bowhead whales struck. This quota and other limitations will govern the harvest of bowhead whales by members of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). DATES: Effective February 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri McCarty,
(301)713-9090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aboriginal subsistence whaling in the United States is governed by the Whaling Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 916 *et seq.* ). Regulations that implement the Act, found at 50 CFR 230.6, require the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to publish, at least annually, aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas and any other limitations on aboriginal subsistence whaling deriving from regulations of the IWC. At the 2002 Special Meeting of the IWC, the Commission set quotas for aboriginal subsistence use of bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock. The bowhead quota was based on a joint request by the United States and the Russian Federation, accompanied by documentation concerning the needs of two Native groups: Alaska Eskimos and Chukotka Natives in the Russian Far East. This action by the IWC thus authorized aboriginal subsistence whaling by the AEWC for bowhead whales. This aboriginal subsistence harvest is conducted in accordance with a cooperative agreement between NOAA and the AEWC. The IWC set a 5-year block quota of 280 bowhead whales landed. For each of the years 2003 through 2007, the number of bowhead whales struck may not exceed 67, except that any unused portion of a strike quota from any year, including 15 unused strikes from the 1998 through 2002 quota, may be carried forward. No more than 15 strikes may be added to the strike quota for any one year. At the end of the 2005 harvest, there were 15 unused strikes available for carry-forward, so the combined strike quota for 2006 is 82 (67 + 15). This arrangement ensures that the total quota of bowhead whales landed and struck in 2006 will not exceed the quotas set by the IWC. Under an arrangement between the United States and the Russian Federation, the Russian natives may use no more than seven strikes, and the Alaska Eskimos may use no more than 75 strikes. NOAA is assigning 75 strikes to the Alaska Eskimos. The AEWC will allocate these strikes among the 10 villages whose cultural and subsistence needs have been documented in past requests for bowhead quotas from the IWC, and will ensure that its hunters use no more than 75 strikes. Other Limitations The IWC regulations, as well as the NOAA regulation at 50 CFR 230.4(c), forbid the taking of calves or any whale accompanied by a calf. NOAA regulations (at 50 CFR 230.4) contain a number of other prohibitions relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling, some of which are summarized here. Only licensed whaling captains or crew under the control of those captains may engage in whaling. They must follow the provisions of the relevant cooperative agreement between NOAA and a Native American whaling organization. The aboriginal hunters must have adequate crew, supplies, and equipment. They may not receive money for participating in the hunt. No person may sell or offer for sale whale products from whales taken in the hunt, except for authentic articles of Native handicrafts. Captains may not continue to whale after the relevant quota is taken, after the season has been closed, or if their licenses have been suspended. They may not engage in whaling in a wasteful manner. Dated: February 7, 2006. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-1973 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 001215353-6012-06] Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT): Closing Date AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of funds. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, announces the solicitation of applications for a grant for the Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) Program. Projects funded pursuant to this Notice are intended to support the PEACESAT Program's acquisition of satellite communications to service Pacific Basin communities and to manage the operations of this network. Applications for the PEACESAT Program grant will compete for funds from the Public Broadcasting, Facilities, Planning and Construction Funds account. DATES: Applications must be received on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, March 15, 2006. Applications submitted by facsimile or electronic means are not acceptable. If an application is received after the Closing Date due to
(1)carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the Closing Date and Time, or
(2)significant weather delays or natural disasters, NTIA will, upon receipt of proper documentation, consider the application as having been received by the deadline. NTIA will not accept applications posted on the Closing Date or later and received after the deadline. ADDRESSES: To obtain a printed application package, submit completed applications, or send any other correspondence, write to: NTIA/PTFP, Room H-4096, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Cooperman, Director, Public Broadcasting Division, telephone:
(202)482-5802; fax:
(202)482-2156. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access The full funding opportunity announcement for the PEACESAT Fiscal Year
(FY)2006 grant cycle is available through *http://www.Grants.gov* or by contacting the PTFP office at the address noted above. Application materials may be obtained electronically via the Internet ( *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/peacesat.html* ). Funding Availability Funding for the PEACESAT Program is provided pursuant to the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Public Law 109-108 and Public Law 106-113, “The Consolidated Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2000.” Public Law 106-113 provides “That, hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) Program is eligible to compete for Public Broadcasting Facilities, Planning and Construction funds.” The Congress has appropriated $20 million for FY 2006 Public Telecommunications Facilities Program
(PTFP)and PEACESAT awards. Of this amount, NTIA anticipates making a single award for approximately $500,000 for the PEACESAT Program in FY 2006. For FY 2005, NTIA issued one award for the PEACESAT project in the amount of $499,415. Statutory and Regulatory Authority The PEACESAT Program was authorized under Public Law 100-584 (102 Stat. 2970) and also Public Law 101-555 (104 Stat. 2758) to acquire satellite communications services to provide educational, medical, and cultural needs of Pacific Basin communities. The PEACESAT Program has been operational since 1971 and has received funding from NTIA for support of the project since 1988. Applications submitted in response to this solicitation for PEACESAT applications are exempt from the PTFP regulations at 15 CFR part 2301. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:* N/A. Eligibility Eligible applicants will include any for-profit or non-profit organization, public or private entity, other than an agency or division of the Federal government. Individuals are not eligible to apply for the PEACESAT Program funds. Evaluation and Selection Process Each eligible application is evaluated by three outside reviewers who have demonstrated expertise in the programmatic and technological aspects of the application. The reviewers will evaluate applications according to the criteria in the following section and provide individual written ratings of each application. State Single Point of Contact
(SPOC)offices, per Executive Order 12372, may provide recommendations on applications under consideration. The Public Broadcasting Division
(PBD)administers the PEACESAT Program and places a summary of applications received on the Internet. Listing an application merely acknowledges receipt of an application to compete for funding with other applications. Listing does not preclude subsequent return of the application or disapproval of the application, nor does it assure that the application will be funded. The listing will also include a request for comments on the applications from any interested party. The reviewer's ratings are provided to the PBD staff and a rank order is prepared according to score. The PBD program staff prepares summary recommendations for the Director of the Public Broadcasting Division. These recommendations incorporate the outside reviewers' ratings and incorporate analysis based on the degree to which a proposed project meets the PEACESAT Program purposes and cost eligibility. Staff recommendations also consider
(1)project impact,
(2)the cost/benefit of a project, and
(3)whether the reviewers consistently applied the evaluation criteria. The analysis by program staff is provided to the Director of the Public Broadcasting Division in writing. The Director considers the summary recommendations prepared by program staff in accord with the funding priorities and selection factors referenced in the next section and recommends the funding order of the applications for the PEACESAT Programs in three categories: “Recommended for Funding,” “Recommended for Funding If Funds Are Available,” and “Not Recommended for Funding.” The Director presents recommendations to the Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications (OTIA), for review and approval. Upon review and approval based on the funding priorities and selection factors referenced in the next section by the Associate Administrator of the Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications (OTIA), the Associate Administrator's and the Director's recommendations are presented to the Selecting Official, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, who is the NTIA Administrator. The NTIA Administrator selects the applications to be negotiated for possible grant award, taking into consideration the outside reviewers' ratings, the Director's recommendations, and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the PEACESAT Programs' stated purposes. The selected applications are negotiated between NTIA staff and the applicant. The negotiations are intended to resolve whatever differences might exist between the applicant's original request and what NTIA is considering funding. Negotiation does not ensure that an award will be made. When the negotiations are completed, the Director recommends final selections to the NTIA Administrator, applying the same selection factors described above. The Administrator then makes the final award selections from the negotiated applications taking into consideration the Director's recommendations and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the stated purposes for the PEACESAT Program. Funding Priorities and Selection Factors The PBD Director will consider the summary evaluations prepared by program staff, rank the applications, and present recommendations to the OTIA Associate Administrator for review and approval. The Director's recommendations and the OTIA Associate Administrator's review and approval will take into account the following selection factors:
(1)The program staff evaluations, including the outside reviewers.
(2)Whether the applicant has any current NTIA grants.
(3)The geographic distribution of the proposed grant awards.
(4)The availability of funds. Upon approval by the OTIA Associate Administrator, the Director's recommendations will then be presented to the Selecting Official, the NTIA Administrator. The Administrator makes final award selections taking into consideration the Director's recommendations and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the program's stated purposes. No grant will be awarded until confirmation has been received from the FCC that any necessary authorization will be issued. After final award selections have been made, the Agency will notify the applicant of one of the following actions:
(1)Selection of the application for funding, in whole or in part;
(2)Deferral of the application for subsequent consideration;
(3)Rejection of the application with an explanation and the reason, if an applicant is not eligible or if the proposed project does not fall within the purposes of the PEACESAT program. Evaluation Criteria Each eligible application that is timely received, is materially complete, and proposes an eligible project will be considered under the evaluation criteria described here. The first three criteria—1. Meeting the Purposes of the PEACESAT Program, 2. Extent of Need for the Project, and 3. Plan of Operation for the Project—are each worth 25 points. Criterion 4, Budget and Cost Effectiveness, is worth 20 points. Criterion 5, Quality of Key Personnel, is worth 5 points. *Criterion 1. Meeting the Purposes of the PEACESAT Program,* including
(i)how well the proposal meets the objectives of the PEACESAT Program and
(ii)how the objectives of the proposal further the purposes of the PEACESAT Program. *Criterion 2. Extent of Need for the Project.* The extent to which the project meets the needs of the PEACESAT Program, including consideration of:
(i)The needs addressed by the project;
(ii)how the applicant identifies those needs;
(iii)how those needs will be met by the project; and
(iv)the benefits to be gained by meeting those needs. *Criterion 3. Plan of Operation for the Project,* including
(i)the quality of the design of the project;
(ii)the extent to which the plan of management is effective and ensures proper and efficient administration of the project;
(iii)how well the objectives of the project relate to the purposes of the PEACESAT Program;
(iv)the quality of the applicant's plan to use its resources and personnel to achieve each objective; and
(v)how the applicant will ensure that project participants who are otherwise eligible to participate are selected without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, or handicapped condition. *Criterion 4. Budget and Cost Effectiveness.* The extent to which
(i)the budget is adequate to support the project; and
(ii)costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project. *Criterion 5. Quality of Key Personnel* the applicant plans to use on the project, including
(i)the qualifications of the project director if one is to be used;
(ii)the qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the project;
(iii)the time that each person will commit to the project; and
(iv)how the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, will ensure that its personnel are selected for employment without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, or handicapped condition. In this section, “qualifications” refers to experience and training in fields related to the objectives of the project, and any other qualifications that pertain to the quality of the project. Cost Sharing Requirements Grant recipients under this program will not be required to provide matching funds toward the total project cost. The costs allowable under this Notice are not subject to the limitation on costs contained in the December 13, 2005 Notice regarding the PTFP Program. Intergovernmental Review PEACESAT applications are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” if the state in which the applicant organization is located participates in the process. Usually submission to the State Single Point of Contact
(SPOC)needs to be only the first two pages of the Application Form, but applicants should contact their own SPOC offices to find out about and comply with its requirements. The names and addresses of the SPOC offices are listed on the PTFP web site and at the Office of Management and Budget's home page at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.* Universal Identifier All applicants (nonprofit, state, local government, universities, and tribal organizations) will be required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number during the application process. See the October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66177) and April 8, 2003 (68 FR 17000 **Federal Register** notices for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line 1-866-705-5711 or via the Internet ( *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* ). The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification of Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) is applicable to this solicitation. Limitation of Liability In no event will the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Paperwork Reduction Act Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. The PEACESAT application form has been approved under OMB Control Nos. 0348-0040, 0348-0043, and 0348-0034. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/ Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Bernadette McGuire-Rivera, Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications. [FR Doc. E6-2007 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Request for Public Comments on Commercial Availability Petition under the United States - Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) February 8, 2006. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
(CITA)ACTION: Request for public comments concerning a petition for a determination that certain 100 percent cotton, 3- or 4-thread twill weave, flannel fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA. SUMMARY: On February 7, 2006, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., on behalf of B*W*A of New York, New York, alleging that certain 100 percent cotton, 3- or 4-thread twill weave, flannel fabrics, of yarn-dyed, combed and ring spun single yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in subheading 5208.43.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. The petition requests that woven cotton shirts, blouses, and dressing gowns of such fabrics assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries be eligible for preferential treatment under the CBTPA. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this petition, in particular with regard to whether these fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by February 28, 2006 to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria K. Dybczak, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 213(b)(2)(A)(v)(II) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, as added by Section 211(a) of the CBTPA; Section 6 of Executive Order No. 13191 of January 17, 2001. Background: The CBTPA provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns or fabrics formed in the United States. The CBTPA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In Executive Order No. 13191, the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA and directed CITA to establish procedures to ensure appropriate public participation in any such determination. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests (66 FR 13502). On February 7, 2006, the Chairman of CITA received a petition on behalf of B*W*A of New York, New York, alleging that certain 100 percent cotton, 3- or 4-thread twill weave, flannel fabrics, of yarn-dyed, combed and ring spun single yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified HTSUS subheading 5208.43.0000, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting quota- and duty-free treatment under the CBTPA for woven cotton shirts, blouses and dressing gowns that are cut and sewn in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from such fabrics. Specifications: Fiber Content: 100% Cotton Weight: 98 - 150 g/m2 Thread Count: 39 - 66 warp ends per centimeter; 27 - 39 filling picks per centimeter; Yarn Number: 84 - 86 metric warp and filling, ring spun, combed; Weave: 3- or 4-thread twill; Finish: Of yarns of different colors; plaids, checks and stripes, napped on both sides, and pre-shrunk. The petitioner emphasizes that the fabrics in question are made of yarn dyed with fiber reactive dyes, that are combed and ring spun, and that the finished fabric must be napped on both sides, and pre-shrunk. CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether these fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Also relevant is whether other fabrics that are supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner are substitutable for the fabric for purposes of the intended use. Comments must be received no later than February 28, 2006. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. N..W. and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. If a comment alleges that these fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of the fabric stating that it produces the fabric that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production. CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked “business confidential” from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA generally considers specific details, such as quantities and lead times for providing the subject product as business confidential. However, information such as the names of domestic manufacturers who were contacted, questions concerning the capability to manufacture the subject product, and the responses thereto should be available for public review to ensure proper public participation in the process. If this is not possible, an explanation of the necessity for treating such information as business confidential must be provided. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in Room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th St. N.W. and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary. James C. Leonard III, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc.06-1370 Filed 2-9-06; 2:29 pm]
Connectionstraces to 29
Traces to 29 documents
CFR
22 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 4280.111
  • 7 CFR 4280.112(e)
  • 7 CFR 4280.112
  • 7 CFR 4280.114(d)
  • 7 CFR 4280.108
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 166 F. Supp. 2
  • 19 CFR 525(b)(6)(iv)
  • 19 CFR 325(b)(6)(iv)
  • 50 CFR 600.745
  • 50 CFR 660.306(a)(2)
  • 50 CFR 660.306(a)(10)
  • 50 CFR 216.103
  • 50 CFR 230.6
  • 50 CFR 230.4(c)
  • 50 CFR 230.4
  • Pub. L. 109-108
  • Pub. L. 106-113
  • Pub. L. 100-584
  • Pub. L. 101-555
  • 104 Stat. 2758
  • 15 CFR 2301
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3506
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.224
F. Supp.166 F. Supp. 2
Cite7 CFR 4280.111
Cite7 CFR 4280.112(e)
Cites 51 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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