Notices. Proposed rule; request for comments
32,139 words·~146 min read·
/register/2006/04/17/06-3638A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 222 and 223 [Docket No. 060405097-6097-01; I.D. 033006E] RIN 0648-AU10 Sea Turtle Conservation; Modification to Fishing Activities AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to require that any offshore pound net leader in the Virginia waters of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay, south of 37° 19.0′ N. lat. and west of 76° 13.0′ W. long., and all waters south of 37° 13.0′ N. lat. to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and the James and York Rivers downstream of the first bridge in each tributary during the period of May 6 through July 15 meet the definition of a modified pound net leader.
Existing regulations prohibit all offshore pound net leaders in that area during that time frame. An offshore pound net leader refers to a leader with the inland end set greater than 10 horizontal feet (3 m) from the mean low water line. This action, taken under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), responds to new information generated by gear research. It is intended to conserve sea turtles listed as threatened or endangered while enabling fishermen to use leaders, an important component of pound net gear, during the regulated period.
DATES: Comments on this action are requested, and must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) by no later than 5 p.m., eastern daylight time, on May 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action may be submitted on this proposed rule, identified by RIN 0648-AU10, by any one of the following methods:
(1)E-mail: *poundnetmodification@noaa.gov* . Please include the RIN 0648-AU10 in the subject line of the message.
(2)Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instruction on the website for submitting comments.
(3)NMFS/Northeast Region Website: *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/com.html* Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments.
(4)Mail: Mary A. Colligan, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, ATTN: Sea Turtle Conservation Measures, Proposed Rule
(5)Facsimile (fax): 978-281-9394, ATTN: Sea Turtle Conservation Measures, Proposed Rule Copies of the Draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review and documents cited in the proposed rule can be obtained from *http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/com.html* or by writing to Pasquale Scida, NMFS, Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pasquale Scida (ph. 978-281-9208, fax 978-281-9394), or Therese Conant (ph. 301-713-2322, fax 301-427-2522). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA. Kemp′s ridley ( *Lepidochelys kempii* ), leatherback ( *Dermochelys coriacea* ), and hawksbill ( *Eretmochelys imbricata* ) sea turtles are listed as endangered. Loggerhead ( *Caretta caretta* ) and green ( *Chelonia mydas* ) sea turtles are listed as threatened, except for populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered. Under the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct. The term incidental take refers to takings of endangered and threatened species that result from, but are not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, taking endangered or threatened sea turtles - even incidentally - is prohibited, with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206 for threatened sea turtles. The incidental take of endangered species may only legally be authorized by an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to section 7 or 10 of the ESA, respectively. Spring Sea Turtle Stranding Event High strandings of threatened and endangered sea turtles are documented on Virginia beaches each spring and early summer. The magnitude of this stranding event has increased in recent years. During May and June, total reported Virginia sea turtle strandings were 84 in 1995, 85 in 1996, 164 in 1997, 183 in 1998, 129 in 1999, 161 in 2000, 256 in 2001, 180 in 2002, 312 in 2003, and 192 in 2004. In 2005, preliminary data indicate that 113 dead sea turtles stranded on Virginia beaches during May and June, with most of these occurring during the latter half of June. Strandings have also been elevated in July, generally the first half of the month. From 1996 to 2005, strandings were generally elevated during the first half of July, with an average of 21 strandings documented from July 1 to 15. In the latter half of July, strandings typically decrease; from 1996 to 2005, an average of 10 strandings were documented from July 16 to 31. In 2005, strandings were the lowest recorded since the mid-1990′s. Most of the documented stranded sea turtles in Virginia have been threatened loggerheads, but endangered Kemp′s ridley, green and leatherback sea turtles have also stranded. For example, preliminary strandings data from 2005 indicate that 85 percent of strandings were loggerheads, 10 percent were Kemp′s ridley, 4 percent were leatherback and green were 0.5 percent. The majority of stranded turtles have been of the juvenile/immature life stage. Most of the stranded turtles reported in Virginia during the spring have been moderately to severely decomposed. For instance, in the spring of 2005, approximately 85 percent of the strandings were either moderately to severely decomposed, compared to approximately 1 percent that were fresh dead. The ability to conduct necropsies is compromised by the condition of the stranded animals, and severely decomposed turtles are not usually necropsied. The majority of the stranded turtles that were examined by necropsy in the spring of previous years had relatively good fat stores and full stomachs/digestive tracts, suggesting that the animals were in good health prior to their death. While the distribution of sea turtle strandings in Virginia varies slightly from year to year, there has been a high concentration of stranded sea turtles found along the Eastern shore in recent years. A cause and effect relationship between pound net interactions and high spring strandings cannot be statistically derived based on the available data. However, NMFS has documented that fishing with pound net leaders results in lethal and non-lethal take of sea turtles. NMFS concluded that this constituted sufficient evidence to form the basis for past and current restrictions on pound net leaders. Sea Turtle and Pound Net Interactions Sea turtle entanglements in and impingements on pound net leaders have been documented in Virginia waters of Chesapeake Bay since the early 1980′s (Bellmund et al., 1987; Lutcavage 1981). On June 17, 2002, based upon the best available information on sea turtle and pound net interactions at the time, NMFS issued an interim final rule that prohibited the use of all pound net leaders measuring 12 inches (30.5 cm) and greater stretched mesh and all pound net leaders with stringers in the Virginia waters of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay and portions of the Virginia tributaries from May 8 to June 30 each year (67 FR 41196). Included in this interim final rule was a year-round requirement for fishermen to report all interactions with sea turtles in their pound net gear to NMFS within 24 hours of returning from a trip, and a year-round requirement for pound net fishing operations to be observed by a NMFS-approved observer if requested by the Northeast Regional Administrator. The interim final rule also established a framework mechanism by which NMFS could make changes to the restrictions and/or their effective dates on an expedited basis in order to further protect sea turtles by responding to new information, such as the entanglement of a sea turtle in a pound net leader. As a result of sea turtle entanglements observed during the spring of 2003, NMFS issued a temporary final rule requiring removal of all pound net leaders throughout the Virginia Chesapeake Bay and portions of the tributaries from July 16 to July 30, 2003, pursuant to the framework mechanism of the 2002 interim final rule (68 FR 41942, July 16, 2003). In 2002 and 2003, NMFS monitored pound nets in Virginia. The 2002 and 2003 monitoring results documenting sea turtle entanglement in and impingement on pound net leaders with less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) stretched mesh represented new information not previously considered in prior assessments of the Virginia pound net fishery. Entanglements in and impingements on these leaders appeared to be more of a significant problem than originally assessed. Based upon the results of pound net monitoring in 2002 and 2003, as well as additional information about the behavior of sea turtles in Chesapeake Bay, NMFS had sufficient evidence to conclude that further rulemaking was necessary. NMFS issued a final rule on May 5, 2004 (69 FR 24997), that prohibited the use of offshore pound net leaders in a part of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay defined in that rule, which for purposes of this proposed rule will be called “Pound Net Regulated Area I.” The May 2004 rule also placed restrictions on nearshore pound nets in Pound Net Regulated Area I and on all pound nets employed in the remainder of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay, which for purposes of this proposed rule will be call “Pound Net Regulated Area II.” According to the 2004 rule, nearshore pound nets in Pound Net Regulated Area I and all pound nets in Pound Net Regulated Area II must have leaders with mesh size less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) stretched mesh and may not employ stringers. The 2004 final rule also modified the framework mechanism. The previous monitoring efforts represent a minimum record of sea turtle entanglement and impingement. Sea turtles may be found throughout the water column, and green, Kemp′s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles are primarily benthic foragers. Mansfield and Musick
(2003)found that seven sea turtles (6 loggerheads and one Kemp′s ridley), tracked in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay from May 22 to July 17, 2002, dove to maximum depths ranging from approximately 13.1 ft (4 m) to 41 ft (12.5 m). While the percentage of time sea turtles spend at the surface compared to at depth is still being clarified, sea turtles may be found throughout the water column. As pound net leader characteristics are generally consistent from the top of the leader to the bottom and monitoring the entire net profile has not been conducted full-time on each leader, it is probable that more sea turtles are in pound net leaders than are observed or reported. NMFS continued to monitor pound nets during the 2004 spring season. In 2004, NMFS characterized 88 nets, 51 of which were active. Out of 1,190 surveys conducted, 4 sea turtles were observed to have been impinged or entangled in pound net leaders. Out of the four turtles that interacted with the pound net gear, one was released alive. Three of the four observed interactions occurred and were documented through the modified pound net leader experiment. Modified Pound Net Leader Experiment In 2004 and 2005, NMFS implemented a coordinated research program with pound net industry participants and other interested parties to develop and test a modified pound net leader design with the goal of eliminating or reducing sea turtle interactions while retaining an acceptable level of fish catch. The modified pound net leader design used in the experiment consisted of a combination of mesh and stiff vertical lines. The mesh size was equal to or less than 8 inches (20.3 cm). The mesh was positioned at a depth that was no more than one-third the depth of the water. The vertical lines were 5/16 inch (0.8 cm) in diameter strung vertically at a minimum of every 2 feet (61 cm) and attached to a top line. The vertical lines rose from the top of the mesh up to a top line to which they were attached. The stiffness of the vertical lines in the modified leader was achieved by coating them with paint in 2004 and using painted, twisted, hard lay lines in 2005. The design was based on the premise that the sea turtles would pass through the upper two-thirds of the leader, through the stiff vertical lines, without entangling in or impinging on the leader. The modified pound net leader was tested from May 17 to June 27 in 2004 and May 6 to June 29 in 2005. In 2004, four offshore pound nets were alternatively rigged with modified and unmodified leaders and two nearshore pound nets were rigged with unmodified leaders. Unmodified leaders are leaders that consist only of mesh from the seabed to the top line near the surface of the water. All pounds net leaders were monitored twice daily using visual and side scan sonar inspection to detect sea turtle interactions. In addition to the twice daily inspection of leaders for turtle interactions, a total of 61 pound net heart catch observations were made during the study period. In 2005, four offshore pound nets were tested. The nets were rigged alternatively with modified and unmodified leaders and were monitored twice daily for sea turtle interactions using visual and side scan sonar. A total of 54 pound net heart catch observations were conducted in addition to twice daily monitoring of the pound net leaders. The control leaders were removed from the water partway through the experiment in 2005 because the total number of sea turtles permitted to be taken during the research had been exceeded. During the 2-year study, the modified leader was found to be effective in reducing sea turtle interactions as compared to the unmodified leader. The final results of the 2004 study found that out of eight turtles impinged on or entangled in the leaders of pound nets, seven were impinged on or entangled in an unmodified leader. One leatherback turtle was found entangled in a modified leader. In response to the leatherback entanglement, the gear was further modified by increasing the stiffness of the vertical lines for the 2005 experiment. Results from the 2005 experiment indicate that no sea turtles were found impinged on or entangled in the modified gear. In 2005, 15 turtles entangled in the leaders of unmodified leaders, and no turtles were found impinged on or entangled in modified leaders. Furthermore, results of the finfish catch comparison suggest that the modified leader caught similar quantities and size compositions as the unmodified leader. Although the unmodified leaders had to be pulled out of the water partway through the experiment in 2005, NMFS believes that the results of the modified leader experiment provide sufficient new information and justification to propose allowing the use of the modified leader. It is possible that sea turtles may interact with the lower leader mesh because sea turtles in the lower Chesapeake Bay commonly make dives of over 40 minutes during the day (Byles 1988; Mansfield and Musick 2003b, 2004) and dive depths range from approximately 13.1 ft (4 m) to 41 ft (12.5 m) (Mansfield and Musick, 2003). However, all interactions during the 2005 modified leader experiment were recorded in the top portion of unmodified leaders (at depths within the top two-thirds of the depth of mean lower low water). No interactions were observed in the modified leader. Impact of High Mortality on Sea Turtle Populations The documented interactions between sea turtles and pound net leaders, as well as the annual Virginia spring strandings, are of concern for the following reasons:
(1)all of the entangled, impinged and stranded animals are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA, which means these species are in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future;
(2)the level of strandings in Virginia has been elevated the last 7 years, and there is no reason to believe that high spring strandings will abate in future years without continued monitoring, research and regulatory action;
(3)sea turtles have been observed entangled in unmodified leaders;
(4)sea turtles have been observed impinged on unmodified leaders by the current and impingements are likely to continue to occur on unmodified small mesh leaders in areas where impingements have been documented;
(5)the greatest percentage of Virginia spring strandings in recent years has been along the southern tip of the Eastern shore, where a large number of pound nets are located;
(6)approximately 50 percent of the Chesapeake Bay loggerhead foraging population is composed of the northern subpopulation, a subpopulation that may be declining; and
(7)most of the stranded turtles have been juveniles, a life stage found to be critical to the long term survival of the species. Most loggerheads in U.S. waters come from one of five genetically distinct nesting subpopulations. The largest loggerhead subpopulation, the South Florida subpopulation, occurs from 29°N. lat. on the east coast of Florida to Sarasota on the west coast and shows recent increases in numbers of nesting females based upon an analysis of annual surveys of all nesting beaches. However, a more recent analysis limited to nesting data from the Index Nesting Beach Survey program from 1989 to 2002, a period encompassing index surveys that are more consistent and more accurate than surveys in previous years, has shown no detectable trend (B. Witherington, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, pers. comm., 2002). The northern subpopulation, which nests from northeast Florida through North Carolina, is much smaller, and nesting numbers are stable or declining (TEWG 2000). Genetic studies indicate that approximately one-half of the juvenile loggerheads inhabiting Chesapeake Bay during the spring and summer are from the smaller, northern subpopulation (TEWG, 2000; Bass et al., 1998; Norrgard, 1995). Approximately 3,800 nesting females are estimated for the northern subpopulation of loggerhead sea turtles (TEWG, 2000). The impact of the high level of mortality experienced by loggerhead turtles each spring off Virginia on the population′s ability to recover is of significant concern. The northern subpopulation produces 65 percent males, while the South Florida subpopulation is estimated to produce 20 percent males (NMFS SEFSC, 2001). As males do not appear to show the same degree of site fidelity as females, the high proportion of males produced in the northern subpopulation may be an important source of males for all loggerheads inhabiting the Atlantic. The loss of the male contribution from the northern subpopulation may restrict gene flow and result in a loss of genetic diversity to the loggerhead population as a whole. The loss of females from the northern subpopulation may preclude future reproduction, reducing the likelihood of both future survival and recovery of the northern subpopulation of loggerheads. Given the vulnerability of these subpopulations to chronic impacts from human-related activities, the high level of spring sea turtle mortality in Virginia must be reduced to help ensure that these subpopulations of loggerheads will recover. One way to reduce such mortality is to reduce sea turtle mortality caused by pound net leaders. Most of the turtles stranding in Virginia waters during the spring are of the juvenile/immature life stages. The specific age at maturity for most sea turtles is unknown; the age of maturity for loggerheads occurs from approximately 21-35 years (TEWG, 2000). Studies have concluded that sea turtles must have high annual survival as juveniles and adults to ensure that sufficient numbers of animals survive to reproductive maturity to maintain stable populations (Crouse *et al.* , 1987; Crowder *et al.* , 1994; Crouse, 1999). Given their long maturation period, relatively small decreases in annual survival rates of both juvenile and adult loggerhead sea turtles may destabilize the population, thereby potentially reducing the likelihood of survival and recovery of the population. As such, the historical high level of mortality observed in Virginia plus the increase in loggerhead mortality documented during the last several years may negatively affect the recovery of the loggerhead population. The Proposed Action The boundaries of the two regulated areas defined in the 2004 rule remain the same for this action. This action proposes a non-substantive, technical change to the definition of the regulated areas that would merely apply titles to the areas to reduce confusion. *Pound Net Regulated Area I* means Virginia waters of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay, south of 37° 19.0′ N. lat. and west of 76° 13.0′ W. long., and all waters south of 37° 13.0′ N. lat. to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (extending from approximately 37° 05′ N. lat., 75° 59′ W. long. to 36 55′ N. lat., 76° 08′ W. long.) at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and the portion of the James River downstream of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (I-64; approximately 36° 59.55′ N. lat., 76° 18.64′ W. long.) and the York River downstream of the Coleman Memorial Bridge (Route 17; approximately 37° 14.55′ N. lat, 76° 30.40′ W. long.). *Pound Net Regulated Area II* means Virginia waters of the Chesapeake Bay outside of Regulated Area I defined above, extending to the Maryland-Virginia State line (approximately 37 55′ N. lat., 75 55′ W. long.), the Great Wicomico River downstream of the Jessie Dupont Memorial Highway Bridge (Route 200; approximately 37° 50.84′ N. lat, 76° 22.09′ W. long.), the Rappahannock River downstream of the Robert Opie Norris Jr. Bridge (Route 3; approximately 37° 37.44′ N. lat, 76° 25.40′ W. long.), and the Piankatank River downstream of the Route 3 Bridge (approximately 37° 30.62′ N. lat, 76° 25.19′ W. long.) to the COLREGS line at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The boundaries of the regulated areas defined in the current regulations were determined based on a combination of the locations of observed sea turtle entanglements in or impingements on pound net leaders and the area in which sea turtles may face a greater risk of entanglement in or impingement on pound net leaders due to environmental conditions. Previous research and monitoring indicate that geographic location, which is a proxy for other environmental factors such as temperature and current, may play an important role in the risk of sea turtle entanglement and impingement. As previously mentioned, this proposed rule does not set forth any substantive changes to the boundaries of the two regulated areas that have already been established in existing regulations. The only substantive change proposed through this action is to replace the existing prohibition on all offshore pound net leaders in Pound Net Regulated Area I during the period of May 6 through July 15 with a provision that requires any offshore pound net leader set in Pound Net Regulated Area I during the period of May 6 through July 15 to meet the definition of a modified pound net leader. In other words, if a fisherman chooses to use an offshore pound net leader in Pound Net Regulated Area I from May 6 through July 15, that offshore pound net leader must meet the definition of a modified pound net leader. A modified pound net leader is defined as a pound net leader that is:
(1)affixed to or resting on the sea floor;
(2)made of a lower portion of mesh and an upper portion of only vertical lines such that
(a)the mesh size is equal to or less than 8 inches (20.3 cm) stretched mesh;
(b)at any particular point along the leader the height of the mesh from the seafloor to the top of the mesh must be no more than one-third the depth of the water at mean lower low water directly above that particular point;
(c)the mesh is held in place by vertical lines that extend from the top of the mesh up to a top line, which is a line that forms the uppermost part of the pound net leader;
(d)the vertical lines are equal to or greater than 5/16 inch (0.8 cm) in diameter and strung vertically at a minimum of every 2 feet (61 cm); and
(e)the vertical lines are hard lay lines. The specifications for the experiments in 2004 and 2005 did not indicate that the height of the mesh must be no more than one-third the depth of the water at mean lower low water. Instead, the specifications only indicated that the height of the mesh is restricted to one-third the depth of the water. However, for purposes of rulemaking, it is important to indicate a common reference point against which the depth of the water may be measured, such as mean lower low water. During the preparation of this proposed rule, NMFS staff confirmed with two participants in the experiment that the modified pound net leaders they used were constructed in, or close to, that manner. Therefore, NMFS proposes to state in the definition of a modified pound net leader that the height of the mesh from the seafloor at any particular point must be no more than one-third the depth of the water at mean lower low water at any time during the tidal cycle throughout the regulated period. For example, if a modified leader is set in water that ranges from 10 m to 30 m deep at mean lower low water, the mesh panel would be 10 m high at the deep end and would taper to 3.3 m high at the shallow end. In the definition of “modified pound net leader,” NMFS proposes to state that the vertical lines must be hard lay lines. “Hard lay” is a technical term used by the cordage industry to describe line that is purposefully made to be stiff. Line is usually made stiff by choosing a material that is stiff, twisting the line material, and/or providing a coating to the line such as paint. Given the various factors that contribute to the degree of stiffness in the line, NMFS is seeking comment on how better to define ′hard lay′ and establish a standard for fishermen to use in the pound net leader. Furthermore, while the vertical lines used in the modified leader design meet the definition of a “stringer” in a pound net leader, they cannot be treated separately from the overall design and construction of the modified leader (i.e., line specification, distance apart, and dropped mesh) and therefore NMFS has chosen to refer to them just as “vertical lines.” However, because these vertical lines do meet the definition of “stringer,” and stringers are prohibited under existing regulations in nearshore leaders in Pound Net Regulated Area I and all leaders in Pound Net Regulated Area II, the modified pound net leader would also be prohibited from being used in nearshore leaders in Pound Net Regulated Area I and all leaders in Pound Net Regulated Area II under the proposed action. According to this proposed rule, if a fisherman chooses to use an offshore pound net leader in Pound Net Regulated Area I at any time from 12:01 a.m. local time on May 6 through 11:59 p.m. local time on July 15 each year that offshore pound net leader must meet the definition of a modified pound net leader. Existing mesh size and stringer restrictions on nearshore pound net leaders in the area to be called Pound Net Regulated Area I and on all pound net leaders in the area to be called Pound Net Regulated Area II would remain in place and are not affected substantially by this proposed rule. The year round reporting and monitoring requirements for this fishery and the framework mechanism under the existing regulations also remain in effect. This action would be implemented under the authority of the ESA sections 4(d) and 11(f) and is appropriate to conserve threatened and endangered sea turtles and to enforce the provisions of the ESA, including the prohibition on takes of endangered sea turtles. NMFS plans to continue analyzing the potential natural and anthropogenic sources of sea turtle mortality in Virginia waters. As part of this larger initiative, NMFS intends to continue to closely monitor sea turtle stranding levels and other fisheries active in the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean off Virginia. Additionally, in the near future, NMFS plans to evaluate the impacts of all fishing gear types on sea turtles throughout the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, as part of the Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery in Relation to Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries (NMFS, 2001). NMFS is seeking public comments on requiring the use of the modified pound net leader design in any pound net leader set within the geographic range of the fishery in Virginia waters (non-preferred alternative 2) during the period of May 6 through July 15. NMFS is seeking comment and information on the definition of ′hard lay′ to ensure that a minimum degree of stiffness is achieved in the modified pound net leader. NMFS will consider comments on this topic as well as new developments in the scientific information base during the preparation of the final rule for this action. Classification This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section. A summary of the analysis follows: The fishery affected by this proposed rule is the Virginia pound net fishery in the Chesapeake Bay. The proposed action would require any offshore pound net leader set in Pound Net Regulated Area I on May 6 through July 15 each year to meet the definition of a modified pound net leader. Non-preferred alternative 1 (NPA 1) would maintain the current regulations, including a prohibition on the use of offshore pound net leaders in Pound Net Regulated Area I, and would prohibit leaders with stretched mesh greater than or equal to 12 inches (30.5 cm) and leaders with stringers in the remainder of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay during the period of May 6 through July 15 each year. Non-preferred alternative 2 (NPA 2) would require any pound net leader used during the period of May 6 through July 15 in either Pound Net Regulated Area I or Pound Net Regulated Area II to be a modified pound net leader. Non-preferred alternative 3 (NPA 3) is similar to the proposed action, but would require the modified pound net leader design to be used in any offshore leader, any nearshore leader would still be required to use stretched mesh less than 12 inches (30.5 cm), and any stringers would be prohibited on nearshore leaders. The two areas of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay designated as Pound Net Regulated Areas I and II differ from the areas used in the economic analysis due to data limitations. The VMRC pound net fishery data is linked to water bodies, which do not map directly to the Pound Net Regulated Areas. To highlight this difference, an alternative nomenclature is used, specifically “upper” and “lower” Bay. Landings and revenues for the lower Bay are biased upward based upon the data limitations. According to the 2004 VMRC data, there are 21 harvesters actively fishing pound nets from May 6 to July 15 within the regulated part of Chesapeake Bay, with 5 harvesters located in the lower portion of Chesapeake Bay and 16 harvesters located in the upper portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay. These 21 harvesters fish approximately 29 pound nets in the upper portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay (= 16 harvesters x 1.8 pound nets/harvester) and 17 pound nets in the lower portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay (=5 harvesters x 3.4 pound nets/harvester). Based on 2000 to 2004 data, annual landings per harvester were 267,076 pounds (120,184 kg) in the upper portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay and 206,269 pounds (92,821 kg) in the lower portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay. Annual revenues per harvester were $55,772 and $79,503 in the upper and lower region, respectively. From May 6 to July 15, landings per harvester were 100,849 pounds (45,382 kg) in the upper region and 98,339 pounds (44,253 kg) in the lower region. Estimated revenues per harvester for that period were $20,323 and $40,187 in the upper and lower region, respectively. Of the 17 pound nets fished by 5 fishermen in the lower Bay from May 6 to July 15, 41 percent of these nets
(7)would be classified as having offshore leaders and would fall within Pound Net Regulated Area I and would be subject to the proposed gear modification. For offshore fishermen in the lower Bay, there would be considerable net benefits from being allowed to fish using the modified leader during the regulated period. Based on 2004 data, out of the five fishermen that would be affected, three fishermen (with two nearshore nets and one offshore net each) would recapture approximately $13,408 of revenues foregone under the current regulations (16.9 percent of annual revenues), while two fishermen (with two nearshore nets and two offshore nets each) would see an increase of $26,816 in revenues (33.7 percent of annual revenues). The remainder of fishermen in the upper Bay
(16)would be subject to status quo regulations (current regulations, less than 12” stretched mesh and no stringers) and would not incur any additional costs to comply with the proposed action. NPA 1, the no action alternative, would maintain status quo conditions in the upper Bay, and would not result in additional costs or benefits. NPA 2 and NPA 3 would require any pound net leader to use the modified pound net leader design in a larger geographic area as compared to the proposed action. As such, the impacts of those non-preferred alternatives would include the cost of modifying leaders in the upper Bay area as compared to the proposed action and NPA 1. NPA 2 would impact all pound net fishermen in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay during the regulated period. For lower Bay fishermen, NPA 2 would result in an increase in net revenues, as the opportunity to fish offshore pound net leaders during the regulated period more than off-sets the costs of modifying their leaders. For the five lower Bay fishermen the increase in net revenues would range from $9,548 to $22,956, or between 12.0 percent and 28.9 percent of annual revenues. The total net increase in revenues for the lower Bay would be $74,556 (=[3 harvesters x $9,548]+[2 harvesters x $22,956]). For upper Bay fishermen there would only be costs to modify their leaders, as compared to existing regulations (NPA 1). The costs would range from $2,002 to $4,004 to fabricate and install the modified leaders, or 3.6 percent to 7.2 percent of annual revenues, with a total cost of $57,770 (=[4 harvesters x $3,932]+[3 harvesters x $2,002]+[9 harvesters x $4,004]). Based on the 2004 Northeast Fisheries Science Center gear survey, 85 percent of the upper Bay pound nets were offshore, for a total of 25 offshore pound nets and 4 nearshore pound nets. For the four fishermen with one offshore and one nearshore pound net the total cost of NPA 2 over current regulations is $3,932 (=$2,002+$1,930) or 7.1 percent of annual revenues (=$3,932/$55,772). For the three fishermen with only a single offshore pound net the cost is $2,002 or 3.6 percent of annual revenues (=$2,002/$55,772). For the nine fishermen with two offshore pound nets the total cost is $4,004 or 7.2 percent of annual revenues (=$4,004/$55,772). Overall the increase in net revenues for offshore fishermen in the lower Bay would off-set the increase in costs for other fishermen to modify their leaders on all other pound nets. The industry would see a net increase in revenue of $16,786, or 0.8 percent of 2004 pound net revenues (=$0.017M/$2.187M). However, as explained above, NMFS recognizes that NPA 2 would impose costs on the upper Bay fishermen without a corresponding increase in revenues. Implementation of the NPA 3 would also impact all pound net fishermen in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay during the regulated period. For the five lower Bay fishermen, the net revenue increase would range from $13,408 to $26,816 or an increase in net revenues of 16.9 percent to 33.7 percent of annual revenues. For 16 upper Bay fishermen affected by this alternative, the cost over the current regulations would be from $2,002 to $4,004 or 3.6 percent to 7.2 percent of annual revenues. The total impact to the pound net industry would be positive as there would be an increase in net revenues over the status quo (NPA 1). The total increase in net revenues for lower Bay fishermen would be $93,856 (=[3 harvesters x $13,408]+[2 harvesters x $26,816]), while the total cost to the upper Bay fishermen would be $50,050 (=[7 harvesters x $2,002]+[9 harvesters x $4,004]). This provides a net increase in industry revenues of $43,806 or 2.0 percent of 2004 industry revenues (=$0.044 M/$2.187 M). Again, however, NMFS recognizes that costs would be imposed upon upper Bay fishermen without a corresponding increase in revenues under NPA 3. In the lower portion of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay, where all offshore leaders are prohibited under the current regulations, all five harvesters would be impacted under all of the alternatives. With the proposed action, annual revenues per harvester would be increased between 16.9 percent and 33.7 percent. The proposed action and NPA 3 would result in the same economic benefit on lower Bay fishermen. The economic benefit under NPA 2 to lower Bay fishermen would be less compared to the proposed action (net increase of 12 percent to 28.9 percent), because the increase in revenues to offshore pound nets in the lower Bay is offset by the requirement for nearshore pound net leaders in this area to obtain and use the modified pound net leader. In the upper Bay area, the NPAs 2 and 3 would reduce annual revenues per harvester by 3.6 percent to 7.2 percent, depending on the ratio of offshore to nearshore pound net leaders fished by each harvester. Taking no action (NPA 1) would not have economic consequences or benefits. In 2004, industry revenues for the regulated part of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay were $2.2 M for the pound net fishery. Industry profits would be increased by 4.3 percent (=$0.094 M/$2.2 M) under the proposed action. Under the NPA 2 and NPA 3, 21 of 21 fishermen are affected, and industry profits are increased by 0.8 percent (=$0.0.017 M/$2.2 M) and 2.0 percent (=$0.0.044 M/$2.2 M), respectively. As NPA 1 is the status quo, it is the basis against which the other alternatives are evaluated and would not result in industry costs or benefits. This action does not propose new reporting or record keeping requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap or conflict with other Federal rules. List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 222 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements. 50 CFR Part 223 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Transportation. Dated:April 12, 2006. James W. Balsiger, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 222 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 222—GENERAL ENDANGERED AND THREATENED MARINE SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 222 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ; 16 U.S.C. 742a *et seq.* ; 31 U.S.C. 9701. 2. In § 222.102, the definition of “Pound Net Regulated Area I” and “Pound Net Regulated Area II” and “Modified pound net leader” are added in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 222.102 Definitions. *Modified pound net leader* means a pound net leader that is affixed to or resting on the sea floor and made of a lower portion of mesh and an upper portion of only vertical lines such that: the mesh size is equal to or less than 8 inches (20.3 cm) stretched mesh; at any particular point along the leader the height of the mesh from the seafloor to the top of the mesh must be no more than one-third the depth of the water at mean lower low water directly above that particular point; the mesh is held in place by vertical lines that extend from the top of the mesh up to a top line, which is a line that forms the uppermost part of the pound net leader; the vertical lines are equal to or greater than 5/16 inch (0.8 cm) in diameter and strung vertically at a minimum of every 2 feet (61 cm); and the vertical lines are hard lay lines. *Pound Net Regulated Area I* means Virginia waters of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay, south of 37° 19.0′ N. lat. and west of 76° 13.0′ W. long., and all waters south of 37° 13.0′ N. lat. to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (extending from approximately 37° 05′ N. lat., 75 59′ W. long. to 36° 55′ N. lat., 76° 08′ W. long.) at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and the portion of the James River downstream of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (I-64; approximately 36° 59.55′ N. lat., 76° 18.64′ W. long.) and the York River downstream of the Coleman Memorial Bridge (Route 17; approximately 37°14.55′ N. lat, 76°30.40′ W. long.) *Pound Net Regulated Area II* means Virginia waters of the Chesapeake Bay outside of Regulated Area I defined above, extending to the Maryland-Virginia State line (approximately 37° 55′ N. lat., 75° 55′ W. long.), the Great Wicomico River downstream of the Jessie Dupont Memorial Highway Bridge (Route 200; approximately 37° 50.84′ N. lat, 76° 22.09′ W. long.), the Rappahannock River downstream of the Robert Opie Norris Jr. Bridge (Route 3; approximately 37° 37.44′ N. lat, 76° 25.40′ W. long.), and the Piankatank River downstream of the Route 3 Bridge (approximately 37 30.62′ N. lat, 76° 25.19′ W. long.) to the COLREGS line at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 1. In § 223.206, paragraph (d)(10) is revised to read as follows: § 223.206 Exemptions to prohibitions relating to sea turtles.
(d)* * *
(10)*Restrictions applicable to pound nets in Virginia* -(i) Offshore pound net leaders in Pound Net Regulated Area I. During the time period of May 6 through July 15 each year, any offshore pound net leader in Pound Net Regulated Area I must meet the definition of a modified pound net leader. Any offshore pound net leader in Pound Net Regulated Area I that does not meet the definition of a modified pound net leader must be removed from the water prior to May 6 and may not be reset until July 16.
(ii)Nearshore pound net leaders in Pound Net Regulated Area I and all pound net leaders in Pound Net Regulated Area II. During the time period of May 6 to July 15 each year, any nearshore pound net leader in Pound Net Regulated Area I and any pound net leader in Regulated Area II must have only mesh size less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) stretched mesh and may not employ stringers. Any nearshore pound net leader in Regulated Area I or any pound net leader in Regulated Area II with stretched mesh measuring 12 inches (30.5 cm) or greater, or with stringers, must be removed from the water prior to May 6 and may not be reset until July 16. [FR Doc. E6-5686 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 73 Monday, April 17, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Highline Canal/Black Point Pipeline Project, UT; Environmental Statements AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), has prepared an Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, the implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and NRCS policy. The Highline Canal/Black Point Pipeline Project is a federally assisted action authorized as a Congressional Earmark. The Environmental Assessment was developed in coordination with Wayne County Commission and the Fremont River Irrigation Company. Upon review of the Environmental Assessment, the State Conservationist for NRCS, Utah, made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and the determination was made that no environmental impact statement is required to support the project. Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Highline Canal/Black Point Pipeline Project. Written comments regarding this action may be submitted to: Sylvia Gillen, State Conservationist, USDA/NRCS, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Room 4402, Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1100. Comments must be received no later than 30 days after this notice is published. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sylvia Gillen, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Room 4402, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1100; telephone
(801)524-4550. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmental Assessment of this federally assisted action documents that the project will not cause significant local, regional, state, or national impacts on the human environment. The findings of Sylvia Gillen, State Conservationist, indicate that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project. The objectives of the proposed project are: • To stop the earthen canal from leaking. • To eliminate potential economic losses associated with a canal failure. The proposed action is to pipe a 3880 foot section of the Highline Canal in the area of Black Point, a locally-named geologic landmark located northeast of the town of Loa in Wayne County, Utah. The existing earthen canal leaks and has failed a number of times in the past. The proposed action would replace the existing canal with a 60 inch diameter pipeline. A settling pond and inlet structure are also proposed to remove sediment and debris before it goes into the pipeline. Twenty-four acres of riparian restoration would occur along the Fremont River. Copies of the FONSI and Environmental Assessment are available by request from Sylvia Gillen, Utah State Conservationist. Basic data developed during the environmental evaluation are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Sylvia Gillen, Utah State Conservationist. Requests may be submitted to: Sylvia Gillen, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Room 4402, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1100; telephone
(801)524-4550. No administrative action on implementation of this project will be taken until 30 days after the date of this notice is published. (This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.902, Soil and Water Conservation and Environmental Quality Incentive Program 10.912.) Signed in Salt Lake City, Utah on April 7, 2006. Sylvia A. Gillen, State Conservationist. [FR Doc. E6-5616 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Funding Opportunity: Section 525 Technical and Supervisory Assistance
(TSA)Grants *Announcement Type:* Initial notice of Funds Availability
(NOFA)inviting applications from qualified organizations for Fiscal Year 2006 funding. Catalog Of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA): 10.441. SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service, an agency under USDA, Rural Development announces it is soliciting competitive applications under its Technical and Supervisory Assistance
(TSA)grant program. Grants will be awarded to eligible applicant organizations to conduct programs of technical and supervisory assistance for low-income rural residents to obtain and/or maintain occupancy of adequate housing. DATES: The deadline for receipt of preapplication proposals by USDA, Rural Development State Offices is the close of business on May 17, 2006. Preapplications received after May 17, 2006 will not be considered for funding. Within 30 days after the closing date, each State Director will forward to the National Office the original preapplication(s) and supporting documents of the selected applicant. State Directors will be advised of the National Office's action on their selected preapplications. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nica Mathes, Senior Loan Specialist, USDA Rural Development, Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division, Special Programs and New Initiatives Branch, Mail Stop 0783, Room 2206-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0783, phone:
(202)205-3656 or
(202)720-1474, e-mail: *nica.mathes@wdc.usda.gov* , or FAX:
(202)720-2232. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act Overview This notice is published as required by 7 CFR 1944.525
(b)and 1944.528, which state that the housing programs Administrator must provide annual notice in the **Federal Register** on the distribution of appropriated TSA funds, the number of preapplications to be submitted to the National Office from the State Offices, the maximum grant amount per project, and the dates governing the review and selection of TSA grant preapplications. Complete agency regulations for the TSA program are contained in RD Instruction 1944-K, accessible online at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/regs* , and in 7 CFR part 1944, subpart K, and are incorporated by reference. Up to $1,000,000 in competitive grants will be awarded to eligible applicants. No single award will exceed $100,000. In accordance with 7 CFR 1944.525, the housing programs Administrator will distribute a portion of the funds to those States with the highest degree of substandard housing and persons in poverty in rural areas eligible to receive housing assistance. These States are: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Up to $400,000 will be targeted to eligible TSA programs in these States. Remaining funds will be available for national competition. No more than one grant per State and/or applicant will be awarded. The State Director may submit multiple preapplications, ranked in order of preference, to the National Office for consideration. The performance period of grant activities will be two years from the date the grant agreement is executed. Reimbursement of pre-award costs is not allowed. To be eligible for a grant, the applicant must be a nonprofit corporation, agency, institution, organization, Indian tribe or other association. A private nonprofit corporation, which is owned and controlled by private persons or interests, must have local representation from the area being served, be organized and operated by private persons or interests for purposes other than making gains or profits for the corporation, and be legally precluded from distributing any gains or profits to its members. Faith-based organizations that meet these requirements may apply. Cost sharing is not required but is encouraged. In the selection of grant recipients, the Agency will consider the extent to which the project will make use of other financial and contribution-in-kind resources for both technical and supervisory assistance and housing development and supporting facilities. Applications and complete program instructions are available at any Area Office listed on the USDA Rural Development Web site at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov.* Federal grant application forms are available in electronic format at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/grants_forms.html.* Program Administration I. Funding Opportunity Description Under Section 525
(a)of the Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S.C. 1490e (a), Rural Development provides funds to eligible applicants to conduct TSA programs for low-income rural residents to obtain and/or maintain occupancy of adequate housing. Any processing or servicing activity involving authorized assistance to USDA Rural Development employees, members of their families, known close relatives, or business or close personal associates, is subject to the provisions of 7 CFR part 1900, subpart D. Applicants for this assistance are required to identify any known relationship or association with a USDA Rural Development employee. This financial assistance may pay part or all of the cost of developing, conducting, administering, or coordinating effective and comprehensive programs of technical and supervisory assistance which will aid needy low-income individuals and families in benefiting from Federal, State, and local programs in rural areas. USDA Rural Development will provide technical and supervisory grant assistance to applicants without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, or physical or mental disability. *Policy:* The policy of USDA Rural Development is to provide technical and supervisory assistance to eligible applicants to do the following:
(1)Provide homeownership and financial counseling to reduce both the potential for delinquency by loan applicants and the level of payment delinquency by present Rural Development housing loan borrowers; and
(2)Facilitate the delivery of housing programs to serve the most needy low-income families in rural areas of greatest need for housing. Rural Development intends to fund projects which include counseling and delivery of housing programs. State Directors are given a strong role in the selection of grantees so this program can complement Rural Development's policies of targeting USDA Rural Development resources to areas of greatest need within their States. *Objectives:* The objectives of the TSA Grant Program are to assist low-income rural families in obtaining adequate housing to meet their family's needs and/or to provide the necessary guidance to promote their continued occupancy of already adequate housing. These objectives will be accomplished through the establishment or support of housing delivery and counseling projects run by eligible applicants. This program is intended to make use of any available housing program which provides the low-income rural resident access to adequate rental properties or homeownership. *Definitions:* References to Local, Area, State, National and Rural Development St. Louis Offices and to State Director, and Administrator refer to USDA Rural Development offices and officials and should be read as prefaced by USDA Rural Development. Terms used here have the following meanings: *Adequate housing.* A housing unit of adequate size and design to meet the specific needs of low-income families and the requirements governing the particular housing program providing the services or financial assistance. *Applicant or grantee.* Any eligible organization which applies for or receives TSA funds under a grant agreement. *Grant agreement.* The contract between Rural Development and the applicant which sets forth the terms and conditions under which TSA funds will be made available. *Low-income family.* Any household, including those with one member, whose adjusted annual income, computed in accordance with 7 CFR 3550.54 (c), does not exceed the Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)established low-income limit (generally 80 percent of the median income adjusted for household size) for the county or Metropolitan Statistical Area where the property is or will be located. *Organization.* Public or private nonprofit corporations, agencies, institutions, Indian tribes and other associations. A private nonprofit corporation, which is owned and controlled by private persons or interests, must have local representation from the area being served, be organized and operated by private persons or interests for purposes other than making gains or profits for the corporation, and be legally precluded from distributing any gains or profits to its members. Faith-based organizations may meet these requirements. *Rural area.* The definition in 7 CFR 3550.10 applies. *Sponsored applicant.* An eligible applicant which has a commitment of financial and/or technical assistance to apply for the TSA program and to implement such a program from a state, county, municipality, or other governmental entity or public body. *Supervisory assistance.* Any type of assistance to low-income families which will assist those families in meeting the eligibility requirements for, or the financial and managerial responsibilities of, homeownership or tenancy in an adequate housing unit. Such assistance must include, but is not limited to, the following activities:
(1)Assisting individual USDA Rural Development borrowers with financial problems to overcome delinquency and/or prevent foreclosure and assisting new low-income applicants avoid financial problems through:
(i)Financial and budget counseling including advice on debt levels, credit purchases, consumer and cost awareness, debt adjustment procedures, and availability of other financial counseling services;
(ii)Monitoring payment of taxes and insurance;
(iii)Home maintenance and management; and
(iv)Other counseling based on the needs of the low-income families.
(2)Contacting and assisting low-income families in need of adequate housing by:
(i)Implementing an organized outreach program using available media and personal contacts;
(ii)Explaining available housing programs and alternatives to increase the awareness of low-income families and to educate the community as to the benefits which can accrue from improved housing;
(iii)Assisting low-income families to locate adequate housing;
(iv)Providing construction supervision, training, and guidance to low-income families not involved in Mutual Self-Help programs who are otherwise being assisted by the TSA project;
(v)Organizing local public or private nonprofit groups willing to provide adequate housing for low-income families; and
(vi)Providing assistance to families and organizations in processing housing loan and/or grant applications generated by the TSA program, including developing and packaging such applications for new construction, rehabilitation, or repair to serve low-income families. *Technical assistance.* Any specific expertise necessary to carry out housing efforts by or for low-income families to improve the quantity and/or quality of housing available to meet their needs. Such assistance should be specifically related to the supervisory assistance provided by the project, and may include, as appropriate, the following activities:
(1)Develop, or assist eligible applicants to develop, multi-housing loan and/or grant applications for new construction, rehabilitation, or repair to serve low-income families.
(2)Market surveys, engineering studies, cost estimates, and feasibility studies related to applications for housing assistance to meet the specific needs of the low-income families assisted under the TSA program. *Grant purposes:* Grant funds are to be used for a housing delivery system and counseling program to include a comprehensive program of technical and supervisory assistance as set forth in the grant agreement and any other special conditions as required by Rural Development. Uses of grant funds may include, but are not limited to:
(1)The development and implementation of a program of technical and supervisory assistance as defined in 7 CFR 1944.506
(h)and (i).
(2)Payment of reasonable salaries of professional, technical, and clerical staff actively assisting in the delivery of the TSA project.
(3)Payment of necessary and reasonable office expenses such as office supplies and office rental, office utilities, telephone services, and office equipment rental.
(4)Payment of necessary and reasonable administrative costs such as workers' compensation, liability insurance, audit reports, travel to and attendance at Rural Development approved training sessions, and the employer's share of Social Security and health benefits. Payments to private retirement funds are prohibited unless prior written authorization is obtained from the Administrator.
(5)Payment of reasonable fees for necessary training of grantee personnel. This may include the cost of travel and per diem to attend regional training sessions when authorized by the State Director.
(6)Other reasonable travel and miscellaneous expenses necessary to accomplish the objectives of the specific TSA grant which were anticipated in the individual TSA grant proposal and which have been included as eligible expenses at the time of grant approval. *Ineligible Activities:* Grant funds may not be used for:
(1)Acquisition, construction, repair, or rehabilitation of structures or acquisition of land, vehicles, or equipment.
(2)Replacement of, or substitution for, any financial support which would be available from any other source.
(3)Duplication of current services in conflict with the requirements of 7 CFR 1944.514 (c).
(4)Hiring personnel to perform construction.
(5)Buying property of any kind from families receiving technical or supervisory assistance from the grantee under the terms of the TSA grant.
(6)Paying for or reimbursing the grantee for any expenses or debts incurred before USDA Rural Development executes the grant agreement.
(7)Paying any debts, expenses, or costs which should be the responsibility of the individual families receiving technical and supervisory assistance.
(8)Any type of political activities.
(9)Other costs including contributions and donations, entertainment, fines and penalties, interest and other financial costs, legislative expenses and any excess of cost from other grant agreements. Advice and assistance may be obtained from the National Office where ineligible costs are proposed as part of the TSA project or where a proposed cost appears ineligible. The grantee may not charge fees or accept compensation or gratuities from TSA recipients for the grantee's assistance under this program. Comprehensive TSA programs include: Outreach to the community and education of low-income families as to the benefits which can accrue from improved housing, including: counseling on affording a home, obtaining a housing loan, and understanding predatory lending practices; loan packaging and assistance in the homebuying process, including reviewing client credit history, screening for housing loan eligibility for USDA Rural Development Section 502 loans or similar loans, assisting clients to complete applications, advising clients on home selection and matters related to home financing, and providing post-purchase counseling; and, assisting individual USDA Rural Development borrowers with financial problems to overcome delinquency and/or prevent foreclosure. II. Award Information Up to $1,000,000 in competitive grants will be awarded to eligible applicants. It is estimated that 10 grants will be awarded with these funds. TSA projects will be funded under a Grant Agreement for two years commencing on the date of execution of the Agreement by the State Director. The Grant Agreement is contained as Exhibit A to RD Instruction 1944-K (available in any USDA Rural Development office). Performance of the grant program should begin within 60 days of award notification. Applications for renewal of existing TSA programs are eligible to compete with applications for new awards. III. Eligibility Information Grants provide funds to eligible applicant organizations to conduct TSA for low-income rural residents to obtain and/or maintain occupancy of adequate housing. *Applicant eligibility.* To be eligible to receive a grant, the applicant must:
(1)Be an organization as defined in 7 CFR 1944.506 (e).
(2)Have the financial, legal, administrative, and operational capacity to assume and carry out the responsibilities imposed by the grant agreement. To meet this requirement of actual capacity, it must either:
(i)Have necessary background and experience with proven ability to perform responsibly in the field of low-income rural housing development and counseling, or other business management or administrative experience which indicates an ability to provide responsible technical and supervisory assistance; or
(ii)Be assisted by an organization which has such background experience and ability and which agrees in writing that it will provide, without charge, the assistance the applicant will need to carry out its responsibilities.
(3)Legally obligate itself to administer TSA funds, provide an adequate accounting of the expenditure of such funds, and comply with the grant agreement and applicable USDA Rural Development regulations;
(4)Demonstrate an understanding of the needs of low-income rural families;
(5)Have the ability and willingness to work within established guidelines; and
(6)If the applicant is engaged in or plans to become engaged in any other activities, it must be able to provide sufficient evidence and documentation that it has adequate resources, including financial resources, to carry on any other programs or activities to which it is committed without jeopardizing the success and effectiveness of its TSA project. *Cost sharing or matching.* There is no cost sharing or matching requirement. However, applicants who submit evidence of cost sharing will receive points under *Selection Criteria,* paragraph V.
(2)(v). *Other administrative requirements.* The following policies and regulations apply to grants made under this program:
(1)The policies and regulations contained in 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E regarding equal opportunity requirements.
(2)The policies and regulations contained in 7 CFR part 1901, subpart F regarding historical and archaeological properties.
(3)The policies and regulations contained in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G regarding Environmental Assessments. IV. Application and Submission Information Preapplication submission
(1)Applicants may file an electronic application at *http://www.grants.gov.* Applications will not be accepted via facsimile machine transmission or electronic mail. Grants.gov contains full instructions on all required passwords, credentialing, and software. Follow the instructions at Grants.gov for registering and submitting an electronic application. If a system problem or technical difficulty occurs with an electronic application, please use the customer support resources available at the Grants.gov Web site. First time Grants.gov users should go to the “Get Started” tab on the Grants.gov site and carefully read and follow the steps listed. These steps need to be initiated early in the application process to avoid delays in submitting your application online. Step three, Registering with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR), will take some time to complete, so keep that in mind when beginning the application process. In order to register with the CCR, your organization will need a Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)Number. A DUNS number is a unique nine-character identification number provided by the commercial company, Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). To investigate if your organization already has a DUNS number or to obtain a DUNS number, contact Dun & Bradstreet at 1-866-705-5711. Be sure to complete the Marketing Partner ID
(MPIN)and Electronic Business Primary Point of Contact fields during the CCR registration process. These are mandatory fields that are required when submitting grant applications through Grants.gov. Information about registering with CCR was published in the **Federal Register** on January 17, 2006. (See 71 FR 2549). Additional application instructions for submitting an electronic application can be found by selecting this funding opportunity on Grants.gov.
(2)Applicants, that choose not to file electronically, will file an original and two copies of the preapplication, including supporting information detailed below, with the appropriate State Office serving the proposed TSA area. Preapplications will consist of: Standard Form 424 (Form SF-424), “Application for Federal Assistance;” Form SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs;” Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs;” and supporting documentation as detailed below. The applicant organization's DUNS number must be provided. If the TSA area encompasses more than one State Office, the preapplication will be filed at the State Office which serves the area in which the grantee will provide the greatest amount of TSA efforts. Additional informational copies of the preapplication will be sent by the applicant to the other affected State Office(s). Applications for multi-state projects must designate the portion of funds and services to be provided to each state. *Where to file.* Preapplication packages, including electronic submissions, must be received prior to the deadline at the appropriate USDA Rural Development State Office. State Office addresses and contacts are: Alabama State Office Suite 601, Sterling Centre, 4121 Carmichael Road, Montgomery, AL 36106-3683,
(334)279-3400, TDD
(334)279-3495, Vann L. McCloud. Alaska State Office 800 West Evergreen, Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645,
(907)761-7705, ext. 740, TDD
(907)761-8905, Deborah Davis. Arizona State Office Phoenix Corporate Center, 3003 N. Central Ave., Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2906,
(602)280-8755, TDD
(602)280-8706, Ernie Weatherbee. Arkansas State Office 700 W. Capitol Ave., Rm. 3416, Little Rock, AR 72201-3225,
(501)301-3200, TDD
(501)301-3063, Lawrence McCullough. California State Office 430 G Street, #4169, Davis, CA 95616-4169,
(530)792-5816, TDD
(530)792-5848, Deborah Morris, Acting. Colorado State Office 655 Parfet Street, Room E100, Lakewood, CO 80215,
(720)544-2903, TDD
(800)659-2656, Jamie Spakow. Connecticut Served by Massachusetts State Office. Delaware & Maryland State Office 4607 South DuPont Highway, PO Box 400, Camden, DE 19934-9998,
(302)697-4319, TDD
(302)697-4303, W. Drew Clendaniel. Florida & Virgin Islands State Office 4440 NW 25th Place, Gainesville, FL 32606-6563,
(352)338-3435, TDD
(352)338-3499, Daryl Cooper. Georgia State Office Stephens Federal Building 355 E. Hancock Avenue, Athens, GA 30601-2768,
(706)546-2162, TDD
(706)546-2034, Joseph Walden. Guam Served by Hawaii State Office. Hawaii State Office (Services all Hawaii, American Samoa and Western Pacific), Room 311, Federal Building, 154 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720,
(808)933-8309, TDD
(808)933-8321, Jack L. Mahan. Idaho State Office Suite A1, 9173, West Barnes Dr., Boise, ID 83709,
(208)378-5627, TDD
(208)378-5644, Roni Atkins. Illinois State Office 2118 West Park Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821-2986,
(217)403-6222, TDD
(217)403-6240, Barry L. Ramsey. Indiana State Office 5975 Lakeside Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278,
(317)290-3100 ext. 413, TDD
(317)290-3343, Paul Neumann. Iowa State Office 210 Walnut Street Room 873, Des Moines, IA 50309,
(515)284-4663, TDD
(515)284-4858, Bruce McGuire. Kansas State Office 1303 SW First American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, KS 66604-4040,
(785)271-2700, TDD
(785)271-2767, Tim Rogers. Kentucky State Office 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40503,
(859)224-7416, TDD
(859)224-7422, Denver Parks. Louisiana State Office 3727 Government Street, Alexandria, LA 71302,
(318)473-7920, TDD
(318)473-7655, Debbie Redfearn. Maine State Office 967 Illinois Ave., Suite 4, PO Box 405, Bangor, ME 04402-0405,
(207)990-9118, TDD
(207)942-7331, Dale Holmes. Maryland Served by Delaware State Office. Massachusetts, Connecticut, & Rhode Island State Office 451 West Street, Suite 2, Amherst, MA 01002,
(413)253-4333, TDD
(413)253-4590, Don Colburn. Michigan State Office 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI 48823,
(517)324-5192, TDD
(517)337-6795, Rick Annis, Acting. Minnesota State Office 375 Jackson Street Building, Suite 410, St. Paul, MN 55101,
(651)602-7835, TDD
(651)602-7830, Lance Larson. Mississippi State Office Federal Building, Suite 831, 100 W. Capitol Street, Jackson, MS 39269,
(601)965-4325, TDD
(601)965-5850, John Jones. Missouri State Office 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203,
(573)876-9301, TDD
(573)876-9480, Randy Griffith. Montana State Office Unit 1, Suite B, 900 Technology Blvd., Bozeman, MT 59715,
(406)585-2551, TDD
(406)585-2562, Deborah Chorlton. Nebraska State Office Federal Building, Room 152, 100 Centennial Mall N, Lincoln, NE 68508,
(402)437-5551, TDD
(402)437-5093, Byron Fischer. Nevada State Office 1390 South Curry Street, Carson City, NV 89703-9910,
(775)887-1795, TDD
(775)885-0633, William Brewer. New Hampshire State Office Served by Vermont State Office. New Jersey State Office 5th Floor North, Suite 500, 8000 Midlantic Drive, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054,
(856)787-7731, TDD
(856)787-7784, George Hyatt, Jr. New Mexico State Office 6200 Jefferson St., NE, Room 255, Albuquerque, NM 87109,
(505)761-4973, TDD
(505)761-4938, Walt Taylor. New York State Office The Galleries of Syracuse, 441 S. Salina Street, Suite 357 5th Floor, Syracuse, NY 13202,
(315)477-6419, TDD
(315)477-6447, Jennifer Jackson. North Carolina State Office 4405 Bland Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609,
(919)873-2041, TDD
(919)873-2003, Melchior Ellis. North Dakota State Office, Federal Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser, PO Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502,
(701)530-2044, TDD
(701)530-2113, Don Warren. Ohio State Office, Federal Building, Room 507, 200 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215-2477,
(614)255-2401, TDD
(614)255-2554, Gerald Arnott. Oklahoma State Office 100 USDA, Suite 108, Stillwater, OK 74074-2654,
(405)742-1000, TDD
(405)742-1007, Brian Wiles. Oregon State Office 101 SW Main, Suite 1410, Portland, OR 97204-3222,
(503)414-3339, TDD
(503)414-3387, Sharon Shaffer. Pennsylvania State Office One Credit Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996,
(717)237-2279, TDD
(717)237-2261, Frank Wetherhold. Puerto Rico State Office IBM Building, Suite 601, Munoz Rivera Ave. #654, San Juan, PR 00918,
(787)766-5095, TDD
(787)766-5332, Pedro Gomez. Rhode Island Served by Massachusetts State Office. South Carolina State Office Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007, Columbia, SC 29201,
(803)253-3655, TDD
(803)765-5697, Herbert R. Koon, Jr. South Dakota State Office Federal Building, Room 210, 200 Fourth Street, SW, Huron, SD 57350,
(605)352-1135, TDD
(605)352-1147, Roger Hazuka. Tennessee State Office Suite 300, 3322 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN 37203-1084,
(615)783-1375, TDD
(615)783-1397, Donald L. Harris. Texas State Office Federal Building, Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, TX 76501,
(254)742-9765, TDD
(254)742-9712, Gayle Ledyard, Acting. Utah State Office Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 S. State Street, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT 84138,
(801)524-4323, TDD
(801)524-3309, Dave Brown. Vermont & New Hampshire State Office City Center, 3rd Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT 05602,
(802)828-6015, TDD
(802)223-6365, Robert McDonald. Virgin Islands Served by Florida State Office. Virginia State Office Culpeper Building, Suite 238, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Richmond, VA 23229,
(804)287-1603, TDD
(804)287-1753, James Reid. Washington State Office 1835 Black Lake Blvd., Suite B, Olympia, WA 98512,
(360)704-7704, TDD
(360)704-7742, Karen Bailor. Western Pacific Territories Served by Hawaii State Office. West Virginia State Office Federal Building 75 High Street, Room 320, Morgantown, WV 26505-7500,
(304)284-4867, TDD
(304)284-4836, Dianne Goff Crysler. Wisconsin State Office 4949 Kirschling Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481,
(715)345-7600, TDD
(715)345-7614, Peter Kohnen. Wyoming State Office 100 East B, Federal Building, Room 1005, PO Box 820, Casper, WY 82602,
(307)233-6715, TDD
(307)261-6333, Alan Brooks.
(3)All preapplications, including electronic submissions, shall be accompanied by the following information which will be used to determine the applicant's eligibility to undertake a TSA program and to determine whether the applicant might be funded:
(i)A narrative presentation of the applicant's proposed TSA program, including:
(A)The technical and supervisory assistance to be provided;
(B)The time schedule for implementing the program;
(C)The staffing pattern to execute the program and salary range for each position, existing and proposed;
(D)The estimated number of low-income and low-income minority families the applicant will assist in obtaining affordable adequate housing;
(E)The estimated number of USDA Rural Development borrowers who are delinquent or being foreclosed that the applicant will assist in resolving their financial problems relating to their delinquency;
(F)The estimated number of households which will be assisted in obtaining adequate housing in the TSA area through new construction and/or rehabilitation;
(G)Annual estimated budget for each of the two years based on the financial needs to accomplish the objectives outlined in the proposal. The budget should include proposed direct and indirect costs for personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contracts, and other cost categories, detailing those costs for which the grantee proposes to use the TSA grant separately from non-TSA resources, if any;
(H)The accounting system (cash or accrual) to be used;
(I)The method of evaluation proposed to be used by the applicant to determine the effectiveness of its program;
(J)The sources and estimated amounts of other financial resources to be obtained and used by the applicant for both TSA activities and housing development and/or supporting facilities; and,
(K)Any other information necessary to explain the manner of delivering the TSA assistance proposed.
(ii)Complete information about the applicant's previous experience and capacity to carry out the objectives of the proposed TSA program;
(iii)Evidence of the applicant's legal existence, including, in the case of a private nonprofit organization, a copy of, or an accurate reference to, the specific provisions of State law under which the applicant is organized; a certified copy of the applicant's Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws or other evidence of corporate existence; certificate of incorporation for other than public bodies; evidence of good standing from the State when the corporation has been in existence one year or more; the names and addresses of the applicant's members, directors, and officers; and, if another organization is a member of the applicant-organization, its name, address, and principal business.
(iv)For a private nonprofit entity, a current financial statement dated and signed by an authorized officer of the entity showing the amounts and specific nature of assets and liabilities together with information on the repayment schedule and status of any debt(s) owed by the applicant. If the applicant is an organization being assisted by another private nonprofit organization, the same type of financial statement should also be provided by that organization.
(v)A brief narrative statement which includes information about the area to be served and the need for improved housing (including both percentage and actual number of both low-income and low-income minority families and substandard housing), the need for the type of technical and supervisory assistance being proposed, the method of evaluation to be used by the applicant in determining the effectiveness of its efforts (as related to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section), and any other information necessary to specifically address the selection criteria in 7 CFR 1944.529.
(vi)A list of other activities the applicant is engaged in and expects to continue and a statement as to any other funding and whether it will have sufficient funds to assure continued operation of the other activities for at least the period of the TSA grant agreement.
(4)An applicant should submit written statements from the county, parish, or township governments of the area affected that the project is beneficial and does not duplicate current activities. If the local governmental units will not provide such statements, the applicant will prepare and include with its preapplication a summary of its analysis of alternatives considered under 7 CFR 1944.514 (c). However, Indian nonprofit organization applicants should obtain the written concurrence of the tribal governing body in lieu of the concurrence of the county governments.
(5)Sponsored applicants should submit a written commitment for financial and/or technical assistance from their sponsoring entity.
(6)An original and one copy of Form RD 1940-20, “Request for Environmental Information.”
(7)USDA Rural Development will deal only with authorized representatives designated by the applicant. The authorized representatives must have no pecuniary interest in any of the following as they would relate in any way to the TSA grant: the award of any engineering, architectural, management, administration, or construction contracts; purchase of the furnishings, fixtures or equipment; or purchase and/or development of land. ( **Note:** USDA Rural Development has designated the Area Office as the primary point of contact for all matters relating to the TSA program and as the office responsible for the *administration* of approved TSA projects.) *Intergovernmental Review.* This program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. V. Application Review Information Within 30 days of the closing date for receipt of preapplications, the State Director will forward to the National Office the original preapplication(s) and supporting documents of the selected applicant(s), including any comments received in accordance with 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, “Intergovernmental Review of Agriculture Programs and Activities,” (See RD Instruction 1940-J, available in any USDA Rural Development Office) and the comments and recommendations of the Local Office(s), Area Office(s), and the State Office. The State Office may submit multiple preapplications, ranked in order of preference, to the National Office for consideration. Concurrently the State Office will send a copy of the selected applicant's Form SF-424 and relevant documents to the Regional Office of the General Counsel
(OGC)requesting a legal determination be made of the applicant's legal existence and authority to conduct the proposed program of technical and supervisory assistance. The State Office will notify other applicants that their preapplications were not selected and advise them of their appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11. Selection Criteria
(1)Proposals must meet the following criteria:
(i)Provide a program of supervisory assistance as defined in 7 CFR 1944.506(h); and,
(ii)Serve areas with a concentration of substandard housing and low-income and low-income minority households.
(2)For proposals meeting the requirements listed in paragraph
(1)above, USDA Rural Development will use the weighted criteria in this paragraph in the selection of grant recipients. Each preapplication and its accompanying narrative will be evaluated and the applicant's proposal will be numerically rated on each criterion. The highest-ranking proposals will be selected for funding according to award information, described above. The criteria considered, the method of measurement, and the points to be awarded are as follows:
(i)The extent to which the program serves areas with concentrations of Rural Development single family housing loan borrowers who are delinquent in their housing loan payments and/or threatened with foreclosure. Measured by whether the applicant proposes to offer delinquency counseling services for Rural Development borrowers. Program will offer delinquency counseling services: 5 points.
(ii)The capability and past performance demonstrated by the applicant in administering its programs, the effectiveness of current efforts by the applicant to assist low-income and low-income minority families in obtaining adequate housing, the adequacy of records and practices (including personnel procedures and practices) that will be established and maintained by the applicant during the term of the agreement. Measured on whether the applicant organization or members of the applicant organization's staff conducting the proposed TSA program have, in the last two years, successfully conducted a TSA or similar program to assist low-income families in becoming successful homeowners. Have conducted a similar program, not TSA: 5 points; OR, have conducted a TSA program, 10 points.
(iii)The narrative presentation of the applicant's proposed TSA program. This criterion will be used to evaluate the proposed TSA program and its implementation. This section should describe the technical and supervisory assistance to be provided, the anticipated capacity of the applicant to implement the proposed time schedule for starting and completing the TSA program and each phase thereof, the extent to which the proposed staff and salary ranges will meet the objective of the program including, but not limited to: the ratio of personnel to be hired by the applicant to the cost of the project, the estimated number of low-income and low-income minority families that will obtain housing, the estimated number of Rural Development borrowers that will obtain delinquency counseling, and the estimated number of households that will be assisted in obtaining adequate housing in the TSA area through new construction and/or rehabilitation. Up to 50 points may be assigned.
(iv)The extent to which the program will provide or increase the delivery of housing resources to low-income and low-income minority families who are not currently occupying adequate housing in the areas.
(A)Measured by the county Poverty Rate, as reported in Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Report GCT-P14, “Income and Poverty in 1999:2000.” This information may be obtained on the Internet from the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, “American Fact Finder,” at *factfinder.census.gov.* ( *1* ) 25.1% or higher: 30 points. ( *2* ) 14.7% to 25.0%: A total of 2.86 points, rounded to the nearest whole number, for each percentage point above 14.6%. ( *3* ) 14.6% or less: 0 points. *Example:* According to Census 2000, the service area Poverty Rate is 18.0 percent. This is 3.4 points above the National Non-Metropolitan Area Average of 14.6 percent. This proposal would be scored with 10 points (3.4 × 2.86 = 9.7); and
(B)Measured by the degree of deficient housing, based on the combination of the county's percentage of housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities plus the percentage of housing units lacking complete kitchen facilities (referred to as deficient housing factor), as reported in Census 2000 SF 3 Report GCT-H7, “Structural and Facility Characteristics of All Housing Units: 2000.” This information may be obtained on the Internet from the U.S. Census Bureau Web site, “American Fact Finder,” at *factfinder.census.gov.* ( *1* ) Deficient housing factor 13.0 or greater: 30 points. ( *2* ) Factor 5.1 to 13.0: A total of 3.75 points, rounded to the nearest whole number, for each point above 5.0. ( *3* ) Factor 5.0 or lower: 0 points. *Example:* Of the total housing units in the service area, 5.0 percent lack complete plumbing and 4.5 percent lack complete kitchen facilities, according to Census 2000. Adding these two percentages provides a ‘deficient housing index’ of 9.5. This is 4.5 points above the National Non-Metropolitan Area Average of 5.0. This would result in a score of 17 points (9.5−5.0 = 4.5 × 3.75 = 16.875).
(C)For programs serving multi-county areas, scoring will be determined based upon the combined totals for the counties entire service area. County data (not smaller areas) will be used for evaluation.
(v)The extent to which the program will make use of other financial and contribution-in-kind resources for both technical and supervisory assistance and housing development and supporting facilities. Scoring will be based on the amount of financial assistance from non-Federal sources compared to the applicant's grant request for financial assistance for the project. The applicant will receive points as follows:
(A)5—25%-5 points
(B)Greater than 25% but equal to or less than 50%—10 points
(C)Greater than 50%—15 points
(vi)The extent to which the project will be cost effective. The cost, both direct and indirect, per person benefiting from the program will be measured by the proposed total number of low-income participants who obtain suitable housing within the period of the grant as a result of participation in the comprehensive TSA program, compared to the amount of the TSA grant. Scoring will be based on the TSA grant funds expended per participant who purchases suitable housing.
(A)$1,000 or less—10 points
(B)Greater than $1000 but equal to or less than $1500—5 points
(C)More than $1,500—0 points *Example:* The applicant organization's program of homebuyer training and loan packaging proposes to produce 60 homeowners during the two-year grant. Funding for the program includes a $75,000 TSA grant. The TSA cost per homeowner produced is $75,000/60 = $1,250. Therefore, 5 points would be given.
(vii)The extent to which the program is effective in providing expected benefits to low-income families. Measured by the proposed total number of low-income participants who obtain suitable housing within the period of the grant as a result of participation in the comprehensive TSA program. More than 25 but less than 50 new homeowners: 5 points, OR more than 50 new homeowners: 10 points.
(viii)The narrative statement demonstrates the need for the TSA program in the proposed area. This section should describe the area to be served and the need for improved housing, the need for the technical and supervisory assistance proposed, and the method of determining the proposed program's effectiveness. Up to 20 points may be assigned.
(ix)The services the applicant will provide are not presently available in the proposed service area to assist low-income families in obtaining or maintaining occupancy of adequate housing and the extent of duplication of technical and supervisory assistance activities currently provided for low-income families. Measured by comments received. Proposed services not duplicated in the area: 10 points.
(x)The extent of citizen and local government participation and involvement in the development of the preapplication and project and coordination with other Federal, State or local technical and/or supervisory assistance programs. Measured by letter(s) or similar documentation from local government officials, businesses and individuals detailing participation and coordination in the project by groups other than the applicant. Letters of support from local or State government entities stating the project is beneficial and non-duplicative: 5 points. VI. Award Administration Information Upon notification that the applicant has been tentatively selected for funding based on its preapplication, the State Office will notify the applicant and provide instructions for preparation of a formal application. The applicant will submit all completed forms required for a formal application and whatever additional needed information that is requested to the Area Office within 30 days. The Area Office will assemble a formal application docket, which will include the following:
(1)Form SF-424 and the information submitted in accordance with 7 CFR 1944.526(a)(2) (preapplication package);
(2)Any comments received in accordance with 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Agriculture Programs and Activities.” See RD Instruction 1940-J (available in any USDA Rural Development Office).
(3)OGC legal determination made pursuant to 7 CFR 1944.526 (c)(3).
(4)Grant Agreement.
(5)Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(6)Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement.”
(7)Form RD 400-4, “Nondiscrimination Agreement.”
(8)Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”
(9)Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants), Alternative I—For Grantees Other Than Individuals.”
(10)Form RD 1940-20, “Request for Environmental Information.”
(11)Form RD 1940-22, “Environmental Checklist for Categorical Exclusions,” Form RD 1940-21, “Environmental Assessment for Class I Actions” or Exhibit G of 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G entitled, “Environmental Assessment for Class II Actions.”
(12)The historical and archaeological assessment.
(13)The detailed budget for the agreement period based upon the needs outlined in the proposal and recommendations by USDA Rural Development.
(14)Verification of Debarment Listing check and Federal Debt Listing check.
(15)Form RD 2006-38, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis.” *Reporting requirements.* Form SF-269, “Financial Status Report,” and a project performance report will be required of all grantees on a quarterly basis. All grantees shall submit an original and two copies of these reports to the Area Office. The project performance reports will be submitted not later than January 15, April 15, July 15, and October 15 of each year. As part of the grantee's preapplication submission required by 7 CFR 1944.526 (a)(2)(i), the grantee established the objectives of its TSA program including the estimated number of low-income families to be assisted by the TSA program and its method of evaluation to determine the effectiveness of its program. The project performance report should relate the activities during the report period to the project's objectives and analyze the effectiveness of the program. The grantee will complete a final Form SF-269 and a final performance report upon termination or expiration of the grant agreement. *Grant monitoring.* Each grant will be monitored by USDA Rural Development to ensure that the grantee is complying with the terms of the grant and that the TSA project activity is completed as approved. Ordinarily, this will involve a review of quarterly and final reports by USDA Rural Development and review by the appropriate Area Office. *Additional grants.* An additional grant may be made to an applicant that has previously received a TSA grant and substantially achieved the goals established for the previous grant by submitting a new proposal for TSA funds. The additional grant application will be processed as if it were an initial application. *Management assistance.* The Area Office will see that each TSA grantee receives management assistance to help achieve a successful program.
(1)TSA employees who will be contacting and assisting families will receive training in packaging single family housing and Rural Rental Housing loans when, or very shortly after, they are hired so that they can work effectively.
(2)TSA employees who will provide counseling, outreach, and other technical and supervisory assistance will receive training on USDA Rural Development policies, procedures, and requirements appropriate to their positions and the type of assistance the grantee will provide at the outset of the grant.
(3)Training will be provided by USDA Rural Development employees and/or outside sources approved by USDA Rural Development when the technical and supervisory assistance involves rural housing programs other than Rural Development programs. Appropriate training of TSA employees should be anticipated during the planning stages of the grant and the reasonable cost of such training included in the budget.
(4)The Area Office, in cooperation with the appropriate Local Office(s), should coordinate the management assistance given to the TSA grantee in a manner which is timely and effective. This will require periodic meetings with the grantee to discuss problems being encountered and offer assistance in solving these problems; to discuss the budget, the effectiveness of the grant, and any other unusual circumstances affecting delivery of the proposed TSA services; to keep the grantee aware of procedural and policy changes, availability of funds, etc.; and to discuss any other matters affecting the availability of housing opportunities for low-income families.
(5)The Area and/or Local Office will advise the grantee of the options available to bring the delinquent borrowers' accounts current and advise the grantee that the appropriate approval authority for any resolution of the delinquent accounts and all other authority currently available to remedy delinquent accounts. *Grant evaluation, closeout, suspension, and termination.* Grant evaluation will be an ongoing activity performed by both the grantee and USDA Rural Development. The grantee will perform self-evaluations by preparing periodic project performance reports in accordance with 7 CFR 1944.541. USDA Rural Development will also review all reports prepared and submitted by the grantee in accordance with the grant agreement and 7 CFR part 1944, subpart K. Within forty-five
(45)days after the grant ending date, the grantee will complete closeout procedures as specified in the grant agreement. The grant can also be terminated before the grant ending date for the causes specified in the grant agreement. No further grant funds will be disbursed when grant suspension or termination procedures have been initiated in accordance with the grant agreement. VII. Agency Contacts Nica Mathes, Senior Loan Specialist, USDA Rural Development, Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division, Special Programs and New Initiatives Branch, Mail Stop 0783, Room 2206-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0783, phone:
(202)205-3656 or
(202)720-1474, e-mail: *nica.mathes@wdc.usda.gov,* or FAX:
(202)720-2232. VIII. Other Information Information about TSA grants and other Rural Development housing programs can be obtained at the USDA Rural Development Web site at *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov.* Questions can also be sent by e-mail to *agsec@usda.gov.* Dated: April 7, 2006. Russell T. Davis, Administrator, Rural Housing Service. [FR Doc. E6-5688 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-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: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Management Strategies and Regulations in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0534. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 5,952. *Number of Respondents:* 3,736. *Average Hours Per Response:* Full survey, 2 hours; non-respondent postcard survey, 2 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* This is a ten-year replication of the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of the management strategies and regulations of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) for three user groups: Commercial fishermen, dive shop owners/operators and members of local environmental groups. The original study was done in 1995-96 and was adopted as providing baselines for the Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program for the FKNMS. Much has happened since 1995-96 so the study will also provide new baselines for new management strategies and regulations. The most important management strategies and regulations assessed in both the baseline and replication are those related to the special zones created in the FKNMS, especially the no-take areas. The information is important to support the “adaptive management” process in the FKNMS and to support education and outreach efforts. This application revises methods to increase response rates and proposes a study of nonresponse bias for the survey of members of local environmental groups. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households. *Frequency:* One time. *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)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: April 11, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5624 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-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:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Economic Surveys for U.S. Commercial Fisheries. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0369. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 7,000. *Number of Respondents:* 6,000. *Average Hours Per Response:* Catcher or for-hire vessel operating cost, annual cost, revenue, effort, employment, ownership, and limited demographic data, 1 hour and 30 minutes; catcher or for-hire vessel operating cost data, 25 minutes; catcher or for-hire vessel annual expenditure and demographic data, 1 hour; West Coast or Alaska processor, including catcher/processor vessels, mothership vessels, floating processing plants, and onshore plants, 8 hours; East Coast or Gulf processor, 1 hour and 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* This proposed collection of economic data for U.S. commercial fisheries will be used to address statutory and regulatory mandates to determine the quantity and distribution of net benefits derived from living marine resources, as well as predict the economic impacts from proposed management options on commercial harvesters, shoreside industries, and fishing communities. In particular, the data will be used to meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866 as well as a variety of state statutes. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually and on occasion. *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)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: April 11, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5625 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-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:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Application for Commission in the NOAA Officer Corps. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0047. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 184. *Number of Respondents:* 600. *Average Hours Per Response:* One hour for applications; ten minutes for references. *Needs and Uses:* The NOAA Corps is the smallest of the seven uniformed services of the United States and is an integral part of NOAA. The NOAA Corps provides a cadre of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines who serve in assignments within the five major Line Offices of NOAA. Persons wishing to obtain a NOAA Corps Commission must submit an application package, and five references. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by 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)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: April 11, 2006 Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5626 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration 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 of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Participation Agreement and Trade Mission Application *Agency Form Number:* ITA-4008P, ITA-4008P-1 and ITA-4008P-A. *OMB Number:* 0625-0147. *Type of Request:* Regular Submission. *Burden:* 2,768 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 7,500. *Avg. Hours Per Response:* 20—90 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The ITA-4008P, “Participation Agreement”, is the vehicle by which individual firms agree to participate in any of ITA's trade promotion programs and record their required participation fee to the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). Together with the relevant ITA-4008P-A, “Conditions of Participation”, it forms a contract between the individual firm and the DOC. The ITA-4008P-1, “Trade Mission Application”, is used to solicit information from firms seeking to participate in DOC overseas trade missions covered by the Statement of Policy Governing Overseas Trade Missions of the Department of Commerce issued by Secretary Daley on March 3, 1997. Trade Mission participants are required to complete the Forms ITA-4008P, ITA-4008P-1, and ITA-4008P-A. Other DOC trade event (not trade mission) participants complete Forms ITA-4008P and ITA-4008P-A, but do not complete Form ITA-4008P-1. *Affected Public:* The forms are sent by request to potential U.S. firms. *Frequency:* Upon request by U.S. firms (On Occasion). *Respondents Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Department Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. E-mail *dHynek@doc.gov.* Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, at *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* or fax
(202)395-7285 within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Dated: April 11, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5632 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census 2010 Census Advisory Committee AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the 2010 Census Advisory Committee. Committee members will address policy, research, and technical issues related to 2010 Decennial Census programs, including the American Community Survey and related programs. Last-minute changes to the agenda are possible, which could prevent giving advance notification of schedule changes. DATES: May 11-12, 2006. On May 11, the meeting will begin at approximately 9 a.m. and end at approximately 5 p.m. On Friday, May 12, 2006, the meeting will begin at approximately 9 a.m. and end at approximately 11:15 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau, 4700 Silver Hill Road, Federal Building 3, Suitland, Maryland 20746. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Green, Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 3627, Federal Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20233, telephone
(301)763-2070, TTY
(301)457-2540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2010 Census Advisory Committee is composed of a Chair, Vice-Chair, and 20 member organizations—all appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee considers the goals of the decennial census, including the American Community Survey and related programs, and users' needs for information provided by the decennial census from the perspective of outside data users and other organizations having a substantial interest and expertise in the conduct and outcome of the decennial census. The Committee has been established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10(a)(b)). A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment. However, individuals with extensive statements for the record must submit them in writing to the Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer named above at least three working days prior to the meeting. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer as soon as known, preferably two weeks prior to the meeting. Dated: April 12, 2006. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E6-5655 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Census Advisory Committee Of Professional Associations AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations. The Committee will address issues regarding Census Bureau programs and activities related to their areas of expertise. Members will address policy, research, and technical issues related to 2010 Decennial Census Programs, including the American Community Survey (ACS). The Committee also will discuss several economic initiatives, as well as issues pertaining to marketing services, sample redesign issues related to 2010 demographic surveys, and research on the use of population estimates as controls in the ACS. Last minute changes to the agenda are possible, which could prevent giving advance notice of schedule adjustments. DATES: May 18-19, 2006. On May 18, the meeting will begin at approximately 9 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 5 p.m. On May 19, the meeting will begin at approximately 9 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 11:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Green, Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 3627, Federal Building 3, Washington, DC 20233. Her telephone number is 301-763-2070, TDD 301-457-2540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations is composed of 36 members, appointed by the Presidents of the American Economic Association, the American Statistical Association, and the Population Association of America, and the Chairperson of the Board of the American Marketing Association. The Committee addresses issues regarding Census Bureau programs and activities related to their respective areas of expertise. The Committee has been established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section10(a)(b)). The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comment and questions. Those persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing, at least three days before the meeting, to the Committee Liaison Officer named above. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer. Dated: April 12, 2006. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E6-5654 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1440] Grant of Authority For Subzone Status, Michelin North America, Inc., (Tire Distribution), Monee, Illinois Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “ . . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; *Whereas* , the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest; *Whereas* , the Illinois International Port District, grantee of FTZ 22, has made application to the Board for authority to establish special-purpose subzone status at the tire and tire accessory warehousing/distribution facility of Michelin North America, Inc., located in Monee, Illinois (FTZ Docket 15-2005, filed March 14, 2005); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 14443, March 22, 2005); and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby grants authority for subzone status for distribution activity involving tire and tire accessories at the warehousing/distribution facility of Michelin North America, Inc., located in Monee, Illinois (Subzone 22N), as described in the application and **Federal Register** notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of April 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5679 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1441] Approval of Request for Manufacturing Authority Within Foreign-Trade Zone 40, Lorain County, OH, (Oil Burner Units) Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 40, submitted an application to the Board for manufacturing authority (oil burner units) within FTZ 40 for R.W. Beckett Company (FTZ Docket 9-2005; filed February 22, 2005); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment was given in **Federal Register** (70 FR 9414, February 28, 2005) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby orders: The application for manufacturing authority for oil burner units within FTZ 40 for R.W. Beckett Company, is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of April 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration. Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5677 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1442] Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 101, Clinton County, Ohio Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , Airborne FTZ, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 101, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 101 to include a site in Fayette County, Ohio, within the Dayton Customs and Border Protection port of entry (FTZ Docket 27-2005, filed June 3, 2005); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 34445-34446, June 14, 2005); *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby orders: The application to expand FTZ 101 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of April 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5681 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1443] Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 94, Laredo, Texas Area Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the City of Laredo, Texas, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 94, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 94 in the Laredo, Texas area, to include a site within the Embarcadero Business Park, within the Laredo Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 19-2005, filed 5/9/2005); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment was given in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 25536, 5/13/2005) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby orders: The application to expand FTZ 94 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the general-purpose zone project. Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of April 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5675 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Encryption Items Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce ACTION: Proposed collection: request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 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 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 Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6703, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This collection of information is required by Section 742.15 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). This collection facilitates the review of encryption products prior to sale and streamlined post-export reporting. II. Method of Collection Submitted on forms or electronically. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0104. *Form Number:* BIS-742R, BIS-742S. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 680. *Estimated Time per Response:* 5 minutes to 7 hours per response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 2,830 hours *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* No start-up capital expenditures. 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. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide suggestions on how to reduce and/or consolidate the current frequency of reporting. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: April 11, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5623 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS)Reports of Sample Shipments of Chemical Weapon Precursors 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 16, 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 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 Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6703, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: I. Abstract This collection of information is needed to monitor sample shipments of chemical weapon precursors. Monitoring is required to facilitate and enforce provisions of the EAR that permit limited exports of sample shipments without a validated export license. The reports will be reviewed by the Bureau of Industry and Security to monitor quantities and patterns of shipments that might indicate circumvention of the regulation by entities seeking to acquire chemicals for chemical weapons purposes. II. Method of Collection Quarterly report. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0086. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission for renewal of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 30 minutes per response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 12. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* No start-up costs or capital expenditures. 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. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide suggestions on how to reduce and/or consolidate the current frequency of reporting. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: April 11, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5633 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Export License Services—Transfer of License Ownership, Request for a Duplicate License ACTION: Proposed collection: request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 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 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 Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6703, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION I. Abstract Both collection activities are needed to provide services to exporters who have either lost the original license record and require a duplicate, or wish to transfer their ownership of approved license to another party. II. Method of Collection Written notification from respondent. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0126. *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 200. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 16 to 66 minutes per response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 38 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* No start-up capital expenditures. 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. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide suggestions on how to reduce and/or consolidate the current frequency of reporting. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: April 11, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5634 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security BIS Program Evaluation ACTION: Proposed collection: request for comments SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 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 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 Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6703, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This collection of information is necessary to obtain feedback from seminar participants. This information helps BIS determine the effectiveness of its programs and identifies areas for improvement. The gathering of performance measures on the BIS seminar program is also essential in meeting the agency's responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). II. Method of Collection Surveys. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0125. *Form Number:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 4,050. *Estimated Time per Response:* 10 minutes per response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 675 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* No start-up capital expenditures. 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. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide suggestions on how to reduce and/or consolidate the current frequency of reporting. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: April 11, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-5635 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-901 Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2006. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain lined paper products (“CLPP”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measure from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not later than 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver or Frances Veith, 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)482-2336 or 482-4295, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History On September 9, 2005, the Association of American School Paper Suppliers and its individual members (MeadWestvaco Corporation; Norcom, Inc.; and Top Flight, Inc.) (“Petitioner”) filed, in proper form on behalf of the domestic industry and workers producing CLPP, petitions concerning imports of CLPP from India, Indonesia, and the PRC (“Petition”). In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, Petitioner alleged that imports of CLPP from India, Indonesia and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring and threaten to injure an industry in the United States. The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated this investigation on September 29, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 58374 (October 6, 2005) (“ *Notice of Initiation* ”). In the Notice of Initiation, the Department applied a modified process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-market economy (“NME”) investigations. The new process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. *See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries* (April 5, 2005), ( *Policy Bulletin 05.1* ) available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf* . However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over its export activities) has not changed. The separate-rate application for this investigation was posted on the Department's website *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* on October 6, 2005. The due date listed on the application was December 5, 2005. On October 19, 2005, the Department provided interested parties to this proceeding the opportunity to comment on the Department's proposed product characteristic reporting criteria and matching hierarchy. On October 20, 2005, the Department requested the assistance of the government of the PRC (through the Ministry of Commerce) in transmitting the Department's Quantity and Value questionnaire (“Q&V questionnaire”) to all companies that manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, as well as to manufacturers that produce the subject merchandise for companies that were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). Also on October 20 and October 21, 2005, the Department issued Q&V questionnaires to 45 companies. On October 24, 2005, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of CLPP from the PRC. The ITC's determination was published in the **Federal Register** on October 31, 2005. *See Investigation Nos. 701 -TA-442-443 and 731-TA-1095-1097* (“ *ITC Preliminary* ”), *Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India and Indonesia* , 70 FR 62329 (October 31, 2005). On October 27, 2005, Petitioner submitted information concerning the identities of Chinese foreign producers to consider as mandatory respondents in the investigation. On October 28, 2005, the Department received comments on the proposed product characteristics criteria and matching hierarchy from CPP International; Watanabe Paper Product (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Watanabe Shanghai”); Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., (“Watanabe Shenzhen”); and Watanabe Paper Product (Linqing) Co., Ltd. (“Watanabe Linqing”), collectively (the “Watanabe Group”). On October 31, 2005, the Department received comments from Petitioner. From November 1, 2005 through November 4, 2005, the Department received affirmative Q&V responses from 28 producers/exporters of Chinese CLPP. 1 1 The Watanabe Group companies; Yalong Paper Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (“Yalong”); Changshu Changjiang Printing Co., Ltd. (“Changjiang”); Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. (“Lian Li”); Ningbo Guangbo Imports and Exports Co., Ltd. (“Ningbo”); Suzhou Industrial Park Asia Pacific Paper Converting Co., Ltd. (“Suzhou”); Sunshine International Group
(HK)Ltd. (“Sunshine”); Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprise Co., Ltd. (“SFTE”); Shanghai Lansheng Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Lansheng”); Jiaxing Te Gao Te Paper Products Co., Ltd. (“Te Gao Te”); Chinapack Ningbo Paper Products Co., Ltd. (“Chinapack”); Planet International Company, Ltd. (“Planet”); Planet (Hong Kong) International Company, Ltd. (“Planet HK”); Linqing Silver Star Paper Products Co., Ltd. (“Linqing Silver”); You-You Paper Products (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (“You-You”); Suzhou Industrial Park You-You Trading Co., Ltd. (“You-You Trading”); Yantai Licence Printing & Making Co., Ltd. (“Yantai”); Fujian Hengda Group Co., Ltd. (“Hengda”); Wah Kin Stationery and Paper Product Limited (“Wah Kin”); Haijing Stationery (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Haijing”); Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (“Orient”); Anhui Light Industries International Co., Ltd. (“Anhui Light”); and Shanghai Pudong Wenbao Paper Products Factory (“Wenbao Paper”), Shanghai Glistar Paper Products Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Glistar”), Linqing Glistar Paper Products Co., Ltd. (“Linqing Glistar”), and Paperline Limited (“Paperline”). On November 1, 2005, Shenzhen Comix Stationery Co., Ltd. reported that it did not export subject merchandise during the POI. On November 7, 2005, Excel Sheen Limited (“Excel”) submitted an entry of appearance. On November 9, 2005, the Department issued a Q&V questionnaire to Excel. Excel submitted its response on November 14, 2005. On November 17, 2005, Maxleaf Stationery Ltd. (Maxleaf) submitted an entry of appearance and a Q&V questionnaire response. On November 17, 2005, the Department issued a Q&V questionnaire to Atico International
(HK)& Atico Overseas Ltd., (“Atico”). Atico responded on November 18, 2005. Also, on November 18, 2005, Changjiang submitted a revised Q&V response. On November 22, 2005, the Department sent a revised Q&V questionnaire to all parties that had submitted a Q&V response, asking that companies report separately their direct export price sales and their indirect export price sales. The PRC government did not respond to the Department's October 20, 2005, letter requesting assistance in transmitting the Q&V questionnaire to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC. On November 7, 8, and 9, 2005, the Department received separate-rate applications from 26 producers/exporters of Chinese CLPP: Atico, the Watanabe Group, 2 Yalong, Changjiang, Lian Li, Ningbo, Suzhou, Sunshine, SFTE, Lansheng, Te Gao Te, Chinapack, Planet, Planet HK, Linqing Silver, You-You, You-You Trading, Yantai, Hengda, Wah Kin, Haijing, Orient, Anhui Light, and Excel. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to these separate-rate applicants and received a timely response from each of them. 2 The Watanabe Group is comprised of three companies, as noted above. Each company filed a separate-rate application. On November 29, 2005, Petitioner requested that the Department make an expedited finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of CLPP from the PRC, India, and Indonesia. On December 1, 2005, Target Corporation and the Watanabe Group submitted comments on Petitioner's request with respect to critical circumstances. On December 5, 2005, the following companies submitted supplements to their separate-rate applications: Planet HK, Chinapack, and SFTE. Also on December 5, 2005, the following companies submitted separate-rate applications: Essential Industries Limited (“Essential”), Dongguan Yizhi Gao Paper Products Ltd (“Yizhi Gao”), Paperline, MGA Entertainment (H.K.) Limited (“MGA”), Wenbao Paper, and Maxleaf. On December 13, 2005, the Department issued its respondent-selection memorandum, selecting the following companies as mandatory respondents in this investigation: the Watanabe Group, Atico, and Lian Li. *See* “Selection of Respondents” section, below. On December 13, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to the Watanabe Group, Atico, and Lian Li. The Watanabe Group and Lian Li submitted timely responses to the questionnaire. On January 26, 2006, Atico submitted a letter informing the Department that it was unable to participate further in this investigation. *See* “Use of Total Adverse Facts Available” section, below. On December 20, 2005, the Department determined that India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See* Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy to Wendy Frankel, Director, China/NME Group, Office 8: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated December 20, 2005 (Office of Policy Surrogate Countries Memorandum). On January 31, 2006, the Department found that Petitioner's critical circumstances allegation did not in itself provide a sufficient factual basis for making an affirmative finding. *See* Memorandum for Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration from Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3 and Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, Import Administration: Antidumping Duty Investigations of Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Certain Lined Paper Products from India and Indonesia: Whether Critical Circumstances Exist with Respect to Imports of Certain Lined Paper Products. However, the Department stated that it would monitor imports of merchandise covered by the scope of these investigations in order to determine whether the criteria for a finding of critical circumstances are met. In order to make a critical circumstances determination, we requested on February 8 and March 1, 2006, respectively, that the Watanabe Group and Lian Li report the monthly quantity and value of shipments of subject merchandise to the United States covering the period from September 2002 through April 2006. On March 15, 2006, we requested the same information from all separate-rate status applicants. On January 23, 2006, the Department received a request from Petitioner requesting that the Department postpone the preliminary determination by 30 days, *i.e.* , until March 18, 2006. We did so on February 10, 2006. *See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, India, and Indonesia* , 71 FR 7015 (February 10, 2006). On February 21, 2006, the Department received a request that the Department postpone the preliminary determination by an additional 20 days. On March 14, 2006, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary determination on CLPP from the PRC until April 7, 2006. *See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China and India* , 71 FR 13090 (March 14, 2006). On February 21, 2006, Petitioner, the Watanabe Group, and Lian Li submitted surrogate value data. Petitioner argued that India is the appropriate surrogate country and provided only Indian surrogate value data. The Watanabe Group and Lian Li likewise submitted only Indian surrogate value data. On February 25, 2006, we requested additional information from Orient, Ningbo, Planet, Planet HK, Haijing, Suzhou and Sunshine regarding their separate-rate applications, and received a timely response from each company. Postponement of Final Determination Section 735(a) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise or, in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. On April 6, 2006, Lian Li requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days until 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination. Additionally, Lian Li requested that the Department extend the provisional measures under section 733(d) of the Act. On April 7, 2006, the Watanabe Group requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 30 days until 105 days after the publication of the preliminary determination. Additionally, the Watanabe Group and Lian Li requested that the Department extend the provisional measures under Section 733(d) of the Act. Accordingly, because we have made an affirmative preliminary determination and the requesting parties account for a significant proportion of the exports of the subject merchandise, pursuant to 735(a)(2) of the Act, we have postponed the final determination until no later than 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination and are extending the provisional measures accordingly. Period of Investigation The POI is January 1, 2005, through June 30, 2005. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (September 2005). *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies, 3 composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets, 4 including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8-3/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or “tear-out” size), and are measured as they appear in the product ( *i.e.* , stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of this petition whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated, included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing thereto. 3 For purposes of this scope definition, the actual use or labeling of these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic. 4 There shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf filler paper. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are: • unlined copy machine paper; • writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper; • three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper; • index cards; • printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap; • newspapers; • pictures and photographs; • desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”); • telephone logs; • address books; • columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data; • lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: preprinted business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books; • lined continuous computer paper; • boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to products commonly known as “fine business paper,” “parchment paper,” and “letterhead”), whether or not containing a lined header or decorative lines; • Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled, 5 measuring 6 inches by 9 inches; 5 “Gregg ruling” consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the left of the book. Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following trademarked products: • Fly TM lined paper products: A notebook, notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly TM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly TM . 6 6 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • Zwipes TM : A notebook or notebook organizer made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes TM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes TM . 7 7 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • FiveStar®Advance TM : A notebook or notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of specific thickness; front cover is .019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is .028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1” wide elastic fabric band. This band is located 2-3/8” from the top of the front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks FiveStar®Advance TM . 8 8 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • FiveStar Flex TM : A notebook, a notebook organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is .019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is .028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid trademark FiveStar Flex TM . 9 9 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. Merchandise subject to this proceeding is typically imported under headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 10 The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the proceeding is dispositive. 10 During the investigation additional HTS codes may be identified. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to our regulations ( *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), in our initiation notice we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the initiation notice. *See Notice of Initiation* at 58375. On October 28, 2005, Continental Accessory Corporation (“Continental”) submitted timely scope comments in which it argued that the Department should issue a ruling that the scope of these investigations does not cover “fashion stationery,” a niche lined paper product. Continental argued that fashion stationery is substantially different from subject commodity-grade lined paper products because of differences in physical appearance, production methods, costs, consumer expectations, and other factors. Continental also argued that none of the domestic petitioners has the capability of manufacturing fashion stationery in the United States. On November 16, 2005, Petitioner submitted rebuttal comments. Petitioner argued that what Continental refers to as “stationery,” and “fashion goods,” is actually nothing more than notebooks. Contrary to Continental's allegation, Petitioner claimed these notebooks are “substantially produced” within the United States. Petitioner stated that the language of the scope is clear in describing the products for which relief is sought, “certain lined paper products regardless of the material used for a front or back cover, regardless of the inclusion of material on the front and cover, and regardless of the binding materials.” Petitioner also argued that Continental's claim that fashion notebooks “are not intended to be included with covered merchandise” is baseless. Petitioner stated that Continental had provided no evidence to demonstrate that the purchaser views fashion notebooks as a higher value product. Lastly, Petitioner noted that the ITC had already rejected Continental's claims that its fashion books are not within the scope of the domestic like product or should be treated as a separate like product. *See ITC Preliminary Report* . As further discussed in the memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, through Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, from Damian Felton, case analyst: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigation: Scope Exclusion/Clarification Request: Continental Accessory Corporation, dated March 20, 2006, the Department denied Continental's request that its fashion notebooks be excluded from the scope of the investigation. On March 29, 2006, SchoolMax LLC (“SchoolMax”), a U.S. importer of CLPP from the PRC requested that the Department determine that certain products imported by SchoolMax are outside the scope of these investigations. The Department will consider this request for the final determination in these investigations. Selection of Respondents Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual weighted-average dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, this provision permits the Department to investigate either
(1)a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available to the Department at the time of selection or
(2)exporters/producers accounting for the largest volume of the merchandise under investigation that can reasonably be examined. After consideration of the complexities expected to arise in this proceeding and the resources available to it, the Department determined that it was not practicable in this investigation to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise. Instead, we limited our examination to the exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. The Watanabe Group, Atico, and Lian Li, the exporters accounting for the largest volume of exports to the United States, account for a significant percentage of all exports of the subject merchandise from the PRC during the POI and were selected as mandatory respondents. *See* Memorandum from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 8, to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 8, Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, dated December 13, 2005 (“Respondent Selection Memo”). Non-Market Economy Country For purposes of initiation, Petitioner submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC as an NME. *See Notice of Initiation* , 70 FR at 58377. In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) (“ *Artist Canvas* ”). Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country or producer, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (“NV”), in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production 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 factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below. As stated previously, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See* Office of Policy Surrogate Countries Memorandum. Once the countries that are economically comparable to the PRC have been identified, we select an appropriate surrogate country by determining whether an economically comparable country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether the data for valuing factors of production is both available and reliable. We have made the following determination about the use of India as a surrogate country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act:
(A)India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, and
(B)India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Furthermore, we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. *See* Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, from Hua Lu, Case Analyst: Antidumping Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated April 7, 2006. Thus, we have calculated NV using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value the factors of production of the CLPP producers. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. *See* Memorandum to the File from Marin Weaver, Paul Stolz, Frances Veith, and William M. Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analysts, through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, and Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, Import Administration: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Factors-of-Production Valuation for Preliminary Determination, dated April 7, 2006 (“Factor-Valuation Memorandum”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Affiliation Section 771(33) of the Act states that the Department considers the following entities to be affiliated:
(A)Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants;
(B)Any officer or director of an organization and such organization;
(C)Partners;
(D)Employer and employee;
(E)Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization;
(F)Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, any person; and
(G)Any person who controls any other person and such other person. For purposes of affiliation, section 771(33) of the Act states that a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. In order to find affiliation between companies, the Department must find that at least one of the criteria listed above is applicable to the respondents. To the extent that the affiliation provisions in section 771(33) of the Act do not conflict with the Department's application of separate rates and the statutory NME provisions in section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will determine that exporters and/or producers are affiliated if the facts of the case support such a finding. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 10410, 10413 (March 5, 2004), unchanged in *Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005). Watanabe Group Following these guidelines, we preliminarily determine that members of the Watanabe Group are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. We are also treating them as a single entity for purposes of this investigation. *See* Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, Director, from Charles Riggle, Program Manager: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Affiliation and Treatment of the Watanabe Group as a Single Entity, dated April 7, 2006. 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 investigation 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 mandatory respondents and several separate rate applicants have provided company-specific information and each has stated that it meets the standards for the assignment of a separate rate. We have considered whether the mandatory respondents and the separate rate applicants referenced above are 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 output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997); and *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). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified 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* ”). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. 1. 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)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. 2. Absence of *De Facto* Control Typically the Department considers the following four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government agency;
(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 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 Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22586-87; *See* , *also* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence placed on the record of this investigation demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide* , for the Watanabe Group and Lian Li, mandatory respondents in this proceeding, and the following separate-rate status applicants that shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POI: Anhui Light, Changjiang, Chinapack, Essential, Hengda, Haijing, Te Gao Te, Linqing Silver, MGA, Ningbo, Orient, Paperline, Planet HK, Planet, Wenbao Paper, SFTE, Sunshine, Suzhou, You-You Trading, Wah Kin, and Yalong. As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted separate-rate status to these companies. Evidence placed on the record of this investigation fails to demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide* , for the following companies: Atico, Lansheng, You-You, Excel, Maxleaf, Yantai, and Yizhi Gao. For a full discussion of this issue, please *See* Memorandum to Wendy Frankel, Director, through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, from Robert Bolling, Program Manager: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates Memorandum (“Separate Rates Memorandum”), dated April 7, 2006. Use of Total Adverse Facts Available The PRC Entity - PRC-Wide Rate The Department has data that indicate there were more exporters of CLPP from the PRC during the POI than those that responded to the Q&V questionnaire or the full antidumping questionnaire. *See* Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1. We issued the Q&V questionnaire to 45 known Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise but received responses from only 32, with one reporting that it made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Also, on October 20, 2005, we issued our Q&V questionnaire to the government of the PRC (through the Ministry of Commerce). The government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. In addition, Atico, one of the mandatory respondents, did not respond to sections C, D and E of the Department's antidumping questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determines preliminarily that there were exports of the merchandise under investigation from PRC producers/exporters that did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, and we are treating these PRC producers/exporters as part of the countrywide entity. Atico Atico withheld or failed to provide information specifically requested by the Department during the course of this investigation. After submission of its separate-rate application and Section A questionnaire response, Atico submitted a letter on January 26, 2006, stating that it was unable to participate further in this investigation. Atico did not submit a response to the remainder of its questionnaire. We find that because Atico ceased participation in the investigation and none of the information submitted can be verified, Atico does not merit a separate rate and will be subject to the PRC-wide rate. The Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 79049, 79053-54 (December 27, 2002), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003). Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Information on the record of this investigation indicates that there are numerous producers/exporters of CLPP in the PRC. Information on the record also indicates that the responding companies did not account for all imports into the United States from the PRC. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that certain PRC exporters of CLPP failed to respond to our questionnaires. Additionally, in this case, the government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, and Atico, a mandatory respondent, stopped cooperating in this investigation. As a result, use of facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act is appropriate for the PRC entity. *See* , *e.g.* , Artist Canvas, 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 2006). Section 776(b) of the Act provides that if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may employ adverse inferences. *See* , *e.g.* , *Artist Canvas* , 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 2006). *See also* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep No. 103-316 (“SAA”) at 870. We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate. In selecting from among the facts available, Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use adverse-facts-available (“AFA”) information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the
(a)highest margin alleged in the petition, or
(b)the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at “Facts Available.” As AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity a margin based on information in the petition because the margins derived from the petition are higher than the calculated margins for the selected respondents. In this case, we have applied a rate of 258.21 percent. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the *SAA* as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See id* . The *SAA* also states that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See id* . As explained in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in *Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan* , 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. Petitioner's methodology for calculating the export price (“EP”) and NV in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. *See Notice of Initiation* , 70 FR at 58377-8. To corroborate the AFA margin we have selected, we compared the net export prices and normal values used to calculate the margin listed in the *Notice of Initiation* with the export prices and normal values calculated for the mandatory respondents in this investigation. As discussed in Memorandum to The File from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Corroboration for the Preliminary Determination of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, regarding the corroboration of the AFA rate, we found that the margin of 258.21 percent has probative value. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 258.21 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate - the PRC-wide rate - to producers/exporters that failed to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, and/or the Q&V questionnaire and/or the separate-rate application, as applicable. This rate will also apply to separate-rate status applicants which did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries from mandatory respondents the Watanabe Group and Lian Li and from separate-rate applicants that received separate-rate status. These companies and their corresponding antidumping duty cash deposit rates are listed below in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Margin for the Separate Rate Applicants Several exporters of CLPP from the PRC, listed above, were not selected as mandatory respondents in this investigation but have applied for separate-rate status and provided information to the Department for this purpose. We have established a weighted-average margin for all applicants that have established that they are entitled to a separate rate, based on the rates we calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, *de minimis* , or based entirely on AFA. That rate is 135.02 percent. *See* “Separate Rates Memorandum.” The exporters given a separate rate are identified by name in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Date of Sale Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations 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 Department may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Department is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *See* 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 the Watanabe Group and Lian Li placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that the invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale except where the shipment date precedes the invoice date for EP sales. We made this determination based on record evidence which demonstrates that the Watanabe Group and Lian Li invoices establish the material terms of sale to the extent required by our regulations. We also determine that for EP sales, the terms of sale cannot be established after the date of shipment. Accordingly, where the shipment date precedes the invoice date, the Department considers the shipping date to be the date of sale. Critical Circumstances On November 28, 2005, Petitioner requested that the Department make an expedited finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to CLPP from the PRC. Petitioner alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to the subject merchandise. Petitioner based its allegation on evidence of retailers engaging in negotiations that would cause a surge of imports of subject merchandise into the United States from December 2005 through February 2006 (in advance of the preliminary determination date) in order to avoid duties. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2), since this allegation was filed more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the Department's preliminary determination, we must issue our preliminary critical circumstances determination not later than the preliminary determination. *See Policy Bulletin 98/4 regarding Timing of Issuance of Critical Circumstances Determinations* , 63 FR 55364 (October 15, 1998). Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or
(ii)the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and
(B)there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from Changjiang, Hengda, Linqing Silver, SFTE, Wenbao Paper, Paperline, and Wah Kin. In addition, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances do not exist for Anhui Light, Chinapack, Essential Industries Limited, Excel, Haijing, Te Gao Te, Lian Li, MGA, Ningbo, Orient, Planet HK, Planet, Sunshine, Suzhou, You-You Trading, the Watanabe Group, and Yalong. See Memorandum to Stephen Claeys from Juanita Chen through Robert Bolling and Wendy Frankel: Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances. We also preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for imports of CLPP for the PRC entity. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CLPP to the United States by the mandatory respondents were made at LTFV, we compared EP to NV, as described in the “U.S. Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. U.S. Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for the Watanabe Group and Lian Li, because the subject merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States and because the use of constructed export price was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses ( *e.g.* , foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For a detailed description of all adjustments, *See* Memorandum to The File Through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, from Marin Weaver, International Trade Compliance Analyst, RE: Calculation of Preliminary Margin for Watanabe Paper Product (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Watanabe Paper Product (Linqing) Co., Ltd. (“Watanabe Group Calc Memo”) dated April 7, 2006, and Memorandum to The File Through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, from Fran Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, RE: Calculation of Preliminary Margin for Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd., (“Lian Li Calc Memo”) dated April 7, 2006. Normal Value We compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. For a detailed description of all adjustments, See Watanabe Group Calc Memo and Lian Li Calc Memo. Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and 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 bases NV on the factors of production because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. The Department's questionnaire requires that the respondent provide information regarding the weighted-average factors of production across all of the company's plants that produce the subject merchandise, not just the factors of production from a single plant. This methodology ensures that the Department's calculations are as accurate as possible. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 19. The Department calculated the factors of production using the weighted-average factor values for all of the facilities involved in producing the subject merchandise for each exporter. The Department calculated NV for each matching control number (CONNUM) based on the factors of production reported from each of the exporters' suppliers and then averaged the supplier-specific NV together weighted by production quantity to derive a single, weighted-average NV for each CONNUM exported by each exporter. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on factors of production reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian surrogate values. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of production or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of production where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For this preliminary determination, in accordance with past practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics, from *Indian Printer and Publisher* , and from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( *www.midcindia.org* ) to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' material inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). In selecting *Indian Printer and Publisher* as the source with which to value paper inputs, we preliminarily found that this source best meets the Department's stated practice of using “prices specific to the input in question” 11 that are contemporaneous with the POI. For the final determination, the Department will consider any additional information placed on the record regarding the appropriate surrogate value for paper inputs. 11 *See* Import Administration Policy Bulletin Number: 04.1 Topic: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process, dated March 1, 2004. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index as published in the *Handbook on Statistics of Indian Economy* published by the Reserve Bank of India. Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). We are also directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. *See H.R. Rep.* 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values. In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. In addition, we excluded Indian import data from NME countries from our surrogate value calculations. For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents, See Factor-Valuation Memorandum. For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on 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* . Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. See Factor-Valuation Memorandum. To value electricity, we used data from the International Energy Agency *Key World Energy Statistics* (2003 edition). Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. See Factor-Valuation Memorandum. The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( *http://www.midcindia.org* ) since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 for the “inside industrial areas” usage category and 193 for the “outside industrial areas” usage category. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. See Factor-Valuation Memorandum. We 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 POI. The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the POI from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. *See* Factor-Valuation Memorandum. 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 duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India with February 2004-January 2005 data contained in Agro Dutch Industries Limited's (“Agro Dutch”) May 24, 2005, public version response submitted in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions are ranged data. The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from each source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POI. *See* Factor-Valuation Memorandum. To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used the 2004-2005 annual report of Kanoi Paper & Industries Ltd., a producer of paper products from India. *See* Factor-Valuation Memorandum for a full discussion of the calculation of the ratios from this annual report. The Department may consider other publicly available financial statements for the final determination, as appropriate. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information from the Watanabe Group and Lian Li upon which we will rely in making our final determination. Additionally, we may also verify the information on the record submitted by selected separate-rate applicants. Combination Rates In the *Notice of Initiation* , the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. *See Notice of Initiation* , 70 FR at 58379. This change in practice is described in *Policy Bulletin 05.1* , which states: “[w]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question *and* produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.” *Policy Bulletin 05.1* , at page 6. Preliminary Determination The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Exporter Producer Weighted-Average Deposit Rate Watanabe Paper Product (Linqing) Co., Ltd. Watanabe Paper Product (Linqing) Co., Ltd. 143.49 Watanabe Paper Product (Linqing) Co., Ltd. Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 143.49 Watanabe Paper Product (Linqing) Co., Ltd. Watanabe Paper Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 143.49 Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 143.49 Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Watanabe Paper Product (Linqing) Co., Ltd. 143.49 Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Watanabe Paper Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 143.49 Watanabe Paper Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Watanabe Paper Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 143.49 Watanabe Paper Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 143.49 Watanabe Paper Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Watanabe Paper Product (Linqing) Co., Ltd. 143.49 Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. 52.10 Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. Sentian Paper Products Co., Ltd 52.10 Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. Shanghai Miaopaofang Paper Products Co., Ltd 52.10 Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. Shanghai Pudong Wenbao Paper Products Co., Ltd. 52.10 Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. Changshu Changjiang Printing Co., Ltd. 52.10 Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. Shanghai Loutang Stationery Factory 52.10 Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. Shanghai Beijia Paper Products Co., Ltd. 52.10 Ningbo Guangbo Imports and Exports Co. Ltd. Ningbo Guangbo Plastic Products Manufacture Co., Ltd. 135.02 Yalong Paper Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd Yalong Paper Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 135.02 Suzhou Industrial Park Asia Pacific Paper Converting Co., Ltd. Suzhou Industrial Park Asia Pacific Paper Converting Co., Ltd. 135.02 Sunshine International Group
(HK)Ltd. Dongguan Shipai Tonzex Electronics Plastic Stationery Factory; 135.02 Sunshine International Group
(HK)Ltd. Dongguan Kwong Wo Stationery Co., Ltd.; 135.02 Sunshine International Group
(HK)Ltd. Hua Lian Electronics Plastic Stationery Co., Ltd. 135.02 Suzhou Industrial Park You-You Trading Co., Ltd. Linqing YinXing Paper Co., Ltd. 135.02 Suzhou Industrial Park You-You Trading Co., Ltd. Jiaxing Seagull Paper Products Co., Ltd. 135.02 Suzhou Industrial Park You-You Trading Co., Ltd. Shenda Paper Product Factory 135.02 Suzhou Industrial Park You-You Trading Co., Ltd. Lianyi Paper Product Factory 135.02 Suzhou Industrial Park You-You Trading Co., Ltd. Changhang Paper Product Factory 135.02 Suzhou Industrial Park You-You Trading Co., Ltd. Tianlong Paper Product Factory 135.02 Suzhou Industrial Park You-You Trading Co., Ltd. Rugao Paper Printer Co., Ltd. 135.02 Suzhou Industrial Park You-You Trading Co., Ltd. Yinlong Paper Product Factory 135.02 Planet International Company Ltd. Shanghai Gloves & Headwear I/E Co., Ltd. 135.02 Planet International Company Ltd. Shanghai East Best Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. 135.02 Planet International Company Ltd. Mengcheng County No. 3 Printing Factory 135.02 Planet International Company Ltd. Shanghai Huhui Paper Product Factory 135.02 Planet (Hong Kong) International Company Ltd. Shanghai Gloves & Headwear I/E Co., Ltd. 135.02 Planet (Hong Kong) International Company Ltd. Shanghai East Best Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. 135.02 Planet (Hong Kong) International Company Ltd. Zhejiang Arts & Crafts Imp. & Exp. Shanghai Pudong Co., Ltd. 135.02 Planet (Hong Kong) International Company Ltd. Shanghai Xin Zhi Liang Cultural Product Co., Ltd. 135.02 Planet (Hong Kong) International Company Ltd. Mengcheng County No. 3 Printing Factory 135.02 Planet (Hong Kong) International Company Ltd. Shanghai Huhui Paper Product Factory 135.02 Planet (Hong Kong) International Company Ltd. Shanghai Hongxiang Material Sales Co. 135.02 Haijing Stationery (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Haijing Stationery (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 135.02 Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Yalong Paper Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. 135.02 Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Shanghai Comwell Stationery Co., Ltd. 135.02 Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Yuezhou Paper Co., Ltd. 135.02 Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. Changshu Guangming Stationery Co., Ltd. 135.02 Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprise Co., Ltd. Shanghai Xin Zhi Liang Culture Products Co., Ltd.; 135.02 Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprise Co., Ltd. Shangyu Zhongsheng Paper Products Co., Ltd.; 135.02 Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprise Co., Ltd. Shanghai Miaoxi Paper Products Factory; 135.02 Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprise Co., Ltd. Shanghai Xueya Stationery Co., Ltd. 135.02 Anhui Light Industries International Co., Ltd. Shanghai Pudong Wenbao Paper Products Factory; 135.02 Anhui Light Industries International Co., Ltd. Foshan City Wenhai Paper Factory 135.02 Fujian Hengda Group Co., Ltd., Fujian Hengda Group Co., Ltd., 135.02 Changshu Changjiang Printing Co., Ltd. Changshu Changjiang Paper Industry Co., Ltd. 135.02 Jiaxing Te Gao Te Paper Products Co., Ltd Jiaxing Seagull Paper Products Co., Ltd. 135.02 Jiaxing Te Gao Te Paper Products Co., Ltd Jiaxing Boshi Paper Products Co., Ltd. 135.02 Chinapack Ningbo Paper Products Co., Ltd. Jiaxing Te Gao Te Paper Products Co., Ltd. 135.02 Linqing Silver Star Paper Products Co., Ltd. Linqing Silver Star Paper Products Co., Ltd. 135.02 Wah Kin Stationery and Paper Product Limited Shenzhen Baoan Waijing Development Company 135.02 Shanghai Pudong Wenbao Paper Products Factory Shanghai Pudong Wenbao Paper ProductsFactory 135.02 Shanghai Pudong Wenbao Paper Products Factory Linqing Glistar Paper Products Co., Ltd. 135.02 Shanghai Pudong Wenbao Paper Products Factory Changshu Changjiang Printing Co., Ltd. 135.02 Shanghai Pudong Wenbao Paper Products Factory Linqing Silver Star Paper Products Co., Ltd. 135.02 Paperline Limited Shanghai Pudong Wenbao Paper Products Factory 135.02 Paperline Limited Linqing Glistar Paper Products Co., Ltd. 135.02 Paperline Limited Changshu Changjiang Printing Co., Ltd. 135.02 Paperline Limited Linqing Silver Star Paper Products Co., Ltd. 135.02 Paperline Limited Jiaxing Te Gao Te Paper Products Co., Ltd. 135.02 Paperline Limited Yantai License Printing & Making Co., Ltd. 135.02 Paperline Limited Anhui Jinhua Import & Export Co., Ltd. 135.02 Essential Industries Limited Dongguan Yizhi Gao Paper Products Ltd. 135.02 MGA Entertainment (H.K.) Limited Kon Dai (Far East) Packaging Co., Ltd. 135.02 PRC Entity* 258.21 *Including Atico and the companies that did not respond to the Q&V questionnaire. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because we have postponed the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary determination, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of CLPP, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date of the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 7, 2006. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 06-3638 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 14
Traces to 14 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
- Period of investigation; requests for exclusions from countervailing duty orders based on investigations conducted on an aggregate basis.§ 351.204
- Time limits for submission of factual information.§ 351.301
- In general.§ 351.401
- Critical circumstances.§ 351.206
- Calculation of normal value of merchandise from nonmarket economy countries.§ 351.408
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Hearings.§ 351.310
26 references not yet in our index
- 50 CFR 223.206
- 50 CFR 222
- 50 CFR 223
- 40 CFR 1500
- 7 CFR 650
- 7 CFR 1944.525
- 7 CFR 1944
- 7 CFR 1900
- 7 CFR 3550.54
- 7 CFR 3550.10
- 7 CFR 1944.506
- 7 CFR 1944.514
- 7 CFR 1901
- 7 CFR 1940
- 7 CFR 1944.529
- 7 CFR 3015
- 7 CFR 11
- 7 CFR 1944.506(h)
- 7 CFR 1944.526(a)(2)
- 7 CFR 1944.526
- 7 CFR 1944.541
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 19 USC 81a-81u
- 15 CFR 400
- 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
- 117 F.3d 1401
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Proposed rule; request for comments
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
Cite50 CFR 223.206
Cites 40 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources