Notices. Notice of Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order and Rescission of Scope Inquiry

10,032 words·~46 min read·/register/2006/02/22/06-1660·

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

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-801] Circumvention and Scope Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, Partial Preliminary Termination of Circumvention Inquiry, Preliminary Rescission of Scope Inquiry and Extension of Final Determination. AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order and Rescission of Scope Inquiry. PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION We preliminarily determine that frozen fish fillets produced by Lian Heng Trading Co. Ltd. (“Lian Heng Trading”) and Lian Heng Investment Co. Ltd. (“Lian Heng Investment”) (collectively, “Lian Heng”), 1 are circumventing the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”), as provided in section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 47909 (August 12, 2003) (“ *Order* ”). We are also terminating the circumvention inquiry with respect to L.S.H. (Cambodia) Pte. Ltd. (“L.S.H.”), and Sun Wah Fisheries Co. Ltd. (“Sun Wah”), and preliminarily rescinding the concurrently initiated scope inquiry. 1 Lian Heng Trading and Lian Heng Investment are two separate entities. However, the two companies share the same Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and both companies have exported subject merchandise to the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kit L. Rudd or Alex Villanueva, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1385 and

(202)482-3208, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 12, 2004, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(c), the Department received a request from Piazza Seafood World LLC (“Piazza”) for a scope ruling on whether certain basa and tra fillets from Cambodia made from Vietnamese origin basa or tra fish are excluded from the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The scope of the order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam includes fillets only of the following species: *Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* ), and * Pangasius Micronemus, 2 * and does not include unprocessed fish of these species. On June 9, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Piazza requesting additional information pertaining to its scope request. On July 7, 2004, the Department received Piazza's response to this supplemental questionnaire. On July 23, 2004, the Catfish Farmers of America and certain individual U.S. catfish processors (collectively, “Petitioners”) commented on Piazza's May 12, 2004, and July 7, 2004, submissions. On August 20, 2004, Petitioners requested that the Department initiate a circumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act to determine whether imports of frozen fish fillets from Cambodia made from Vietnamese origin basa or tra fish are circumventing the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. On October 19, 2004, Piazza submitted additional information supplementing its July 7, 2004, response. 2 Whole fish of these species will be hereinafter referred to as “basa” and “tra” fish, which are the Vietnamese common names for these species of fish. Likewise, frozen fish fillets produced from these species shall be referred to as frozen “basa” or “tra” fillets. With regard to their August 20, 2004, circumvention inquiry request, Petitioners alleged that the processing in and exporting from Cambodia of frozen fish fillets of the species *Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* ), and *Pangasius Micronemus* produced from Vietnamese-origin fish of the same species constitutes circumvention of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. On October 20, 2004, Piazza submitted comments on Petitioners' August 20, 2004, request for a circumvention inquiry. On October 22, 2004, the Department initiated concurrent circumvention and scope inquiries on imports of frozen fish fillets from Cambodia. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From The Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry and Scope Inquiry* , 69 FR 63507 (November 2, 2004) (“ *Initiation* ”). In the *Initiation* , the Department stated that it would focus its analysis of the significance of the production process in Cambodia on the single processor identified by Petitioners in their August 20, 2004, circumvention request. 3 The Department, however, provided interested parties an additional 45 days from the date of initiation of the inquiry to present the Department with sufficient evidence that other Cambodian processors were involved in processing Vietnamese-origin fish into frozen fish fillets for export to the United States. 3 Lian Heng was the single processor identified by Petitioners in their August 20, 2004 circumvention request. On November 29, 2004, Piazza submitted comments on the *Initiation* . On November 30, 2004, Petitioners submitted comments on the *Initiation* . 4 On December 6, 2004, Piazza submitted rebuttal comments to Petitioners' November 30, 2004, comments. On December 6, 2004, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to Piazza's November 29, 2004, comments 5 and factual information identifying Lian Heng, Sun Wah, L.S.H and the Kampuchea Fish Import and Export Company (“KAMFIMEX”) as Cambodian fish fillet exporters potentially involved in the processing of Vietnamese-origin fish. 4 On December 9, 2004, Piazza submitted a clarification of its November 29, 2004, submission. 5 On December 7, 2004, Petitioners resubmitted its December 6, 2004, rebuttal comments. Questionnaires and Verification of Responses On January 31, 2005, the Department issued questionnaires to Lian Heng, Sun Wah and L.S.H 6 soliciting information regarding their frozen fish fillet production and exports to the United States. On March 10, 2005, the Department reissued its January 31, 2005, questionnaire to L.S.H. with a revised response deadline of March 24, 2005. 6 The Department did not issue a questionnaire to KAMFIMEX because the Department had information indicating that KAMFIMEX did not actually produce fish fillets, but was rather a reseller of fish to licensed export agents or processing plants. *See* Memorandum to the File dated March 9, 2005. On February 18, 2005, the Department received Sun Wah's questionnaire response. On March 10, 2005, the Department issued a letter to Sun Wah requesting that it submit a clarification to its February 18, 2005, questionnaire response by March 17, 2005. On March 12, 2005, Sun Wah submitted a response to the Department's March 10, 2005 letter. On June 7, 2005, and June 21, 2005, the Department issued letters notifying Sun Wah of the Department's intention to verify its February 18, 2005, and March 10, 2005, questionnaire responses. On March 8, 2005, the Department received Lian Heng's questionnaire response. On March 30, 2005, Petitioners submitted comments to the Department regarding Lian Heng's March 8, 2005, questionnaire response. On April 20, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Lian Heng. On May 10, 2005, the Department granted Lian Heng an extension of time to May 18, 2005, to respond to its April 20, 2005, supplemental questionnaire and also issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to Lian Heng. On May 18, 2005, the Department received Lian Heng's response to the Department's April 20, 2005, and April 29, 2005, questionnaires. On June 6, 2005, Lian Heng submitted financial statements for Lian Heng Trading and Lian Heng Investment. On June 10, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Lian Heng. On June 22, 2005, the Department issued a letter to Lian Heng requesting it submit sales and cost reconciliations for Lian Heng Trading and Lian Heng Investment. On June 29, 2005, the Department issued its verification outline to Lian Heng. On July 1, 2005, Lian Heng submitted its supplemental response to the Department's June 10, 2005, supplemental questionnaire. On July 5, 2005, Lian Heng submitted its sales and cost reconciliations, tax returns and documentation supporting its value-added calculations. On July 6, 2005, Lian Heng submitted translated tax returns for Lian Heng Trading and Lian Heng Investment. On July 7, 2005, Petitioners submitted pre-verification comments for Lian Heng. On July 19, 2005, Lian Heng submitted its pre-verification corrections. From July 12 through July 15, 2005, the Department conducted verification of Lian Heng's questionnaire responses at the production facilities and offices of Lian Heng Trading in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. On July 15, 2005, Lian Heng company officials terminated the verification prior to its scheduled completion. 7 *See Memorandum to the File Regarding Verification of Sales and Cost of Production for Lian Heng Trading* (“ *Lian Heng Verification Report* ”) dated August 8, 2005, at 23. 7 As Lian Heng's questionnaire responses concerned both Lian Heng Trading and Lian Heng Investment, the Department scheduled verification at the facilities of both companies. As a result of the termination of verification prior to its scheduled completion, the Department was able to conduct on-site verification at the production facilities and offices of Lian Heng Trading only. On July 22, 2005, counsel to Lian Heng submitted its formal withdrawal of representation for Lian Heng in the circumvention/scope inquiries and a reaffirmation of its representation of importer Piazza. On August 8, 2005, the Department released to interested parties its verification report of the questionnaire responses for Lian Heng in the circumvention/scope inquiries. On August 16, 2005, the Department issued an extension from August 18, 2005, to November 17, 2005, of the final determination in the circumvention/scope inquiries. On September 12, 2005, the Department received notification of new counsel for Piazza. On September 19, 2005, the Department received Petitioners' comments on the upcoming preliminary determination. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The product covered by this order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species *Pangasius Bocourti* , *Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* ), and *Pangasius Micronemus* . Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the belly flap intact (“regular” fillets), boneless fillets with the belly flap removed (“shank” fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into strips (“fillet strips/finger”), which include fillets cut into strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, cross-section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen “basa” and “tra” fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for these species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species *Pangasius* including basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 8 This order covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. *See Order* at 47909. 8 Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of the HTSUS. Preliminary Rescission of Scope Inquiry As noted above, on May 12, 2004, the Department received a scope ruling request from Piazza on whether certain basa and tra fillets from Cambodia made from Vietnamese origin live basa and tra fish are excluded from the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Subsequent to Piazza's scope ruling request, the Department received a request from Petitioners to initiate a circumvention inquiry on August 20, 2004, pursuant to 781(b) of the Act. In the *Initiation* of the concurrent scope and circumvention inquiries, the Department found that because the circumvention and scope requests may necessitate an analysis of the significance of the production process in Cambodia, it was appropriate to initiate them concurrently. However, we are preliminarily rescinding the scope inquiry because Lian Heng, the Cambodian fish producer/exporter upon which Piazza relied for information to file its scope request, is also subject to the concurrent circumvention inquiry. Termination of the Circumvention Inquiry for L.S.H. and Sun Wah In reviewing the record evidence we note that the Department's decision to issue questionnaires to L.S.H. and Sun Wah in the context of this proceeding was based solely on information submitted by Petitioners that such processors were producing frozen fish fillets for export. In reviewing Petitioners' submission and all evidence to date on the record of this proceeding, however, we find no evidence that either of the two processors exported frozen fish fillets to the United States. Indeed, one processor has claimed to have made no shipments to the United States, and data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) do not indicate shipments from either of the two companies at issue. In general, a circumvention inquiry should be supported by evidence of shipments to the United States of the product in question. Moreover, in this particular case, there is insufficient data to satisfy the explicit criteria set out in the initiation notice regarding the identification of Cambodian processors involved in processing Vietnamese-origin fish into fish fillets for export to the United States. Accordingly, we do not believe this circumvention inquiry should proceed for Sun Wah and L.S.H., as the evidentiary standard which was established for purposes of this inquiry has not been met. *See* section 781(b) of the Act. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily terminating the inquiry with respect to these companies. The Department is, however, allowing Petitioners to provide additional information on Sun Wah and L.S.H regarding their processing and export of fish fillets to the United States. Specifically, if sufficient information is received that meets the evidentiary standard established in the notice of *Initiation* , the Department may initiate a new and separate circumvention inquiry with regard to these companies. With respect to Lian Heng, record evidence exists that Lian Heng was involved in processing and exporting frozen fish fillets to the United States made from Vietnamese-origin live basa and tra fish. *See* Piazza's May 12, 2004, submission. In addition, the Department corroborated that Lian Heng is an exporter of frozen fish fillets from Cambodia by examining CBP data. *See* Memo to File from Kit Rudd, dated January 27, 2006. As such, the Department is continuing the inquiry with respect to Lian Heng. Statutory Provisions Regarding Circumvention Section 781(b) of the Act provides that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise of the same class or kind subject to the order is completed or assembled in a foreign country other than the country to which the order applies. In conducting circumvention inquiries under section 781(b) of the Act, the Department relies upon the following criteria:

(A)merchandise imported into the United States is of the same class or kind as any merchandise produced in a foreign country that is subject to an antidumping duty order;

(B)before importation into the United States, such imported merchandise is completed or assembled in another foreign country from merchandise which is subject to the order or produced in the foreign country that is subject to the order;

(C)the process of assembly or completion in the foreign country referred to in

(B)is minor or insignificant; and

(D)the value of the merchandise produced in the foreign country to which the antidumping duty order applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States. Section 781(b)(3) of the Act further provides that, in determining whether to include merchandise assembled or completed in a foreign country in an antidumping duty order, the Department shall consider:

(A)the pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns;

(B)whether the manufacturer or exporter of the merchandise described in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(B) of the Act is affiliated with the person who uses the merchandise described in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(B) to assemble or complete in the foreign country the merchandise that is subsequently imported in to the United States; and

(C)whether imports into the foreign country of the merchandise described in accordance with section 781(b)(1)(B) have increased after the initiation of the investigation which resulted in the issuance of such order or finding. Analysis/Facts Available/Adverse Facts Available The Department's questionnaires issued to Lian Heng were designed to elicit information for purposes of conducting both qualitative and quantitative analyses in accordance with the criteria enumerated in section 781(b) of the Act as outlined above. This approach is consistent with our analysis in previous circumvention inquiries. *See* , *e.g.* , *Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from Germany and the United Kingdom; Negative Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (Carbon Steel Products)* , 64 FR 40336 (July 26, 1999) and *Steel Wire Rope from Mexico; Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order* , 59 FR 29176 (June 3, 1994). Although the Department received information addressing these criteria under section 781(b) of the Act, we are unable to complete an analysis of the criteria for Lian Heng in this proceeding because Lian Heng prematurely terminated the verification of its questionnaire responses. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party:

(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and

(e)of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping statute; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Further, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. In accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(C) and

(D)of the Act, the Department finds that applying facts available is warranted for Lian Heng because Lian Heng prematurely terminated verification, thereby significantly impeding this proceeding and rendering the information submitted unverifiable. In addition, we disagree with Piazza's rebuttal comments that the Department's verification confirmed Piazza's responses on the record with respect to several elements of the statutory analysis under section 781(b) of the Act. The Department finds that Lian Heng's termination of verification constitues a failure by Lian Heng to provide verifiable data and thus renders the totality of the record responses unverified. Furthermore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department finds that Lian Heng failed to cooperate to the best of its ability as a result of its termination of verification, and therefore we find an adverse inference is warranted in determining the facts otherwise available. Summary We have made an affirmative preliminary determination that Lian Heng has engaged in circumvention of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam within the meaning of section 781(b) of the Act. In the course of this proceeding, Lian Heng was given an opportunity to provide verifiable documentation supporting the country of origin of the fish used to produce frozen fish fillets in Cambodia for export to the United States. However, as noted above, Lian Heng failed to provide verifiable data supporting the country of origin of the fish used in the frozen fish fillet production process. Specifically, at verification the Department attempted to verify documentation regarding the origin of Lian Heng's whole fish used to produce fish fillets for the period January 1, 2003, to July 15, 2005 (the last day of verification). Lian Heng prematurely terminated the verification on July 15, 2005. Moreover, it was apparent during the verification that Lian Heng could not provide adequate documentation supporting the origin of the whole fish. *See Lian Heng Verification Report* at 1-2 and 16-17. Therefore, as adverse facts available under section 776(b) of the Act, the Department concludes that Lian Heng's processing in and exporting from Cambodia constitutes circumvention of the antidumping duty order within the meaning of section 781(b) of the Act. A second adverse inference is that for the period of October 22, 2004 through July 15, 2005, Lian Heng used Vietnamese-origin fish. As a result of these inferences, the Department finds that the use of Vietnamese-origin fish by Lian Heng to produce frozen fish fillets for export to the United States constitutes circumvention of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam under section 781(b) of the Act. As such, the Department will consider all entries of frozen fish fillets of the species *Pangasius Bocourti* , *Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* ), and *Pangasius Micronemus* produced by Lian Heng entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 22, 2004, the date of initiation of the circumvention inquiry, through July 15, 2005, the last day of the Lian Heng verification, to be produced from Vietnamese-origin fish. Therefore, for all such merchandise entered between October 22, 2004, and July 15, 2005, but not yet liquidated, we preliminarily determine to require suspension of liquidation and to require a cash deposit at the Vietnam-wide rate of 63.88 percent. For all entries of frozen fish fillets produced by Lian Heng entered on or after July 16, 2005, CBP will allow Lian Heng to certify that no Vietnamese-origin fish was used in the production of the frozen fish fillets. Any entries of frozen fish fillets not accompanied by this certification will be subject to antidumping duty cash deposits at the Vietnam-wide rate of 63.88 percent. *See* Attachment I. Upon request, the Department may conduct a review of these certified entries during the third administrative review period (August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006). The Department will expand the third administrative review period back to October 22, 2004, the date of initiation of the circumvention inquiry, to include all of Lian Heng's entries covered by this determination. In addition, we hereby serve notice to Lian Heng that such certified entries are subject to verification by the Department. If a review of these certified entries is conducted, the Department will, at a minimum, examine whole fish country of origin documentation that Lian Heng is required to maintain, as an exporter of fish products to the United States, by the United States Food and Drug Administration's Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (“HACCP”) 9 program and Bioterrorism Act of 2002. 10 The Department will also examine any other records Lian Heng maintains in its normal course of business supporting its certifications that no Vietnamese-origin fish was used in the production of its frozen fish fillets. 9 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point. Details regarding this program can be found at *http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/lrd/haccp.html* . 10 Details regarding the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 can be found at the following URL: *http://www.fda.gov/oc/bioterrorism/bioact.html* . Extension of Final Determination Section 781(f) of the Act states that the administering authority shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make determinations under section 781 of the Act within three-hundred days from the date of the initiation of an antidumping circumvention inquiry. At this time, the Department requires additional time to allow parties to submit briefs, conduct a hearing if requested, and analyze all comments submitted prior to issuance of the final determination. Therefore, the Department is extending the current deadline of the final determination by sixty days until Monday, April 17, 2006. Suspension of Liquidation As noted, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties, at the Vietnam-wide rate, on all unliquidated entries of frozen fish fillets produced by Lian Heng that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from on or after October 22, 2004, the date of initiation of the circumvention inquiry, through July 15, 2005. Notification to the International Trade Commission The Department, consistent with section 781(e) of the Act, has notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of this preliminary determination to include the merchandise subject to this inquiry within the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Pursuant to section 781(e) of the Act, the ITC may request consultations concerning the Department's proposed inclusion of the subject merchandise. If, after consultations, the ITC believes that a significant injury issue is presented by the proposed inclusion, it will have 60 days to provide written advice to the Department. Public Comment Interested parties may request a hearing within 10 days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments from interested parties may be submitted no later than 20 days from the publication of this notice. Rebuttals limited to issues raised in the initial comments may be filed no later than 27 days after publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than 34 days after publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final determination with respect to this circumvention inquiry, including the results of its analysis of any written comments. This affirmative preliminary circumvention determination is in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225. Dated: February 15, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Attachment I Certification of Lian Heng 1 1 Lian Heng Trading Co. Ltd. (“Lian Heng Trading”) or Lian Heng Investment Co. Ltd. (“Lian Heng Investment”) (collectively “Lian Heng”) CERTIFICATION TO U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 1. Lian Heng hereby certifies that the frozen fish fillets being exported and subject to this certification were not produced from fish of Vietnamese origin of the following species: *Pangasius Bocourti* (commonly known as basa or trey basa), *Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* and commonly known as tra or trey pra), or *Pangasius Micronemus* . 2. By signing this certificate, Lian Heng also hereby agrees to maintain sufficient documentation supporting the above statement such as country of origin certificates for all fish used to process the exported frozen fish fillets. 2 Further, Lian Heng agrees to submit to verification of the underlying documentation supporting the above statement. Lian Heng agrees that failure to submit to verification of the documentation supporting these statements will result in immediate revocation of Lian Heng's certification rights and that Lian Heng will be required to post a cash deposit equal to the Vietnam-wide entity rate on all entries of frozen fish fillets of the species *Pangasius Bocourti* (commonly known as basa or trey basa), *Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* and commonly known as tra or trey pra), or *Pangasius Micronemus* . In addition, if the Department of Commerce identifies any misrepresentation or inconsistencies regarding the certifications, it may report the matter to Customs and Border Protection for possible enforcement action. 2 Documentation may include, but is not limited to the records that (EXPORTER OF RECORD) is required to maintain by the United States Food and Drug Administration's HACCP program and Bioterrorism Act of 2002 and other documents kept in the normal course of business. Signature: Printed Name: Title: [FR Doc. E6-2510 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-507-501] Certain In-shell Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty

(CVD)order on certain in-shell

(raw)pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran

(Iran)for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. For information on the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company, please see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. (See the “Public Comment” section of this notice.) EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-2786. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the countervailing duty order on certain in-shell

(raw)pistachios from Iran. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: In-shell Pistachios from Iran* , 51 FR 8344 (March 11, 1986) ( *In-shell Pistachios* ). On March 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 9918 (March 1, 2005). On March 31, 2005, we received timely requests for administrative review from the California Pistachio Commission

(CPC)and Cal Pure Pistachios, Inc. (Cal Pure). The CPC and Cal Pure requested that the Department conduct a review with respect to Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Inc., trading as Nima Trading Company (Nima), the respondent company in this proceeding. On April 22, 2005, we initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on in-shell

(raw)pistachios from Iran covering the period of review

(POR)January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 20862 (April 22, 2005). On June 8, 2005, we issued our initial questionnaire to the Government of Iran

(GOI)and Nima. Neither the GOI nor Nima submitted questionnaire responses. Therefore, as discussed below in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have resorted to the facts otherwise available, employing an adverse inference. *See* Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On December 5, 2005, we extended the period for the completion of the *Preliminary Results* pursuant to Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. *See Certain In-shell

(Raw)Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 72426 (December 5, 2005). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this administrative review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this administrative review covers Nima and ten programs. Scope of Order The product covered by this order is in-shell

(raw)pistachio nuts from which the hulls have been removed, leaving the inner hard shells and edible meat, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 0802.50.20.00. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Use of Facts Available During the course of this proceeding, we have sought information from the company subject to this review, Nima, and from the GOI pertaining to countervailable subsidy programs in Iran and their use by Nima and Nima's growers and producers. Specifically, we have asked for information concerning Nima's and its growers' usage of the following programs: Provision of Credit, Provision of Fertilizer and Machinery, Tax Exemptions, Provision of Water and Irrigation Equipment, Technical Support, Duty Refunds on Imported Raw or Intermediate Materials Used in the Production of Export Goods, Program to Improve Quality of Exports of Dried Fruit, Iranian Export Guarantee Fund, GOI Grants and Loans to Pistachio Farmers, and Crop Insurance for Pistachios. *See* pages II-3 through II-8 and pages III-6 through III-11 of the Department's June 8, 2005, questionnaire. In addition, we have requested information concerning the total sales and sales of subject merchandise made by Nima during the POR. *See* pages III-3 through III-6 of the Department's June 8, 2005, questionnaire. Section 776(a) of the Act requires the use of facts available when an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, or when an interested party fails to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in the form required. As described above, by failing to respond to our questionnaire, Nima and the GOI have failed to provide information regarding these programs, as well as Nima's sales, in the manner explicitly requested by the Department; therefore, we must resort to the facts otherwise available. Furthermore, Section 776(b) of the Act provides that in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. The Department finds that by not providing necessary information specifically requested by the Department, the GOI and Nima have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. Therefore, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department determines that an adverse inference is warranted. When employing an adverse inference in an administrative review, the statute indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from

(1)the petition, a final determination in a countervailing duty or an antidumping investigation, any previous administrative review, new shipper review, expedited antidumping review, section 753 review, or section 762 review; or

(2)any other information placed on the record. *See* Section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c). Thus, in applying adverse facts available, we have used information from the final determination of *In-shell Pistachios* ; *Certain In-Shell Pistachios and Certain Roasted In-Shell Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of New Shipper Countervailing Duty Reviews* , 68 FR 4997 (January 31, 2003) ( *New Shipper Reviews* ); and *Certain In-shell Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 54027 (September 13, 2005) ( *2003 In-shell Pistachios* ). If the Department relies on secondary information ( *e.g.* , data from a petition) as facts available, Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, “to the extent practicable,” corroborate such information using independent sources reasonably at its disposal. 1 The SAA further provides that to corroborate secondary information means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* also 19 CFR 351.308(d) (describing the corroboration of secondary information). 1 The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA clarifies that information from the petition is “secondary information.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action, URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.

(SAA)at 870. Thus, in those instances in which it determines to apply adverse facts available, the Department, in order to satisfy itself that such information has probative value, will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as publicly available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs. The only source for such information normally is administrative determinations. In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the reliability of the evidence relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render benefit data not relevant. *See Cotton Shop Towels from Pakistan: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 42514 (August 13, 2001). Where circumstances indicate that the information is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. *See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the relevance of the benefit data relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding. Thus, in the instant case, the Department finds that the information used has been corroborated to the extent practicable. Analysis of Programs Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Countervailable Because the GOI and Nima did not provide the information necessary to conduct an analysis of these programs, we are making an adverse inference that each of these programs continues to exist, is countervailable, and that a benefit was conferred upon Nima during the POR. A. Provision of Fertilizer and Machinery In *In-shell Pistachios* , 51 FR at 8345-6, the Department found that growers, processors or exporters of pistachios in Iran can obtain fertilizer and machinery from the GOI at preferential prices. As further discussed above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted on the grounds that Nima and the GOI did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, we have determined as adverse facts available that this program continues to exist and that Nima received a countervailable benefit during the POR. To calculate the net subsidy rate under this program, we used the highest rate listed in *In-shell Pistachios* for this program. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the net subsidy rate for this program is 7.11 percent *ad valorem* . B. Provision of Credit In *In-shell Pistachios* , the Department found that bounties or grants were provided to growers, processors, or exporters in Iran of pistachios under this program. Specifically, the Department found that agricultural cooperatives in Iran make credit available on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations from funds provided by the GOI to their members. *See* 51 FR at 8346. As further discussed above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted on the grounds that Nima and the GOI did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, we have determined as adverse facts available that this program continues to exist and that Nima received a countervailable benefit during the POR. To calculate the net subsidy rate under this program, we used the highest rate listed in *In-shell Pistachios* for this program. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the net subsidy rate for this program is 7.11 percent *ad valorem* . C. Tax Exemptions In *In-shell Pistachios* , the Department found that bounties or grants were provided to growers, processors, or exporters in Iran of pistachios under this program. Specifically, the Department determined that farmers benefit from legislation that exempts farmers and livestock breeders from paying taxes, provided they follow government agricultural guidelines. *See* 51 FR at 8346. As further discussed above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted on the grounds that Nima and the GOI did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, we have determined as adverse facts available that this program continues to exist and that Nima received a countervailable benefit during the POR. To calculate the net subsidy rate under this program, we used the highest rate listed in *In-shell Pistachios* for this program. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the net subsidy rate for this program is 7.11 percent *ad valorem* . D. Provision of Water and Irrigation Equipment In *In-shell Pistachios* , the Department found that bounties or grants were provided to growers, processors, or exporters in Iran of pistachios under this program. Specifically, the Department determined that pistachio growers in Iran may benefit from the construction of soil dams, flood barriers, canals, and other irrigation projects undertaken by the government to increase agricultural production. *See* 51 FR at 8346. As further discussed above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted on the grounds that Nima and the GOI did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, we have determined as adverse facts available that this program continues to exist and that Nima received a countervailable benefit during the POR. To calculate the net subsidy rate under this program, we used the highest rate listed in *In-shell Pistachios* for this program. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the net subsidy rate for this program is 7.11 percent *ad valorem* . E. Technical Support In *In-shell Pistachios* , the Department found that bounties or grants were provided to growers, processors, or exporters in Iran of pistachios under this program. Specifically, the Department determined that pistachio growers in Iran receive technical support as part of the GOI's program to support agricultural development, and that this technical support included research projects to improve cultivation techniques, as well as assistance in harvesting, marketing, and the use of fertilizer. *See* 51 FR at 8346. As further discussed above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted on the grounds that Nima and the GOI did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, we have determined as adverse facts available that this program continues to exist and that Nima received a countervailable benefit during the POR. To calculate the net subsidy rate under this program, we used the highest rate listed in *In-shell Pistachios* for this program. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the net subsidy rate for this program is 7.11 percent *ad valorem* . F. Duty Refunds on Imported Raw or Intermediate Materials Used in the Production of Export Goods In the *New Shipper Reviews* , we found that there was sufficient information on the record to suggest that duties and levies paid in connection with the importation of intermediate materials used in the production of the exported commodities and goods are refunded to exporters, pursuant to the Third Five Year Development Plan (TFYDP) enacted by the GOI. See the May 8, 2002, Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner from the Team, re: New Subsidy Allegations, contained in the February 2, 2006, Memorandum to the File from the Team, re: Placing Memos on the Record. As further discussed above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted on the grounds that Nima and the GOI did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, we have determined as adverse facts available that this program continues to exist and that Nima received a countervailable benefit during the POR. This program was alleged for the first time in the *New Shipper Reviews* , and thus was not among the programs addressed in *In-shell Pistachios* . However, lacking any information from Nima and the GOI on the record of the instant review, we find that the net subsidy rate of 7.11, the highest rate established for individual programs in *In-shell Pistachios* , is the only available information on the record and is therefore, as adverse facts available, the appropriate rate to apply to this program in these preliminary results. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that the net subsidy rate for this program is 7.11 percent *ad valorem* . G. Program to Improve Quality of Exports of Dried Fruit In the *New Shipper Reviews* , we found that there was sufficient information on the record to suggest that pursuant to the Budget Act of 2001 - 2002, the GOI provides financial assistance to exporters of dried fruit and pistachios to assist them in the production of export quality goods. *See* the May 8, 2002, Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner from the Team, re: New Subsidy Allegations, contained in the February 2, 2006, Memorandum to the File from the Team, re: Placing Memos on the Record. As further discussed above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted on the grounds that Nima and the GOI did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, we have determined as adverse facts available that this program continues to exist and that Nima received a countervailable benefit during the POR. This program was alleged for the first time in the *New Shipper Reviews* , and thus was not among the programs addressed in *In-shell Pistachios* . However, lacking any information from Nima and the GOI on the record of the instant review, we find that the net subsidy rate of 7.11, the highest rate established for individual programs in *In-shell Pistachios* , is the only available information on the record and is therefore, as adverse facts available, the appropriate rate to apply to this program in these preliminary results. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that the net subsidy rate for this program is 7.11 percent *ad valorem* . H. Iranian Export Guarantee Fund In the 2003 administrative review of raw in-shell pistachios, we found that petitioners had provided sufficient evidence to support their allegation that the GOI pays a “prize” in the form of an export subsidy to exporters; these prizes are payable commensurate with the added value of export goods and services. *See* the October 27, 2004, Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner from the Team, re: New Subsidy Allegations, contained in the February 2, 2006, Memorandum to the File from the Team, re: Placing Memos on the Record. As further discussed above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted on the grounds that Nima and the GOI did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, we have determined as adverse facts available that this program continues to exist and that Nima received a countervailable benefit during the POR. This program was alleged for the first time in *2003 In-shell Pistachios* , and thus was not among the programs addressed in *In-shell Pistachios* . However, lacking any information from Nima and the GOI on the record of the instant review, we find that the net subsidy rate of 7.11, the highest rate established for individual programs in *In-shell Pistachios* , is the only available information on the record and is therefore, as adverse facts available, the appropriate rate to apply to this program in these preliminary results. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that the net subsidy rate for this program is 7.11 percent *ad valorem* . I. GOI Grants and Loans to Pistachio Farmers In *2003 In-shell Pistachios* , we found that petitioners had provided sufficient evidence to support their allegation that the GOI's Foreign Exchange Reserve Account Board of Trustees agreed to provide both a grant of $100,000,000 and a $50,000,000 buyer's credit to Iranian pistachio cooperatives and pistachio farmers. *See* the May 8, 2002, Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner from the Team, re: New Subsidy Allegations, contained in the February 2, 2006 Memorandum to the File from the Team, re: Placing Memos on the Record. As further discussed above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted on the grounds that Nima and the GOI did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, we have determined as adverse facts available that this program continues to exist and that Nima received a countervailable benefit during the POR. This program was alleged for the first time in *2003 In-shell Pistachios* , and thus was not among the programs addressed in *In-shell Pistachios* . However, lacking any information from Nima and the GOI on the record of the instant review, we find that the net subsidy rate of 7.11, the highest rate established for individual programs in *In-shell Pistachios* , is the only available information on the record and is therefore, as adverse facts available, the appropriate rate to apply to this program in these preliminary results. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that the net subsidy rate for this program is 7.11 percent *ad valorem* . J. Crop Insurance for Pistachios In *2003 In-shell Pistachios* , we found that petitioners had provided sufficient evidence to support their allegation that the GOI established the Iranian Agricultural Product Insurance Act (IAPIA), whereby the Agricultural Bank will insure agricultural produce as a means of achieving the goals and policies of the agricultural sector and that the GOI aids farmers in securing insurance premiums at less than market value. *See* the May 8, 2002, Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner from the Team, re: New Subsidy Allegations, contained in the February 2, 2006 Memorandum to the File from the Team, re: Placing Memos on the Record. As further discussed above in the “Use of Facts Available” section of this notice, we have determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted on the grounds that Nima and the GOI did not respond to our request for information. Therefore, we have determined as adverse facts available that this program continues to exist and that Nima received a countervailable benefit during the POR. This program was alleged for the first time in *2003 In-shell Pistachios* , and thus was not among the programs addressed in *In-shell Pistachios* . However, lacking any information from Nima and the GOI on the record of the instant review, we find that the net subsidy rate of 7.11, the highest rate established for individual programs in *In-shell Pistachios* , is the only available information on the record and is therefore, as adverse facts available, the appropriate rate to apply to this program in these preliminary results. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that the net subsidy rate for this program is 7.11 percent *ad valorem* . Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated an individual subsidy rate for Nima, the only producer/exporter subject to this administrative review, for the POR, *i.e.* , calendar year 2004. We preliminarily determine that the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 71.10 percent *ad valorem* . As Nima is the exporter but not the producer of subject merchandise, should the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department's final results of review will apply to subject merchandise exported by Nima and produced by any grower. *See* 19 CFR 351.107(b). The Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review, to liquidate all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Nima, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the POR at the rate established in 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. *See Certain In-Shell Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 41310 (July 11, 2003). These cash deposit rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)a statement of the issue, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. 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 14, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-2511 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 021506F] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Closed Session Scientific and Statistical Committee

(SSC)Selection Committee Conference Call. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene its SSC Selection Committee via conference call to select members for an Ad Hoc Shrimp Effort Working Group for recommendation to the Council. DATES: The conference call will be held on Wednesday, March 8, 2006. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via closed session conference call. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene its SSC Selection Committee in a closed session conference call on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 at 10 a.m. EST. The purpose of the meeting is to select members for an Ad Hoc Shrimp Effort Working Group for recommendation to the Council. The Committee recommendations will be presented to the Council at the March 20 - 23, 2006 Council meeting in Mobile, AL. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Dawn Aring at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: February 16, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-2442 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 021506D] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Research Steering Committee in March, 2006 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 8, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Colonial Hotel, One Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01940; telephone:

(781)245-9300; fax:

(781)245-0842. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will review several final cooperative research project reports and develop management advice for use by the Council. In addition, the committee will receive an update on Cooperative Research Partners Program's long-term projects, including industry-based survey and study fleet projects and discuss outreach issues such as communication of final report results. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. 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. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at

(978)465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: February 15, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-2434 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Science Advisory Board AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Science Advisory Board

(SAB)was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA)science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management. *Time and Date:* The meeting will be held Wednesday March 8, 2006, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday March 9, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page *http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Meetings/meetings.html* for the most up-to-date meeting agenda. *Place:* The meeting will be held both days at the Courtyard Marriott Hotel, 8506 Fenton Street, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. *Status:* The meeting will be open to public participation with a 30-minute public comment period on March 8 (check Web site to confirm time). The SAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five

(5)minutes. Written comments (at least 35 copies) should be received in the SAB Executive Director's Office by March 1, 2006 to provide sufficient time for SAB review. Written comments received by the SAB Executive Director after March 1 will be distributed to the SAB, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. *Matters to be Considered:* The meeting will include the following topics:

(1)Briefing on the Environmental Impact of Hurricane Katrina;

(2)Update and discussion of the Preliminary Report of the Hurricane Intensity Research Working Group;

(3)Update on the Review of NOAA Ecosystem Science and Research;

(4)Report on the Status of Social Science in NOAA;

(5)Briefing on Invasive Species Activities in NOAA;

(6)Discussion of Stakeholder Input and NOAA's Annual Guidance Memorandum for Fiscal Years 2009-2013 and

(7)Update on the NOAA Strategy for Environmental Literacy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Uhart, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 11142, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-713-9121, Fax: 301-713-3515, E-mail: *Michael.Uhart@noaa.gov)* ; or visit the NOAA SAB Web site at *http://www.sab.noaa.gov.* Dated: February 15, 2006. Mark E. Brown, Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E6-2459 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Meetings; Sunshine Act AGENCY holding the meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Sunshine Act Meetings time and date: 11 a.m., Friday, March 10, 2006. place: 1155 21st. St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. status: Closed. matters to be considered: Surveillance Matters. for further information contact: Jean A. Webb,

(202)418-5100. Jean A. Webb, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06-1660 Filed 2-17-06; 11:09 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

CFR