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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-03-14 · Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice

36,808 words·~167 min read·/register/2006/03/14/06-2419·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration [06-GL-C] Opportunity To Comment on the Applicants for the Texas Area AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: GIPSA requests comments on the applicants for designation to provide official services in the Texas geographic area previously assigned to Global Grain Inspection Services, Inc. (Global). DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted in writing to USDA, GIPSA, Janet M. Hart, Deputy Director, Compliance Division, STOP 3604, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604. FAX 202-690-2755; e-mail *Janet.M.Hart@usda.gov* . All comments received will be made available for public inspection at the above address located at 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., during regular business hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet M. Hart at 202-720-8525, e-mail *Janet.M.Hart@usda.gov* .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action. Global advised the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) that they will cease providing official services on April 9, 2006. GIPSA announced that Global's designation will be canceled effective April 9, 2006, in the February 1, 2006, **Federal Register** (71 FR 5233).
GIPSA also asked persons interested in providing official services in the south Texas area to submit an application for designation. There were three applicants for the south Texas area: a company proposing to do business as Gulf Country Inspection Service, Inc. (Gulf); a company proposing to do business as InterContinental Grain Inspections, Inc. (InterContinental), a subsidiary of Socit Ge ne rale de Surveillance
(SGS)North America, Inc.; and South Texas Grain Inspection LLC (South Texas), a proposed organization being formed by the Corpus Christi Grain Exchange, Inc., to function under a trust. Gulf and InterContinental applied for all or part of the area previously assigned to Global. South Texas applied for only the following Counties in Texas: Aransas, Atascosa, Bee, Bexar, Brooks, Calhoun, Cameron, Comal, Dewitt, Duval, Frio, Goliad, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Hidalgo, Jackson, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kenedy, Kleberg, LaSalle, Lavaca, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Medina, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Uvalde, Victoria, Webb, Willacy, Wilson, Zapata, and Zavala. GIPSA is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments concerning the applicants. Commenters are encouraged to submit reasons and pertinent data for support or objection to the designation of the applicants. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address. Comments and other available information will be considered in making a final decision. GIPSA will publish notice of the final decision in the **Federal Register** , and GIPSA will send the applicants written notification of the decision. Authority: Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C. 71 *et seq.* ). James E. Link, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3538 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Southern Washington County Watershed Protection Project; Washington County, ID AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Southern Washington County Watershed Protection Project, Washington County, Idaho. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Sims, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 9173 W. Barnes Dr., Suite C, Boise, Idaho 83709-1574, telephone
(208)378-5700. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Plan/Environmental Assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national adverse impacts affecting the quality of the human environment. As a result of these findings, Richard Sims, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project. The Southern Washington County Watershed Protection Project consists of a system of land treatment measures designed to address the problems associated with degradation of ground water quality and surface water quality in the Weiser and Snake Rivers. Benefits will be realized from reduced groundwater contamination by reducing deep leaching of nutrients and pesticides to the Western Snake River Plain Aquifer (Southern Washington County), protection of long-term soil productivity, reduced irrigation-induced erosion and reduced sediment, nutrient, pesticide and pathogen delivery to the Weiser and Snake Rivers and area tributaries. Planned treatment practices include: irrigation system-gated pipe (with surge), micro
(drip)irrigation, tail water recovery systems, sprinkler re-nozzle, sprinkler systems, irrigation water management (moisture sensors and meters) and sediment basins. Management practices include: conservation crop rotation, irrigation water management, nutrient management, anionic polyacrylamide PAM erosion control, pest management, prescribed grazing, residue management (mulch till and seasonal), and straw mulch. The Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency. The basic data developed during the plan/environmental assessment is on file and may be reviewed by contacting Mr. Richard Sims. The FONSI has been sent to various Federal, State, and local agencies, and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the address stated above. No administrative action on the proposal will be initiated until 30 days after the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . (This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.) Dated: March 7, 2006. Mark Weatherstone, Acting State Conservationist. [FR Doc. E6-3545 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of solicitation of applications. SUMMARY: USDA Rural Development administers rural utilities programs through the Rural Utilities Service. USDA Rural Development announces its Community Connect Grant Program application window for funding during fiscal year
(FY)2006. In addition, USDA Rural Development announces the minimum and maximum amounts for Community Connect grants applicable for the fiscal year. The Community Connect Grant Program regulations can be found at 7 CFR part 1739, subpart A. DATES: You may submit completed applications for grants on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines: • Paper copies must carry proof of shipping *no later* than May 15, 2006 to be eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. • Electronic copies must be received by May 15, 2006 to be eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. ADDRESSES: You may obtain application guides and materials for the Community Connect Grant Program via the Internet at the following Web site: *http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/commconnect.htm* . You may also request application guides and materials from USDA Rural Development by contacting the appropriate individual listed in section VII of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. Submit completed paper applications for grants to the USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2844, STOP 1599, Washington, DC 20250-1599. Applications should be marked “Attention: Director, Broadband Division, Telecommunications Program.” Submit electronic grant applications at *http://www.grants.gov* (Grants.gov), following the instructions you find on that Web site. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Kuchno, Director, Broadband Division, Telecommunications, USDA Rural Development, telephone:
(202)690-4673, fax:
(202)690-4389. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview *Federal Agency:* Rural Utilities Service. *Funding Opportunity Title:* Community Connect Grant Program. *Announcement Type:* Initial announcement. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 10.863. *Dates:* You may submit completed applications for grants on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines: • Paper copies must carry proof of shipping no later than May 15, 2006, to be eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. • Electronic copies must be received by May 15, 2006, to be eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. Items in Supplementary Information I. *Funding Opportunity:* Brief introduction to the Community Connect Grant Program. II. *Award Information:* Available funds and minimum and maximum amounts. III. *Eligibility Information:* Who is eligible, what kinds of projects are eligible, what criteria determine basic eligibility. IV. *Application and Submission Information:* Where to get application materials, what constitutes a completed application, how and where to submit applications, deadlines, items that are eligible. V. *Application Review Information:* Considerations and preferences, scoring criteria, review standards, selection information. VI. *Award Administration Information:* Award notice information, award recipient reporting requirements. VII. *Agency Contacts:* Web, phone, fax, email, contact name. I. Funding Opportunity The provision of broadband transmission service is vital to the economic development, education, health, and safety of rural Americans. The purpose of the Community Connect Grant Program is to provide financial assistance in the form of grants to eligible applicants that will provide currently unserved areas, on a “community-oriented connectivity” basis, with broadband transmission service that fosters economic growth and delivers enhanced educational, health care, and public safety services. USDA Rural Development will give priority to rural areas that it believes have the greatest need for broadband transmission services, based on the criteria contained herein. Grant authority will be used for the deployment of broadband transmission service to extremely rural, lower-income communities on a “community-oriented connectivity” basis. The “community-oriented connectivity” concept will stimulate practical, everyday uses and applications of broadband facilities by cultivating the deployment of new broadband transmission services that improve economic development and provide enhanced educational and health care opportunities in rural areas. Such an approach will also give rural communities the opportunity to benefit from the advanced technologies that are necessary to achieve these goals. Please see 7 CFR 1739, subpart A for specifics. This notice has been formatted to conform to a policy directive issued by the Office of Federal Financial Management
(OFFM)of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), published in the **Federal Register** on June 23, 2003. This Notice does not change the Community Connect Grant Program regulation (7 CFR 1739, subpart A). II. Award Information *A. Available Funds.* 1. *General.* The Administrator has determined that the following amounts are available for grants in FY 2006 under 7 CFR 1739.2(a). 2. *Grants.* a. $8.9 million is available for grants. Under 7 CFR 1739.2, the Administrator has established a minimum grant amount of $50,000. There is no maximum grant amount for FY 2006. b. Assistance instrument: USDA Rural Development will execute grant documents appropriate to the project prior to any advance of funds with successful applicants. B. Community Connect grants cannot be renewed. Award documents specify the term of each award. Applications to extend existing projects are welcomed (grant applications must be submitted during the application window) and will be evaluated as new applications. III. Eligibility Information A. Who Is Eligible for Grants? (See 7 CFR 1739.10.) 1. Only entities legally organized as one of the following are eligible for Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance: a. An incorporated organization, b. An Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in *25 U.S.C. 450b(b) and (c),* c. A state or local unit of government, d. A cooperative, private corporation or limited liability company organized on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis. 2. Individuals are not eligible for Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance directly. 3. Applicants must have the legal capacity and authority to own and operate the broadband facilities as proposed in its application, to enter into contracts and to otherwise comply with applicable federal statutes and regulations. B. What Are the Basic Eligibility Requirements for a Project? 1. Required matching contributions. Please see 7 CFR 1739.14 for the requirement. Grant applicants must demonstrate a matching contribution, in cash or in kind (new, non-depreciated items), of at least fifteen
(15)percent of the total amount of USDA Rural Development financial assistance requested. Matching contributions must be used for eligible purposes of Community Connect grant assistance (see 7 CFR 1739.12). 2. To be eligible for a grant, the Project must (see 7 CFR 1739.11): a. Serve a Rural Area where Broadband Transmission Service does not currently exist, to be verified by USDA Rural Development prior to the award of the grant; b. Serve one and only one Community recognized in the latest U.S. Census, which shall encompass any community added through the Count Question Resolution Process, as well as any Census Designated Place. A Community made eligible through the Count Question Resolution Process which lacks Corresponding Per Capita Income
(PCI)data must propose, subject to USDA Rural Development acceptance, available substitute PCI data for a geographic area that includes and most replicates the Applicant's proposed Service Area; Additional communities located in the contiguous areas outside the Community's boundaries that are not recognized (due to size) in the U.S. Census, can be included in the applicant's proposed Service Area, but must be supported by documentation, acceptable to USDA Rural Development, as to their existence. c. Deploy Basic Broadband Transmission Service, free of all charges for at least 2 years, to all Critical Community Facilities located within the proposed Service Area; d. Offer Basic Broadband Transmission Service to residential and business customers within the proposed Service Area; and e. Provide a Community Center with at least ten
(10)Computer Access Points within the proposed Service Area, and make Broadband Transmission Service available therein, free of all charges to users for at least 2 years. C. See paragraph IV.B of this notice for a discussion of the items that make up a completed application. You may also refer to 7 CFR 1739.15 for completed grant application items. IV. Application and Submission Information A. Where To Get Application Information The application guide, copies of necessary forms and samples, and the Community Connect Grant Program regulation are available from these sources: 1. The Internet: *http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/commconnect.htm* , or *http://www.grants.gov* . 2. The USDA Rural Development, Broadband Division, for paper copies of these materials:
(202)690-4673. B. What Constitutes a Completed Application? 1. Detailed information on each item required can be found in the Community Connect Grant Program regulation and the Community Connect Grant Program application guide. Applicants are strongly encouraged to read and apply both the regulation and the application guide. This Notice does not change the requirements for a completed application for any form of Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance specified in the Community Connect Grant Program regulation. The Community Connect Grant Program regulation and the application guide provide specific guidance on each of the items listed and the Community Connect Grant Program application guide provides all necessary forms and sample worksheets. 2. A completed application must include the following documentation, studies, reports and information in form satisfactory to USDA Rural Development. Applications should be prepared in conformance with the provisions in 7 CFR 1739, subpart A, and applicable USDA regulations including 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019. Applicants must use the USDA Rural Development Application Guide for this program containing instructions and all necessary forms, as well as other important information, in preparing their application. Completed applications must include the following: a. *An Application for Federal Assistance.* A completed Standard Form
(SF)424. b. *An executive summary of the Project.* The applicant must provide USDA Rural Development with a general project overview. c. *Scoring criteria documentation.* Each grant applicant must address and provide documentation on how it meets each of the scoring criteria detailed 7 CFR 1739.17. d. *System design.* The applicant must submit a system design, including, narrative specifics of the proposal, associated costs, maps, engineering design studies, technical specifications and system capabilities, etc. e. *Scope of work.* The scope of work must include specific activities and services to be performed under the proposal, who will carry out the activities and services, specific time-frames for completion, and a budget for all capital and administrative expenditures reflecting the line item costs for all grant purposes, the matching contribution, and other sources of funds necessary to complete the project. f. *Community-Oriented Connectivity Plan.* The applicant must provide a detailed Community-Oriented Connectivity Plan. g. *Financial information and sustainability.* The applicant must provide financial statements and information and a narrative description demonstrating the sustainability of the Project. h. *A statement of experience.* The applicant must provide a written narrative describing its demonstrated capability and experience, if any, in operating a broadband telecommunications system. i. *Evidence of legal authority and existence.* The applicant must provide evidence of its legal existence and authority to enter into a grant agreement with the Rural Utilities Service and to perform the activities proposed under the grant application. j. *Funding commitment from other sources.* If the Project requires additional funding from other sources in addition to the USDA Rural Development grant, the applicant must provide evidence that funding agreements have been obtained to ensure completion of the Project. k. *Compliance with other federal statutes.* The applicant must provide evidence of compliance with other federal statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to the following:
(i)7 CFR part 15, subpart A—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(ii)7 CFR part 3015—Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations.
(iii)7 CFR part 3017—Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement).
(iv)7 CFR part 3018—New Restrictions on Lobbying.
(v)7 CFR part 3021—Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance).
(vi)Certification regarding Architectural Barriers.
(vii)Certification regarding Flood Hazard Precautions.
(viii)An environmental report, in accordance with 7 CFR 1794.
(ix)Certification that grant funds will not be used to duplicate lines, facilities, or systems providing Broadband Transmission Service.
(x)Federal Obligation Certification on Delinquent Debt. 5. DUNS Number. As required by the OMB, all applicants for grants must now supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number when applying. The SF-424 contains a field for you to use when supplying your DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number costs nothing and requires a short telephone call to Dun and Bradstreet. Please see the Community Connect Web site or Grants.gov for more information on how to obtain a DUNS number or how to verify your organization's number. C. How Many Copies of an Application Are Required? 1. Applications submitted on paper: Submit the original application and two
(2)copies to USDA Rural Development. 2. Electronically submitted applications: The additional paper copies for USDA Rural Development are not necessary if you submit the application electronically through Grants.gov. D. How and Where To Submit an Application Grant applications may be submitted on paper or electronically. 1. Submitting applications on paper. a. Address paper applications for grants to the USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 2844, STOP 1599, Washington, DC 20250-1599. Applications should be marked “Attention: Director, Broadband Division, Telecommunications Program.” b. Paper applications must show proof of mailing or shipping consisting of one of the following:
(i)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service
(USPS)postmark;
(ii)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the USPS; or
(iii)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier. c. Due to screening procedures at the Department of Agriculture, packages arriving via the USPS are irradiated, which can damage the contents. USDA Rural Development encourages applicants to consider the impact of this procedure in selecting their application delivery method. 2. Electronically submitted applications. a. Applications will not be accepted via facsimile machine transmission or electronic mail. b. Electronic applications for grants will be accepted if submitted through the Federal government's Grants.gov initiative at *http://www.grants.gov.* c. How to use Grants.gov:
(i)Navigate your Web browser to *http://www.grants.gov.*
(ii)Follow the instructions on that Web site to find grant information.
(iii)Download a copy of the application package.
(iv)Complete the package off-line.
(v)Upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov Web site. d. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing and software. e. USDA Rural Development encourages applicants who wish to apply through Grants.gov to submit their applications in advance of the deadline. f. If a system problem occurs or you have technical difficulties with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site. g. Clarification for FY 2006: USDA Rural Development clarifies that the definition of “Critical Community Facilities” includes the mandatory Community Center, and that operating expenses associated with the Community Center for the first two years of operations are eligible for financial assistance. Moreover, USDA Rural Development clarifies its interpretation of the amount of operating expenses for Critical Community Facilities that are eligible for financial assistance by stating that “reasonable operating expenses” shall not exceed $200,000 over two years. E. Deadlines 1. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than May 15, 2006 to be eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. 2. Electronic grant applications must be received by May 15, 2006 to be eligible for FY 2006 funding. Late applications are not eligible for FY 2006 grant funding. F. Funding Restrictions 1. *Eligible grant purposes.* Grant funds may be used to finance: a. The construction, acquisition, or leasing of facilities, including spectrum, to deploy Broadband Transmission Service to all participating Critical Community Facilities and all required facilities needed to offer such service to residential and business customers located within the proposed Service Area; b. The improvement, expansion, construction, or acquisition of a Community Center that furnishes free access to broadband Internet service, provided that the Community Center is open and accessible to area residents before, during, and after normal working hours and on Saturday or Sunday. Grant funds provided for such costs shall not exceed the greater of five percent (5%) of the grant amount requested or $100,000; c. End-User Equipment needed to carry out the Project; d. Operating expenses incurred in providing Broadband Transmission Service to Critical Community Facilities for the first 2 years of operation and in providing training and instruction. Salary and administrative expenses will be subject to review, and may be limited by USDA Rural Development for reasonableness in relation to the scope of the Project; and e. The purchase of land, buildings, or building construction needed to carry out the Project. 2. *Ineligible grant purposes.* a. Grant funds may not be used to finance the duplication of any existing Broadband Transmission Service provided by another entity. b. Facilities financed with grant funds cannot be utilized, in any way, to provide local exchange telecommunications service to any person or entity already receiving such service. 3. Please see 7 CFR 1739.3 for definitions, 7 CFR 1739.12 for eligible grant purposes, and 7 CFR 1739.13 for ineligible grant purposes V. Application Review Information A. Criteria 1. Grant applications are scored competitively and subject to the criteria listed below. 2. Grant application scoring criteria (total possible points: 100). See 7 CFR 1739.17 for the items that will be reviewed during scoring and for scoring criteria. a. The rurality of the Project (up to 40 points); b. The economic need of the Project's Service Area (up to 30 points); and c. The “community-oriented connectivity” benefits derived from the proposed service (up to 30 points). B. Review Standards 1. All applications for grants must be delivered to USDA Rural Development at the address and by the date specified in this notice (see also 7 CFR 1739.2) to be eligible for funding. Each application will be reviewed for conformance with the provisions of this part. Applicant may be contacted for additional information or clarification. 2. Incomplete applications as of the deadline for submission will not be considered. If an application is determined to be incomplete, the applicant will be notified in writing and the application will be returned with no further action. 3. Applications conforming with this part will then be evaluated competitively by a panel of USDA Rural Development employees selected by the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, and will be awarded points as described in the scoring criteria in 7 CFR 1739.17. Applications will be ranked and grants awarded in rank order until all grant funds are expended. 4. Regardless of the score an application receives, if USDA Rural Development determines that the Project is technically or financially infeasible, USDA Rural Development will notify the applicant, in writing, and the application will be returned with no further action. C. Selection Process Grant applications are ranked by final score. USDA Rural Development selects applications based on those rankings, subject to the availability of funds. VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices USDA Rural Development recognizes that each funded project is unique, and therefore may attach conditions to different projects' award documents. USDA Rural Development generally notifies applicants whose projects are selected for awards by faxing an award letter. USDA Rural Development follows the award letter with a grant agreement that contains all the terms and conditions for the grant. An applicant must execute and return the grant agreement, accompanied by any additional items required by the grant agreement. B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements The items listed in paragraph IV.B.2.k of this notice, and the Community Connect Grant Program regulation, application guide and accompanying materials implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements. C. Reporting 1. *Performance reporting.* All recipients of Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance must provide annual performance activity reports to USDA Rural Development until the project is complete and the funds are expended. A final performance report is also required; the final report may serve as the last annual report. The final report must include an evaluation of the success of the project. See 7 CFR 1739.19. 2. *Financial reporting.* All recipients of Community Connect Grant Program financial assistance must provide an annual audit, beginning with the first year a portion of the financial assistance is expended. Audits are governed by United States Department of Agriculture audit regulations. Please see 7 CFR 1739.20. VII. Agency Contacts A. Web site: *http://www.usda.gov/rus/commconnect.htm.* The USDA Rural Development's Web site maintains up-to-date resources and contact information for the Community Connect Grant Program. B. Phone: 202-690-4673 C. Fax: 202-690-4673 D. *Main point of contact:* Kenneth Kuchno, Director, Broadband Division, Telecommunications Program, USDA Rural Development. Dated: March 2, 2006. James M. Andrew, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. E6-3575 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Docket 9-2006] Foreign-Trade Zone 149—Freeport, Texas, Expansion of Manufacturing Authority—Subzone 149C, ConocoPhillips, Sweeny, TX An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District (Port Freeport), grantee of FTZ 149, requesting authority on behalf of ConocoPhillips (COP), to expand the scope of manufacturing activity conducted under zone procedures within Subzone 149C at the COP oil refinery complex in Sweeny, Texas. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on March 6, 2006. Subzone 149C (205,000 BPD capacity 1,300 employees) was approved by the Board in 1997 for the manufacture of fuel products and certain petrochemical feedstocks and refinery by-products (Board Order 920, 62 FR 51830, October 3, 1997, as amended by Board Order 1116, 65 FR 52696, 8/30/00). The subzone consists of six sites (2,095 acres) in Brazoria County: *Site 1* —(1,315 acres) main refinery and petrochemical complex located at 6215 Texas State Highway 35 at Farm Market Road 524, south of Sweeny; *Site 2* —(160 acres) Freeport I Terminal and storage facility (1.6 million barrel storage capacity) located at County Road 731, some 28 miles southeast of the refinery; *Site 3* —(183 acres) six crude oil storage tanks (2.4 million barrel capacity) at Jones Creek Terminal located at 6215 State Highway 36, some 17 miles southeast of the refinery; *Site 4:* (34 acres) San Bernard Terminal and storage facility (207,000 barrel capacity), located at County Road 378, 5 miles southeast of the refinery; *Site 5:* (403 acres) Clemens Terminal underground LPG storage (12.8 million barrel capacity), located at County Road 314, 15 miles east of the refinery; and *Site 6:* a six mile, 6” pipeline that ties into an existing COP pipeline to facilitate the movement of product from the subzone to their customer BASF. The expansion request involves modifications and upgrades to units within the refinery to increase the overall crude distillation capacity of the refinery to 260,000 BPD. No additional feedstocks or products have been requested. Zone procedures would exempt the increased production from customs duty payments on the foreign products used in its exports. On domestic sales, the company would be able to choose the customs duty rates for certain petrochemical feedstocks (duty-free) by admitting foreign crude oil in non-privileged foreign status. The application indicates that the savings from zone procedures help improve the refinery's international competitiveness. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ staff has been appointed examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses: 1. Submissions Via Express/Package Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building - Suite 4100W, 1099 14th St. NW., Washington, DC 20005; or 2. Submissions Via the U.S. Postal Service: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB - Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. The closing period for their receipt is May 15, 2006. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to May 30, 2006). A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at the first address listed above, and at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Export Assistance Center, 15600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 530, Houston, TX 77032. Dated: March 6, 2006. Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-3617 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-412-801, A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801] Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews Pursuant to Final Court Decisions AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 19, 2005, in response to its action in *SNR Roulements et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip Op. 05-67 (June 13, 2005), the United States Court of International Trade
(CIT)affirmed the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) remand redetermination concerning the final assessment rates for the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on antifriction bearings and parts thereof
(AFBs)from France. On October 28, 2005, in response to its actions in *NTN Bearing Corp. of America et al. v. United States* , Court No. 97-10-01800 (July 7, 2005), and *FAG Italia S.p.A. et al. v. United States* , Court No. 97-02-00260-S (July 7, 2005), the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination concerning the final assessment rates for the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany and Italy. On November 4, 2005, in response to its action in *FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schafer AG et al. v. United States* , Court No. 97-02-00260 (July 7, 2005), the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination concerning the final assessment rates for the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany. On April 27, 2001, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France. See *SKF USA Inc. et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00269-S1, Slip. Op. 01-54 (April 27, 2001). On December 21, 2000, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from the United Kingdom. See *RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 00-168 (December 21, 2000). The periods covered by these administrative reviews are May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995, and May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996. The merchandise covered by these reviews are ball bearings and parts thereof (BBs), cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof (CRBs), and spherical plain bearings and parts thereof (SPBs). Because the time period for filing an appeal has expired and there are now final and conclusive court decisions in these actions, we are amending our final results of the reviews and we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries subject to these reviews. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3174 or
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 15, 1997, the Department published *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 62 FR 2081 (January 15, 1997), as amended by *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 62 FR 14391 (March 26, 1997) (collectively *AFBs 6* ). On October 17, 1997, the Department published *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 62 FR 54043 (October 17, 1997), as amended by *Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 62 FR 61963 (November 20, 1997) (collectively *AFBs 7* ). The periods of review for *AFBs 6* and *AFBs 7* are May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995, and May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996, respectively. The classes or kinds of merchandise covered by these reviews are BBs, CRBs, and SPBs. The *AFBs 6* respondents involved in the litigation are as follows: * FAG Italia S.p.A. and FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively FAG Italy) * FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schäfer AG and FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively FAG Germany) * INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc. (collectively INA Germany) * NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. and RHP Bearings Ltd. (collectively NSK/RHP) * NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH and NTN Bearing Corporation of America (collectively NTN Germany) * SNR Roulements (SNR France) * SKF France S.A., Sarma, and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF France) * SKF GmbH and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF Germany) * SKF Industrie S.p.A. and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF Italy) The *AFBs 7* respondents involved in the litigation are as follows: * FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schäfer AG and FAG Bearings Corporation (collectively FAG Germany) * INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG and INA Bearing Company, Inc. (collectively INA Germany) * NTN Kugellagerfabrik (Deutschland) GmbH and NTN Bearing Corporation of America (collectively NTN Germany) * SNR Roulements (SNR France) * SKF France S.A., Sarma, and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF France) * SKF GmbH and SKF USA Inc. (collectively SKF Germany) AFBs 6 from Germany and Italy / AFBs 7 from France and Germany In each of these proceedings, the Department had completed previous remand redeterminations: * *FAG Italia, S.p.A. et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260-S, Slip Op. 00-154 (November 21, 2000) (remanding *AFBs 6* with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Italy and instructing the Department to:
(1)Attempt to match FAG's and SKF's U.S. sales to similar home-market sales before resorting to constructed value (CV);
(2)exclude any transactions that were not supported by consideration from FAG's and SKF's U.S. sales databases;
(3)include all expenses in “total United expenses” in the calculation of “total expenses” for FAG's constructed export-price
(CEP)profit ratio;
(4)remove the circumstance-of- sale adjustment for certain advertising expenses from FAG's normal value (NV);
(5)reconsider the decision to calculate SKF's home-market credit-rate expense based upon price and then apply the rate to cost; and
(6)re-examine the programming language used to make certain foreign-currency conversions) * *FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schäfer AG et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260, Slip Op. 01-13 (February 2, 2001) (remanding *AFBs 6* with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany and instructing the Department to: 1) attempt to match FAG's and SKF's U.S. sales to similar home-market sales before resorting to CV; 2) exclude any transactions that were not supported by consideration from FAG's and SKF's U.S. sales databases; 3) include all expenses in “total United States expenses” in the calculation of “total expenses” for FAG's and INA's CEP-profit ratio; 4) reconsider the decision to calculate SKF's home-market credit-rate expense based upon price and then apply the rate to cost; and 5) convert certain expenses from the foreign currency in calculating export price and CEP for INA) * *SNR Roulements et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip Op. 00-131 (October 13, 2000) (remanding *AFBs 7* with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France and instructing the Department to
(1)annul all findings and conclusions made pursuant to the duty-absorption inquiry and
(2)include all expenses included in “total United States expenses” in the calculation of “total expenses” for SNR) * *NTN Bearing Corp. of America et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-10-01800, Slip Op. 01-76 (June 22, 2001) (remanding *AFBs 7* with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany and instructing the Department to:
(1)Annul all findings and conclusions made pursuant to the duty-absorption inquiry;
(2)attempt to match U.S. sales to similar home-market sales before resorting to CV;
(3)reconsider the Department's decision to deny INA's downward home-market billing adjustments;
(4)clarify how the Department complied with sections 776 and 782 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), for using facts available and applying an adverse inference and, if appropriate, give INA the opportunity to remedy or explain any deficiency regarding its alleged sample sales; and
(5)include all expenses included in “total United States expenses” in the calculation of “total expenses” for INA) Although each remand redetermination involved multiple issues, the Department's methodology for calculating profit for CEP sales was a subject of each remand. Specifically, the CIT directed the Department to include all expenses included in “total United States expenses” in the calculation of “total expenses” when computing the CEP-profit rate. In each proceeding, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand results in their entirety. See *SNR Roulements et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip Op. 01-17 (February 23, 2001); *FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schäfer AG et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260, Slip Op. 01-107 (August 20, 2001); *FAG Italia S.p.A. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260-S, Slip Op. 01-108 (August 20, 2001); *NTN Bearing Corporation of America et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-10-01800, Slip Op. 01-136 (November 27, 2001). The Department appealed the CIT's decisions concerning the Department's CEP-profit calculation methodology. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(CAFC)determined that the CIT had erred in its decision that the Department was required to include imputed credit and inventory carrying costs in “total expenses” when they were included in “total United States expenses.” The CAFC reversed the CIT and remanded the cases with the instructions that respondents be provided an opportunity to make a showing that their dumping margins were determined wrongly because the Department's use of actual expenses did not account for U.S. credit and inventory carrying costs in the calculation of total expenses. See *SNR Roulements et al. v. United States* , 402 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and *FAG Italia S.p.A. v. United States* , 402 F.3d 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (consolidated appeal). The CIT remanded the proceedings and directed the Department to allow respondents an opportunity to show that their margins were determined incorrectly because the Department's use of actual expenses did not account for U.S. credit and inventory carrying costs. *SNR Roulements et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip Op. 05-67 (June 13, 2005); *FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schäfer AG et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260 (July 7, 2005); *FAG Italia S.p.A. et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260-S (July 7, 2005); *NTN Bearing Corporation of America et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-10-01800 (July 7, 2005). Because none of the respondents made the required showing, the Department determined that it had used actual expenses as a measure of total expenses in the CEP-profit calculation accurately. In each of the proceedings, the CIT affirmed the remand results. *SNR Roulements et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-10-01825, Slip Op. 05-136 (October 19, 2005); *FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schäfer AG et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260, Slip Op. 05-143 (November 4, 2005); *FAG Italia S.p.A. et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00260-S, Slip Op. 05-140 (October 28, 2005); *NTN Bearing Corporation of America et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-10-01800, Slip Op. 05-141 (October 28, 2005). AFBs 6 from France On October 11, 2000, the CIT remanded *AFBs 6* with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France to the Department. See *SKF USA Inc. et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00269-S1, Slip Op. 00-128 (October 11, 2000). The CIT instructed the Department to:
(1)Reconsider its decision to calculate SKF's home-market credit expense based upon price and then apply that rate to cost;
(2)exclude any transactions that were not supported by consideration from SKF's U.S. sales database and to adjust the dumping margins accordingly;
(3)first attempt to match SKF's U.S. sales to similar home-market sales before resorting to CV;
(4)assign the correct level-of-trade code for SKF's export-price sales;
(5)determine whether SKF's billing adjustment two is insignificant within the meaning of section 777A of the Act;
(6)reconsider the treatment of depreciation expenses incurred in France in calculating CEP for SNR. Subsequently, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination. *See SKF USA Inc. et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00269-S1, Slip. Op. 01-54 (April 27, 2001). AFBs 6 from the United Kingdom On May 27, 1997, the CIT granted NSK/RHP's motion for an expedited remand to correct clerical errors and the Department's cross-motion for leave to correct an additional clerical error and remanded *AFBs 6* with respect to the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from the United Kingdom. See *RHP Bearings Ltd. et al. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 97-63 (May 27, 1997). The CIT instructed the Department to:
(1)Calculate credit for CV separately by class of merchandise;
(2)calculate CV credit by converting the foreign currency values to U.S. dollars only once;
(3)correct the programming language so that sales of CRBs were not sampled;
(4)include credit insurance when calculating direct selling expenses for cost of production;
(5)weight the values for total home-market selling expenses and total home-market movement expenses by a factor of two to establish uniform weighting of home-market expenses;
(6)apply the default credit period for those U.S. sales missing payment dates to net selling price;
(7)multiply the entered value for sampled U.S. sales by the weighting factor only once when calculating importer-specific duty rates. Subsequently, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination. *See RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 97-90 (July 7, 1997). On December 16, 1999, the CIT remanded the case and instructed the Department to exclude from NSK/RHP's U.S. sales database any sample transactions that were not supported by consideration and to include imputed inventory carrying costs in the calculation of CEP offset when matching CEP sales to CV. See *RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 99-134 at 54 (December 16, 1999). Subsequently, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination. See *RHP Bearings Ltd. et al v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 97-02-00217, Slip Op. 00-168 (December 21, 2000). As there are now final and conclusive court decisions with respect to the companies affected by these remand orders, we are amending our final results of reviews for these companies. We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to liquidate the relevant entries subject to these reviews in accordance with our remand results. Amended Final Results of Reviews We are now amending the final results of the 1994-1995 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom to reflect the revised weighted-average margins. We determine that the revised weighted-average margins for the period May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995, are as follows: 1 1 Litigation did not result in any changes to the weighted-average margins for BBs from NTN Germany or SPBs from SKF France. BBs (%%) CRBs (%%) SPBs (%%) FAG Italy 4.12 -- -- SKF Italy 2.86 -- -- FAG Germany 13.42 22.59 12.08 INA Germany 19.43 18.31 -- SKF Germany 2.33 9.34 6.19 SNR France 4.29 6.36 -- SKF France 5.08 -- -- NSK/RHP—United Kingdom 15.76 15.50 -- Also, we are now amending the final results of the 1995-1996 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on AFBs from Germany to reflect the revised weighted-average margins. We determine that the revised weighted-average margins for the period May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996, are as follows 2 : 2 The subsequent litigation did not result in any changes in the weighted-average margins for NTN Germany, SNR France, SKF France, and SKF Germany. BBs (%%) CRBs (%%) SPBs (%%) FAG Germany 13.25 19.53 10.32 INA Germany 44.53 20.09 28.62 Accordingly, the Department will determine and CBP will assess appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the affected companies. Individual differences between U.S. price and normal value may vary from the above percentages. The Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 7, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3619 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-836] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products (steel plate) from the Republic of Korea. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 67428 (November 7, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). This review covers one producer/exporter of steel plate. The period of review
(POR)is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the margin calculation. Therefore, these final results differ from the *Preliminary Results* . The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Malcolm Burke or Magd Zalok, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-3584 or
(202)482-4162, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 7, 2005, the Department published the *Preliminary Results* in the **Federal Register** and invited interested parties to comment on those results. On December 7, 2005, the Department received a case brief, and a request for a hearing, from the sole respondent, Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (“DSM”). The Department did not receive either a case or rebuttal brief from the petitioners, or other interested parties. DSM withdrew its request for a hearing on December 14, 2005. Scope of the Order The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel:
(1)Universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and
(2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”) - for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy
(HSLA)steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which:
(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements,
(2)the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and
(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of the order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order:
(1)Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;
(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;
(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;
(4)abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500);
(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;
(6)ball bearing steels;
(7)tool steels; and
(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. Imports of steel plate are currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case brief are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently herewith (the “Decision Memorandum”), which is adopted herein, by reference. Attached, as an appendix to this notice, is a list of the comments the Department received from interested parties, all of which are discussed in the Decision Memorandum. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Record Unit, Room B-099 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, and may be accessed on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, the Department has revised the calculation of net U.S. price to properly account for credit notes issued to compensate customers for merchandise lost in transit. This revision is further discussed in the Decision Memorandum. Final Results of Review As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd 0.18 (de minimis) Assessment The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.212(b). The Department calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* , the Department will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly on the entered value of all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposits The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). In the instant matter:
(1)since the dumping margin for DSM is *de minimis* (less than 0.50 percent), no cash deposit will be required for DSM;
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 0.98 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation, adjusted for the export subsidy rate in the companion countervailing duty investigation. These cash deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. *See* section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Notification to Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR § 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the concomitant assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice is also the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. The Department is publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 7, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Comments and Responses 1: Treatment of Sales with Negative Dumping Margins 2: Error Related to the Calculation of Net U.S. Price [FR Doc. E6-3621 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-201-802 Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Agreement Between the Office of the United States Trade Representative, The United States Department of Commerce and Secretaria de Economia of Mexico on Trade in Cement AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR)and the United States Department of Commerce (Commerce) have entered into an agreement with the Secretaria de Economia of Mexico pertaining to imports of gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico (Mexican Cement). The Agreement Between the Office of the United States Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce of the United States of America and the Ministry of Economy of the United Mexican States (Secretaria de Economia) on Trade in Cement (Agreement) provides for the settlement or suspension of ongoing litigation before North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and World Trade Organization
(WTO)panels challenging various antidumping duty determinations involving Mexican Cement. In addition, Commerce has agreed to compromise its claims for duties with respect to entries of Mexican Cement not currently in litigation. Finally, the Agreement creates a system whereby Mexican Cement imports will be subject to regional export limits, which will be monitored by both Commerce and Secretaria de Economia through export license and import license systems. The Agreement provides that, if Mexican Cement producers successfully abide by the terms of the Agreement for three years, then the antidumping duty order will be revoked with respect to those producers. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 3, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon, Judith Wey Rudman, or Jonathan Herzog
(202)482-0162,
(202)482-0192, and
(202)482-4271 respectively, Bilateral Agreements Unit, Office of Policy and Negotiations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of Investigation For a complete description of the subject merchandise of this Agreement, see Section I.L of the Agreement. Background On October 23, 1989, Commerce initiated an antidumping duty investigation of Mexican Cement. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation; Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico* , 54 FR 43190 (October 23, 1989). On August 30, 1990, pursuant to the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico* , 55 FR 29244 (July 18, 1990), Commerce issued an antidumping duty order (Order) applicable to shipments of Mexican Cement. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico* , 55 FR 35443 (August 30, 1990). Since the issuance of the Order, Commerce has conducted fourteen administrative reviews, initiated a fifteenth administrative review, completed a five-year Sunset Review of the Order, and initiated a second Sunset Review. Several of these proceedings have been challenged before NAFTA and WTO panels: *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 63 FR 12764 (March 16, 1998) ( *6th Review* ), *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 65 FR 13943 (March 15, 2000) ( *8th Review* ), *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 14889 (March 14, 2001) ( *9th Review* ), *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 12518 (March 19, 2002) ( *10th Review* ), *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 1816 (January 14, 2003) ( *11th Review* ), *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 54203 (September 16, 2003) ( *12th Review* ), and *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 77987 (December 29, 2004) ( *13th Review* ), *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2909 (January 18, 2006) ( *14th Review* ), and Commerce's final determination in * Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Mexico; Final Results of Full Sunset Review * , 65 FR 41049 (July 3, 2000) ( *2000 Sunset Review* ). Furthermore, certain International Trade Commission
(ITC)determinations involving Mexican Cement have been challenged before NAFTA panels as well. On March 6, 2006, USTR, Commerce, and Secretaria de Economia entered into the Agreement. Under its terms, the Agreement settles or suspends the NAFTA litigation of the * 6 th Review * , * 8 th Review * , * 9 th Review * , * 10 th Review * , *11th Review* , * 12 th Review * , * 13 th Review * , * 14 th Review * , *2000 Sunset Review* , and two challenges involving the ITC. A challenge before the WTO is suspended as well. In addition, the parties requesting the 15 th administrative review of Mexican Cement, initiated on September 28, 2005 ( *see* 70 FR 56331 (September 28, 2005)), have requested rescission of that review. *See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Compromise of Outstanding Claims* (Publication Pending). Commerce has compromised claims to antidumping duties for entries of Mexican Cement covered by both that review period, as well as entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States from August 1, 2005 through April 2, 2006. Furthermore, the Agreement provides a system whereby, for three years, Mexican exporters of subject merchandise will be subject to specific sub-regional export limits and will be required to obtain, prior to entry, an export license issued by the Government of Mexico. Importers of Mexican Cement will be required to apply for an import license number issued by Commerce. Both a copy of the export license and the import license number must be provided to U.S. Customs and Border Protection when the importer files Customs Form 7501. As a result of the litigation settlement, a new assessment rate will be applied to all entries of Mexican Cement from Cementos Mexicanos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (CEMEX), and GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. (and its predecessor-in-interest, Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V.) (GCCC), covered by the various NAFTA challenges. Furthermore, a new cash deposit rate of $3.00 per metric ton has been established for all entries from CEMEX and GCCC after the effective date of the Agreement as a result of the settlement of the * 14 th review * . *See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* (Publication Pending). The duration of the Agreement is three years. If all of the terms of the Agreement are complied with by the interested parties, the Agreement will expire on March 31, 2009, and Commerce will revoke the Order. For further details, please see the Agreement, attached. Dated: March 6, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE MINISTRY OF ECONOMY OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES (SECRETARIA DE ECONOMIA) ON TRADE IN CEMENT The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) and the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) of the United States of America, of the one part, and the Ministry of Economy of the United Mexican States (“Secretaria de Economía” or “SE”) of the other part; (hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”) enter into this Agreement (the “Agreement”): **Desiring** to resolve the numerous trade disputes arising from the Mexican Cement Order and to promote more liberal and stable trade in cement between Mexico and the United States; **Reaffirming** the rights, obligations, and undertakings of the United States and Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) and the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) (including the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994); **Sharing** a common interest in liberalizing trade in, and facilitating the cross-border movement of, cement between the territories of the United States and Mexico, consistent with the NAFTA; **Desiring** to ensure the satisfactory resolution of a dispute settlement proceeding in the WTO and numerous proceedings under Chapter 19 of the NAFTA relating to the Mexican Cement Order; **Desiring** , after a period during which trade in cement would be governed through trade liberalizing measures, to terminate the Mexican Cement Order; and **Noting** the trade-liberalizing objectives of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America announced by President Fox and President Bush on March 23, 2005; HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: I. Definitions For purposes of this Agreement, the following definitions shall apply: A. “Act” means the United States antidumping law, as contained in Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, Sections 731 *et seq.* , 19 U.S.C. Sections 1673, *et seq.* , as amended. B. “Circumvention” means: 1. The exportation of Mexican Cement by a Mexican Cement Producer, any person or enterprise in Mexico, or any person or enterprise outside of Mexico that is, as a matter of fact and law, acting on behalf of a Mexican Cement Producer, to a Sub-region that: a. is not accompanied by an Export License; b. for which an Import License has not been issued, once the U.S. Import License system has been established; or c. exceeds in quantity the Export Limits for any Sub-region or the Export Rights allocated by SE to the producer of that cement; or 2. Shipping from Mexico to the United States, through third countries, Mexican Cement that is unaccompanied by an Export License; except for any such exports that are inconsequential, inadvertent, or do not substantially frustrate the purposes of this Agreement. C. “Date of Export” means the date on which SE issues an Export License. D. “Effective Date” means April 3, 2006. E. “Escrow Accounts” means the accounts at SunTrust Bank established pursuant to the Escrow Agreement. F. “Escrow Agreement” means the agreement entered into by the individual members of the Southern Tier Cement Committee (“STCC”), Holcim
(US)Inc. (“Holcim”), Capitol Aggregates, Ltd. (“Capitol Aggregates”), and the U.S. importers of record of Mexican Cement produced by CEMEX and GCCC, on the date of this Agreement, CEMEX Cement, Inc. (formerly known as Sunbelt Cement, Inc.) (“CEMEX Cement”), Gulf Coast Portland Cement Co. (formerly known as HM Gulf Coast Portland Cement Company)(“Gulf Coast Portland Cement”), and Rio Grande Portland Cement Corp. and its successor, GCC Rio Grande, Inc. (collectively “GCC Rio Grande”). The Escrow Agreement is attached to this Agreement as Appendix 13. G. “Export License” means the document issued by SE in a given Export Limit Period (containing the information described in Appendix 22) that authorizes an exporter in Mexico to export a certain quantity of Mexican Cement during a given 90 day period specified in the Export License and to a given Sub-region. H. “Export Limit” means the quantity of Mexican Cement permitted to be exported (based upon the Date of Export) under Section III of this Agreement from Mexico to a given Sub-region during a given Export Limit Period. I. “Export Limit Period” means one of the following periods: First Export Limit Period - The period beginning on April 3, 2006 (the Effective Date) and ending on March 31, 2007. Second Export Limit Period - The period beginning on April 1, 2007, and ending on March 31, 2008. Third Export Limit Period - The period beginning on April 1, 2008, and ending on March 31, 2009. J. “Export Rights” means the share of the Export Limit for a given Sub-region and Export Limit Period assigned by SE to a specific Mexican Cement Producer. K. “Import License” means the number generated by the automatic import licensing system established by DOC (based on the information supplied by the U.S. importer of record as described in Appendix 20). L. “Mexican Cement” means gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than being ground into finished cement. Specifically included within the scope of this definition are pozzolanic blended cements and oil well cements. Specifically excluded are white cement and Type “S” masonry cement as defined in the DOC's April 25, 1996, scope determination (61 FR 18381). Gray portland cement is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item number 2523.29 and cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTSUS item number 2523.10. Gray portland cement has also been entered under HTSUS item number 2523.90 as “other hydraulic cements.” These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and USCBP purposes; the written definition is controlling for purposes of this Agreement. M. “Mexican Cement Order” means the U.S. antidumping duty order on Mexican Cement issued on August 30, 1990 (55 FR 35443). N. “Mexican Cement Producers” means the producers of Mexican Cement on the Effective Date or at any time while this Agreement is in force, including the Mexican Cement Producers Cementos Mexicanos of Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“CEMEX”), GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. (and its predecessor-in-interest, Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V. (“GCCC”), Holcim Apasco, S.A. de C.V. (“Apasco”), Cooperativa Cruz Azul, S.C.L. (“Cruz Azul”), Cementos Moctezuma, S.A. de C.V. (“Moctezuma”), and Lafarge Cementos, S.A. For purposes of this Agreement, CEMEX and GCCC are considered to be unrelated and unaffiliated entities. O. “Southern Tier” means the region of the United States that is comprised of the following states: California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. P. A “Sub-region” means one of the following regions: “Alabama/Mississippi,” which comprises the state of Alabama and the state of Mississippi; “Arizona,” which comprises the state of Arizona; “California,” which comprises the state of California; “Florida,” which comprises the state of Florida; “New Mexico/El Paso,” which comprises the state of New Mexico and the following counties in the state of Texas: Cochran, Hockley, Lubbock, Yoakum, Terry, Lynn, Gaines, Dawson, Andrews, Martin, El Paso, Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Loving, Winkler, Ector, Midland, Ward, Crane, Upton, Jeff Davis, and Pecos; “Texas,” which comprises all of the counties in the state of Texas not included in the “New Mexico/El Paso” Sub-region; “New Orleans,” which comprises the state of Louisiana; and “Rest of the United States,” which comprises all other states, territories, and regions of the United States. Q. “Southern Tier Cement Committee” means the coalition currently comprised of the following companies (including their predecessors and successors in interest): Alamo Cement Co., Arizona Portland Cement, Ash Grove Cement Co., Inc., Ash Grove Texas LP, Buzzi Unicem USA Inc., California Portland Cement Co., Eagle Materials, Inc., Florida Crushed Stone Co., Giant Cement Holding Inc., Hanson Permanente Cement, Lafarge Building Materials, Inc., Lehigh Cement Co., Lafarge North America, Inc., Lehigh Southwest Cement Co., Lone Star Industries, Inc., National Cement Co. of Alabama, National Cement Co. of California, Rinker Materials Corp., Salt River Materials Group, Suwannee American Cement Company, Inc., Texas Industries, Inc., Texas-Lehigh Cement Co., and Titan America LLC. R. The “Committee for Fairly Traded Mexican Cement” means the coalition currently comprised of the following companies (including their predecessors and successors in interest): TXI Riverside Cement Co. and all of the members of the STCC except Ash Grove Cement Co., Inc.; Buzzi Unicem USA Inc.; Eagle Materials, Inc.; Giant Cement Holding Inc.; and Lafarge North America, Inc. This Committee (rather than the STCC) is the party to the sunset proceedings involving the Mexican Cement Order before the DOC and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and the related NAFTA panel proceedings. S. “United States” means the customs territory of the United States of America and all foreign trade zones located in the territory of the United States of America. T. “USCBP” means United States Customs and Border Protection. U. “1999 Sunset Review” means the five year review of the Mexican Cement Order under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) initiated by DOC in August 1999. V. “2005 Sunset Review” means the five year review of the Mexican Cement Order under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) initiated by DOC on October 3, 2005. II. General Provisions A. This Agreement shall enter into force on the Effective Date, provided that all of the following events have occurred: 1. SE has established an Export License system for all exports of Mexican Cement to the United States. 2. The parties in the following NAFTA panel proceedings concerning DOC determinations have entered into a settlement agreement and, with the consent of the other parties, DOC has filed a Notice of Motion requesting termination of the Panel reviews, as of the Effective Date, pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Panel Reviews: In the Matter of Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-1998-1904-02 (6 th Administrative Review); In the Matter of Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX 2000-1904-03 (8 th Administrative Review); In the Matter of Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-2001-1904-04 (9 th Administrative Review); In the Matter of Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-2002-1904-05 (10 th Administrative Review); In the Matter of Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-2003-1904-01 (11 th Administrative Review); In the Matter of Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-2003-1904-03 (12 th Administrative Review); In the Matter of Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-2004-1904-03 (13 th Administrative Review); In the Matter of Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-2006-1904-03 (14 th Administrative Review); and In the Matter of Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, Secretariate File No. USA-MEX-2000-1904-05 (DOC Final Results of the 1999 Sunset Review). The settlement agreement and Notices of Motion are attached to this Agreement as Appendix 1. 3. The ITC has filed, with the consent of CEMEX and GCCC, a Notice of Motion requesting termination of the panel review below, as of the Effective Date, pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Panel reviews: ITC Dismissal of a Request to Institute a Section 751(b) Review (USA-MEX 2002-1904-01). The Notice of Motion is attached to this Agreement As Appendix 1. 4. DOC has taken each of the following actions: a. Issued instructions to USCBP to liquidate entries of Mexican Cement produced by CEMEX or GCCC that were imported by CEMEX Cement, Gulf Coast Portland Cement, and GCC Rio Grande (listed on USCBP Form 4811 designating SunTrust Bank as the agent), at the rate of ten U.S. cents ($0.10) per metric ton, and to refund to the Escrow Accounts the deposits of estimated duties in excess of that rate, with all accrued interest thereon. DOC shall work with USCBP, CEMEX, and GCCC to ensure that all of CEMEX's and GCCC's entries are liquidated pursuant to this provision. These instructions are attached to this Agreement as Appendix 2; b. Issued instructions to USCBP, pursuant to the settlement of the NAFTA litigation arising from the 14 th administrative review of the Mexican Cement Order ( *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2909 (January 18, 2006)), to change the estimated duty deposit rate for CEMEX and GCCC to three U.S. Dollars ($3.00) per metric ton as of the Effective Date. Copies of these instructions are attached to this Agreement as Appendix 3. DOC shall publish a Notice in the **Federal Register** within 10 days of the Effective Date amending the final results of the 14 th administrative review and announcing the new deposit rate. A copy of the Notice is attached to this Agreement as Appendix 4; c. Signed a determination (the text of which is attached to this Agreement as Appendix 5), that will be published in the **Federal Register** within 10 days of the Effective Date, rescinding, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(d)(1), all administrative reviews of the Mexican Cement Order in progress on the Effective Date; and d. Suspended the 2005 Sunset Review of the Mexican Cement Order. 5. CEMEX Cement, Gulf Coast Portland Cement, and GCC Rio Grande have each executed an irrevocable power of attorney (all of which are attached to the Agreement in Appendix 6) appointing SunTrust Bank as its attorney-in-fact to take all actions required for receiving and depositing into the Escrow Accounts all refunds pursuant to this Agreement of estimated antidumping duties on Mexican Cement. 6. DOC, CEMEX Cement, Gulf Coast Portland Cement, and GCC Rio Grande have entered into settlement agreements, pursuant to Section 617 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1617, that take effect on the Effective Date, providing for the liquidation of all entries of Mexican Cement produced by CEMEX and GCCC entered from August 1, 2004, through April 2, 2006, at the rate of ten U.S. cents ($0.10) per metric ton. These settlement agreements are attached to this Agreement as Appendix 7. 7. The World Trade Organization
(WTO)panel in *United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Cement from Mexico* (WT/DS281) has granted the Government of Mexico's request for suspension of the panel proceedings, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the WTO's Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. The communication from the Chairman of the panel granting this request is attached to this Agreement as Appendix 8. 8. CEMEX, GCCC, and the STCC and its members have filed documents, as appropriate, through their counsel, with DOC (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 9): a. Withdrawing all outstanding requests for administrative reviews of the Mexican Cement Order under Section 751 of the Act and requesting DOC to rescind all administrative reviews in progress as of the Effective Date; b. Requesting DOC to lift any suspension of liquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(g)(5)(C)(i) and 19 C.F.R. § 356.8 in connection with NAFTA panel reviews of DOC administrative reviews concerning all entries of Mexican Cement that entered the United States before the Effective Date; and c. Requesting DOC to lift the suspension of liquidation instituted by DOC under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(g)(5)(C)(i) and 19 C.F.R. § 356.8, pursuant to the NAFTA litigation covering the 1999 Sunset Review: 1. of all entries of Mexican Cement that entered the United States before the Effective Date; and 2. of all entries of Mexican Cement covered by any administrative review of such entries during an administrative review period ending after the Effective Date (following the end of the period for requesting that administrative review), so that those entries can be liquidated in accordance with this Agreement (provided that this Agreement remains in force at the time liquidation is ordered). 9. CEMEX, GCCC, and Apasco have each filed an irrevocable letter with DOC (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 10) agreeing, in the event the submitter of the letter has been found to have engaged in Circumvention, to participate in any accelerated changed circumstances review conducted by DOC (pursuant to Paragraph VII.C) to establish a new estimated antidumping duty deposit rate, by: a. Filing with DOC, within two weeks of receiving a written request, a submission with sufficient information to enable DOC to calculate a weighted-average dumping margin, based on the company's sales in the two most recent quarters; b. Permitting DOC to verify the submission in Paragraph II.A.9.a; c. Waiving the company's right to participate in the changed circumstances review, other than by filing with DOC the submission described in Paragraph II.A.9.a and one administrative brief two weeks before DOC's final determination is scheduled to be issued; and d. Accepting that, if it does not make the submission described in Paragraph II.A.9.a, DOC shall determine the new estimated duty deposit rate on the basis of the facts available to be $42.63 per metric ton (the average of the calculated rates for the 12 th and 13 th administrative review periods). 10. CEMEX, GCCC, the Committee for Fairly Traded Mexican Cement, and the ITC have obtained from the NAFTA panel reviewing the determination of the ITC in the 1999 Sunset Review a Notice of Suspension of Panel Review, and the ITC has filed a Notice of Motion of Termination of Panel Review ( *ITC Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order* , USA-MEX-2000-1904-10) (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 11) that, respectively, will: a. suspend the Panel proceeding for as long as this Agreement remains in force; and b. terminate the Panel proceeding upon notification by DOC to the NAFTA Secretariat that DOC has revoked the Mexican Cement Order as to CEMEX and GCCC, or DOC has determined not to revoke the Mexican Cement Order as to CEMEX or GCCC pursuant to Section XI.B. of this Agreement. 11. The Committee for Fairly Traded Mexican Cement, CEMEX, GCCC, and Apasco have filed with the DOC, through their counsel, a letter (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 12): a. expressing their shared view that, while this Agreement remains in force, the 2005 Sunset Review is neither required nor permitted, and should be suspended; and b. requesting DOC, if this Agreement has not been terminated before March 31, 2009, to terminate the 2005 Sunset Review on that date. 12. The STCC members, Capitol Aggregates, Holcim, CEMEX Cement, Gulf Coast Portland Cement, and GCC Rio Grande have entered into the Escrow Agreement attached to this Agreement as Appendix 13. 13. The STCC and its members, Holcim, Capitol Aggregates, CEMEX Cement, Gulf Coast Portland Cement, and GCC Rio Grande have each filed with DOC, either themselves or through their counsel, an irrevocable letter (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 14), effective on the Effective Date, stating, as appropriate, that: a. While this Agreement remains in force, the party submitting the letter will not request any review under Section 751 of the Act of any Mexican Cement Producer that has not engaged in Circumvention. In the event that a Mexican Cement Producer engages in Circumvention, the party submitting the letter reserves the right to request an administrative review and a changed circumstances review only of exports by that Mexican Cement Producer; b. Provided that this Agreement has not been terminated before March 31, 2009, the party submitting the letter has “no interest” in maintaining the Mexican Cement Order after the expiration of this Agreement, except with respect to any Mexican Cement Producer that has substantially exceeded the Export Rights allocated to it by SE for any Sub-region for the Third Export Limit Period; and c. The party shall not file a petition requesting remedies with respect to Mexican Cement under the Act, the U.S. countervailing duty law, Sections 201-204 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, or Sections 301-305 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, for the duration of this Agreement and for a period of nine
(9)months after this Agreement expires and will oppose any such petition filed by any other person or enterprise during that period. 14. Representatives of SunTrust Bank, the institution responsible for the Escrow Accounts, have completed two copies of Form 5106, and CEMEX Cement, Gulf Coast Portland Cement and GCC Rio Grande have filed such copies of Form 5106 with USCBP, providing Suntrust Bank's addresses for purposes of receipt of refunds and interest payments from USCBP. One copy of Form 5106 will provide an agent's number for the account used by CEMEX Cement and Gulf Coast Portland Cement. The second copy will provide an agent's number for the account used by GCC Rio Grande. These copies are attached to this Agreement as part of Appendix 15. 15. CEMEX Cement, Gulf Coast Portland Cement, and GCC Rio Grande have each filed with USCBP: a. A Form 4811 for each U.S. port of entry having entries of Mexican Cement that will be covered by a settlement under this Agreement, directing USCBP to send all refunds of estimated antidumping duty deposits pursuant to such a settlement to the importers of record in care of SunTrust Bank (also attached to this Agreement as Appendix 15); b. A blanket statement of non-reimbursement, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.402(f)(2), certifying that it has not entered into any agreement or understanding for the payment of all or any part of antidumping duties by the manufacturer, producer, seller or exporter of the subject merchandise (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 16); and c. A waiver (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 17) of the right under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 to protest the liquidation of the entries subject to this Agreement, other than to contest and correct: 1. the rate at which the entry was liquidated if the rate is other than the rate contained in the DOC instructions; 2. the calculation of the refund; or 3. clerical errors and mistakes of fact, following consultation with both DOC and SE, and agreement by both DOC and SE that the error or mistake is, indeed, clerical in nature or, indeed, a mistake of fact. 16. CEMEX Cement, Gulf Coast Portland Cement and GCCC Rio Grande have each certified to DOC that they have supplied a complete list of all entries covered by the settlement in connection with this Agreement (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 18). B. The Parties undertake the following obligations once this Agreement has entered into force (provided that this Agreement remains in force): 1. SE shall not issue an Export License to any Mexican Cement Producer that has not filed the letter described in Paragraph II.A.9 of this Agreement. 2. DOC shall publish in the **Federal Register** , within 10 days of the Effective Date, the notice (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 19) describing this Agreement. 3. DOC shall notify SunTrust Bank in writing, within 10 days of the Effective Date, that this Agreement has become effective. 4. DOC shall publish in the **Federal Register** , within 10 days of the Effective Date, the notice (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 5) announcing the termination of all ongoing annual administrative reviews of the Mexican Cement Order. 5. To the extent that DOC does not receive a request for an administrative review of entries subject to the Mexican Cement Order at the close of each period for requesting such an administrative review, DOC shall order liquidation of all entries under the Mexican Cement Order at the deposit rate in effect upon the date of entry, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.212. If, while this Agreement is in force, DOC receives a request for an administrative review of entries of Mexican Cement produced or exported by a Mexican Cement Producer, DOC shall conduct that review as required by 19 U.S.C. Section 1675(a). However, DOC intends to settle, under 19 U.S.C. § 1617, the claim for the antidumping duties on the entries covered by the request at the estimated duty deposit rate in effect on the date of entry. In deciding whether to reach such a settlement, DOC shall take into account whether Circumvention has occurred and whether SE has compensated for the Circumvention. 6. Upon request, DOC shall conduct an expedited changed circumstances review to establish a new estimated duty deposit rate for any Mexican Cement exporter (and its affiliated parties) that: a. had an estimated duty deposit rate under the Mexican Cement Order; b. did not receive the new estimated duty deposit rate of three U.S. dollars ($3.00) per metric ton referenced in Section II.A.4.b of this Agreement; and c. exported Mexican Cement to the United States in the year preceding the Effective Date or exports Mexican Cement to the United States while this Agreement remains in force. 7. DOC shall conduct an expedited new shipper review, upon request, of each Mexican exporter and its affiliated parties that: a. did not have an estimated duty deposit rate established under the Mexican Cement Order; b. exports Mexican Cement to the United States while this Agreement remains in force; and c. has satisfied all of the applicable certification requirements of 19 CFR § 351.214(b). 8. DOC shall establish an automatic Import License system for Mexican Cement for the purpose of monitoring the level of imports of Mexican Cement. Once this Import License system is in operation, each importer of record of Mexican Cement will be required to include the U.S. Import License number on the entry summary (or its electronic equivalent) provided to USCBP upon entry into the United States. The list of information required on each Import License application is attached as Appendix 20. 9. DOC shall rely on the representations contained in the letters submitted by STCC, CEMEX, GCCC, Capitol Aggregates, and Holcim, through counsel, referenced in Section II.A.13.b of this Agreement, as the basis for the commitments made by DOC in Sections IX and XI of this Agreement. 10. If this Agreement remains in force on January 2, 2007, SE and USTR shall ensure that their respective governments notify the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, pursuant to Article 3.6 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, that they have arrived at a mutually agreed solution to the dispute *United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Cement from Mexico* (WT/DS281). 11. If this Agreement terminates before March 31, 2009, DOC promptly shall resume the 2005 Sunset Review and inform the ITC of the new circumstances. C. This Agreement is without prejudice to the position of any Party regarding the validity of the Mexican Cement Order or the merits of any litigation related to the Mexican Cement Order. III. Export Limits and Export Licensing A. SE shall ensure that no Mexican Cement is exported (based on the Date of Export) from Mexico to the United States in a quantity that exceeds the Export Limits set forth below. SE shall ensure that no Mexican Cement is exported (based on the Date of Export) from Mexico to the United States without an Export License. 1. The Export Limits for Mexican Cement for the First Export Limit Period for each Sub-region shall be: a. Alabama/Mississippi 55,000 metric tons b. Arizona 1,250,000 metric tons c. California 150,000 metric tons d. Florida 200,000 metric tons e. New Mexico/El Paso 725,000 metric tons f. New Orleans 280,000 metric tons g. Texas 215,000 metric tons h. Rest of United States 125,000 metric tons Total 3,000,000 metric tons 2. DOC shall adjust the Export Limit for each Sub-region for the Second and Third Export Limit Periods as follows: a. Export Limit calculation: DOC shall increase or decrease the Export Limit for the previous Export Limit Period by the percent change (up to 4.5 percent) in apparent consumption of cement in that Sub-region during the most recent 12 months for which data is available at the time DOC makes this calculation, as compared to the previous 12 months (as described in Appendix 21). DOC shall provide to SE, STCC, Holcim, and Capitol Aggregates, no later than 60 days before the beginning of the Second and Third Export Limit Periods, the Export Limits for that period. b. Adjustment for New Orleans: DOC shall increase the base Export Limit calculated under Paragraph III.A.2.a for New Orleans by 25,000 metric tons and decrease the base Export Limit for the Rest of the United States by 25,000 metric tons. This one-time adjustment to the base Export Limit shall apply to both the Second and Third Export Limit Periods. 3. DOC and SE shall consult, as necessary, regarding whether any of the Export Limits should be increased (after all other adjustments provided for by this Agreement) by a combined total for all Sub-regions of up to 200,000 metric tons in any Export Limit Period, in order to respond to increased U.S. demand for cement in connection with a declaration of a state of emergency as the result of a disaster. DOC shall only accept an application for an Import License from a U.S. importer of record of such additional Mexican Cement that states that the imports will be used for the purpose of disaster relief. 4. SE may carry over to the next Export Limit Period or carry back to the current Export Limit Period up to 8 percent of the Export Limit for each Sub-region (except for Arizona, for which the allowed carry-over or carry-back is 5 per cent). The quantity permitted to be carried over or carried back under this paragraph shall be calculated on the basis of the Export Limit before any adjustment under Paragraph III.A.2.a (for changes in apparent consumption) or adjustments under Paragraph III.A.2.b (for New Orleans and the Rest of the United States), or any increase under Paragraph III.A.3 with respect to a state of emergency. B. SE shall allocate Export Rights to Mexican Cement Producers in accordance with the Export Limits specified or calculated under Section III.A., taking into consideration each producer's exports to the United States during the previous five year period. SE shall reserve at least 6 percent by volume of the Export Limit for exports of Mexican Cement Producers which have not previously shipped Mexican Cement to the United States during the last five years. C. SE shall not issue Export Licenses authorizing the export of a quantity of Mexican Cement to any Sub-region in any half of any Export Limit Period that exceeds 60 percent of the Export Limit for that Sub-region for that Export Limit Period (before any carry forward or carry back adjustments provided for in this Agreement). This provision shall not apply to exports to the Sub-regions of Alabama/Mississippi and the Rest of the United States. D. SE shall enforce the Export Limits under the Mexican Foreign Trade Law (“Ley de Comercio Exterior”) by establishing an Export License system in accordance with Articles 4III, 5V, 15II, 21, 23 and 24 of that law, and the relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Law Regulations. IV. Implementation A. Under the Export License system, SE shall permit exports (based upon the Date of Export) of Mexican Cement to the United States only when the shipment is accompanied by a valid Export License. B. Each Export License shall: 1. Contain all of the information set out in Appendix 22 to this Agreement (an official translation in English) and identify the time period for which the Export License is effective. Additional information may be included on the Export License or, if necessary, on a separate page attached to the Export License. 2. Be issued sequentially by each regional office of SE in Mexico and counted against the Export Limit and Export Rights for the relevant Export Limit Period for each Sub-region. Export Licenses shall remain valid for entry into the United States for 90 days. DOC and SE may agree to an extension of the validity of the Export License in extraordinary circumstances. 3. Be issued in the Spanish language. C. DOC shall require that each importer submit to USCBP, with its entry summary package, a valid Export License. For multiple shipments at multiple ports or multiple entries at one port, the original license shall be presented with the first entry and a copy of the Export License shall be presented with each subsequent entry. D. DOC shall deduct from the amount authorized on each Export License the quantity of each shipment reported on corresponding Import Licenses for the appropriate Export Limit for the given Sub-region for the Export Limit Period, based on the Date of Export. The validity of an Export License shall not be affected by any subsequent change of an HTSUS number. E. SE shall take the following measures to ensure compliance with the Export Limits: 1. Ensure that no Mexican Cement is exported from Mexico (based on the Date of Export) for entry into the United States that exceeds the applicable Export Limit for each applicable Sub-region or Export Rights for each Mexican Cement Producer. 2. Ensure that each Mexican Cement Producer certifies, when applying for an Export License, that it will deliver Mexican Cement only to the specified Sub-region for which the Export License is being requested. 3. Ensure that each Mexican Cement Producer that exports Mexican Cement to the United States certifies, when applying for an Export License, that it will provide to SE and DOC a monthly report specifying the date of sale, quantity, the complete name and address (including county) of each affiliated and unaffiliated purchaser to whom Mexican Cement was sold, and the Export License numbers pursuant to which the Mexican Cement that was sold during that month was imported into the United States. This monthly report shall be due 30 days after the end of each month (or the next business day). 4. Permit verification by DOC of all information concerning the enforcement of the Export Limits on an annual basis, to the extent not prohibited by Mexican Law. V. Market Access A. SE and DOC are committed to identifying and addressing any barriers to market access that may prevent open and stable trade in cement between the United States and Mexico. SE and DOC promptly and completely shall investigate, as appropriate, any specific allegation, based on evidence, of a market access barrier or an unfair trade or business practice that may prevent cement from the other country from entering its market. B. SE and DOC, shall, with the support of the Mexican and U.S. cement industries, establish a North American Cement Committee in order to facilitate cement trade between Mexico and the United States. The Parties shall hold the first meeting of the new cement committee within six months of the Effective Date. The committee will analyze possible mechanisms that could promote cement trade between the United States and Mexico, such as: 1. International buyer delegations: Encourage delegations of Mexican buyers/end-users of cement and cement products to participate in major trade shows in the United States, and U.S. buyers/end-users of cement and cement products to participate in major trade shows in Mexico. 2. Technical seminars: Co-host technical seminars at relevant trade shows in Mexico and the United States to discuss new products and to present U.S. producers to the Mexican industry, and Mexican producers to the U.S. industry, respectively. 3. Trade missions: Co-host trade missions to Mexico and the United States of U.S. cement (and related products) producers and Mexican cement (and related products) producers, respectively. 4. Market research and trade leads: Facilitate the collection and dissemination of information on market opportunities for U.S. cement products in Mexico, and Mexican cement products in the United States, including specific trade leads and project opportunities. C. SE and DOC shall monitor these activities and how they influence the evolution of trade in cement between Mexico and the United States. SE and DOC shall consult on a quarterly basis and discuss any areas where improvement may be made. SE and DOC intend to invite Canada to join the North American Cement Committee. D. SE shall ensure that any Mexican importer of cement designated by a U.S. cement producer or exporter is permitted to be registered into the Mexican Importers' Registry (“Padron de Importadores”) and the Mexican Importers' Registry for Specific Sectors (Padron de Importadores para Sectores Especificos”), provided that the importer fully complies with the requirements set out under Mexican law. These registration requirements are set forth in Appendix 23 to this Agreement. In the event that an application for any of these registries is denied, the Mexican importer may request SE to consult with the competent authority. In such case, SE shall inform the importer in writing, within 45 days of the request, of the reasons for which the application was denied. E. SE shall ensure that the Camara Nacional del Cemento de Mexico (“CANACEM”), CEMEX, GCCC and Apasco each submit a letter to SE (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 24) stating that: 1. It will not interpose an objection with the competent authority in Mexico to an application by any Mexican importer designated by a U.S. cement producer or exporter to be registered into the Mexican Importers' Registry or the Mexican Importers' Registry for Specific Sectors to import U.S. - produced cement. 2. If it files an objection with the competent authority in Mexico to an application for inclusion on either registry filed by a Mexican importer, designated by a U.S. cement producer or exporter to register to import cement produced in a third country, the writer of the letter will provide a copy of the objection to SE. SE shall ensure that, if CANACEM, CEMEX, GCCC, or Apasco should object to an application for inclusion on either registry as described in subparagraphs
(1)and (2), it shall provide DOC with a copy of the objection within 45 days. F. To the extent that an objection described in Paragraph E above contains confidential information, SE shall ensure that the companies will consult with SE to explain the nature of the confidential information. If possible, SE shall obtain a non-confidential summary of the information and provide that summary to DOC. VI. Monitoring and Notifications A. As is necessary and appropriate to monitor the implementation of, and compliance with, this Agreement, SE shall: 1. Within thirty days following the allocation of Export Rights for any Export Limit Period, notify DOC of the quantity allocated to each recipient for each applicable Sub-region. SE also shall inform DOC of any changes in the allocation of Export Rights within 30 days of the date on which such changes become effective, including the allocation of Export Rights for Mexican Cement carry-over or carry-back pursuant to paragraph III.A.4. 2. a. Monitor all exports of Mexican Cement to the United States and deduct the quantity of each such export from the Export Limit identified on the Export License; and b. Prevent, in coordination with the Mexican General Customs Administration, the exportation of any Mexican Cement not accompanied by an Export License or in a quantity exceeding the quantity shown on the Export License. 3. Collect and provide to DOC information on Export Licenses issued in the format specified in Appendix 25 to this Agreement, including a copy of each Export License issued. This information shall be collected for the six-month period beginning on the Effective Date and each subsequent six-month period and will be provided no later than 60 days following the end of each such six-month period. 4. Collect and provide to DOC information identifying each shipment of Mexican Cement made pursuant to each Export License in the format specified in Appendix 25. This information shall be collected for the six-month period beginning on the Effective Date and each subsequent six-month period and will be provided to DOC no later than 60 days following the end of each such six-month period. 5. Permit DOC to verify all information furnished by SE to DOC under this Agreement to the extent not prohibited by Mexican Law. B. DOC shall monitor and collect the following information to determine whether there have been imports of Mexican Cement into the United States that may be inconsistent with this Agreement and, to the extent not prohibited by U.S. law, provide this information to representatives of all interested parties to this segment of the DOC proceedings on Mexican Cement (as defined by Section 771(9) of the Act) upon request: 1. U.S. Bureau of the Census data, and other publicly-available data, on a quarterly basis. 2. U.S. Bureau of the Census computerized records that include the quantity and value of each entry. DOC may also request USCBP to provide other specific entry information, such as the identity of the producer/exporter which may be responsible for such sales. 3. Information from the Import License system established under this Agreement. C. DOC shall release to counsel for the interested parties to this segment of the DOC proceedings on Mexican Cement (as defined by Section 771(9) of the Act) and to counsel for SE all business proprietary information submitted to DOC: 1. under this Agreement, pursuant to this Agreement for Disclosure of, and Access to, Business Proprietary Information (attached to this Agreement as Appendix 26); and 2. during the course of any administrative proceedings relating to Mexican Cement conducted by DOC following the entry into force of this Agreement, pursuant to DOC's regulations and standard procedures governing the release of business proprietary information. VII. Circumvention A. The Parties shall take the following measures to address Circumvention: 1. DOC shall investigate any alleged Circumvention that is brought to its attention, both by asking SE to investigate such allegations and by itself gathering relevant information. In such case, DOC shall provide to SE all relevant information, provided that this is not prohibited by U.S. law. DOC shall notify SE of the results of the inquiry within 15 days after the conclusion of the inquiry. 2. SE shall investigate any alleged Circumvention that is brought to its attention. SE shall promptly initiate an inquiry into the alleged Circumvention, and normally complete the inquiry within 45 days. SE shall notify DOC of the results of the inquiry within 15 days after its conclusion. B. If a Mexican person or enterprise has engaged in Circumvention that results in an Export Limit being exceeded, DOC and SE shall deduct from the Export Limit for the Sub-region and Export Limit Period for which the Export Limit was exceeded (or, if the Export Limit for that Sub-region and Export Limit Period has been filled, the following Export Limit Period) 150 percent of the quantity of Mexican Cement involved. DOC and SE shall notify the other Party of any penalties imposed under this Section within 15 days of their imposition. C. If there has been Circumvention for which SE has not compensated by reducing the Export Limit for the applicable Sub-region consistent with Paragraph VII.B, DOC may self-initiate an accelerated changed circumstances review (to be completed within 90 days of initiation) of the producer of the Mexican Cement involved in the Circumvention, in order to change the deposit rate applicable to that Mexican Cement Producer. In the event that DOC receives a petition requesting a changed circumstances review of a Mexican Cement Producer as a result of Circumvention by that producer for which SE has compensated under Paragraph VII.B of this Agreement, DOC will consider the compensation (and penalties imposed upon that producer) material to its decision whether to initiate such a review, and will reflect its consideration of that material factor in its written decision on whether to initiate the review. Should a changed circumstances review be initiated under this provision, SE shall require the Mexican Cement Producer in question to provide to DOC, within two weeks after the date of initiation of the review, all cost and sales data for the two most recently completed quarters, or accept a new deposit rate based on the facts available, in the amount of $42.63 per metric ton (the average of the rates for the 12 th and 13 th administrative reviews of Mexican Cement). D. DOC shall require all importers of Mexican Cement into the United States to submit to DOC a written statement, 30 days after the end of every quarter (or on the next business day), listing all entries of such merchandise and certifying that the Mexican Cement imported during that quarter was not obtained under any arrangement in Circumvention. Where DOC has reason to believe that such a certification has been made falsely, DOC shall refer the matter to the United States Department of Homeland Security or the United States Department of Justice for further action, as appropriate. VIII. Consultations The Parties shall hold consultations concerning the implementation, operation and enforcement of this Agreement at least once each year during the anniversary month of the Effective Date and upon request by SE, DOC, or USTR. Within six months of the Effective Date, SE and DOC shall consult regarding the information exchanged under this Agreement. IX. Intentions of the Parties with Respect to Future Unfair Trade Actions and Challenges to this Agreement For the duration of this Agreement and for nine
(9)months after the expiration of this Agreement: A. DOC shall not self-initiate an investigation under Title VII of the Act, or any successor law, with respect to imports of Mexican Cement. If a petition for such an investigation is filed by a member of the STCC, Holcim, or Capitol Aggregates, DOC shall dismiss the petition, based upon the letters submitted by those parties and referenced in Paragraph II.A.13 of this Agreement. B. USTR shall not self-initiate an action under Sections 201-204 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, or any successor law, with respect to imports of Mexican Cement. C. USTR shall not self-initiate an investigation under Sections 301-305 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, or any successor law, with respect to imports of Mexican Cement. D. SE shall not initiate an investigation or take action under Titles V or VI of the Mexican Foreign Trade Law, or any successor law, with respect to imports of cement from the United States. If CEMEX, GCCC, or Apasco files with SE a petition for an investigation under Title V of the Mexican Foreign Trade Law, SE shall dismiss the petition, based upon the letter from that producer attached to this Agreement as Appendix 27 or submitted by that producer to SE after the date this Agreement is signed. X. Violations of this Agreement The Parties shall not consider a violation of this Agreement as being material unless corresponding to the definition of a material violation or breach contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. XI. Duration of this Agreement and Revocation of the Order A. This Agreement shall expire on March 31, 2009, provided that it has not been terminated before that date. B. Provided that this Agreement has not been terminated before March 31, 2009, DOC shall revoke the Mexican Cement Order on April 1, 2009, for all Mexican Cement Producers that have not exported any Mexican Cement to the United States since August 30, 1990, or that have not exported substantially more than the Export Limits allocated by SE to such producers for any Sub-region for the Third Export Limit Period. The revocation shall be based on the “no interest” statements submitted in the letters of Section II.A.13 of this Agreement. C. Any Party may terminate this Agreement upon 90 days written notice to the other Parties. D. If this Agreement terminates before March 31, 2009, for any reason, any amounts remaining in the Escrow Account shall be distributed in accordance with the specific provisions in the Escrow Agreement providing for that contingency. XII. Other Provisions A. The English and Spanish language versions of this Agreement shall be equally authentic. B. For all purposes hereunder, the Parties shall be represented by, and all communications and notice shall be given and addressed to: Office of the United States Trade Representative, Office of the Americas, 600 17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508. U.S. Department of Commerce, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Washington, DC 20230. Secretaria de Economia, Subsecretaria de Negociaciones Comerciales Internacionales, Alfonso Reyes, 30- 9th Floor, Col. Condesa, C.P. 06400, Mexico D.F. Signed at Washington, DC, on this 6th day of March, 2006. For the Office of the United States Trade Representative of the United States of America: Robert Portman For the United States Department of Commerce of the United States of America: Carlos Guiteriez For the Ministry of Economy (Secretaria de Economia) of the United Mexican States: Sergio Garcia De Alba [FR Doc. E6-3531 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-843, A-570-901] Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China and India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the People's Republic of China, contact Marin Weaver at
(202)482-2336 or Charles Riggle at
(202)482-0650, and for India, contact Christopher Hargett at
(202)482-4161, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations On October 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the initiation of the antidumping duty investigations of certain lined paper products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China. * See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China * , 70 FR 58374 (October 6, 2005). The notice of initiation stated that we would make our preliminary determinations for these antidumping duty investigations no later than 140 days after the date of issuance of the initiation. On February 10, 2006, the Department postponed the preliminary determinations by 30 days to March 18, 2006. *See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, India, and Indonesia* , 71 FR 7015 (February 10, 2006). On February 21, 2006, the Association of American School Paper Suppliers, and its individual members (“Petitioner”), made timely requests pursuant to 19 CFR §351.205(e) for an additional 20-day postponement of the preliminary determinations with respect to the antidumping duty investigations covering certain lined paper products (“CLPP”) from the People's Republic of China
(PRC)and India. Petitioner requested postponement of the preliminary determinations because it will provide the Department additional time to review submitted questionnaire responses which Petitioner claims contain substantial deficiencies. Under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), if Petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement of the preliminary determination, the Department may postpone the preliminary determination under subsection (b)(1) until no later than the 190 th day after the initiation of the investigation. Therefore, for reasons identified by Petitioner, we are postponing the preliminary determinations with respect to the antidumping duty investigations of CLPP from the PRC and India under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act by an additional 20 days to April 7, 2006. Pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act, the deadline for the final determinations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, or if extended, up to 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determinations in the **Federal Register** . This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). Dated: March 7, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3620 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-867] Notice of Postponement of Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures: Metal Calendar Slides from Japan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay or Dara Iserson, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0780 or
(202)482-4052, respectively. Postponement of Final Determination The Department of Commerce (the Department) is postponing the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of metal calendar slides from Japan. On July 26, 2005, the Department published the initiation of the antidumping duty investigation on imports of metal calendar slides from Japan. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Metal Calendar Slides from Japan* , 70 FR 43122 (July 26, 2005). On February 1, 2006, the Department published its affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Metal Calendar Slides from Japan* , 71 FR 5244 (February 1, 2006). This notice stated that the Department would issue its final determination no later than 75 days after the date on which the Department issued its preliminary determination. Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) provide that a final determination may be postponed until no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. Additionally, the Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2)(ii), require that requests by a respondent for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. On February 13, 2006, in accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), the only known exporter, Nishiyama Kinzoku Co. Ltd. (Nishiyama), requested that the Department:
(1)Postpone the final determination; and
(2)extend the provisional measures period from four months to a period not longer than six months. Accordingly, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because:
(1)The preliminary determination is affirmative;
(2)the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise in this investigation; and
(3)no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** ( *i.e.* , until no later than June 16, 2006). Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly. This notice of postponement is published pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g). Dated: March 8, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3630 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-580-825 Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 8, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods (OCTG), other than drill pipe, from Korea. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 53340 (September 8, 2005) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers the following producers: Husteel Co., Ltd. (“Husteel”) and SeAH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”). The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the *Preliminary Results* . For the final dumping margins, see the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Czajkowski or Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations (6), Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1395 or
(202)482-0780, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 8, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Korea. *See Preliminary Results* . Since the *Preliminary Results* , the following events have occurred. On September 12, 2005, Respondents requested that the Department hold a hearing. A case brief from Respondents and a rebuttal brief from Petitioners were timely filed. The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested parties in this administrative review are addressed in the *Issues and Decisions Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) from Korea (Issues and Decision Memorandum)* , which is hereby adopted by this notice. The *Issues and Decision Memorandum* is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department of Commerce main building, and can be accessed directly at *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products covered by this order are OCTG, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The products subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive of the scope of this review. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by SeAH and Husteel for use in our final results. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by both companies. Our verification results are outlined in the *Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman through Thomas Gilgunn from Scott Lindsay, Nicholas Czajkowski, and Toni Page: Verification of Costs and Sales for Husteel Co., Ltd. in the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea* (December 28, 2005); *Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman through Thomas Gilgunn from Scott Lindsay, Nicholas Czajkowski, and Toni Page: Verification of Costs and Sales for SeAH Co., Ltd. in the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea* (December 28, 2005); *Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman through Thomas Gilgunn from Scott Lindsay and Nicholas Czajkowski: CEP Sales Verification for Husteel USA, Inc. in the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea* (December 30, 2005); and *Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman through Thomas Gilgunn from Scott Lindsay and Nicholas Czajkowski: CEP Sales Verification for Pusan Pipe America, Inc. in the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea* (December 30, 2005). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs and rebuttal briefs filed by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* is appended to this notice. Changes Since the Preliminary Results After reviewing the *Preliminary Results* , we have made two changes to SeAH's calculations that have impacted the margin. We included an updated cost of production database to include sales to Canada. We also converted the comparison-market revenue value used to calculate Constructed Export Price profit from U.S. Dollars to Korean Won. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) SeAH Steel Corporation 6.84% Husteel Co., Ltd. 12.30% Duty Assessment The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or customer)- specific *ad valorem* rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* , and the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an importer (or customer)- specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of the final results of this review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following antidumping duty deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of OCTG from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)for Husteel and SeAH, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 12.17 percent. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea* , 60 FR 33561 (June 28, 1995). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 7, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX List of Issues 1. The use of China, a non-market economy, as the basis for normal value. [FR Doc. E6-3632 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-813] Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Korea; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping order covering stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Korea. *See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Korea; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 67444 (November 7, 2005) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The merchandise covered by this order is stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice. The period of review
(POR)is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . We received no comments. Therefore, the final results are unchanged from those presented in the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Heaney, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
(202)482-4475 or
(202)482-0649 respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 7, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of the 2004-2005 antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Korea. *See Preliminary Results* . The review covers Sungkwang Bend Company (SKBC), and the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. In the *Preliminary Results* , we invited parties to comment. We received no comments. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain welded stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings), whether finished or unfinished, under 14 inches in inside diameter. Pipe fittings are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise can be used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system:
(1)Corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless steel is used;
(2)contamination of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented;
(3)high temperatures are present;
(4)extreme low temperatures are present;
(5)high pressures are contained within the system. Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, and the following five are the most basic: “elbows,” “tees,” “reducers,” “stub ends,” and “caps.” The edges of finished fittings are beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from this review. The pipe fittings subject to this order are classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Final Results of the Review We determine the following percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) SKBC 0.17 percent Liquidation The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. To calculate these rates, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. *Id* . The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct CBP to assess the appropriate assessment rate against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries under the relevant order during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act):
(1)Because the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company is *de minimis* , (see 19 CFR 351.106(c)) no cash deposit shall be required;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 21.2 percent. This rate is the “All Others” rate from the amended final determination in the LTFV investigation. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Welded Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Korea* , 58 FR 11029 (February 23, 1993). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until the publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 7, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3618 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Consent Motion To Dismiss Panel Review AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Consent Motion to Dismiss the Panel Review of the final material injury review made by the International Trade Commission, respecting Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2003-1904-05). SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Notice of Consent Motion to Dismiss the Panel Review by the complainants, the panel review is dismissed as of March 6, 2006. Pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Review* , this panel review is dismissed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,
(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). The panel review in this matter was requested and terminated pursuant to these Rules. Dated: March 8, 2006. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E6-3571 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P + DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030306D] Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability; request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)announces the availability for public review of the following two documents: the Draft Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for Southeast Washington developed by the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB) for portions of three evolutionarily significant units
(ESUs)of salmon Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon ( * Oncorhynchus tshawytscha * ), and Snake River sockeye salmon ( *O. nerka* ) and two distinct population segments
(DPS)of steelhead Middle Columbia River steelhead and Snake River steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ) (Draft SRSRB Plan); and a Supplement to the Draft SRSRB Plan prepared by NMFS (the Supplement). NMFS is soliciting review and comment on the Draft SRSRB Plan and the Supplement from the public and all interested parties. DATES: NMFS will consider and address all substantive comments received during the comment period. Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on May 15, 2006. A description of previous public and scientific review, including scientific peer review, can be found in the NMFS Supplement to the Plan. ADDRESSES: Please send written comments and materials to Carol Joyce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Salmon Recovery Division, 1201 N.E. Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *WashingtonSnakePlan.nwr@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following identifier: Comments on WA Snake Salmon Plan. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile
(fax)to 503-872-2737. Persons wishing to review the Plan can obtain an electronic copy (i.e., CD-ROM) from Carol Joyce by calling 503-230-5408 or by e-mailing a request to *carol.joyce@noaa.gov* with the subject line *CD-ROM Request for WA Snake Salmon Plan* . Electronic copies of the Plan are also available on-line on the NMFS website www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/Index.cfm or on the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board website: *www.snakeriverboard.org/library.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Hatcher, NMFS Salmon Recovery Coordinator (509-962-8911 ext. 223), or Elizabeth Gaar, NMFS Salmon Recovery Division (503-230-5434). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). An “evolutionarily significant unit”
(ESU)of Pacific salmon (Waples, 1991) and a “distinct population segment”
(DPS)of steelhead (71 FR 834, January 5, 2006) are considered to be “species,” as defined in section 3 of the ESA. The ESA requires that recovery plans incorporate
(1)Objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered;
(2)site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goals; and
(3)estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. The ESA requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the recovery of a particular species. NMFS' goal is to restore endangered and threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead ESA-listed species to the point that they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems and no longer need the protections of the ESA. NMFS believes it is critically important to base its recovery plans on the many state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts already underway throughout the region. Therefore, the agency supports and participates in locally led collaborative efforts to develop recovery plans involving local communities, state, tribal, and Federal entities, and other stakeholders. On October 26, 2005, the SRSRB presented its locally developed recovery plan to NMFS. The SRSRB was formed in 2002 under Washington State statute to oversee and coordinate salmon and steelhead recovery efforts in the Lower Snake River region of Washington. It comprises representatives from county governments, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, irrigation districts, private landowners, and concerned citizens. The SRSRB's mission is to protect and restore salmon habitat, consistent with the recovery plan, for current and future generations. The Draft SRSRB Plan addresses portions of five ESA-listed species under NMFS' jurisdiction within the Southeast Washington Management Unit (a geographic unit that NMFS has defined for recovery planning purposes). NMFS intends to endorse the SRSRB Plan and Supplement as an interim regional recovery plan and combine it with other plans to make up a final domain recovery plan to meet ESA section 4(f) requirements for these species. By endorsing a locally developed interim regional recovery plan, NMFS is making a commitment to implement the actions in the plan for which we have authority, to work cooperatively on implementation of other actions, and to encourage other Federal agencies to implement plan actions for which they have responsibility and authority. We will also encourage the State of Washington to seek similar implementation commitments from state agencies and local governments. NMFS expects that the interim regional recovery recovery plan will be used to help NMFS and other Federal agencies take a more consistent approach to future ESA section 7 consultations. For example, an interim regional recovery plan will provide greater biological context for the effects that a proposed action may have on the listed species. This context will be enhanced by adding recovery plan science to the “best available information” for section 7 consultations. Such information includes viability criteria for the ESUs and their independent populations, better understanding of and information on limiting factors and threats facing the ESUs, better information on priority areas for addressing specific limiting factors, and better geographic context for where the ESUs can tolerate varying levels of risk. After review of the Draft SRSRB Plan, NMFS added a Supplement, which describes how the Draft SRSRB Plan contributes to ESA recovery plan requirements, including qualifications and additional actions that NMFS believes are necessary to support recovery. The Supplement and the SRSRB's plan together form a proposed interim regional recovery plan for the affected species. The Draft SRSRB Plan and the Supplement are now available for public review and comment. As noted above, the Draft SRSRB Plan is available at the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board website: *www.snakeriverboard.org/library.htm* and both the Draft SRSRB Plan and the Supplement are available at the NMFS Northwest Region Salmon Recovery Division website, *www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/index.cfm* . NMFS will consider all substantive comments and information presented during the public comment period (see DATES ). ESUs Addressed and Planning Area The SRSRB Plan encompasses the Lower Snake Mainstem, Walla Walla, Tucannon, and Asotin subbasins in the State of Washington, in which four of the 28 populations of the Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook ESU are found. The SRSRB Plan also includes the Washington portions of the Walla Walla and Grande Ronde subbasins, within which four of the 25 populations of the Snake River steelhead DPS, and 2 of the 17 populations of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS are found. Sockeye salmon migrate through the recovery region, but spawn and rear higher in the Snake Basin. The fall-run Chinook salmon population is described but not evaluated in the recovery plan. The Snake River steelhead ESU was listed as threatened on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937). The Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU was listed as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517). Recently, NMFS revised its species determinations for West Coast steelhead under the ESA, delineating steelhead-only DPSs. NMFS listed both the Snake River and Middle Columbia River steelhead DPSs as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook and fall-run Chinook salmon ESUs were listed as threatened (57 FR 14658, April 22, 1992; correction 57 FR 23458, June 3, 1992). The Snake River sockeye salmon ESU was listed as endangered on November 20, 1991 (56 FR 58619). NMFS reaffirmed the threatened status of the Snake River spring/summer-run and fall-run Chinook salmon ESUs, and the endangered status of the Snake River sockeye salmon ESU, on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). None of the listed species is entirely contained within the Washington Snake River recovery region. Because most state and local boundaries are not drawn on the basis of watersheds or ecosystems, the various groups and organizations formed for recovery planning do not necessarily correspond to ESU or DPS areas. Therefore, in order to develop species-wide recovery plans that are built from local recovery efforts, NMFS defined “management units” that roughly follow jurisdictional boundaries but, taken together, encompass the geography of entire species. For the Middle Columbia sub-domain, there are four management units:
(1)Oregon;
(2)Yakima;
(3)Columbia Gorge (Klickitat/Rock Creek/White Salmon); and
(4)Southeast Washington (Walla Walla and Touchet). For the Snake River sub-domain there are three management units:
(1)Idaho;
(2)Oregon; and
(3)Southeast Washington. The Draft SRSRB Plan is the plan for the Southeast Washington Management Unit of both sub-domains. In 2006, the separate management unit plans will be “rolled up” or consolidated into ESU/DPS-level recovery plans. The final ESU/DPS-level recovery plans will incorporate the management unit plans and endorse the recommendations and decisions (for example, decisions on site-specific habitat actions) that are most appropriately left to the local recovery planners and implementers. The ESU/DPS-level plans will also more completely address actions for the hatchery, harvest, and hydro sectors. The Draft SRSRB Plan The Draft SRSRB Plan reflects the region's strong commitment to its threatened salmonid populations. Citizens of the area consider recovery of salmonids to be highly desirable. Salmon and steelhead are harvested in commercial (outside the region) and recreational (inside and outside the region) fisheries as well as taken for tribal ceremonial purposes. Native Americans place great value on salmonids as a religious, nutritional, economic, and cultural resource. The salmon is also an enduring symbol of the Pacific Northwest for non-Native peoples. The Draft SRSRB Plan's overarching goal is the following: Develop and maintain a healthy ecosystem that contributes to the rebuilding of key fish populations by providing abundant, productive, and diverse populations of aquatic species that support the social, cultural, and economic well-being of the communities both within and outside the recovery region. The Draft SRSRB Plan examines limiting factors and threats for Snake River salmon recovery in terms of habitat, hydropower, harvest, and hatcheries. 1. *Habitat:* The watersheds in the recovery region have similar salmonid habitat limitations because of similarities in topography, geology, vegetation, and land use. The Draft SRSRB Plan states that agriculture (including grazing), logging, and urbanization have resulted in increased sediment, higher water temperatures, and poorer riparian condition, and have caused major changes in channel form and function, resulting in lack of habitat diversity, increased channel instability, and low flows. 2. *Hydropower:* There are four major dams on the lower Snake River: Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor. Thus, depending on the locations of their native streams, adult and juvenile migrants must pass some or all of these dams as they migrate through the lower Snake River, as well as the four dams on the lower Columbia River. The Draft SRSRB Plan states that both adult passage upstream and juvenile passage downstream through the hydroelectric system have major effects on the fish. These effects can include predation on juveniles by other species in tailraces and reservoirs, dissolved gas bubble disease, entrapment and entrainment on/in mechanical portions of the dam (such as turbines), altered water temperatures, adult fallback, and alteration of normal migration rates. 3. *Harvest:* In-region fisheries include recreational fisheries for salmon and steelhead authorized by Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fisheries. Since 2001, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has authorized limited selective fisheries for spring/summer Chinook salmon in late April, May and June. According to the Draft SRSRB Plan, catches of wild fish and impacts on them are relatively low. Mainstem Columbia River fisheries downstream from the Southeast Washington Management Unit are managed under in-season harvest regulations pursuant to the *U.S.* v. *Orego* n management plan. 4. *Hatcheries:* The Draft SRSRB Plan does not propose any new hatchery programs, but recognizes that hatcheries can play a role in recovering fish populations. Hatchery programs directly affecting Snake River populations include programs funded under the Lower Snake River Compensation Program, those funded by Idaho Power Company, and other programs. In 2002, 33 hatcheries and satellite facilities from throughout the basin released over 29 million juvenile salmon and steelhead into the Snake River. The Draft SRSRB Plan states that there is concern about hatchery fish straying into virtually all stream reaches in the recovery area. NMFS and other agencies are reviewing and assessing hatchery programs in the Columbia Basin in several different processes. These efforts are expected to provide information relevant to the SRSRB Plan in 2006. The Draft SRSRB Plan also discusses additional factors that affect Snake River salmon and steelhead: habitat alterations in the Columbia River and estuary, conditions in the Pacific Ocean, and dam operations on the Clearwater and Upper Snake mainstem. Recovery will depend on the concerted efforts of actions addressing habitat, harvest, hydroelectric operations, and hatcheries working together and adjusting over time as population conditions change. The Draft SRSRB Plan discusses “all-H integration,” which is further defined in the Supplement. The Draft SRSRB Plan incorporates the NMFS viable salmonid population
(VSP)framework as a basis for biological status assessments and recovery goals. The Draft SRSRB Plan also incorporates the 2004 recommendations of the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) appointed by NMFS, which provided recommendations on biological criteria for population and ESU viability. The ICTRT developed “viability curves” showing the relationships between productivity and abundance that would indicate higher or lower risk of extinction for a given population. The SRSRB adopted strategic guidelines for recovery actions that emphasize projects with long persistence time and benefits distributed over the widest possible range of environmental attributes; immediate measures in addition to long-term actions; adaptive management; information contained in the applicable subbasin plans; consideration of recovery actions within the context of the four “Hs” (habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and hydroelectric); use of the Ecological Diagnosis and Treatment
(EDT)analysis tool, in combination with other analyses, empirical data and professional opinion, to identify and prioritize habitat actions; and consideration of the economic, social, and cultural constraints identified by the recovery region. The Draft SRSRB Plan primarily focuses on actions to protect and restore habitat, and to remove “imminent threats” to salmon survival, such as fish passage barriers and toxic effluents. The Draft SRSRB Plan's habitat actions are targeted for the major spawning areas
(MSAs)identified by the ICTRT. The actions are designed to increase productivity, abundance, spatial structure, and diversity by addressing the limiting factors and threats. The actions are designed to improve upland habitat, riparian conditions, floodplain functions, instream habitat, water quantity, and water quality. The Draft SRSRB Plan does not propose actions for the hydropower system or for harvest, because these are managed in other venues, and these actions will be addressed in the ESU-level plans. The plan does propose a hatchery strategy based on the Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for the region, which are administered by NMFS. The strategy attempts to balance risks to recovery of listed fish populations with the achievement of harvest objectives. The SRSRB emphasizes adaptive management as a fundamental aspect of salmon recovery and envisions an extensive adaptive management program being developed in the implementation phase of the watershed planning process funded by the State of Washington. This adaptive management program will be incorporated into the final SRSRB Plan. The Draft SRSRB Plan details a 15-year implementation strategy at a projected cost of $6.9 million per year. However, NMFS emphasizes in the Supplement that recovery planning and implementation cannot stop at 15 years, but must continue until the species is recovered. The SRSRB further proposes a specific, 18-month implementation plan containing actions that have been developed by multiple agencies and groups within the recovery region and that can be implemented quickly. The Draft SRSRB Plan states that, because salmon recovery efforts have been underway in the region since the early 1990s, much of the internal framework (policy, scientific, public support, and funding) needed to implement these actions is either in place or can be established quickly once the plan is adopted. Actions proposed in this 18-month plan vary from working to eliminate imminent threats to restoring riparian areas. The section also discusses policy, legislation and scientific “unknowns” that need to be resolved to fully implement the plan. The Draft SRSRB Plan includes a detailed cost estimate for site-specific actions in each MSA. The ICTRT provided technical guidance to the SRSRB for use in the Draft SRSRB Plan. This technical guidance was itself reviewed by multiple technical experts from Federal, state, and local agencies and the Umatilla Tribe. The Draft SRSRB Plan bases much of its information on the subbasin plans for the Lower Snake Mainstem, Walla Walla, Tucannon, Asotin, and Grand Ronde subbasins, and these plans were peer-reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel, appointed by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, appointed by the NPCC and NMFS. Public Comments Solicited NMFS solicits written comments on the Draft SRSRB Plan and the NMFS Supplement. The Supplement states NMFS' assessment of the Draft SRSRB Plan's relationship to ESA requirements for recovery plans. The Supplement also explains the agency's intent to use the SRSRB Plan together with the Supplement as an interim regional recovery plan to guide and prioritize recovery actions and to roll up the interim regional recovery plan with other local plans into Federal ESA recovery plans for the respective domains. All substantive comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to NMFS' decision whether to endorse the SRSRB Plan as an interim regional recovery plan and incorporate it into the species-level plans. Additionally, NMFS will provide a summary of the comments and responses through its regional web site and provide a news release for the public announcing the availability of the response to comments. NMFS seeks comments particularly in the following areas:
(1)The analysis of limiting factors and threats;
(2)the recovery strategies and measures;
(3)the criteria for removing the ESUs and DPS from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; and
(4)meeting the ESA requirement for estimates of time and cost to implement recovery actions by soliciting implementation schedules. Authority The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: March 8, 2006. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-3633 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030706E] Fisheries off the West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Fishing Conducted Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); announcement of public scoping period; request for written comments. SUMMARY: NMFS, in cooperation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), announces its intention to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NMFS and the Council intend to expand the scope of an EIS they had initially announced as needed to assess the impacts of the 2007-2008 Pacific Coast groundfish fishery specifications and management measures on the human, biological, and physical environment. The scope of this EIS will be expanded to include an analysis of the impacts of revising the rebuilding plans for the seven overfished Pacific Coast groundfish species. Revisions to rebuilding plans will be incorporated in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)via Amendment 16-4. DATES: Public scoping opportunities for the 2007-2008 Pacific Coast groundfish fishery specifications and management measures and Amendment 16-4 EIS will occur during meetings of the Council and its advisory bodies, at the April 2-7, 2006, meeting in Sacramento, CA and at the June 11-16, 2006, meeting in Foster City, CA. Written comments will be accepted at the Council office through April 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, on issues and alternatives, identified by any of the following methods: • E-mail: ( *pfmc.comments@noaa.gov.* Include [030706E] and enter “Scoping Comments” in the subject line of the message.) • Fax: 503-820-2299. • Mail: Dr. Donald McIsaac, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Pl., Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John DeVore, Groundfish Fishery Management Coordinator; phone: 503-820-2280, fax: 503-820-2299, and e-mail: *john.devore@noaa.gov* or Yvonne deReynier, NMFS, Northwest Region, phone: 206-526-6129, fax: 206-526-6736 and e-mail: *yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access This **Federal Register** document is available on the Government Printing Office's website at: *www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index/html* . Background and Need for Agency Action On October 25, 2005, NMFS and the Council published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS or an environmental assessment
(EA)for the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures (70 FR 61595). At that time, NMFS and the Council were unsure whether an EA or an EIS would be the appropriate analytical document for that action. During the Council's October 31 - November 4, 2005, meeting in San Diego, Ca, NMFS reported to the Council on recent Court instructions in *Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)* v. *NMFS* , 421 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2005), a lawsuit originally filed in opposition to darkblotched rockfish rebuilding measures in the 2002 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures. The Council discussed a strategy for responding to the Court's orders to re-evaluate the darkblotched rockfish rebuilding plan so that the rebuilding period for that species would be as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the species and the needs of fishing communities. Like other overfished species, darkblotched rockfish co-occurs with both healthy and overfished species. This tendency for various groundfish species to co-occur with each other drives many groundfish management measures, because harvest of healthy stocks must be constrained to ensure that stocks are not subject to overfishing and that overfished stocks are rebuilt within the appropriate time frame. In order to meet the Court's order on darkblotched rockfish management within the biological constraints of a mixed, multi-species fishery, the Council recommended taking a global look at all of its overfished species rebuilding plans. NMFS and the Council reported back to the Court that they planned to implement a reduced darkblotched rockfish optimum yield
(OY)for 2006, and to re-evaluate all seven of the overfished species rebuilding plans for 2007 and beyond. The Court reviewed this plan, and ordered NMFS to both implement a reduced darkblotched rockfish OY for 2006, and to re-evaluate and revise all overfished species rebuilding plans by January 1, 2007. (For more information on the revised 2006 darkblotched rockfish OY, see the proposed and final rules for that action; 70 FR 75115, December 19, 2005 and 71 FR 8489, February 17, 2006.) This Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS announces NMFS and the Council's intent to expand the scope of the NEPA document analyzing the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures to include revising rebuilding plans for seven overfished species. NMFS and the Council believe that this expansion of scope warrants NEPA analysis under an EIS, rather than an EA. When the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is submitted for public review, it will also include an analysis of the impacts of the action under the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866), and other applicable laws. The Council will consider revisions to the overfished species rebuilding plans when it considers the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures, at the April and June 2006 meetings. When the Council makes it final recommendations on a preferred alternative in June 2006, it plans to submit new overfished species rebuilding plans for NMFS review. These new overfished species rebuilding plans will be incorporated into the FMP as Amendment 16-4. Alternatives In the October 25, 2005, Notice of Intent, NMFS and the Council described the general structure of the range of alternatives that the public could expect to see for the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures. These early draft alternatives looked at different rebuilding rates for each overfished species individually, and the effects of that species' harvest on the harvest rates of co-occurring healthy groundfish stocks. Since that notice was published, the Council and its advisory bodies have been refining the alternatives to better define them for public review. The Council's Allocation Committee and Groundfish Management Team held a joint public meeting in Portland, OR, February 6-9, 2006. During that meeting, the advisory bodies discussed the need to revise the structure of the alternatives in order to ensure that the analysis of alternatives would adequately address issues raised by the Court. The advisory bodies discussed recommending that the Council first look at each overfished species at different rebuilding rates and associated harvest levels - a horizontal look across each species' biological constraints to rebuilding. Then, alternatives for analysis would be vertically integrated to account for the relationships between overfished species. Where, for example, rebuilding measures for darkblotched rockfish constrain the harvest of co-occurring Pacific ocean perch (POP), the POP OY would not be set higher than a level that would accommodate a given darkblotched rockfish yield level. At the Council's April 2-7, 2006, meeting in Sacramento, CA, the Council will adopt a preferred range of alternative harvest levels. In this range, the Council take into account the inter-relationships between continental slope overfished species (darkblotched rockfish and POP), between different continental shelf species (yelloweye, canary, widow, cowcod, and bocaccio rockfish), between northern species (darkblotched, POP, widow, yelloweye, and canary rockfish), and between southern species (canary, bocaccio, and cowcod rockfish, and in some areas, widow and darkblotched rockfish. At its April meeting, the Council will also make preliminary recommendations on alternative fishery management measures for 2007-2008. As in past years, alternative management measures will be structured to account for the interactions between healthy and overfished stocks, and between the different fisheries and particular overfished stocks. Not all overfished stocks are incidentally caught in all fishery sectors. Therefore, management measures will differ by sector in order to allow access to healthy stock harvest while ensuring that overfished stocks are rebuilt as quickly as possible. Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues A principal objective of the scoping and public input process is to identify potentially significant impacts to the human environment that should be analyzed in depth in the EIS. This process is also intended to eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant, or which have been covered in prior environmental reviews. Narrowing the scope of analysis is intended to allow greater focus on those impacts that are potentially most significant. NMFS and the Council will evaluate the impacts of the proposed action on these components of the biological and physical environment:
(1)Essential fish habitat and ecosystems;
(2)protected species listed under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act and their habitat; and
(3)the fishery management unit, including target and non-target fish stocks. Socioeconomic impacts, which may be considered under NEPA, or under the RFA and E.O. 12866, are also considered in terms of the effect changes will have on the following groups:
(1)those who participate in harvesting the fishery resources and other living marine resources (for commercial, subsistence, or recreational purposes);
(2)those who process and market fish and fish products;
(3)those who are involved in allied support industries;
(4)those who rely on living marine resources in the management area;
(5)those who consume fish products;
(6)those who benefit from non-consumptive use (e.g., wildlife viewing);
(7)those who do not use the resource, but derive benefit from it by virtue of its existence, the option to use it, or the bequest of the resource to future generations;
(8)those involved in managing and monitoring fisheries; and
(9)communities. Public Scoping Process Public scoping will primarily occur during the Council's decision-making process. All decisions during the Council process benefit from written and verbal comments delivered prior to or during the Council meetings. NMFS and the Council consider these public comments as integral to scoping for developing this EIS. The Council developed its preliminary range of 2007-2008 harvest specifications and management measures at its October 31-November 4, 2005, meeting in San Diego, CA. This was the same meeting at which the Council decided to expand the scope of this EIS. The Council will select the preferred range of management measures at the April 2-7, 2006, meeting in Sacramento, CA, at the Double Tree Hotel, 2001 Point West Way, 9815-4702; telephone: 800-227-6963 or 1-800-222-8733. The Council expects to select the preferred alternative at the June 11-16, 2006, meeting in Foster City, CA at the Crowne Plaza Mid Peninsula Hotel, 1221 Chess Drive, 94404; telephone 1-800- 227-6963 or 650-570-5700. Public comment may be made under the agenda items, when the Council will consider these proposed actions. The agendas for these meetings will be available from the Council website, or by request from the Council office in advance of the meetings (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments on the scope of issues and alternatives may also be submitted as described under ADDRESSES . NMFS invites comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis to be included in the DEIS. The scope includes the range of alternatives to be considered, and potentially significant impacts to the human environment that should be evaluated in the DEIS. NMFS and the Council plan to make the DEIS available for public comment following the Council's June 2006 meeting. The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability appears in the **Federal Register** . To be most helpful, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible and should address the adequacy of the statement or merits of the alternatives discussed. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the DEIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the DEIS. (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points). Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Special Accommodations These meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carolyn Porter 503-820-2280 (voice) or 503-820-2299 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Dated: March 9, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-3634 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030806B] Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; request for written comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces its intent to prepare the Alaska Groundfish Harvest Specifications Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
(BSAI)and the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA)groundfish fisheries. The scope of the EIS will be to determine the impacts to the human environment resulting from setting groundfish harvest specifications. NMFS will hold a public scoping meeting and accept written comments from the public to determine the issues of concern and the appropriate range of management alternatives to be addressed in the EIS. DATES: Written comments must be received by May 15, 2006. A scoping meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, from 7 to 9 p.m., Alaska local time. ADDRESSES: Written comments on issues and alternatives for the EIS should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Records Officer. Comments may be submitted by: • E-mail: *EIS.Specifications.Intent@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier: Harvest Specs. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. • Fax: 907-586-7557. *Meeting address:* The meeting will be held in the Dillingham/Katmai room at the Hilton Hotel, 500 West 3 rd Street, Anchorage, AK. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Muse,
(907)586-7228 or *ben.muse@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is initiating this scoping process for the Alaska Groundfish Harvest Specifications EIS. NEPA requires preparation of an EIS for major Federal actions that may significantly impact the quality of the human environment. NMFS will incorporate into the EIS the written comments on the scope of the analysis generated during this scoping process. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the United States has exclusive fishery management authority over all living marine resources found within the exclusive economic zone. The management of these marine resources, with the exception of certain marine mammals and birds, is vested in the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). NMFS is seeking information from the public through the EIS scoping process on the range of alternatives to be analyzed, and on the environmental, social, and economic issues to be considered in the analysis. Proposed Action The proposed action is to set the harvest specifications in compliance with Federal regulations, the Fishery Management Plans
(FMPs)for the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Harvest specifications include the establishment of annual total allowable catches (TACs), and their seasonal apportionments and allocations, and prohibited species catch limits. TACs are harvest quotas that include retained and discarded catch. Each year, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommends to the Secretary harvest specifications for the BSAI and the GOA groundfish fisheries. The Council establishes the harvest specifications using the overfishing levels and acceptable biological catches
(ABCs)established by the Council's Groundfish Plan Teams and Scientific and Statistical Committee, and the optimum yield ranges established in the FMPs. After Secretarial review and approval, NMFs publishes the harvest specifications in the **Federal Register** . NMFS uses these harvest specifications to manage the groundfish fisheries. The intent of the harvest specifications is to balance fish harvest during the fishing year with established total optimum yields and ecosystem needs. The harvest specifications are necessary for the management of the groundfish fisheries and the conservation of marine resources, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and as described in the management policy, goals, and objectives in the groundfish FMPs. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined to assist the public in understanding the proposed action. These definitions are summarized from the FMPs, please refer to the FMPs for the exact language and additional details. *Optimum yield (OY)* is the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems. *Overfishing level (OFL)* is set annually for a stock or stock complex following the criteria in the FMPs. Overfishing occurs when the harvest exceeds the overfishing level. *Acceptable biological catch (ABC)* is an annual sustainable target harvest for a stock or stock complex. It is derived from the status and dynamics of the stock, environmental conditions, and other ecological factors, given the prevailing technological characteristics of the fishery. *Total allowable catch (TAC)* is the annual harvest limit for a stock or stock complex, derived from the ABC by considering social and economic factors. Alternatives NMFS will evaluate a range of alternative harvest levels. Alternatives may include those identified here, and those developed through the public scoping process and through the Council process. The alternatives in this analysis are based on a range of potential TACs because the harvest specifications are driven by the available ABCs and the Optimum Yield ranges that the Council considers each year when recommending TACs to NMFS. Each of the four alternatives represents different amounts of TAC that could be specified for managed species and species groups for each fishing year. The alternatives have been selected to display a wide range of TACs and their impacts on the environment. The four potential alternatives identified for analysis include: *Alternative 1:* Set TACs to produce harvest levels equal to the maximum permissible ABCs, unless the sum of the TACs is constrained by the Optimum Yield established in the FMPs. *Alternative 2:* Set TACs that fall within the range of ABCs recommended by the Council's Groundfish Plan Teams and TACs recommended by the Council. *Alternative 3:* For stocks with a high level of scientific information, set TACs to produce harvest levels equal to the most recent five-year average actual fishing mortality rates. For stocks with insufficient scientific information, set TACs equal to the most recent five-year average actual catch. *Alternative 4:* Set TACs equal to zero. This is the no action alternative, but does not reflect the status quo. Preliminary Identification of Issues A principal objective of the scoping and public input process is to identify potentially significant impacts to the human environment that should be analyzed in the EIS process. NMFS has conducted an initial screening to identify potentially significant impacts resulting from the harvest specifications. The analysis will evaluate the effects of the alternatives for all resources, species, and issues that may directly or indirectly interact with the groundfish fisheries within the action area, as a result of specified harvest levels. Impacts to the following components of the biological and physical environment may be evaluated:
(1)Essential fish habitat;
(2)species listed under the Endangered Species Act and their critical habitat, and species protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act;
(3)target and non-target fish stocks, including forage fish and prohibited species;
(4)seabirds; and
(5)the ecosystem. Social and economic impacts also are considered in terms of the effects that changes in projected harvests will have on the following groups of individuals:
(1)Those who participate in harvesting the fishery resources and other living marine resources;
(2)those who process and market fish and fish products;
(3)those who consume fish products;
(4)those who rely on living marine resources in the management area, either for subsistence needs or for recreational benefits;
(5)those who benefit from non-consumptive uses of living marine resources; and
(6)fishing communities. Public Involvement Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action. A principal objective of the scoping and public involvement process is to identify a reasonable range of management alternatives that, with adequate analysis, will delineate critical issues and provide a clear basis for distinguishing between those alternatives and for selecting a preferred alternative. In addition, NMFS is notifying the public that it is beginning an EIS and decision-making process for this proposed action so that interested or affected people may participate in the EIS and contribute to the final decision. NMFS is seeking written public comments on the scope of issues that should be addressed in the EIS and alternatives that should be considered in establishing the harvest specifications. NMFS will accept comments in writing at the address above (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should be as specific as possible to be the most helpful. Written comments received during the scoping process, including the names and addresses of those submitting them, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. The public is invited to attend the scoping meeting on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, in Anchorage, AK. The scoping meeting will be held in conjunction with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting. Please visit the NMFS Alaska Region web page at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov* for more information on this EIS, guidance for submitting effective public comments, and to order a draft EIS. NMFS estimates that a draft EIS will be available in September 2006. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ben Muse, NMFS, (see ADDRESSES ),
(907)586 7228, at least five days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: March 9, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-3628 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 030602141-6032-35; I.D. 022706A] Announcement of Funding Opportunity for the California Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) Program, Adult and Community Watershed Education in the Monterey Bay AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), the National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; availability of funds. SUMMARY: The California B-WET Program, Adult and Community Watershed Education in the Monterey Bay is accepting proposals that provide meaningful watershed education to adults and communities. The Monterey Bay is susceptible to impacts from urban, rural, and agricultural sources of pollution. Projects funded under this program will be outcome-based programs that educate citizens about their role in protecting water quality and demonstrate behavioral changes that improve water quality and promote environmental stewardship. DATES: Proposals must be received by 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on April 13, 2006. The deadline for applying through Grants.gov is April 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Paper applications, a signed original and 2 copies (submission of eight additional hard copies is strongly encouraged to expedite the review process, but it is not required) may be submitted to Attn: Seaberry Nachbar, B-WET Program Manager, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Office, 299 Foam Street, Monterey, CA 93940. For electronic submissions, see Electronic Submission section under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B-WET Program Manager: Seaberry Nachbar, 831-647-4204, via Internet at *Seaberry.Nachbar@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary Description The California B-WET Program, Adult and Community Watershed Education, is a competitively based program that supports existing environmental education programs, fosters the growth of new programs, and encourages the development of partnerships among environmental education programs throughout the Monterey Bay watershed. Funded projects provide meaningful watershed education to adults and communities. The term “meaningful watershed education” is defined as outcome-based programs that educate citizens about their role in protecting water quality and demonstrate behavioral changes that improve water quality and promote environmental stewardship. Funding Availability This solicitation announces that approximately $100,000 may be available in FY 2006 in award amounts to be determined by the proposals and the available funds. The National Marine Sanctuary Program anticipates that approximately two to four grants will be awarded with these funds. The National Marine Sanctuary Program anticipates that typical project awards will range from $10,000 to $50,000. Electronic Submission It is strongly preferred that you submit your application through Grants.gov at the internet site: *http://www.grants.gov* . You may access, download, and submit an electronic grant application through Grants.gov. The full funding announcement is available via the Grants.gov web site: *http://www.grants.gov* . The announcement will also be available at the NOAA web site *http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/bwet* or by contacting the program official outlined in this **Federal Register** notice. Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the full funding opportunity announcement. NOAA strongly recommends that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov. Statutory Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1440, 15 U.S.C. 1540 CFDA: 11.429, Marine Sanctuary Program Eligibility Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, state or local government agencies, and Indian tribal governments. The Department of Commerce/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and institutions that service undeserved areas. Cost Sharing Requirements No cost sharing is required under this program; however, the National Marine Sanctuary Program strongly encourages applicants to share as much of the costs of the award as possible. Funds from other Federal awards may not be considered matching funds. The nature of the contribution (cash versus in-kind) and the amount of matching funds will be taken into consideration in the review process. Intergovernmental Review Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Proposal Review and Selection Process for Projects NOAA published its agency-wide solicitation entitled “Omnibus Notice Announcing the Availability of Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2006” for projects for Fiscal Year 2006 in the **Federal Register** on June 30, 2005 (70 FR 37766). The evaluation and selection criteria and procedures for projects contained in that omnibus notice are applicable to this notice. Copies of this notice are available on the Internet at *http://www.ofa.noaa.gov/%7Eamd/SOLINDEX.HTML* . Further details on evaluation and selection criteria and procedures applicable to this notice can be found in the full funding opportunity announcement. Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the full funding opportunity announcement. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals that are seeking NOAA Federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA website: *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/* , including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216--6--TOC.pdf* , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, *http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm* . Consequently, as part of an applicant's package and under the description of his or her program activities, an applicant is required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in the drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impact of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. In some cases, if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impact that a project may have on the environment. Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are applicable to this solicitation. Limitation of Liability Funding for the program listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations. In no event will NOAA be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comments are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: March 7, 2006. Mitchell A. Luxenberg, Acting Chief Financial Officer, National Ocean Service,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3635 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030706C] Marine Mammals; File No. 1093-1834 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Susan Shaw, PhD., Executive Director, Marine Environmental Research Institute, 55 Main Street, P.O. Box 1652, Blue Hill, ME, 04614, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on harbor seals (Phoca vitulina concolor). DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before April 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9200; fax (978)281-9371. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 1093-1834 . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Tammy Adams, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216). The applicant requests a 5-year permit to investigate the utility of free-ranging harbor seals as a mammalian sentinel species for coastal contamination and associated health risks for top consumers in the marine food chain. Harbor seal pups tend to accumulate high body burdens of persistent organic pollutants. The applicant proposes to capture up to 280 harbor seal pups at six locations from Maine to Massachusetts over the course of the permit. The animals would be captured using seine nets or hand held hoop nets, measured, weighed, blood sampled, blubber/skin biopsied, swabbed for fecal and nasal samples, and released. The applicant also requests authorization for the research-related mortality of up to two seals over the course of the permit. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: March 8, 2006. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-3629 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 021306A] Vessel Monitoring Systems; Approval of Mobile Transceiver Unit Reseller AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; addition of an authorized reseller. SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the addition of an authorized reseller for the previously type approved ST2500G-NMFS Mobile Transceiver Unit (MTU). ADDRESSES: To obtain copies of the list of NOAA-approved Vessel Monitoring Systems
(VMS)MTU and VMS MCSPs, or to obtain information regarding the status of VMS systems being evaluated by NOAA, write to NOAA Fisheries, Office for Law Enforcement (OLE), 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 415, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For current listing information contact Mark Oswell, Outreach Specialist, or for questions regarding VMS installation and status of evaluations contact Jonathan Pinkerton, National VMS Program Manager by phone: 301-427-2300 or by fax: 301-427-2055. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reseller listed below is authorized to sell the Stellar ST2500G-NMFS MTU for use on vessels operating in fisheries that require the use of a VMS and listed within the approved sales area of this notice. A. Additional Approved Reseller METOCEAN Data Systems; 21 Thornhill Drive; Dartmouth, Nova Scotia Canada B3B 1R9. telephone
(902)468-2505, fax
(902)468-4442. For additional information METOCEAN Data Systems can be found on the Internet at *www.metocean.com* . B. Approved Sales Areas METOCEAN Data Systems is approved to resell the Stellar ST2500G-NMFS MTU to fishers operating in the Alaska Fisheries Requiring VMS, Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, South Atlantic Rock Shrimp Fishery, and the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
(HMS)Fishery. Dated: March 8, 2006. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-3631 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Event Planning ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on this new information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *Susan.Brown@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-00xx Event Planning comment” in the subject line of the message. • Fax: 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Brown. • Mail: Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Elizabeth Shaw, Office of External Affairs, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451; by telephone at 571-272-9300; or by e-mail at *elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is responsible under 35 U.S.C. 2(A)(2) for the dissemination of patent and trademark information to the public. This information can include planning for long-term goals, outreach to independent inventors, assistance to small businesses, prevention of unlawful intellectual property practices, international trends, and cooperation between Intellectual Property entities, in addition to other types of information. The USPTO sponsors conferences, fairs, speaking engagements, and training seminars such as those offered under the Patent and Trademark Depository Library Program, as well as other events, to disseminate this information. In order to plan for these events, the USPTO must collect information from the attendees. The USPTO plans to use an online registration screen available through the *http://www.uspto.gov* Web site for all of the event registrations. However, the USPTO believes that some of the PTDL registrations may still be submitted in paper. Online registration will standardize data collection for USPTO-sponsored events and provide for more efficient event planning. Attendees may complete forms for event registration online and e-mail them to the USPTO, or they may print, complete in ink, and mail the registrations to the USPTO. The USPTO has no plans to disseminate this information electronically or otherwise. II. Method of Collection Registrations for events other than the PTDLs can only be submitted using the online registration option. Registration for various PTDL events can be submitted electronically. The registrations can also be submitted by mail or by hand delivery if applicants choose to submit the information in paper form. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-00xx. *Form Number(s):* No Form Numbers. *Type of Review:* New collection. *Affected Public:* Primarily business or other for-profit organizations, but also individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions; farms, Federal Government; and state, local or tribal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,100 responses per year. *Estimated Time Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 5 minutes (0.08 hours) to complete this information, whether it is mailed to the USPTO or submitted electronically. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, complete the request, and submit it to the USPTO. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 328 hours per year. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $43,296. It is estimated that the respondent audience will be 1/3 attorneys, 1/3 paraprofessionals and members of the Patent and Trademark Depository Library Program, and 1/3 independent inventors, students, or other members of the public. Using a combination of the professional hourly rates of $286 for associate attorneys in private firms, $81 for paraprofessionals and members of the Patent and Trademark Depository Library Program, and $30 for independent inventors, students, and other members of the public, the USPTO is using an hourly rate of $132 to calculate the respondent costs. The USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for this collection will be $43,296 per year. Item Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Event Registrations (electronic) 5 minutes 4,000 320 PTDL Registrations (paper) 5 minutes 10 1 PTDL Registrations (electronic) 5 minutes 90 7 Total 4,100 328 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $4. This collection does not have any capital start-up, maintenance, operation, or recordkeeping costs or filing fees associated with it. Customers can register for PTDL events electronically or they can print out the request, complete it, and mail it to the USPTO through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO estimates that 10 PTDL registrations will be submitted via first class mail. First class postage is 39 cents. Therefore, the USPTO estimates a total annual (non-hour) cost burden of $4 due to mailing costs. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, *e.g.* , the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: March 6, 2006. Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division. [FR Doc. E6-3561 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent And Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). *Title:* Statutory Invention Registration. *Form Number(s):* PTO/SB/94. *Agency Approval Number:* 0651-0036. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 4 hours annually. *Number of Respondents:* 8 responses per year. *Avg. Hours Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take 24 minutes (0.4 hours) to submit a Statutory Invention Registration request. This includes time to gather the necessary information, create the documents, and submit the completed request. *Needs and Uses:* 35 U.S.C. 157, administered by the USPTO through 37 CFR 1.293-1.297, authorizes the USPTO to publish a statutory invention registration containing the specifications and drawings of a regularly filed application for a patent without examination, providing the applicant meets all the requirements for printing, waives the right to receive a patent on the invention within a certain period of time prescribed by the USPTO, and pays all application, publication, and other processing fees. This collection includes information needed by the USPTO to review and approve and/or deny such requests. The applicant may petition the USPTO to review final refusal to publish or to withdraw a request to publish a statutory invention registration prior to the date of the notice of the intent to publish. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; farms, the Federal Government, and State, Local or Tribal Governments. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *Susan.Brown@uspto.gov.* Include “0651-0036 copy request” in the subject line of the message. • Fax: 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Brown. • Mail: Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before April 13, 2006 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Dated: March 6, 2006. Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division. [FR Doc. E6-3562 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 06-C0002] Acuity Brands, Inc., Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with Acuity Brands, Inc., containing a civil penalty of $700,000.00. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by March 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 06-C0002, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth B. Popkin, Trial Attorney, Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone
(301)504-7612. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: March 8, 2006. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. In the Matter of Acuity Brands, Inc. Settlement Agreement and Order 1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, Acuity Brands, Inc. and the staff (“Staff”) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) settle the Staff's allegations set forth below. Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084 (“CPSA”). 3. Acuity Brands, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, and its principal offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia. Acuity Brands, Inc.'s businesses, among other things, design and manufacture lighting equipment. Lithonia Lighting conducted the product recalls referenced in the Agreement and identified itself as the manufacturer of those recalled products. Lithonia Lighting is a division of, and is wholly owned by, Acuity Lighting Group, Inc., which is wholly owned by Acuity Brands, Inc. Lithonia Lighting is also a brand of lighting products sold by Acuity Lighting Group, Inc. Acuity Brands Inc., Acuity Lighting Group, Inc., and Lithonia Lighting are collecting referred to herein as “Acuity.” 4. Paragraphs 5 through 38 constitute the Staff's allegations based on the Staff's investigations. Paragraphs 39 through 48 constitute Acuity's responsive allegations disputing the Staff's allegations. Staff Allegations ELM/ELM II Emergency Lights 5. From August 1992 to May 1997, Acuity manufactured, and wholesalers and distributors sold, approximately 1.2 million ELM/ELM2 emergency lights later recalled on April 13, 2001 (“ELM Lights”). The ELM Lights were installed near exit doors in buildings such as schools, offices, and shopping centers, to aid in evacuation in the event of an emergency. 6. Each ELM Light is a “consumer product” that Acuity “distributed in commerce,” and Acuity is a “manufacturer” of that consumer product, as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12). 7. The ELM Lights had an electrical component that could overheat when connected to 277-volt electrical systems, and that could melt and burn the light enclosures and other objects, posing a fire hazard. 8. From January 1996 through September 2000, Acuity received reports of ELM Light capacitor failures and incidents from 33 sites, involving 109 failed capacitors, many of which included incidents of smoking, melting, rupturing, burning, and fire. Results included melted or damaged light enclosures, damaged walls and carpet, and one injury, i.e., a burned finger. From 1996 to 1999, Acuity replaced 345 ELM Lights due to the hazard. 9. Beginning in 1996, Acuity conducted testing and analysis, and it made an engineering change relating to the hazard by switching to a different and safer type of capacitor. By July 1997, Acuity was replacing ELM Lights having defective capacitors with new units having the new capacitors. 10. From 1998 to 1999, Underwriters Laboratories wrote 4 letters to Acuity advising it of the CPSA's reporting requirements and/or of the ELM Lights' risk of fire, serious injury, or death. In 2000, Acuity received a letter from the Commission staff advising of the CPSA reporting requirements. 11. By July 1997, Acuity had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the ELM Lights contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. As of that date, Acuity had received reports from 12 sites, and the reports involved 60 failed (overheated) capacitors, at least 8 fire incidents, and 1 light that exploded, suffered smoke and heat damage, and had a capacitor failure not contained within the light enclosure. As of that date, Acuity had replaced some of the original capacitors with safer ones. CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required by Acuity to immediately inform the Commission of the defect or risk. 12. Acuity did not report to the Commission regarding the ELM Lights until October 19, 2000, thereby failing to immediately inform the Commission as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 13. Acuity knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission of the ELM Lights' defect or risk, as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected Acuity to civil penalties. HID Lights 14. From November 2002 through October 2003, Acuity manufactured, and from November 2002 through February 2004, lighting and electrical supply distributors sold, approximately 52,600 indoor high intensity discharge lights later recalled on March 29, 2004 (“HID Lights”). The HID Lights have acrylic lenses and/or reflectors, and they are generally used in industrial locations and commercial locations such as retail spaces, warehouses, and gymnasiums. 15. Each HID Light is a “consumer product” that Acuity “distributed in commerce,” and Acuity is a “manufacturer” of that consumer product, as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12). 16. The HID Lights has an electrical component that could leak fluid that might degrade the acrylic lenses and reflectors, causing them to crack and fall from significant heights in pieces or in their entirety. Falling acrylic could injure people below. 17. From May 2003 through January 2004, Acuity received reports of HID Light failures from 18 sites, with 197 incidents in which acrylic lenses or reflectors cracked. These incidents included 56 occasions in which acrylic lenses, reflectors, or pieces fell from the lights. One injury occurred involving a forehead laceration and eye damage. During this time, Acuity replaced 770 HID Lights due to the hazard. 18. By the summer of 2003, Acuity knew that bad and leaking capacitors caused cracking acrylic, and Acuity learned of concerns about the defect, the potential for personal injury, and people fearing that falling reflectors could hit them. 19. Beginning in the summer of 2003, Acuity received defect analyses through which it learned more about the defect and hazard, and Acuity took further corrective action of its own, instructing its manufacturing facilities to stop using these capacitors because they were failing due to a manufacturing defect. In November 2003, due to ongoing and numerous failures from the defect, Acuity directed a change in the component vendor. 20. By August 2003, Acuity had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the HID Lights contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. As of that date, Acuity knew that at 4 different sites, a total of 88 incidents occurred in which acrylic lenses or reflectors cracked, including 17 incidents in which acrylic lenses, reflectors, or pieces fell. CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required Acuity to immediately inform the Commission of the defect or risk. 21. Acuity did not report to the Commission regarding the HID Lights until February 6, 2004, thereby failing to immediately inform the Commission as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 22. Acuity knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission of the HID Lights' defect or risk, as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected Acuity to civil penalties. HID Expansion Lights 23. From April through October 2002, Acuity manufactured, and from April 2002 through February 2004, distributors sold, approximately 40,600 indoor high intensity discharge lights later recalled on March 8, 2005 (“HID Expansion Lights”). The HID Expansion Lights have the same features, uses, defects, and hazard as the HID Lights described above. The HID Expansion Lights differ from the HID Lights in that Acuity manufactured the former from April through October 2002, a manufacture period preceding the manufacture period for the HID Lights. These additional products resulted in an expansion, one year later, of the original recall, to include this additional manufacture period (“Expansion Period”). 24. Each HID Expansion Light is a “consumer product” that Acuity “distributed in commerce,” and Acuity is a “manufacturer” of that consumer product, as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12). 25. From September 2003 through June 2004, Acuity received reports from 10 sites of Expansion Period products (i.e., the recalled HID Expansion Lights, as well as other lights that did not have acrylic and were not included in the recall but did have the same defective capacitors) leaking, cracking, and/or failing. From these 10 sites, Acuity learned of the following incident facts: At least 162 Expansion Period products with leaking capacitors only (no cracking/falling acrylic); 60 HID Expansion Lights with cracked lenses and/or reflectors that did not fall; and 31 HID Expansion Lights with lenses and/or reflectors that fell. At these sites, Acuity did 644 Expansion Period product replacements. 26. In September 2003, Acuity received the first site report about Expansion Period leaking capacitors. From April 5 to June 13, 2004, Acuity received reports from 6 sites having HID Expansion Lights with cracked lenses and/or reflectors. 27. Acuity acknowledged that its analysis for the HID Lights related as well to the HID Expansion Lights. Acuity also acknowledged that the HID Expansion Lights involved the same potential risk previously tested and that led to the HID Lights recall. Acuity conceded that as of February 2004, it knew the defect and took corrective action by stopping sale and doing replacements. 28. By April 2004, Acuity had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the HID Expansion Lights contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required Acuity to immediately inform the Commission of the defect or risk. 29. Acuity did not report to the Commission regarding the HID Expansion Lights until October 8, 2004, thereby failing to immediately inform the Commission as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 30. Acuity knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission of the HID Expansion Lights' defect or risk, as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected Acuity to civil penalties. HID Cord Lights 31. From June 1999 through May 2002, Acuity manufactured, and lighting and electrical supply distributors sold, approximately 120,000 indoor high intensity discharge lights later recalled on March 11, 2005 (“HID Cord Lights”). The HID Cord Lights are generally used in locations such as retail spaces, light manufacturing areas, warehouse spaces, and gymnasiums. 32. Each HID Cord Light is a “consumer product” that Acuity “distributed in commerce,” and Acuity is a “manufacturer” of that consumer product, as those terms are defined in CPSA sections 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12). 33. The cord of the HID Cord Lights could drip plasticizer fluid that might degrade the acrylic lenses and reflectors, causing them to crack and fall from significant heights in pieces or in their entirety. Falling acrylic could injure people below. 34. From June 2002 through September 2004, Acuity learned of 15 sites at which these were at least 510 failing HID Cord Lights (i.e., lights with cracking or failing lenses or reflectors, and/or dripping cords). These incidents included 6 falling lenses, more than 286 cracking reflectors, 19 falling reflectors, and at least 202 dripping cords that had not yet resulted in cracking or falling reflectors. During this time, Acuity replaced or made arrangements to replace over 2,000 HID Cord Lights. 35. From June 2002 to September 2004, Acuity learned of defect information, the potential for personal injury, and people concerned that falling lenses and reflectors could hit them. During this time, Acuity received increasing information about the cord fluid being incompatible with acrylic and about acrylic cracking due to fluid leaking from cords. In August 2003, Acuity learned of the cord manufacturer's intent to do a corrective action by revising the cord's design, and in October 2003, Acuity acknowledged the defect issues and defective cords. 36. By July 2003, Acuity had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the HID Cord Lights contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. As of that date, Acuity had learned of 7 sites with 224 failing HID Cord Lights, including 5 falling lenses, 123 cracking reflectors, 4 falling reflectors, and at least 92 dripping cords not yet resulting in acrylic cracking or falling. Acuity replaced 431 HID Cord Lights at these sites. Also by July 2003, Acuity had learned of the cord fluid as the incidents' cause, and Acuity recognized the safety issue. CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required Acuity to immediately inform the Commission of the defect or risk. 37. Acuity did not report to the Commission regarding the HID Cord Lights until September 27, 2004, thereby failing to immediately inform the Commission as required by CPSA sections 15(b)(2) and (3), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3). This failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 38. Acuity knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission of the HID Cord Lights' defect or risk, as the term “knowingly” is defined in CPSA section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). Pursuant to CPSA section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected Acuity to civil penalties. Acuity's Responsive Allegations 39. Acuity contests and denies the Staff's allegations and enters into the Agreement to resolve the Staff's allegations without the expense and distraction of litigation. By agreeing to this settlement, Acuity does not admit any of the allegations set forth above in the Agreement or any fault, liability, or statutory or regulatory violation. 40. Acuity voluntarily, and without the Commission having first requested information from Acuity, notified the Commission in each of the matters described above. 41. Acuity closely monitored its reporting obligations under the CPSA. Acuity never knowingly failed to file a required report with the Commission or knowingly committed any other violation of the CPSA. Acuity has continued to improve its efforts to meet its reporting obligations under the CPSA. 42. Acuity's actions were to a significant degree influenced by its belief, based upon its initial review of the facts, that the Commission did not have jurisdiction over the products in question. 43. Acuity voluntarily conducted corrective actions with respect to the products identified in the Staff's allegations. It did so pursuant to the Commission's “Fast Track” program, and neither the Commission nor the Staff has ever made any determination that the products at issue contained a defect that could create either a substantial product hazard or an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. 44. For several reasons, the actual risk associated with the products at issue was much lower in fact than implied by the Staff's description of incidents involving the products. These reasons include the fact that not all products subject to the corrective actions contained the problem that contributed to the performance failures described in the corrective actions. Moreover, even many of the product units that would have been so affected would not have caused harm due to varying circumstances. The fact that only two minor injuries occurred with respect to the products described in the Staff's allegations demonstrates that the actual, manifested risk from the products at issue was virtually nonexistent. 45. With respect to three of the four reports that the Staff has alleged were untimely, the component at issue was made by a third-party supplier and not by Acuity. 46. The Staff's recitation of incidents involving failure modes of varying levels of severity as evidence that the products were unsafe or should have been subject to the Commission's reporting requirements is over inclusive. Acuity evaluated its reporting obligations to the Commission based upon its assessment of risk, and it distinguished between risk issues and product performance issues in its evaluation of incidents. Acuity considered many of the incidents set forth in the Staff's allegations to be performance issues, based upon information available at the time. Product performance issues that do not demonstrate a substantial product hazard or an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death are not reportable to the Commission, regardless of whether Acuity responded to customer requirements by providing replacement products. 47. The limitations period for bringing any claim regarding the ELM Lights has expired. 48. The HID Expansion Lights matter discussed in the Staff's allegations does not constitute a reporting violation separate from the alleged HID Lights reporting violation. Agreement of the Parties 49. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Acuity. 50. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Acuity, or a determination by the Commission, that Acuity has knowingly violated the CPSA. The Agreement does not constitute a Commission finding of fact or law with respect to any of the Agreement's allegations. 51. In settlement of the Staff's allegations, Acuity shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000.00) within twenty
(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. The payment shall be by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 52. Upon the Commission's provisional acceptance of the Agreement, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen
(15)days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the sixteenth
(16th)day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** . 53. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, Acuity knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:
(1)An administrative or judicial hearing;
(2)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Commission's Order or actions;
(3)a determination by the Commission of whether Acuity failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations;
(4)a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and
(5)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act with respect to the Staff's allegations in the Agreement. 54. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and Order. In publicizing the Agreement and Order, the Commission will comply with the requirements of law, including CPSA section 6(b), 15 U.S.C. 2055(b), to the extent applicable. 55. Acuity's full and timely payment to the United States Treasury of a civil penalty in the amount of seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000.00) as required herein resolves the Staff's allegations in the Agreement with respect to the following:
(a)Acuity;
(b)any Acuity parent, subsidiary, affiliate, division, or related entity;
(c)any shareholder, director, officer, employee, agent, or attorney of any entity referenced in
(a)or
(b)above; and
(d)any successor, heir, or assignee of any entity referenced in (a), (b), or
(c)above. 56. The Agreement and Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, Acuity and each of its successors and assigns. 57. The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPsa, and violation of the Order may subject Acuity to appropriate legal action. 58. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, except in a writing that is executed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced, and that is approved by the Commission. 59. If after the effective date hereof, any provision of the Agreement and Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and Order, such provisions shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and Acuity determine that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and Order. Acuity Brands, Inc. Dated: January 3, 2006. By: Vernon J. Nagel, *President, Acuity Brands, Inc., 1170 Peachtree Street, NE., Suite 2400, Atlanta, GA 30309.* Jeffrey S. Bromme, *Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, 555 Twelfth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004-1206, Counsel for Acuity Brands, Inc.* U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Staff. J. Gibson Mullan, *Assistant Executive Director, Office of Compliance.* Ronald G. Yelenik, *Acting Director, Legal Division, Office of Compliance.* Dated: January 13, 2006. By: Seth B. Popkin, *Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance.* Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Acuity Brands, Inc. (“Acuity”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Acuity, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and Order is in the public interest, it is *Ordered,* that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is *Further ordered,* that Acuity shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000.00) within twenty
(20)calendar days of service of the final Order upon Acuity. The payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of Acuity to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by Acuity at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and Provisional Order issued on the 8th day of March, 2006. By order of the Commission. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. 06-2419 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 36
Traces to 36 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
32 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 94-582
  • 90 Stat. 2867
  • 40 CFR 1500
  • 7 CFR 650
  • 7 CFR 1739
  • 7 CFR 1739.2(a)
  • 7 CFR 1739.2
  • 7 CFR 1739.10
  • 7 CFR 1739.14
  • 7 CFR 1739.12
  • 7 CFR 1739.11
  • 7 CFR 1739.15
  • 7 CFR 1739.17
  • 7 CFR 15
  • 7 CFR 3015
  • 7 CFR 3017
  • 7 CFR 3018
  • 7 CFR 3021
  • 7 CFR 1794
  • 7 CFR 1739.3
  • 7 CFR 1739.13
  • 7 CFR 1739.19
  • 7 CFR 1739.20
  • 19 USC 81a-81u
  • 15 CFR 400
  • 402 F.3d 1358
  • 402 F.3d 1356
  • 421 F.3d 872
  • 50 CFR 216
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 37 CFR 1.293-1
  • 15 USC 2051-2084
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 71
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 450b
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.305
U.S.C.§ 1673
U.S.C.§ 1675
F. App'x402 F.3d 1358
F. App'x402 F.3d 1356
F. App'x421 F.3d 872
Cites 68 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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