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 · 2006-04-10 · Natural Resources Conservation Service · Notices

Notices. Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Lost River Subwatershed of the Potomac River Watershed Hardy County, West Virginia

24,737 words·~112 min read·/register/2006/04/10/06-3385

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Lost River Watershed, Hardy County, WV AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Lost River Subwatershed of the Potomac River Watershed Hardy County, West Virginia. 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 (NRCS), U.
S. Department of Agriculture, is giving notice that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS)is being prepared for the Lost River Subwatershed of the Potomac River Watershed, Hardy County, West Virginia. The SEIS will evaluate potential impacts to the natural, physical, and human environment as a result of the flood damage reduction and water supply storage measures proposed for the Lost River Subwatershed, Hardy County, West Virginia. The NRCS is soliciting public concerns/issues to be evaluated during the study process. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald L. Hilliard, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 75 High Street, Room 301, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, telephone
(304)284-7545. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lost River Work Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)was prepared in October 1974 and approved for operations on February 11, 1975 under authority of the Flood Control Act, Public Law 534. The approved work plan included provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose floodwater retarding impoundments, and one multiple-purpose floodwater retarding and recreation impoundment. Two of the single-purpose floodwater retarding impoundments (Site 4, Kimsey Run and Site 27, Upper Cove Run) have been installed. In March 2001, the watershed plan was amended to add 400 acre-feet of rural water supply storage as a purpose for Site 10 (Camp Branch). The impoundment at Site 10 has also been installed. Planning is underway for the fourth impoundment (Site 16, Lower Cove Run) that was originally planned as a multiple purpose floodwater retarding and recreation structure. At the request of the local sponsoring organizations, the recreation component of Site 16 has been eliminated (other than incidental recreational uses) and the purpose of rural water supply has been added for this impoundment. The final impoundment (Site 23, Culler Run) has been determined not feasible due to engineering and geological concerns and will be eliminated as a component of the Lost River Watershed Project. Other alternatives originally considered to achieve the project purposes in the 1974 Plan-FEIS included land treatment, flood proofing, flood insurance, floodplain purchase, stream channel modification, diking, and various combinations thereof. Also considered was the “no project” alternative. Alternatives to be addressed in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) include the 1974 baseline conditions, the No-further Action Alternative, and Alternative 1. Alternative 1 includes constructing Site 16 for floodwater retention and rural water supply, and deleting Site 23 (Cullers Run) from the Plan. The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project may cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Ronald L. Hilliard, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of a SEIS is needed for this project. Since impounded water may inundate a small portion of National Forest System Land, the U. S. Forest Service is a cooperating agency. A DSEIS will be prepared and circulated for review by agencies and the public. The NRCS invites participation and consultation of agencies and individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the preparation of the DSEIS. Meetings may be scheduled upon the request of agencies or individuals to discuss the proposed action. Further information on the proposed action may be obtained from Ronald L. Hilliard, State Conservationist, at the above address, or telephone (304-284-7545). Dated: March 30, 2006. Ronald L. Hilliard, State Conservationist. [FR Doc. E6-5187 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). *Agency:* U.S. Census Bureau. *Title:* 2007 Census of Governments Prelist Survey of Special Districts. *Form Number(s):* G-24. *Agency Approval Number:* None. *Type of Request:* New collection. *Burden:* 750 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 1,500. *Avg Hours Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The Census Bureau requests Office of Management and Budget approval of data collection Form G-24. This form will be used to update the universe list of special district governments for the 2007 Census of Governments. The information requested on this form is identical to that requested in the prelist phase of the 2002 Census of Governments. The G-24 survey form will be imprinted with a list of known special districts within the areas of each of the 1,500 counties, consolidated city-county governments, and independent cities designated to receive the form. Respondents will use the G-24 form to update the listing by correcting the imprinted special district list and by reporting any additional districts. The mail canvass is supplemented by calls to the major nonrespondents. The expected response rate is 90 percent based on the response rate achieved during the 2002 Prelist Survey of Special Districts. Procedures, with the exception of using more advanced computer technology to generate the form imprinted with the list of known special districts, are the same as used for the 2002 Prelist Survey. This form will be used to verify the existence of special districts for the 2007 Census of Governments, to obtain current addresses and to identify new districts. The quinquennial Census of Governments enumerates five types of local governments: County governments, municipal governments, township governments, school district governments, and special district governments. Lists of county, municipal and township governments are kept up-to-date through the Boundary and Annexation Survey conducted annually by the Geography Division of the Census Bureau. However, there is no national source of information on special district governments. We, therefore, enlist the help of county clerks, and similar county officials to provide information on changes in special districts, including the creation of new districts, disincorporation of existing districts, and address changes. An updated list is necessary for the subsequent phases of the Census of Governments to ensure complete coverage and minimize the number of postmaster returns and remailings caused by inaccurate addresses. *Affected Public:* State, local or Tribal government. *Frequency:* Every 5 years. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13 U.S.C. 161. *OMB Desk Officer:* Susan Schechter,
(202)395-5103. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail ( *susan_schechter@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: April 4, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5158 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce 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:* Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA). *Title:* Online Databases: Performance, Phoenix, and Opportunity. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0640-0002. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 5,297. *Number of Respondents:* 6,732. *Average Hours Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* A primary mission of MBDA's is to increase the opportunity for minority and socially disadvantaged minorities to participate in our national economy through the formation and development of competitive minority-owned firms. To this end, MBDA awards competitive agreements for the delivery of management and technical assistance services directly to minority entrepreneurs. The purpose of the Performance, Phoenix and Opportunity Databases are to provide an electronic system for
(1)entering the accomplishments of MBDA's funded organizations (Performance),
(2)entering minority-owned businesses doing business in the United States (Phoenix), and
(3)matchmaking contract opportunities with eligible minority companies listed in the Phoenix database (Opportunity). Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, not-for-profits, and State, Local or Tribal governments. *Frequency:* On occasion, quarterly, and biennially. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7258 or via the Internet at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: April 4, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5159 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-21-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20233 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Julius Smith Jr., U.S. Census Bureau, Room 2135 FOB-4, Washington, DC 20233,
(301)763-4683 (or via the Internet at *julius.smith.jr@census.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Census Bureau plans to revise the current OMB clearance to add a quarterly version of the Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization (SPCU). The SPCU is currently conducted annually, collecting data for fourth quarter operations. The annual survey collects, from manufacturing plants and publishers, the value of actual production and the value of production that could have been achieved if operating at “full production” and “emergency production” levels. The survey also collects data on work patterns by shift. These data include hours in operation, production workers, and plant hours worked. This annual survey will not change, it will continue to collect fourth quarter data. The quarterly SPCU, form MQ-C2 will collect a subset of the annual survey for the first, second and third quarters. These data include actual and full production estimates as well as work pattern data for days of the week in operation, hours per week in operation, weeks in operation during the quarter and production workers. The primary user of these data will be the Federal Reserve Board (FRB). The FRB has already expressed an interest in these data and will use them in several ways. First, the capital workweek data will be used as an indicator of capital use in the estimation of monthly output (industrial production). Second, the workweek data will also be used to improve the projections of labor productivity that are used to align industrial production
(IP)with comprehensive benchmark information in the Economic Census covering the Manufacturing sector and Annual Survey of Manufactures. Third, the utilization rate data will assist in the assessment of recent changes in IP, as most of the high-frequency movement in utilization rates reflect production changes rather than capacity changes. II. Method of Collection The Census Bureau will use mail out/mail back survey forms to collect the data. For the quarterly survey, we will also offer an electronic version of the form that the respondents can respond to via the Internet. Companies will be asked to respond within 30 days of the initial mailing. This due date will be imprinted at the top of the form. Letters encouraging participation will be mailed to companies that have not responded by the designated time. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0607-0175. *Form Number:* MQ-C1 and MQ-C2. *Type of Review:* Regular. *Affected Public:* Manufacturing and publishing plants. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* For the MQ-C2 (quarters one through three), the number of respondents will be approximately 6,000. For the MQ-C1 (the fourth quarter), the number of respondents will remain at 17,000. *Estimated Time Per Response:* The estimated time per response is 1.5 hours for form MQ-C2 and 2.25 hours for form MQ-C1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* Total annual burden hours for form MQ-C2 is 27,000, and for form MQ-C1, it remains 38,250. The total burden is 62,250. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $1,202,558. *Respondents Obligation:* Response to the quarterly form, MQ-C2 will be voluntary and response to the annual form, MQ-C1 will remain mandatory. *Legal Authority:* These surveys are conducted under the authority of Title 13 U.S. Code, sections 182, 224 and 225. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 4, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5155 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comment to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *Dhynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to: Scott Scheleur, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 2626-FOB 3, Washington, DC 20233-6500,
(301)763-2713. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey (MARTS) provides an early indication of monthly retail sales at the United States level. MARTS also provides estimates of monthly sales of food service establishments and drinking places. The Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA)uses the data as critical inputs to the calculation of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Policymakers such as the Federal Reserve Board need to have the timeliest estimates in order to anticipate economic trends and act accordingly. The Council of Economic Advisors
(CEA)and other government agencies and businesses use the data to formulate economic policy and make decisions. These estimates have a high BEA priority because of their timeliness. There would be approximately a one-month delay in the availability of these data if the survey were not conducted. Data are collected monthly from small-size, medium-size, and large-size businesses which are selected using a stratified random sampling procedure. The MARTS sample is re-selected periodically, generally at two to three year intervals. Small-size and medium-size retailers are requested to participate for those two or three years, after which they are replaced with new panel respondents. Smaller firms have less of a chance for selection due to our sampling procedure. Firms canvassed in this survey are not required to maintain additional records and carefully prepared estimates are acceptable if book figures are not available. There is no change in response burden. II. Method of Collection We will collect this information by mail, FAX, and telephone follow-up. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0607-0104. *Form Number:* SM-44(00)A, SM-44(00)AE, SM-44(00)AS, and SM-72(00)A. *Type of Review:* Regular Submission. *Affected Public:* Retail and Food Services firms in the United States. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,500. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 4,500. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* The cost to the respondents for the fiscal year 2006 is estimated to be $111,015 based on the median hourly salary of $24.67 for accountants and auditors. (Occupational Employment Statistics-Bureau of Labor Statistics November 2004 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, $24.67 represents the median hourly wage of the full-time wage and salary earnings of accountants and auditors SOC code 13-2011). *http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes132011.htm.* *Legal Authority:* Title 13, United States Code, section 182. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. **Editorial Note:** This document was received by the Office of the Federal Register April 4, 2006. Dated: April 4, 2005. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5156 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-357-812] Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is partially rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order of honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2004 to November 30, 2005, with respect to 12 companies. This rescission, in part, is based on the timely withdrawal of the request for review by the respective interested party that requested the review. A complete list of the companies for which the administrative review is being rescinded is provided in the background section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-0408 and
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On December 1, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its notice of an opportunity to request a review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 72109 (December 1, 2005). In response, on December 30, 2005, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners) requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. The petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made by 42 Argentine producers/exporters. In addition, the Department received requests for review from four Argentine exporters included in the petitioners' request. On January 6, 2006, petitioners withdrew their request with respect to 23 companies listed in its original request. On February 1, 2006, the Department initiated a review on the remaining 19 companies for which an administrative review was requested. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006). On March 10, 2006, petitioners submitted timely withdrawal of requests for review of the following companies: Agroin Las Piedras Ltda., Algodonera Avellaneda S.A., Alimentos Naturales-Natural Foods, Apisur S.A., Baires Logistics SRL, Campos Silvestres S.A., J.L. S.A., Naiman S.A., Nutrin S.A., Pueblanueva S.A.-Miel Emilia, Radix S.r.L., and Ultramar Argentina S.A.. *See* Letter from petitioners to the Department, Honey From Argentina, (March 10, 2006), on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department building. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the order is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise under the scope of the order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Rescission in Part, of Administrative Review: The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review in whole or in part. The petitioners made a timely withdrawal of their requests for an administrative review within the 90-day deadline, for the following companies: Agroin Las Piedras Ltda., Algodonera Avellaneda S.A., Alimentos Naturales-Natural Foods, Apisur S.A., Baires Logistics SRL, Campos Silvestres S.A., J.L. S.A., Naiman S.A., Nutrin S.A., Pueblanueva S.A.-Miel Emilia, Radix S.r.L., and Ultramar Argentina S.A. Because the petitioners were the only party to request the administrative review of these companies, we have accepted the withdrawal requests and we are rescinding this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina covering the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005 for the aforementioned companies. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of the publication of this notice. The Department will direct CBP to assess antidumping duties for these companies at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry for entries during the period December 1, 2004 to November 30, 2005. Notification to Parties This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period of time. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. 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 sanctionable violation. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 351.213(d)(4) of the Department's regulations and sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: April 4, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5192 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-832 Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”), for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hua Lu or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6478 and
(202)482-0414, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 2, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the PRC for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 22631. On May 26, 2005, Tianjin Magnesium International, LTD (“TMI”) requested that the Department conduct a new shipper review and an administration review of the antidumping duty order covering pure magnesium from the PRC for entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by TMI. On June 28, 2005, the Department determined that TMI did not meet the requirements under which the Department can initiate a new shipper review. *See* Letter from Wendy Frankel to David A. Riggle (June 28, 2005). On June 30, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of pure magnesium from the PRC for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005, with respect to TMI. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 37749 (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). On July 20, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to TMI. In August and September 2005, TMI submitted its questionnaire responses. The Department issued a letter seeking comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate value on August 9, 2005, to which TMI responded on September 28, 2005. On December 7, 2005, the Department selected India as the primary surrogate country. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to TMI in November 2005, to which TMI responded in December 2005. On December 19, 2005, TMI submitted additional surrogate value data. The Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to TMI and received a response in February 2006. On January 13, 2006, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review from January 31, 2006, until April 3, 2006. *See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2188 (January 13, 2006). Period of Review The POR is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. Scope of Order Merchandise covered by this order is pure magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of this order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:
(1)Products that contain at least 99.95%% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium);
(2)Products that contain less than 99.95%% but not less than 99.8%% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and
(3)Products that contain 50%% or greater, but less than 99.8%% primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium). “Off-specification pure” magnesium is pure primary magnesium containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary magnesium content to fall below 99.8%% by weight. It generally does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5%% or more, by weight, of the following alloying elements: aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths. Excluded from the scope of this order are alloy primary magnesium (that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and powder) having a maximum physical dimension ( *i.e.* , length or diameter) of one inch or less, secondary magnesium (which has pure primary magnesium content of less than 50%% by weight), and remelted magnesium whose pure primary magnesium content is less than 50%% by weight. Pure magnesium products covered by this order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive. Surrogate Value Information On September 28, 2005, US Magnesium LLC (“Petitioner”) and TMI submitted comments on the appropriate surrogate values to be applied to the factors of production (“FOP”) in this review. On October 11, 2005, Petitioner submitted comments rebutting certain factual information concerning valuation of the FOP information submitted by TMI. On December 19, 2005, TMI submitted additional surrogate value data. No other party to the proceeding provided comments on surrogate values during the course of this review. Nonmarket-Economy-Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (“NV”) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV on the NME producer's FOP, valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOP, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOP in one or more market-economy countries that are:
(1)at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values used in this review are discussed under the “ *Normal Value* ” section below and in the memorandum to the file from Hua Lu, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, *Preliminary Results of Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review* , dated April 3, 2006 (“ *Factor Valuation Memorandum* ”). The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Robert Bolling: Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries* , dated July 15, 2005 (“ *Policy Memo* ”). Customarily, the Department selects an appropriate surrogate country from the *Policy Memo* based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, the Department found that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. *See* Memorandum from Hua Lu through Robert Bolling to Wendy Frankel, *Antidumping Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country* , dated December 7, 2005 (“ *Surrogate Country Memorandum* ”). The Department used India as the primary surrogate country, and, accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC producers' FOP, when available and appropriate. *See Surrogate Country Memorandum* and *Factor Valuation Memorandum* . The Department has obtained and relied upon publicly available information to value FOP. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of review. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. The Department has considered whether each reviewed company based in the PRC is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the exporters are independent from government control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and the output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997), and *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Honey from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 14725 (March 20, 1995). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified by *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities. *See Silicon Carbide* and * Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China * , 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995). TMI provided company-specific separate-rates information and stated that it met the standards for the assignment of separate rates. Consequently, the Department analyzed whether TMI should receive a separate rate. A. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; or
(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991). B. Absence of De Facto Control As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondent is, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)Whether the exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995). C. Analysis TMI placed on the record statements and documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control. In its questionnaire responses, TMI reported that it operated on market principles and was run independently and separately from the national, provincial, or local governments, including ministries, or offices of those governments. *See* TMI's August 10, 2005, Section A questionnaire response (“TMI AQR”) at 2. TMI submitted a copy of its business license and stated it is renewed upon expiration of the term by filing an application to renew as long as the company maintains its status, as per the initial certificate. TMI reported that the subject merchandise did not appear on any government list regarding export provisions or export licensing, and the subject merchandise is not subject to export quotas or export control licenses imposed by the PRC government. *See* TMI AQR at 5. TMI explained that the license imposed no limitations on the operations of TMI, nor created special entitlements to TMI. Furthermore, TMI stated that the Chamber of Commerce played no role in coordinating the export activities of TMI. *See* TMI AQR at 7. TMI submitted a copy of the Trade Law of the People's Republic of China to demonstrate that it had full rights to import and export. Based upon an examination of TMI's applicable laws and questionnaire responses, and TMI's business license, the Department preliminarily finds that TMI has demonstrated the absence of *de jure* government control over its export activities. In support of its assertion of an absence of *de facto* government control, TMI reported the following:
(1)During the POR, TMI sold the subject merchandise directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers and negotiated prices directly with its customers, and these prices were not subject to review by, or guidance from, any government organization;
(2)No organization outside of TMI reviewed, or approved, any aspect of its sales transactions;
(3)TMI's owners selected the management, and no government authorities controlled the selection process, or had power to veto selections; and
(4)TMI's profits may be retained in the company for further business purposes, or distributed to the shareholders. *See* TMI AQR at 9. Additionally, TMI explained that the owners of TMI decided how profits were used. Furthermore, TMI stated that it is not required to sell foreign currency earned (or some portion of it) to the government and that it may freely control and use the foreign currency it earned on sales of the subject merchandise to the United States by further investing the profit in the business, or distributing it to the owners. *See* TMI AQR at 10. The Department preliminarily finds that TMI has demonstrated the absence of *de facto* government control over its export activities. The evidence placed on the record of this administrative review by TMI demonstrates the absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to TMI's exports of the merchandise under review. As a result, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the Department is granting a separate, company-specific rate to TMI, the exporter which shipped the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Date of Sale 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that “in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.” 19 CFR 351.401(i); *see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001). After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation that TMI placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that the invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for TMI. We made this determination based on record evidence which demonstrates that TMI's invoices establish the material terms of sale. Thus, the record evidence does not rebut the presumption that the invoice date is the proper date of sale. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 79054 (December 27, 2002). Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of pure magnesium to the United States by TMI were made at less than NV, we compared Export Price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “ *Export Price* ” and “ *Normal Value* ” sections of this notice. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for TMI's U.S. sales because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and because CEP was not otherwise indicated. We compared NV to individual EP transactions, in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. We calculated EP for TMI based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the U.S. sales price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, and where applicable, ocean freight and marine insurance. No other adjustments to EP were reported or claimed. *See* memorandum from Hua Lu, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, to the file, *Preliminary Results of Review of the Order on Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Review* , dated April 3, 2006. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if:
(1)the merchandise is exported from a non-market economy country; and
(2)the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department will base NV on FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. FOP includes:
(1)hours of labor required;
(2)quantities of raw materials employed;
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(4)representative capital costs. The Department used the FOP reported by respondent for materials, energy, labor, by-product, and packing. With regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate values and the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices that the Department has reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. The Department has reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. The Department has found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies; therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. *See China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), *aff'd* , 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004); *Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review* , 61 FR 66255 (December 17, 1996), at Comment 1; and *Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 69 FR 61790 (October 21, 2004). The Department is also guided by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. *See* H.R. Rep. 100-576
(1988)at 590. Rather, Congress instructed the Department to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it is making its determination. Therefore, the Department has not used prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department calculated NV based on FOP reported by respondent for the POR. To calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities were multiplied by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). In selecting the surrogate values, the Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, the Department added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where appropriate ( *i.e.* , where the sales terms for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the factory). This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the Federal Circuit in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for TMI, *see Factor Valuation Memorandum* . The Department valued the following raw material inputs: ferrosilicon, dolomite, flux, fluorite and sulfur using the weighted-average unit import values derived from the World Trade Atlas® online (“Indian Import Statistics”), which are published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (“DGCI&S”), Ministry of Commerce of India, are reported in rupees, and are contemporaneous with the POR. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* . Where the Department could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value FOP, the Department adjusted the surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund. To value electricity, the Department used values from the International Energy Agency Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition). Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the rate for inflation. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* . The Department valued steam coal using the 2003/2004 Tata Energy Research Institute's Energy Data Directory & Yearbook (“TERI Data”). The Department was able to determine, through its examination of the 2003/2004 TERI Data, that: a) the annual TERI Data publication is complete and comprehensive because it covers all sales of all types of coal made by Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, and b) the annual TERI Data publication prices are exclusive of duties and taxes. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the rate for inflation. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* at page 5. The Department used Indian transport information in order to value the inland freight cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to be from www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. The Department obtained a generally publicly available price quote on the first day of each month of the POR from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* at page 6. The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses. The Department averaged December 2003-November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, public version response submitted in the antidumping administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India with February 2004-January 2005 data contained in Agro Dutch's May 24, 2005, public version response submitted in the antidumping investigation of certain preserved mushrooms from India. The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions is ranged data. The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from the source. Then, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* at page 7. To value marine insurance, the Department obtained a generally publicly available price quote from http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html, a market-economy provider of marine insurance. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* at page 7. To value international freight, the Department obtained a generally publicly available price quote from http://www.maersksealand.com/HomePage/appmanager/, a market-economy provider of international freight services. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* at page 7. For direct labor, indirect labor, selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) labor, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), the Department used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on the Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html* . The source of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, ILO, (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates range from 1996 to 2003. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, the Department has applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by each respondent. To value factory overhead, depreciation, SG&A and profit, the Department used the 2004 audited financial statements for an Indian producer of aluminum, Hindalco Industries Limited (“Hindalco”). *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* at page 6 for a full discussion of the calculation of these ratios from Hindalco's financial statements. TMI reported that it recovered cement clinker from the production of pure magnesium for resale. The Department offset TMI's NV by the amount of cement clinker that TMI sold. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* at page 6 for a complete discussion of this issue. Finally, the Department used Indian Import Statistics to value material inputs for packing which, for TMI, are steel bands and plastic bags. The Department used Indian Import Statistics data for the POR for packing materials. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* at page 6. Currency Conversion The Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank on the dates of the U.S. sales. Weighted-Average Dumping Margins The weighted-average dumping margin for TMI is as follows: Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin (percentage) TMI 89.05 Disclosure The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department requests that parties submitting written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP upon completion of this review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the Department will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the entered customs value for the subject merchandise on each importer's/customer's entries during the POR. Additionally, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties for rescinded companies at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(I). Cash-Deposit Requirements 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, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed in the final results of review (except where the rate for a particular company is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);
(2)for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 108.26 percent, the current PRC-wide rate; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b). Dated: April 3, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5191 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-122-838 Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Ivis Partners Ltd. (IVIS), the Department of Commerce is initiating a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or David Layton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0631or
(202)482-0371, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On May 22, 2002, the Department of Commerce (Department) issued the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 67 FR 36067 (May 22, 2002). On February 16, 2006, IVIS requested that the Department initiate a changed circumstances review, in accordance with section 351.216 of the Department's regulations, to confirm that IVIS is the successor-in-interest to Ivis Wood. In its request, IVIS stated that it purchased Ivis Wood, including equipment and inventory, and provided supporting documentation. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are softwood lumber, flooring and siding (softwood lumber products). Softwood lumber products include all products classified under subheadings 4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and 4409.1020, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and any softwood lumber, flooring and siding described below. These softwood lumber products include:
(1)Coniferous wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed, of a thickness exceeding six millimeters;
(2)Coniferous wood siding (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed;
(3)Other coniferous wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces (other than wood mouldings and wood dowel rods) whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed; and
(4)Coniferous wood flooring (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, v-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or finger-jointed. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. As specifically stated in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 67 FR 15539 (April 2, 2002) (see comment 53, item D and comment 57, item B-7) available at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, drilled and notched lumber and angle cut lumber are covered by the scope of this order. The following softwood lumber products are excluded from the scope of this order provided they meet the specified requirements detailed below:
(1)*Stringers* (pallet components used for runners): if they have at least two notches on the side, positioned at equal distance from the center, to properly accommodate forklift blades, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40.
(2)*Box-spring frame kits* : if they contain the following wooden pieces - two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying numbers of slats. The side rails and the end rails should be radius-cut at both ends. The kits should be individually packaged, they should contain the exact number of wooden components needed to make a particular box spring frame, with no further processing required. None of the components exceeds 1” in actual thickness or 83” in length.
(3)*Radius-cut box-spring-frame components* , not exceeding 1” in actual thickness or 83” in length, ready for assembly without further processing. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the boards and must be substantial cuts so as to completely round one corner.
(4)*Fence pickets* requiring no further processing and properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.70, 1” or less in actual thickness, up to 8” wide, 6' or less in length, and have finials or decorative cuttings that clearly identify them as fence pickets. In the case of dog-eared fence pickets, the corners of the boards should be cut off so as to remove pieces of wood in the shape of isosceles right angle triangles with sides measuring 3/4 inch or more.
(5)*U.S. origin lumber* shipped to Canada for minor processing and imported into the United States, is excluded from the scope of this order if the following conditions are met: 1) the processing occurring in Canada is limited to kiln-drying, planing to create smooth-to-size board, and sanding, and 2) if the importer establishes to the satisfaction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)that the lumber is of U.S. origin.
(6)*Softwood lumber products contained in single family home packages or kits* 1 , regardless of tariff classification, are excluded from the scope of this order if the importer certifies to items 6 A, B, C, D, and requirement 6 E is met: 1 To ensure administrability, we clarified the language of exclusion number 6 to require an importer certification and to permit single or multiple entries on multiple days as well as instructing importers to retain and make available for inspection specific documentation in support of each entry. A. The imported home package or kit constitutes a full package of the number of wooden pieces specified in the plan, design or blueprint necessary to produce a home of at least 700 square feet produced to a specified plan, design or blueprint; B. The package or kit must contain all necessary internal and external doors and windows, nails, screws, glue, sub floor, sheathing, beams, posts, connectors, and if included in the purchase contract, decking, trim, drywall and roof shingles specified in the plan, design or blueprint; C. Prior to importation, the package or kit must be sold to a retailer of complete home packages or kits pursuant to a valid purchase contract referencing the particular home design plan or blueprint, and signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer; D. Softwood lumber products entered as part of a single family home package or kit, whether in a single entry or multiple entries on multiple days, will be used solely for the construction of the single family home specified by the home design matching the entry. E. For each entry, the following documentation must be retained by the importer and made available to CBP upon request: i. A copy of the appropriate home design, plan, or blueprint matching the entry; ii. A purchase contract from a retailer of home kits or packages signed by a customer not affiliated with the importer; iii. A listing of inventory of all parts of the package or kit being entered that conforms to the home design package being entered; iv. In the case of multiple shipments on the same contract, all items listed in E(iii) which are included in the present shipment shall be identified as well. Lumber products that CBP may classify as stringers, radius cut box-spring-frame components, and fence pickets, not conforming to the above requirements, as well as truss components, pallet components, and door and window frame parts, are covered under the scope of this order and may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 4418.90.45.90, 4421.90.70.40, and 4421.90.97.40. Finally, as clarified throughout the course of the investigation, the following products, previously identified as Group A, remain outside the scope of this order. They are: 1. Trusses and truss kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4418.90; 2. I-joist beams; 3. Assembled box spring frames; 4. Pallets and pallet kits, properly classified under HTSUS 4415.20; 5. Garage doors; 6. Edge-glued wood, properly classified under HTSUS 4421.90.98.40; 7. Properly classified complete door frames; 8. Properly classified complete window frames; 9. Properly classified furniture. In addition, this scope language was further clarified to specify that all softwood lumber products entered from Canada claiming non-subject status based on U.S. country of origin will be treated as non-subject U.S.-origin merchandise under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, provided that these softwood lumber products meet the following condition: upon entry, the importer, exporter, Canadian processor and/or original U.S. producer establish to CBP's satisfaction that the softwood lumber entered and documented as U.S.-origin softwood lumber was first produced in the United States as a lumber product satisfying the physical parameters of the softwood lumber scope. 2 The presumption of non-subject status can, however, be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the merchandise was substantially transformed in Canada. 2 *See* the scope clarification message (# 3034202), dated February 3, 2003, to CBP, regarding treatment of U.S. origin lumber on file in Room B-099 of the Central Records Unit
(CRU)of the Main Commerce Building. On March 3, 2006 the Department issued a scope ruling that any product entering under HTSUS 4409.10.05 which is continually shaped along its end and/or side edges which otherwise conforms to the written definition of the scope is within the scope of the order. 3 3 *See* memorandum from Constance Handley, Program Manager to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary regarding: Scope Request by the Petitioner Regarding Entries Made Under HTSUS 4409.10.05, dated March 3, 2006. Initiation Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. As indicated in the *Background* section, we have received information indicating that Ivis Wood has been sold to IVIS. This constitutes changed circumstances warranting a review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a changed circumstances review based upon the information contained in IVIS' request. In making successor-in-interest determinations, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in:
(1)Management;
(2)production facilities;
(3)supplier relationships; and
(4)customer base. *See, e.g., Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002) citing, *Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992). While no single factor, or combination of factors, will necessarily prove dispositive, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to its predecessor company if the resulting operations are essentially the same as the predecessor company. *Id* . citing, *Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as its predecessor, the Department will assign the new company the cash-deposit rate of its predecessor. In its February 3, 2006, submission (received by the Department on February 16, 2006), Ivis states that it was incorporated in British Columbia on September 5, 2005, and that on September 30, 2005, it purchased Ivis Wood, including its equipment and inventory. According to IVIS, in light of the purchase, it is clear that IVIS is the successor-in-interest to Ivis Wood. To support its claims, IVIS submitted:
(1)Copies of Certificate of Incorporation;
(2)the Purchase and Sale Agreement between IVIS and Ivis Wood and;
(3)a list of both companies' U.S. customers. IVIS has requested that the Department initiate an expedited review pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR § 351.221(c)(3)(iii). However, because it is the Department's practice to examine changes in management, supplier relationships, and customers in the home market (as well as the U.S. market), as part of its analysis in such a determination, and IVIS has not addressed these factors, it is necessary to request further information from IVIS prior to issuing preliminary results. Therefore, we are unable to conduct the changed circumstances review on an expedited basis. After the initiation of the review, the Department will issue a questionnaire requesting additional factual information for the review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(2). The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances review which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based, and a description of any action proposed based on those results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of the review. The Department will issue its final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), and will publish these results in the **Federal Register** . The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review. This notice is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221 of the Department's regulations. Dated: April 3, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5201 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-580-834) Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc., and the United Steelworkers (collectively “the petitioners”), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review covers five producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. This is the sixth period of review (POR), covering July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that the sole company participating in this review, DaiYang Metal Co., Ltd. (DMC), has made sales below normal value (NV). In addition, we preliminarily determine that adverse facts available
(AFA)should be applied to the remaining four companies (Boorim Corporation (Boorim), Dae Kyung Corporation (Dae Kyung), Dine Trading Co., Ltd. (Dine), and Dosko Co., Ltd. (Dosko)) for the POR because they declined to participate in this administrative review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to the following companies because these companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR: BNG Steel Co. (BNG), Hyundai Corporation (Hyundai), NIC International Co., Ltd. (NIC), Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO), Samkyung Corporation (Samkyung), Sammi Corporation (Sammi), Samwon Precision Metals Co., Ltd. (Samwon), and Sun Woo Tech Company (Sun Woo). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument:
(1)a statement of the issue; and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Brianne Riker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone
(202)482-0656 or
(202)482-0629, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 1, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity To Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Korea (70 FR 38099). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on July 29, 2005, the Department received a request from the petitioners to conduct an administrative review for the following 13 producers/exporters of SSSSC: BNG, Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, DMC, Dosko, Hyundai, NIC, POSCO, Samkyung, Sammi, Samwon, and Sun Woo. In August 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review and issued questionnaires to each of these companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51009 (Aug. 29, 2005). In August, September, and October 2005, the following companies informed the Department that they had no shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR: BNG, Hyundai, NIC, POSCO, Samkyoung, Sammi, Samwon, and Sun Woo. We reviewed CBP data and confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of these companies. *See* “Partial Rescission of Review,” below, for further discussion. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review for BNG, Hyundai, NIC, POSCO, Samkyoung, Sammi, Samwon, and Sun Woo. However, we note that Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dokso did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. For further discussion, see the “Application of Facts Available” section, below. In October 2005, we received a response to sections A through C of the questionnaire ( *i.e.* , the sections regarding sales to the home market and the United States) and section D of the questionnaire ( *i.e.* , the section regarding cost of production
(COP)and constructed value (CV)) from DMC. In December 2005 and January 2006, we issued supplemental questionnaires to DMC. We received responses to these questionnaires in February 2006. In March 2006, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to DMC; we received DMC's response to this questionnaire on March 15, 2006. Scope of the Order The products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 millimeters in width and less than 4.75 millimeters in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81, 1 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. 1 Due to changes to the HTSUS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: 1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled; 2) sheet and strip that is cut to length; 3) plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more); 4) flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 millimeters); and 5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold- reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 millimeters and a thickness of 0.266 millimeters or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this order. These excluded products are described below. Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product that is used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 millimeters, and with a mass of 225 kilograms or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of two millimeter depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of two millimeters maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 millimeters over 685 millimeters length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than one percent, manganese of no more than one percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and seven to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 millimeters or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 millimeters. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2 2 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1,390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of four kilograms per square millimeter at 1,000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3 3 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and seven to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1,700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1,750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 millimeters. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 millimeters, and in widths of 25.4 millimeters. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4 4 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 6 5 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 6 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5,” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Period of Review The POR is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above, BNG, Hyundai, NIC, POSCO, Samkyoung, Sammi, Samwon, and Sun Woo informed the Department that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with CBP. *See* the November 9, 2005, memorandum to the file from Brianne Riker, entitled “Placing U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data on the Record of the 2004 - 2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea.” Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to these companies. *See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005); *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part* , 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004); and *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part* , 68 FR 53127, 53128 (Sept. 9, 2003). Application of Facts Available Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: 1) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. As discussed in the “Background” section, above, on August 19, 2005, the Department requested that Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. The deadline to file a response was September 27, 2005. The Department did not receive a response from Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, or Dosko. On November 4, 2005, the Department placed a memorandum on the record with information regarding delivery confirmation of the questionnaires to each company. *See* the November 4, 2005, memorandum to the file from Brianne Riker entitled, “Placing Information on the Record of the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea.” Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, because these companies did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available is appropriate. Adverse Facts Available According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870
(1994)(SAA). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997), and *Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon* ). We preliminarily find that Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. *See Nippon* , 337 F.3d at 1382-83. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as AFA, information derived from: 1) The petition; 2) the final determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). Additionally, the Department's practice has been to assign the highest margin determined for any party in the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation or in any administrative review of a specific order to respondents who have failed to cooperate with the Department. *See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 54897, 54898 (Sept. 19, 2005). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 58.79 percent, which was the rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV investigation. This rate was assigned in a previous segment of this proceeding and is the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of this proceeding. *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from the Republic of Korea; and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 66 FR 45279 (Aug. 28, 2001) ( *Amended LTFV Final Determination* ). The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule ( *i.e.* , we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Department's regulations provide that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870. To the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department can derive dumping margins. The only source for dumping margins is administrative determinations. In the LTFV investigation in this proceeding, the Department found that the petition rate was reliable. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from South Korea* , 64 FR 137, 146 (Jan. 4, 1999), upheld in the *Amended LTFV Final Determination* . With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as AFA because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). Therefore, we examined whether any information on the record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available. To do so, we conducted research in an attempt to find data that might help inform the Department's corroboration analysis. We did not find any information that would discredit the selected AFA rate. *See* the April 3, 2006, memorandum to the file from Brianne Riker entitled, “Research for Corroboration for the Preliminary Results in the 2004 - 2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea.” We did observe, however, that the AFA margin selected fell within the range of transaction-specific margins calculated for DMC. Since we did not find evidence indicating that the margin used as facts available in this proceeding is not appropriate, we have determined that the 58.79 percent margin calculated in the LTFV investigation is appropriate as AFA and are assigning this rate to Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko. This is consistent with section 776(b) of the Act which states that adverse inferences may include reliance on information derived from the petition. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether DMC's sales of subject merchandise from Korea to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the constructed export price
(CEP)to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual CEP transactions. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to compare products produced by the same company and sold in the U.S. and home markets that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: grade, hot- or cold-rolled, gauge, surface finish, metallic coating, non-metallic coating, width, temper, and edge. Where there were no home market sales of foreign like product that were identical in these respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of priority. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. DMC reported that it made all sales of subject merchandise to the United States through its wholly owned subsidiary in the United States, Ocean Metal Corporation (OMC). Consequently, it classified all of its U.S. sales as CEP sales. We based our calculations on CEP, in accordance with sections 772(b)-(d) of the Act. We calculated CEP based on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from the port to the warehouse, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, and U.S. brokerage and handling. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit, commissions, banking expenses, and domestic banking fees) and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses. In addition, we increased CEP by an amount equal to the countervailing duty
(CVD)rate attributed to export subsidies in the most recently completed segment of the CVD proceeding in which DMC participated (i.e., the investigation), in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by DMC and its U.S. affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the profit associated with those sales. We recalculated indirect selling expenses incurred in Korea for U.S. sales by deducting certain expenses which DMC incurred only for home market sales. We allocated the remaining expenses over total worldwide sales because we find that DMC incurred these expenses to support its general selling activities without regard to a particular market. For further details regarding these adjustments, see the April 3, 2006, memorandum to the file from Brianne Riker entitled, “Calculations Performed for DaiYang Metal Co., Ltd. for the Preliminary Results in the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea” (“DMC Prelim Calc Memo”). Normal Value A. Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the volume of DMC's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that DMC had a viable home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales. B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test DMC made sales of SSSSC to affiliated parties in the home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested these sales to ensure that they were made at “arm's-length” prices, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all discounts, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade (LOT), we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186, 69187 (Nov. 15, 2002). C. Cost of Production Analysis Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that DMC had made home market sales at prices below its COP in this review because the Department had disregarded sales that failed the cost test for DMC in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which DMC participated ( *i.e.* , the 2000-2001 administrative review). *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 6713, 6715 (Feb. 10, 2003). As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether DMC had made home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of DMC's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses. *See* the “Test of Home Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by DMC in its questionnaire response, except for the following instances where the information was not appropriately quantified or valued: 1. We disallowed the gain on equity method and miscellaneous gain as offsets to the G&A expense rate calculation. 2. We made an adjustment to the reported G&A expense rate to exclude packing expenses and include scrap by-product revenue offsets in the denominator of this calculation. 3. We made an adjustment to the reported interest expense rate calculation to: 1) disallow the interest income deduction; and 2) exclude packing expenses and include scrap by-product revenue offsets in the denominator of this calculation. For further details regarding these adjustments, see the April 3, 2006, memorandum from Michael Harrison, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director of Accounting, entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - DaiYang Metal Co. Ltd.” We have requested additional information from DMC related to the offsets claimed for its G&A and interest calculations. We intend to consider this information for purposes of our final results. In addition, we note that in a submission dated March 20, 2006, the petitioners requested that the Department collect certain data on DMC's purchases from its suppliers of hot-rolled coil in order to examine DMC's relationships with its suppliers. However, the petitioners provided no evidence in this submission that suggests that DMC has reported its data inappropriately. As a result, we have not pursued this matter further. 2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable discounts, movement charges, selling expenses, and packing expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: 1) in substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and 2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. *See* sections 773(b)(2)(B)-(D) of the Act. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that sales of that model were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded these below-cost sales for DMC and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. D. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the export price
(EP)or CEP. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1), the NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and administrative expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the LOT of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the LOT of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (Nov. 19, 1997). In implementing these principles in this administrative review, we obtained information from DMC regarding the marketing stages for its reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by DMC for each channel of distribution. In identifying LOTs for CEP, we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports LOTs that are different for different categories of sales, the functions and activities should be dissimilar. In both the U.S. and home markets, DMC reported one LOT. DMC stated that it sold through two channels of distribution in the home market: 1) directly to affiliated and unaffiliated manufacturers; and 2) directly to unaffiliated distributors/end users. In the U.S. market, DMC made sales through its U.S. affiliate/subsidiary, OMC, which re-sold the merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. DMC stated that its home market sales are not made at the same LOT as its U.S. sales. For home market sales, DMC reported the following selling activities: sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, personnel training/exchange, engineering service, sales promotion, procurement/sourcing service, inventory maintenance, order input/processing, providing direct sales personnel, sales/marketing support, and market research. Because DMC's selling activities did not vary by channels of distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market. Regarding its sales to OMC, DMC reported that it performed the following selling activities: sales forecasting, strategic/economic forecasting, engineering service, order input/processing, providing direct sales personnel, and providing freight and delivery services. Further, we find that, based on DMC's narrative descriptions of its selling practices and functions, DMC performed personnel training/exchange, procurement and sourcing services, and inventory maintenance for its sales to OMC. 7 Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. 7 DMC states that procurement and sourcing services include purchasing materials, labor, and other cost items for production. We find that because these services relate to the production of all of DMC's merchandise, this function is performed for sales that DMC makes to OMC. Further, DMC states that personnel training and exchanges include providing internal and external training opportunities for employees to enhance their sales skills. Therefore, we also find that this selling activity is performed for DMC's sales to OMC because DMC's sales personnel make export sales as well as domestic sales. Finally, regarding inventory maintenance, DMC stated in the narrative portion of the October 27, 2005, Section A response and the March 15, 2006, supplemental response that when OMC places an order with DMC, DMC personnel check the inventory to determine whether the product is in stock. Therefore, we find that DMC performs inventory maintenance for sales to OMC. These selling activities can be generally grouped into four core selling function categories for analysis: 1) Sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and 4) warranty and technical support. Based on these core selling functions, we find that DMC performed sales and marketing and inventory maintenance and warehousing services in both markets, including sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, personnel training/exchange, procurement and sourcing services, engineering services, order input/processing, provision of direct sales personnel, and inventory maintenance. Additionally, for its sales to OMC, we find that DMC performed freight and delivery services. Finally, we find that warranty and technical support services are not performed in either market. DMC also provided information to indicate whether each reported selling activity was performed to a low, medium, or high degree. DMC indicated that the selling activities that were performed in the home market only ( *i.e.* , sales promotion, sales/marketing support, and market research) were all performed to a low degree. Furthermore, DMC indicated that the only activity performed for sales to OMC and not for domestic sales, freight and delivery services (including inland freight and domestic brokerage and handling), was performed to a high degree. We evaluated the core selling function categories in the U.S. and home market LOTs and found them to be similar with respect to sales and marketing, inventory maintenance, and warranty and technical support. Although freight services were provided for U.S. sales to OMC and not home market sales, we did not find this to be a material selling function distinction significant enough to warrant a separate LOT. Therefore, after analyzing the selling functions performed in each market, we find that the distinctions in selling functions are not material and thus, that the home market and U.S. LOTs are the same. Accordingly, we determine that no LOT adjustment is warranted or possible for DMC. Regarding the CEP-offset provision, as described above, it is appropriate only if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability. Because we find that no difference in LOTs exists, we do not find that a CEP offset is warranted for DMC. E. Calculation of Normal Value Regarding home market date of sale, DMC reported the tax invoice date. Because this date occurred after the date of shipment in certain cases, we followed our normal practice of using the earlier of the sale invoice date or date of shipment as the date of sale for all home market sales. * See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States * , 127 F.Supp.2d 207 (CIT 2000); *Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 132 F.Supp.2d 1087 (CIT 2001); *see also Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 621, 622 (Jan. 6, 2004), unchanged in *Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004); *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan* , 64 FR 30574, 30587 (June 8, 1999); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium* , 64 FR 15476, 15481-82 (Mar. 31, 1999). For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated customers and those affiliated customers which passed the arm's-length test. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. *See* 19 CFR 351.411(b). Furthermore, we made deductions from the reported gross unit price for discounts, where applicable. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act, we also made deductions from the starting price for home market credit expenses, where applicable. We disallowed credit expenses for certain home market customers for which DMC reported a credit period well in excess of a year, especially in light of the fact that DMC reported early payment discounts for certain of these customers. We have solicited additional information regarding these credit periods and will consider it for the final results. For further details, see the “DMC Prelim Calc Memo.” In accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), where applicable, we offset any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the amount of home market indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of the U.S. commission. We recalculated home market indirect selling expenses by: 1) assigning to the home market certain expenses which DMC had incorrectly allocated to all markets; and 2) allocating the remaining expenses over total worldwide sales, because we find that DMC incurred these expenses to support its general selling activities without regard to a particular market. For further details regarding these adjustments, see the “DMC Prelim Calc Memo.” In addition, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005: Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin Percentage Boorim Corporation 58.79 Dae Kyung Corporation 58.79 DaiYang Metal Co., Ltd. 2.95 Dine Trading Co., Ltd 58.79 Dosko Co., Ltd. 58.79 Public Comment The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer or customer of the subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer- or customer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), *see* 19 CFR 351.106(c), the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, as well as any companies for which we are rescinding the review based on claims of no shipments. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of SSSSC from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent); 2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original LTFV investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 2.49 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 3, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5202 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Consortium for Astro-Particle Research in Utah et al., Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, Franklin Court Building, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as each is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States. Docket Number: 05-057. Applicant: Consortium for Astro-particle Research in Utah/University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Instrument: Fluorescent Telescope Array; with Ground Scintillator, Laser Atmosphere Monitor and LAN Network. Manufacturer: Various; Japan, UK. Intended use: See Notice at 71 FR 4895, January 30, 2006. Reasons: These instrument systems when deployed in Utah are capable of conducting a joint US-Japan led scientific project to measure the energy, pointing direction and chemical composition of ultra high energy cosmic rays using both the fluorescence technique, which uses large telescopes to observe fluorescent tracks from cosmic ray showers in the atmosphere and the secondary shower charged particle technique, which uses ground-based light sensing photo-tubes and counters to measure the number and timing of particle arrivals. Results obtained by these techniques can be cross correlated, compared and evaluated for developing more precise measurements and to provide information about likely celestial sources of the cosmic rays observed. Docket Number: 05-059. Applicant: College of Staten Island, Staten Island, NY. Instrument: Plasma System. Manufacturer: Diener Electronic GmBh & Co., KG, Germany. Intended Use: See Notice at 71 FR 10649, March 2, 2006. Reasons: The foreign article is a compatible, (sole source) accessory for existing instrumentation for materials research. It consists of a plasma type microwave generator with a glass chamber for conducting semiconductor processing procedures. It can be used to develop and study: 1. Nanotechnolgy with focused ion beams, including electronic properties of carbon nanowires direct written with nano-scaled ion beams on carbonaceous substrates 2. Micro- and nano-scale light emitting diodes on diamond, with the aim to develop single molecule and single photon electrically driven light sources operating at room temperature 3. High-pressure, high-temperature diamond anvil cells with internally heated anvils for hydrothermal and shear stress experiments. The instrument will also be used in courses on materials science. These instruments are pertinent to each applicant's needs and we know of no other instrument or apparatus being manufactured in the United States which is of equivalent scientific value to either of the foreign instruments. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E6-5193 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, et al., Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, Franklin Court Building, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC. Docket Number: 06-002. Applicant: University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2010. Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 71 FR 10650, March 2, 2006. Order Date: 2/11/05. Docket Number: 06-003. Applicant: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2100F. Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 71 FR 10650, March 2, 2006. Order Date: 12/13/05. Docket Number: 06-004. Applicant: University of North Texas . Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai G2 F20 S-TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 71 FR 10650, March 2, 2006. Order Date: 8/4/04. Docket Number: O6-005. Applicant: University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2100F. Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 71 FR 10650, March 2, 2005. Order Date: 4/13/05. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States either at the time of order of each instrument OR at the time of receipt of application by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E6-5194 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and
(4)of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC. Docket Number: 06-007. Applicant: University of Connecticut, 91 N. Eagleville Road, BSP Bldg., Unit 3242, Storrs, CT 06269. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai G2 Spirit BioTWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used in a multi-user facility providing training and service to faculty, staff and students. A wide variety of cells and tissues will be examined. The ultrastructural arrangement of cells, organelles and macromolecular assemblies and the fine structure of domains within polymers will be investigated. Research projects ranging from evolutionary biology to materials science will use the instrument. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 20, 2006. Docket Number: 06-008. Applicant: California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Boulevard, Mail Code 103-6, Pasadena, CA 91125. Instrument: Neutron Guide. Manufacturer: SwissNeutronics, Switzerland. Intended Use: The instrument is a compatible key accessory for the high-resolution, direct-geometry, time-of-flight chopper spectrometer
(ARCS)at the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge N.L. It will be used to investigate the energy spectra obtained when neutrons incident on a sample are scattered by the motions of atoms or of electron spins in the sample. Studies will include the thermodynamics of atom vibrations or spin motions, or of their characteristic energies and momenta, cooperative motions of electrons in solids relevant to electrical transport, magnetic properties and superconductivity. The neutron guide is especially useful for studies that require low or medium-energy neutron beams that are incident on the sample. Application accepted by the Commissioner of Customs: February 27, 2006. Docket Number: 06-009. Applicant: The New York Structural Biology Laboratory, 89 Convent Avenue at 133rd St, New York, NY 10027. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM 2100F. Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used by ten educational and research institutions in New York to investigate, among other things, biological assemblies ranging from isolated protein molecules, complexes of protein molecules potentially bound to nucleic acids or membranes, crystalline arrays composed of these protein complexes, cells, viruses, or intact tissues to pursue a wide variety of biological problems. In addition to standard methods of electron microscopy, work will be done using the procedure of electron tomography which is like a CAT scan at molecular proportions, involving the imaging of a given cellular assembly which is systematically tilted to different angles. It will alsobe used in student courses. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 6, 2006. Docket Number: 06-010. Applicant: Emory University Hospital, 1364 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30322. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Mogagni 268. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for examination of normal, abnormal and pathological changes in human cells and tissue samples. Experiments will be conducted based on ultrastructural examination of human kidney biopsies for documentation of pathologic change, if any, for diagnostic evaluation. Ultrathin sections of epoxy embedded specimens under high magnification will be preserved for pathological review. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 1, 2000. Docket Number: 06-011. Applicant: President and Fellows of Harvard College, 9 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2100. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study and characterize nanoscale structures and chemical compositions of novel materials such as semi-conducting materials, nano metallic catalysts and polymers, etc. Some examples include chemical composition by energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy, identification of phases and crystal structures by electron diffraction, interfacial arrangements of atomic structures between polymer materials by stain-inducted contrast imaging and lattice-fringe imaging of metallic thin films and alloys. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 20, 2006. Docket Number: 06-013. Applicant: Ames Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy REF: A5-2764, 211, TASF, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-3020. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai G2 F20 X-TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to provide both the imaging and spectrographic analysis necessary to evaluate materials ranging from rapidly solidified metals, nanoscale magnetic alloys, directionally solidified metal alloys, mesoporous catalysis and novel polymer compounds. With reduced length scale of materials, interaction with their environment changes. The instrument will allow probing the chemistry and atomic arrangements (nanostructure) down to the level of the atoms and to assess the success of processing procedures. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 23, 2006. Docket Number: 06-014. Applicant: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, 77 Ave. Louis Pasteur, Boston, MA 02115. Instrument: Confocal Microscope. Manufacturer: Evotec, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to assign phenotopic signatures (phenoprints) to every Drosophilia gene using genome-wide RNAi screens. These can be used to cluster genes that are functionally related and important in functional genomics. The instrument combines the high resolution of confocal laser scanning microscopy with ultra high throughput (>200,00 images per day) and an integrated fast autofocus system provides maximal resolution and lowest background. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 24, 2006. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E6-5195 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 060404095-6095-01] Northern Gulf of Mexico Cooperative Institute AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of funds. SUMMARY: The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
(OAR)invites applications to establish a Northern Gulf of Mexico
(NGOM)Cooperative Institute (CI). The creation of this CI is the cornerstone of NOAA's commitment to the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, and NOAA's response the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (Executive Office of the President, December, 2004). This institute will facilitate a long-term collaborative environment between NOAA and the recipients within which broad-based research, development, education and outreach capabilities focusing on the priorities in the northern Gulf of Mexico
(NGOM)region can be developed and sustained. The CI will be regional in scope and should consist of a group of research institutions in the NGOM region (which is defined by the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas). Most of the workforce is expected to be located in Stennis Space Center, MS. DATES: Proposals must be received by the OAR no later than 5 p.m., E.T., May 25, 2006. Proposals submitted after that date will not be considered. ADDRESSES: Applicants are strongly encouraged to apply online through the Grants.gov Web site ( *http://www.grants.gov* ) but paper submissions are acceptable. If a hard copy application is submitted, the original and two unbound copies of the proposal should be included. Applicants are not required to submit more than three hard copies of the proposal if the recommended electronic grants submission via grants.gov is not made. Paper submissions should be sent to: NOAA, OAR, 1315 East West Highway, Room 11554, Silver Spring, Md. 20910 Attn: Dr. John Cortinas. No e-mail or facsimile proposal submissions will be accepted. The complete Federal funding opportunity announcement associated with this notice can be found at the Grants.gov Web site, *http://www.grants.gov* , and the NOAA Web site at *http://www.nrc.noaa.gov/ci* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the federal funding opportunity announcement and/or application kit, access it at Grants.gov, via NOAA's Web site, or by contacting Dr. John Cortinas, 1315 East West Highway, Room 11554, Silver Spring, Md. 20910 telephone 301-713-9397 x 206. Facsimile:
(301)713-0158; e-mail: *John.Cortinas@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* A CI is a NOAA-supported, non-federal organization that has established an outstanding research program in one or more areas that are relevant to the NOAA mission. CIs are established at research institutions that also have a strong education program with established graduate degree programs in NOAA-related sciences. The CI provides significant coordination of resources among all non-government partners and promotes the involvement of students and postdoctoral scientists in NOAA-funded research. The CI provides mutual benefits with value provided by all parties. NOAA has identified the need for a new CI to focus upon a region of particular significance to the federal government and NOAA, the NGOM. The creation of this CI is the cornerstone of NOAA's commitment to the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, and NOAA's response to the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (Executive Office of the President, December, 2004), which recommends a “Regional Partnership in the Gulf of Mexico.” The objective of the Gulf of Mexico Alliance is to establish an integrated management approach for the Gulf of Mexico led by surrounding states ( *http://www.gulfofmexicoalliance.org* ). There is a particular emphasis on public health, specifically on water quality for shellfish beds and beaches in the Gulf of Mexico and the use of a regional ocean observing system to provide a real-time alert system for beach and shellfish bed closings. The NGOM CI is expected to contribute to the priority areas initially identified by the Alliance: • Improving and protecting water quality. • Restoring and conserving coastal wetlands and estuarine ecosystems. • Reducing pollution and nutrient loading. • Identifying and characterizing Gulf habitats to support coastal management. • Expanding environmental education to improve stewardship. Gulf States have also agreed upon cooperative efforts to collect information that can be used to better understand, monitor, and manage the Gulf of Mexico and to participate in the national Integrated Ocean Observing System through the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS) ( *http://ocean.tamu.edu/GCOOS/RA/vision.htm* ). Thus, the NGOM CI would also contribute to the GCOOS vision to “establish a sustained observing system for the Gulf of Mexico to provide observations and products needed by users in this region” to enable: • Detecting and predicting climate variability and consequences. • Preserving and restoring healthy marine ecosystems. • Ensuring human health. • Managing resources. • Facilitating safe and efficient marine transportation. • Predicting and mitigating against coastal hazards. The above priorities map directly to the NOAA Strategic Plan and its primary scientific goals. They are also consistent with NOAA 5-yr Research Plan and 20-yr Research Vision. *Electronic Access:* Applicants can access, download, and submit electronic grant applications, including the full funding opportunity announcement, for NOAA programs at the Grants.gov Web site: *http://www.grants.gov* . The closing date will be the same as for the paper submissions noted in this announcement. For applicants filing through Grants.gov, NOAA strongly recommends that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov. Registration may take up to 10 business days. More details on how to apply are provided in the NOAA June 30, 2005 **Federal Register** Notice on “Availability of Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2006”, which can be found at: *http://www.Grants.gov* or *http://www.ago.noaa.gov/grants/funding.shtml* . Proposals submitted to the NOAA Cooperative Institute Program must include elements requested in the full Federal Funding Opportunity announcement on the grants.gov portal. Proposals, electronic or paper, should be no more than 65 pages (numbered) in length, including budget, investigators vitae, and all appendices. Federally mandated forms are not included within the page count. Facsimile transmissions and electronic mail submission of full proposals will not be accepted. *Funding Availability:* The award period will be five years and may be renewed for an additional five years based on the outcome of a CI peer review in the fourth year. All funding is contingent upon availability of Federal appropriations. NOAA expects that approximately $6.3 M will be available for the CI in the first year of the award. Of this amount, $650,000 ($130K per year for 5 years) will be applied to cover Task I base funding for the entire five-year award period. Funding for subsequent years is expected to be constant throughout the period, depending on the quality of the research, the satisfactory progress in achieving the stated goals described in the proposal, continued relevance to program objectives, and the availability of funding. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 313, 15 U.S.C. 1540; 15 U.S.C. 2901 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 753a, 33 U.S.C. 883d, 33 U.S.C. 1442, 49 U.S.C. 44720 (b), 118 Stat. 71 (January 23, 2004). Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance: 11.432, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
(OAR)Joint and Cooperative Institutes. *Eligibility:* Eligibility is limited to non-Federal public and private non-profit universities, colleges and research institutions in the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas that offer accredited graduate level degree-granting programs in NOAA-related sciences, as described in the CI Interim Handbook, authorized by NOAA Administrative Order 216-107. Because of NOAA's desire to establish a CI that addresses regional issues in the NGOM, NOAA is limiting eligibility to specific states that border the NGOM. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* To stress the collaborative nature and investment of a CI by both NOAA and the research institution, cost sharing is required. There is no minimum cost sharing requirement, however, the amount of cost sharing will be considered when determining the level of CI commitment under NOAA's standard evaluation criteria of project costs. Acceptable cost-sharing proposals include, but are not limited to, offering a reduced indirect cost rate against activities in one or more Tasks, waiver of indirect costs assessed against base funds and/or Task I activities, waiver or reduction of any costs associated with the use of facilities at the CI, and full or partial salary funding for the CI director, administrative staff, graduate students, visiting scientists, or postdoctoral scientists. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” *Evaluation Criteria and Review and Selection Procedures:* NOAA's standard evaluation criteria and the review and selection procedures contained in NOAA's June 30, 2005, omnibus notice are applicable to this solicitation and are as follows: A. Evaluation Criteria for Projects Proposals will be evaluated using the standard NOAA evaluation criteria. Various questions under each criterion are included to ensure that the applicant includes information that NOAA will consider important during the evaluation, in addition to any other information provided by the applicant. 1. Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposed project to the program goals (25 percent): This ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, Federal, regional, State, or local activities. • Does the proposal includes research goals and projects that address the critical issues identified in NOAA's 5-year Research Plan, NOAA's Strategic Plan, and the priorities described in the supplementary information above? • Is there a demonstrated commitment (in terms of resources and facilities) to enhance existing NOAA and CI resources to foster a long-term collaborative research environment/culture? • Is there a strong education program with established graduate degree programs in NOAA-related sciences that also encourage student participation in NOAA-related research studies? • Will most of the staff at the CI be located near a NOAA facility in order to enhance collaborations with NOAA? 2. Technical/scientific merit (30 percent): This assesses whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and objectives. • Does the project description include a summary of clearly stated goals to be achieved during the five-year period that reflect NOAA's strategic plan and goals? • Does the CI involve partnerships with other universities or research institutions, including Minority Serving Institutions and universities with strong departments that can contribute to the proposed activities of the CI? 3. Overall qualifications of applicants (30 percent): This ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. • If the institution(s) and/or principal investigators have received current or recent NOAA funding, is there a demonstrated record of outstanding performance working with NOAA scientists on research projects? • Is there internationally recognized expertise within the appropriate disciplines needed to conduct the collaborative/interdisciplinary research described in the proposal? • Is there a well-developed business plan that includes fiscal and human resource management as well as strategic planning and accountability? • Are there any unique capabilities in a mission-critical area of research for NOAA? • Has the applicant shown a substantial investment to the NOAA partnership, as demonstrated by a cost sharing contribution? 4. Project costs (5 percent): The budget is evaluated to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the project needs and time-frame. 5. Outreach and education (10 percent): NOAA assesses whether this project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy regarding NOAA's mission to protect the Nation's natural resources. B. Review and Selection Process An initial administrative review/screening is conducted to determine compliance with requirements/completeness. All proposals will be evaluated and individually ranked in accordance with the assigned weights of the above evaluation criteria by an independent peer panel review. At least three experts, who may be Federal or non-Federal, will be used in this process. If non-Federal experts participate in the review process, they will be submitting individual reviews and will not be reaching a consensus opinion. The merit reviewers' ratings are used to produce a rank order of the proposals. The Selection Official selects proposals after considering the peer panel reviews and selection factors listed below. In making the final selections, the Selecting Official will award in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the selection factors. C. Selection Factors The merit review ratings shall provide a rank order to the Selecting Official for final funding recommendations. A program officer may first make recommendations to the Selecting Official applying the selection factors below. The Selecting Official shall award in the rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors: 1. Availability of funding. 2. Balance/distribution of funds: a. Geographically. b. By type of institutions. c. By type of partners. d. By research areas. e. By project types. 3. Whether this project duplicates other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA or other Federal agencies. 4. Program priorities and policy factors. 5. Applicant's prior award performance. 6. Partnerships and/or participation of targeted groups. 7. Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA staff to make a NEPA determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations for funding are made to the Grants Officer. Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the full funding opportunity announcements for each project competition in this announcement. *Universal Identifier:* Applicants should be aware that, they are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number during the application process. See the October 30, 2002 **Federal Register** , Vol. 67, No. 210, pp. 66177-66178 for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or via the Internet ( *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* ). *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 which are seeking NOAA Federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at NOAA's NEPA Web site, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/,* 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 their description of their program activities, applicants are 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 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 impacts 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 impacts 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 years 2-5 of the Cooperative Institute is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for application preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are 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 notification involves collection of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)respectively under control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, and 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:* It has been determined that this notice is 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 an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comments are not required pursuant to 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 is not required and none has been prepared. Stephen B. Brandt, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, OAR, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5184 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 032406A] General Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC); Meeting Announcement AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: NMFS announces a meeting of the General Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the IATTC on April 27, 2006, via telephone conference call. The April 27, 2006, teleconference reschedules the April 11, 2006 teleconference. DATES: The General Advisory Committee meeting will be held on April 27, 2006, from 12 noon to 3 p.m., Pacific Time. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via telephone conference call at
(866)857-1547, participant passcode, 3313634. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.Allison Routt at
(562)980-4019 or
(562)980-4030. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The initial notification of this meeting was published in the **Federal Register** on March 29, 2006, (71 FR 15698). In the original notice, it stated that the meeting date was April 11, 2006. The meeting has been rescheduled to be held on April 27, 2006. All other information previously published remains the same. In accordance with the Tuna Conventions Act, as amended, the Department of State has appointed a General Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the IATTC. The U.S. Section consists of the four U.S. Commissioners to the IATTC and the representative of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries. The Advisory Committee supports the work of the U.S. Section in a solely advisory capacity with respect to U.S. participation in the work of the IATTC, with particular reference to the development of policies and negotiating positions pursued at meetings of the IATTC. NMFS, Southwest Region, administers the Advisory Committee in cooperation and consultation with the Department of State. The General Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the IATTC will meet by telephone conference to receive and discuss information on:
(1)2006 IATTC activities;
(2)recent and upcoming meetings of the IATTC and its working groups;
(3)IATTC cooperation with other regional fishery management organizations; and
(4)Advisory Committee operational issues. Special Accommodations The meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for a telephone teletype device, language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Allison Routt at
(562)980-4019 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date for this conference call. Dated: April 4, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-5154 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Science Board AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings. SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on VTOL/STOL will meet in closed session on April 10-11, 2006; at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. This meeting continues the task force's work and will consist of classified, privileged, FOUO, and proprietary briefings on current technologies and programs. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the features and capabilities VTOL/STOL aircraft should have in order to support the nation's defense needs through at least the first half of the 21st century. In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public. Due to scheduling and work burden difficulties, there is insufficient time to provide timely notice required by Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Subsection 102-3.150(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), which further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at *clifton,phillips@osd.mil,* or via phone at
(703)571-0083. Due to scheduling difficulties, there is insufficient time to provide timely notice required by Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committe Act and Subsection 102-3.150(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), which further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting. Dated: April 4, 2006. L.M. Bynum, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-3385 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 35
Traces to 35 documents
CFR
14 references not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 1500
  • 7 CFR 650
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
  • 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 337 F.3d 1373
  • 243 F.3d 1301
  • 127 F. Supp. 2d 207
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • 15 CFR 301
  • 118 Stat. 71
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 41 CFR 102
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Lost River Subwatershed of the Potomac River Watershed Hardy County, West Virginia
U.S.C.§ 161
U.S.C.§ 3506
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
F. Supp.293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
Cites 49 · 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.