Notices. Notice

5,969 words·~27 min read·/register/2006/02/28/06-1909

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

BILLING CODE 4312-CB-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [(C-428-829); (C-421-809); (C-412-821)] Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Intent To Revoke the Countervailing Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative reviews of the countervailing duty

(CVD)orders on low enriched uranium

(LEU)from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

(UK)for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. For information on the net subsidy for the reviewed companies, please see the “Preliminary Results of Reviews” section of this notice. In addition, we preliminarily determine that the Governments of Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK have met the requirements for revocation of these CVD orders. For further information, please refer to the “Revocation of the Orders” 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 28, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2786. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 13, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the CVD orders on LEU from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. *See Notice of Amended Final Determinations and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom* , 67 FR 6688 (February 13, 2002) ( *Amended Final* ). On February 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of these CVD orders. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 5136 (February 1, 2005). On February 23, 2005, we received timely requests for review from Urenco Deutschland GmbH of Germany (UD), Urenco Nederland B.V. of the Netherlands (UNL), Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited

(UCL)of the UK, Urenco Ltd., Urenco Inc., and Urenco Enrichment Company Ltd.

(UEC)(collectively, the Urenco Group or Urenco), the producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. We note that this request covered all subject merchandise produced by Urenco in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. On February 25, 2005, we received a timely request for review from petitioners. 1 On February 25, 2005, we received timely requests for revocation of the CVD orders from the Governments of Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. 1 Petitioners are the United States Enrichment Corporation

(USEC)and USEC Inc. On March 23, 2005, the Department initiated administrative reviews of the CVD orders on LEU from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). On April 13, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Government of the United Kingdom

(UKG)and UCL, Urenco's producer of subject merchandise in the UK. On May 2, 2005, the Department issued a separate questionnaire to the Government of the Netherlands

(GON)and UNL, Urenco's producer of subject merchandise in the Netherlands. On June 13, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Government of Germany

(GOG)and UD, Urenco's producer of subject merchandise in Germany. We received questionnaire responses from the UKG and UCL on May 20, 2005, from the GON and UNL on June 8, 2005, from the GOG on July 18, 2005, and from UD on July 20, 2005. On October 17, 2005, we extended the due date for these preliminary results from October 31, 2005, to February 28, 2006. *See Low Enriched Uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 60284 (October 17, 2005) ( *Extension Notice* ). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), these reviews cover only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The companies subject to these reviews are UD, UNL, UCL, Urenco Ltd., and Urenco Inc. These reviews cover four programs. Scope of the Order The product covered by these orders is all LEU. LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ) with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO 2 , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of these orders. Specifically, these orders do not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of these orders. For purposes of these orders, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2 ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U 3 O 8 ) with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of these orders. Also excluded from these orders is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU

(i)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and

(ii)are re-exported within eighteen

(18)months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end-user. The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Period of Review The period of review

(POR)for these administrative reviews is January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. International Consortium In our *Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom* , 66 FR 65903 (December 21, 2001) ( *LEU Final* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (LEU Decision Memo) at Comment 2: International Consortium Provision, we found that the Urenco Group operates as an international consortium within the meaning of section 701(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented since the *LEU Final* which would persuade us to reconsider this conclusion. Therefore, we continue to find that the Urenco Group of companies constitutes an international consortium. Accordingly, we have continued to cumulate all countervailable subsidies received by the member companies from the GOG, the GON, and the UKG, pursuant to section 701(d) of the Act. Subsidies Valuation Information Allocation Period Under section 351.524(d)(2) of the Department's regulations, we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life

(AUL)of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's

(IRS)1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (IRS Tables), as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant. In this instance, however, the IRS Tables do not provide a specific asset guideline class for the uranium enrichment industry. In the *LEU Final* , we derived an AUL of 10 years for the Urenco Group ( *see* LEU Decision Memo at Comment 3: Average Useful Life). The AUL issue is currently subject to litigation related to the investigation. Because there has been no final and conclusive court decision changing the AUL, and no new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted, for these reviews, we continue to apply the 10-year AUL that was calculated in the *LEU Final* . Revocation of the Orders On February 25, 2005, we received requests for revocation of the CVD orders on LEU from the GOG, the GON, and the UKG. Their requests were filed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(c). The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, a CVD order upon completion of one or more reviews under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222, which was amended on September 22, 1999. *See Amended Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 64 FR 51236 (September 22, 1999). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(i), during the third and subsequent annual anniversary months of the publication of the CVD order, the government of the affected country may request in writing that the Department revoke an order under 351.222(c)(1) if the government submits with the request its certification that it has satisfied, during the period of review, the requirements set out in 351.222(c)(1)(i) and that it will not reinstate for the subject merchandise those programs or substitute other countervailable subsidy programs. The GOG, the GON, and the UKG provided the certifications required by 19 CFR 351.222(e)(2)(i). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(c), will consider the following in determining whether to revoke the order:

(1)whether the government of the affected country has eliminated all countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise by abolishing for the subject merchandise, for a period of at least three consecutive years, all programs previously found countervailable;

(2)whether exporters and producers of the subject merchandise are continuing to receive any net countervailable subsidy from an abolished program; and

(3)whether the continued application of the CVD order is otherwise necessary to offset subsidization. In the instant reviews, we preliminarily determine, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(A), that all programs found by the Department to have provided countervailable subsidies on LEU from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK have been abolished for at least three consecutive years. Specifically, in the underlying investigations, the Department found that the GOG provided measurable countervailable benefits to Urenco through agreements between the GOG and Uranitisotopentrennungsgeselleschaft mbH (Uranit) 2 for

(1)enrichment technology research and development and

(2)forgiveness of centrifuge enrichment capacity subsidies. Under the enrichment technology program, the GOG provided grants to Uranit from 1980 through 1993. Under the forgiveness program, the GOG waived the contingent liability associated with monies provided from 1975 to 1993. These agreements ended with the September 1993 formation of Urenco Ltd., thus effectively abolishing all the subsidy programs within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(A). Since the issuance of the order, the Department has not initiated a review of, nor identified, any additional or replacement subsidies. 2 The predecessor German company. We also preliminarily determine that the net countervailable subsidy rate during the POR of the instant reviews is zero, and, therefore, that the exporters and producers are no longer receiving any net countervailable subsidy from the abolished programs within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(B). Because we have allocated all non-recurring subsidies over a 10-year AUL, the benefit streams from these agreements were fully allocated at the end of 2002, *i.e.* , prior to the POR of these reviews. Finally, we preliminarily determine that there is no evidence currently on the record of the instant reviews indicating that these CVD orders are necessary to offset subsidization. For these reasons, we preliminarily find, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(i)(C), that the continued application of these CVD orders is not necessary to offset subsidization. Therefore, if the final results of these reviews remain unchanged from these preliminary results, the Department intends to revoke these CVD orders pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(c)(1)(ii). Analysis of Programs I. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer a Benefit From the Government of Germany 1. *Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program* In the first administrative reviews, we determined that grant disbursements made under this program prior to 1992, including the 1985 disbursement made under the “Financing Agreement,” no longer provided a benefit during those reviews' POR, *i.e.* , January 14, 2001, through December 31, 2002. We also determined that only the grant disbursements made in 1992 and 1993 continued to provide benefits during the 2001-2002 POR. *See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom* , 69 FR 40869 (July 7, 2004) ( *2001-2002 LEU* ) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ( *2001-2002 LEU* Decision Memo) at the “Analysis of Programs” section. In the second administrative reviews, we continued to find that each of these grants has been fully allocated prior to the POR. *See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium From Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom* , 70 FR 40000 (July 12, 2005) ( *2003 LEU* ). In *2001-2002 LEU* and *2003 LEU* , we determined that Urenco would not benefit from Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program subsidies from the GOG after 2002 because the grants were fully allocated at the end of 2002. *See 2001-2002 LEU* Decision Memo at Comment 3: Cash Deposit Rate for Future Urenco Imports. Because the grant disbursements under this program were made between 1980 and 1993, the 10-year allocation period for each grant disbursement expired prior to the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that each of these grants has been fully allocated prior to the POR, and, therefore, no benefit was received under this program during the POR. 2. *Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity Subsidies* In *2001-2002 LEU* and *2003 LEU* , we determined that Urenco would not benefit from Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity subsidies from the GOG after 2002 because the grants were fully allocated at the end of 2002. *See 2001-2002 LEU* Decision Memo at Comment 3: Cash Deposit Rate for Future Urenco Imports. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the grant has been fully allocated prior to the POR, and, therefore, no benefit was received under this program during the POR. II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used From the Government of the Netherlands 1. *Wet Investeringsrekening Law (WIR)* In the *2003 LEU* , we found that the WIR program was not used. In the instant administrative reviews, we asked UNL if it received or used benefits under this program during the POR. In its June 8, 2005, questionnaire response, UNL responded that it did not apply for, use, or receive benefits from the WIR program during the POR. Furthermore, UNL reported that the WIR program ended in 1988 and investment credits could only be claimed through the 1989 tax year. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the WIR was not used during the POR. 2. *Regional Investment Premium* In the *Amended Final* , we found that, after correcting for a ministerial error in the *LEU Final* , the subsidy from the Regional Investment Program

(IPR)was less than 0.5 percent of the Urenco Group's combined sales and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), was allocable to the year of receipt (1985). As a result of this revision, the net subsidy for this program decreased from 0.03 percent *ad valorem* to 0.00 percent *ad valorem* . *See Amended Final* , 67 FR 6688. Moreover, in the instant reviews, UNL reported in its June 8, 2005, questionnaire response that it did not apply for nor did it use the IPR program during the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that UNL did not use the IPR program during the POR. III. Programs from the Government of the United Kingdom We preliminarily determine that UCL neither received any subsidies nor benefitted from any subsides during the POR. Preliminary Results of Reviews In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for UD, UNL, UCL, Urenco Ltd., and Urenco Inc, the only producers/exporters subject to these administrative reviews, for the POR, *i.e.* , calendar year 2004. We preliminarily determine that the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 0.00 percent *ad valorem* . If the final results of these reviews remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final results of these reviews, to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise from the producers/exporters under review, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the POR. Moreover, should the final results of these reviews remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department also will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise from the reviewed entity, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these reviews. 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 the Department alters this time limit. 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 Department specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). 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 these administrative reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. These administrative reviews and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(3) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: February 22, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-2781 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-548] In the Matter of Certain Tissue Converting Machinery, Including Rewinders, Tail Sealers, Trim Removers, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Adding a Complainant and Amending the Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) adding Fabio Perini S.p.A. as a complainant and amending the notice of investigation in the above-captioned investigation accordingly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Engler, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)205-3112. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on

(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted by the Commission based on a complaint filed by Fabrio Perini North America Inc. (“Perini-NA”) of Green Bay, Wisconsin. 70 FR 46884 (August 11, 2005). The complaint alleged violations section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain tissue converting machinery, including rewinders, tail sealers, trim removers, and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,979,818, claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. Re. 35,729, and Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,475,917. The complaint and notice of investigation named Chan Li Machinery, Co., Ltd. (“Chan Li”) of Taipei Hsien, Taiwan as the respondent. On November 15, 2005, Perini-NA filed a “Motion to File a First Amended Complaint” to add an additional patent to this investigation, i.e. United States Patent No. 6,948,677 (the “677 patent”), which issued on September 27, 2005. On December 5, 2005, the ALJ denied this motion, finding that Perini-NA had failed to provide a sufficient basis to allege that machines practicing the ‘677 patent had been imported or sold since issuance of the patent, or would be imported or sold in the future. On January 4, 2006, Perini-NA filed its “Renewed Motion to Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation”, based on additional discovery. On January 17, 2006, Chan Li filed its opposition to the renewed motion to amend, arguing that the present procedural schedule would not permit it to prepare a proper defense with respect to the new ‘677 patent. On January 17, 2006, the Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in support of Perini-NA's motion to amend. Chan Li filed a motion for leave to reply to the Staff on January 18, 2006, in which it argued for a postponement of the current deadlines. On January 20, 2006, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 10) granting Perini-NA's motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. The ALJ found good cause to add claims 7, 12, 15, and 16 of the ‘677 patent to this investigation. He also found that there is no evidence that an inordinate extension of the procedural schedule or target date would be required by the addition of the ‘677 patent to this investigation. The Commission has determined not to review this ID. Issued: February 22, 2006. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-2797 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. Nos. TA-131-032 and TA-2104-021] U.S.-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement: Advice Concerning the Probable Economic Effect of Providing Duty-Free Treatment for Imports AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigations and scheduling of hearing. DATES: *Effective Date:* February 21, 2006. SUMMARY: Following receipt on February 6, 2006, of a request from the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Commission instituted investigation Nos. TA-131-032 and TA-2104-021, *U.S.-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement: Advice Concerning the Probable Economic Effect of Providing Duty-Free Treatment for Imports* , under section 131 of the Trade Act of 1974 and section 2104(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information specific to these investigations may be obtained from Jonathan Coleman (202-205-3465; *jonathan.coleman@usitc.gov* ) or Brad Gehrke (202-205-3329; *brad.gehrke@usitc.gov* ), Office of Industries, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20436. For information on the legal aspects of these investigations, contact William Gearhart of the Office of the General Counsel (202-205-3091; *william.gearhart@usitc.gov* ). General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). *Background:* On February 2, 2006, the USTR notified the Congress of the President's intent to enter into negotiations for a free trade agreement

(FTA)with the Republic of Korea (Korea). Accordingly, the USTR, pursuant to section 131 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2151), requested the Commission to provide a report including advice as to the probable economic effect of providing duty-free treatment for imports of products of Korea

(i)on industries in the United States producing like or directly competitive products, and

(ii)on consumers. In preparing the advice, the Commission's analysis will consider each article in chapters 1 through 97 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States for which U.S. tariffs will remain after the United States fully implements its Uruguay Round tariff commitments. The import advice will be based on the 2006 Harmonized Tariff System nomenclature and 2005 trade data. The advice with respect to the removal of U.S. duties on imports from Korea will assume that any known U.S. nontariff barrier will not be applicable to such imports. The Commission will note in its report any instance in which the continued application of a U.S. nontariff barrier to such imports would result in different advice with respect to the effect on the removal of the duty. Also as requested, pursuant to section 2104(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3804(b)(2)), the Commission will provide advice as to the probable economic effect of eliminating tariffs on imports of certain agricultural products of Korea on

(i)industries in the United States producing the product concerned, and

(ii)the U.S. economy as a whole. The Commission expects to provide its report to the USTR by July 14, 2006. The USTR indicated that those sections of the Commission's report that relate to the analysis of probable economic effects will be classified and that it also considers the Commission's report to be an interagency memorandum containing pre-decisional advice and subject to the deliberative process privilege. *Public Hearing:* A public hearing in connection with these investigations is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on April 20, 2006, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed with the Secretary, no later than 5:15 p.m., March 29, 2006, in accordance with the requirements in the “Submissions” section below. In the event that, as of the close of business on March 29, 2006, no witnesses are scheduled to appear, the hearing will be canceled. Any person interested in attending the hearing as an observer or non-participant may call the Secretary (202-205-2000) after March 29, 2006 to determine whether the hearing will be held. *Statements and Briefs:* In lieu of or in addition to participating in the hearing, interested parties are invited to submit written statements or briefs concerning these investigations in accordance with the requirements in the “Submissions” section below. Any prehearing briefs or statement should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., April 3, 2006; the deadline for filing post-hearing briefs or statements is 5:15 p.m., April 27, 2006. *Written Submissions:* In lieu of or in addition to participating in the hearing, interested parties are invited to submit written statements concerning the matters to be addressed by the Commission in its report on this investigation. Submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. To be assured of consideration by the Commission, written statements related to the Commission's report should be submitted to the Commission at the earliest practical date and should be received no later than 5:15 p.m., April 27, 2006. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the *Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure* (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 of the rules requires that a signed original (or copy designated as an original) and fourteen

(14)copies of each document be filed. In the event that confidential treatment of the document is requested, at least four

(4)additional copies must be filed, in which the confidential business information must be deleted (see the following paragraph for further information regarding confidential business information). The Commission's rules do not authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, *ftp://ftp.usitc.gov/pub/reports/electronic_filing_handbook.pdf* ). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000 or *edis@usitc.gov* ). Any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the *Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure* (19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules requires that the cover of the document and the individual pages be clearly marked as to whether they are the “confidential” or “nonconfidential” version, and that the confidential business information be clearly identified by means of brackets. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available in the Office of the Secretary to the Commission for inspection by interested parties. The Commission may include some or all of the confidential business information submitted in the course of these investigations in the report it sends to the USTR and the President. However, should the Commission publish a public version of this report, such confidential business information will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)*http://edis.usitc.gov.* Hearing impaired individuals may obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. List of Subjects Korea, tariffs, and imports. By order of the Commission. Issued: February 22, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-2750 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts; Arts Advisory Panel Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel (NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships review) to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506 from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

(est)on March 29, 2006. This meeting will be closed. Closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of April 8, 2005, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5691. Dated: February 17, 2006. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts. [FR Doc. E6-2762 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting Time and Place: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 7, 2006. Place: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594. Status: The two items are open to the public. Matters To Be Considered: 7679A *Marine Accident Report* —Capsizing of U.S. Small Passenger Vessel Lady D, Northwest Harbor, Baltimore, Maryland, March 6, 2004. 7646A *Aircraft Accident Report* —Controlled Flight into Terrain, Era Aviation, Sikorsky, S-76A++, N579EH, Gulf of Mexico, About 70 Nautical Miles South-Southeast of Scholes International Airport, Galveston, Texas, March 23, 2004. *News Media Contact:* Telephone:

(202)314-6100. Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Chris Bisett at

(202)314-6305 by Friday, March 3, 2006. The public may view the meeting via a live or archived Webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at *http://www.ntsb.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicky D'Onofrio,

(202)314-6410. Dated: February 24, 2006. Vicky D'Onofrio, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 06-1909 Filed 2-24-06; 12:46pm]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

CFR