Notices. Notice

4,658 words·~21 min read·/register/2006/04/26/06-3980

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

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Determinations Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The United States Trade Representative

(USTR)has determined that the Republic of Chad has adopted an effective visa system and related procedures to prevent unlawful transshipment and the use of counterfeit documents in connection with shipments of textile and apparel articles and has implemented and follows, or is making substantial progress toward implementing and following, the customs procedures required by the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Therefore, imports of eligible products from Chad qualify for the textile and apparel benefits provided under the AGOA. DATES: Effective April 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Jackson, Director for African Affairs, Office of the United States Trade Representative,

(202)395-9514. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AGOA (Title I of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-200) provides preferential tariff treatment for imports of certain textile and apparel products of beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries. The textile and apparel trade benefits under the AGOA are available to imports of eligible products from countries that the President designates as beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries, provided that these countries:

(1)Have adopted an effective visa system and related procedures to prevent unlawful transshipment and the use of counterfeit documents; and

(2)have implemented and follow, or are making substantial progress toward implementing and following, certain customs procedures that assist U.S. Customs and Border Protection in verifying the origin of the products. In Proclamation 7350 (Oct. 2, 2000), the President designated Chad a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country. Proclamation 7350 delegated to the USTR the authority to determine whether designated countries have met the two requirements described above. The President directed the USTR to announce any such determinations in the **Federal Register** and to implement them through modifications of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). Based on actions that the Government of Chad has taken, I have determined that Chad has satisfied these two requirements. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in the USTR by Proclamation 7350, U.S. note 7(a) to subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTS and U.S. note 1 to subchapter XIX of chapter 98 of the HTS are each modified by inserting Chad in alphabetical sequence in the list of countries. The foregoing modifications to the HTS are effective with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date of publication of this notice. Importers claiming preferential tariff treatment under the AGOA for entries of textile and apparel articles should ensure that those entries meet the applicable visa requirements. *See Visa Requirements Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act,* 66 FR 7837 (2001). Rob Portman, United States Trade Representative. [FR Doc. E6-6224 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W6-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE [Docket No. WTO/DS-338] WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding Canada—Provisional Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Grain Corn From the United States AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative

(USTR)is providing notice that on March 17, 2006, in accordance with the *Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization* (“WTO Agreement”), the United States requested consultations regarding Canada's provisional antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of unprocessed grain corn from the United States. That request may be found at *http://www.wto.org* contained in a document designated as WT/DS338/1. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute. DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the consultations, comments should be submitted on or before May 12, 2006 to be assured of timely consideration by USTR. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted

(i)electronically, to *FR0614@ustr.gov,* with “Canada Corn Preliminary Injury (DS338)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640, with a confirmation copy sent electronically to the electronic mail address above, in accordance with the requirements for submission set out below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Yocis, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508,

(202)395-6150. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(CITT)on November 15, 2005 (Canada Gazette, Part I, Vol. 153, No. 48, p. 3891, published November 26, 2005) and the accompanying Statement of Reasons, released on November 30, 2005 and available on the CITT's Web site at *ftp://ftp.citt-tcce.gc.ca/doc/english/Dumping/PreInq/determin/pi2f001_e.pdf;* and • The Special Import Measures Act, R.S. 1985, c. S-15, and any amendments, implementing measures, and related measures. In its preliminary injury determination, the CITT did not address or otherwise refer to certain factors mandated by the WTO agreements, such as the volume of imports, the price of imports, and the impact of imports on the domestic industry. In addition, the CITT expressly decided not to analyze the evidence before it with respect to causation, including the causal link between imports and injury and injury caused by factors other than imports. Instead, the CITT decision is based entirely on a supposed correlation between past injury to the Canadian domestic industry with past and projected future declines in the U.S. domestic price of grain corn, rather than the mandatory factors in the agreements. Further, the Special Import Measures Act would appear to require the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties upon a CITT finding that the “dumping and subsidizing” of subject goods, including alleged effects of subsidies on the domestic prices of those goods in the market of the dumping or subsidizing country, have injured Canada's domestic industry, even in the absence of any finding of injury caused by dumped or subsidized imports as provided for in the WTO agreements. USTR believes these measures are inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Articles 1, 3, and 7 of the *Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994* (“AD Agreement”), Articles 10, 15, and 17 of the *Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures* (“SCM Agreement”), and Article VI of the *General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.* Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in the dispute. Comments should be submitted

(i)electronically, to *FR0614@ustr.gov,* with “Canada Corn Preliminary Injury (DS338)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640, with a confirmation copy sent electronically to the electronic mail address above. USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format as attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Comments must be in English. A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the commenter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” must be marked at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Persons who submit confidential business information are encouraged to also provide a non-confidential summary of the information. Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter.

(1)Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2)Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3)Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice. Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file (Docket WTO/DS-338, Canada Corn Dispute) may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at

(202)395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Daniel Brinza, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-6221 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W6-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE [Docket No. WTO/DS-340] WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding China—Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative

(USTR)is providing notice that on March 30, 2006, in accordance with the *Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization* (WTO Agreement), the United States requested consultations regarding China's treatment of imported motor vehicle parts, components, and accessories (“auto parts”). That request may be found at *http://www.wto.org* contained in a document designated as WT/DS340/1. USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute. DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the consultations, comments should be submitted on or before May 8, 2006 to be assured of timely consideration by USTR. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted

(i)electronically, to *FR0615@ustr.eop.gov,* with China Auto Parts (DS340) in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(202)395-3640, with a confirmation copy sent electronically to the electronic mail address above, in accordance with the requirements for submission set out below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Kelleher, Associate General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508,

(202)395-3858. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA)(19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. In an effort to provide additional opportunity for comment, USTR is providing notice that consultations have been requested pursuant to the WTO *Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes* (DSU). If such consultations should fail to resolve the matter and a dispute settlement panel is established pursuant to the DSU, such panel, which would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected to issue a report on its findings and recommendations within nine months after it is established. Major Issues Raised by the United States On March 30, 2006, the United States requested consultations regarding China's treatment of imported auto parts. The measures through which China has provided such treatment include: • Order No. 8 of the National Development and Reform Commission (May 21, 2004), *Policy on Development of Automotive Industry;* • Decree 125 (April 1, 2005), *Measures for the Administration of Importation of Automotive Parts and Components for Complete Vehicles;* • Customs General Administration Public Announcement No. 4 (April 1, 2005), *Rules for Determining Whether Imported Automotive Parts and Components Constitute CBU Vehicles;* and • Any amendments, related measures, or implementing measures. China's regulations appear to penalize manufacturers for using imported auto parts in the manufacture of vehicles for sale in China. Although China bound its tariffs for auto parts at rates significantly lower than its tariff bindings for complete vehicles, China appears to assess a charge on imported auto parts equal to the tariff on complete vehicles, if the imported parts are incorporated in a vehicle that contains imported parts in excess of specified thresholds. To the extent that the charge is applied when a vehicle is manufactured within China, it would appear to constitute a tax on imported auto parts not imposed on like domestic auto parts. The charge also appears to be applied in a manner so as to afford protection to domestic products. To the extent that the charge is imposed upon the importation of the auto parts, it appears to constitute a charge in excess of those set forth in China's Schedule of Concessions and Commitments. Further, to the extent China may be viewed as imposing a lesser tariff on imported auto parts if the final assembled vehicle contains specified amounts of local content, it would be forgoing revenue otherwise due, and China would appear to be providing a subsidy contingent upon the use of domestic rather than imported goods. Finally, China's regulations specifically identify completely knocked down

(CKD)and semi-knocked down

(SKD)kits and appear to assess them the tariff for complete vehicles. USTR believes these measures are inconsistent with China's obligations under Article 2 of the *Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures,* Articles II and III of the *General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994,* Article 3 of the *Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures,* and Parts I.1.2 and I.1.7 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China, including paragraphs 93 and 203 of the Working Party Report. Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in the dispute. Comments should be submitted

(i)electronically, to *FR0615@ustr.eop.gov,* with “China Auto Parts (DS340)” in the subject line, or

(ii)by fax, to Sandy McKinzy at

(1)Must clearly so designate the information or advice;

(2)Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and

(3)Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice. Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public, by appointment only, from 10 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. An appointment to review the public file (Docket WTO/DS-340, China Auto Parts Dispute) may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at

(202)395-6186. Daniel Brinza, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-6222 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W6-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Release No. 53684] Order Extending Term of Short Sale Pilot April 20, 2006. On June 23, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) approved new and amended short sale regulations in Regulation SHO under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”). 1 On July 28, 2004, the Commission issued an order (“First Pilot Order”) creating a one year Pilot (“Pilot”) suspending the provisions of Rule 10a-1(a) under the Act 2 and any short sale price test of any exchange or national securities association for short sales 3 of certain securities. 4 The Pilot was created pursuant to Rule 202T of Regulation SHO, which established procedures to allow the Commission to temporarily suspend short sale price tests so that the Commission could study the effectiveness of short sale price tests. 5 The First Pilot Order provided that the Pilot would commence on January 3, 2005 and terminate on December 31, 2005, and that we might issue further orders affecting the operation of the First Pilot Order. 6 On November 29, 2004, we issued an order (“Second Pilot Order”) resetting the Pilot to commence on May 2, 2005 and end on April 28, 2006 to give market participants additional time to make system changes necessary to comply with the Pilot. 7 We are issuing this Order (“Third Pilot Order”) to extend the termination date of the Pilot to August 6, 2007, the date on which temporary Rule 202T expires. Extension of the Pilot termination date will maintain the status quo with regard to price tests for Pilot securities and system designs of market participants while the staff completes its analysis of the Pilot results and the Commission conducts any additional short sale rulemaking. All other terms of the First Pilot Order remain unchanged. We may issue further orders affecting the operation of the Pilot. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds that extension of the Pilot is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors. 8 1 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July 28, 2004), 69 FR 48008 (August 6, 2004) (“Adopting Release”). 2 17 CFR 240.10a-1. 3 “Short sale” is defined in Rule 200 of Regulation SHO, 17 CFR 242.200. 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50104 (July 28, 2004), 69 FR 48032 (August 6, 2004). Specifically, the First Pilot Order suspended price tests for the following:

(1)Short sales in the securities identified in Appendix A to the First Pilot Order;

(2)short sales in the securities included in the Russell 1000 index effected between 4:15 p.m. EST and the open of the effective transaction reporting plan of the Consolidated Tape Association (“consolidated tape”) on the following day; and

(3)short sales in any security not included in paragraphs

(1)and

(2)effected in the period between the close of the consolidated tape and the open of the consolidated tape on the following day. 5 69 FR at 48012-13. We stated in the Adopting Release that conducting a pilot pursuant to Rule 202T would “allow us to obtain data on the impact of short selling in the absence of a price test to assist in determining, among other things, the extent to which a price test is necessary to further the objectives of short sale regulation, to study the effects of relatively unrestricted short selling on market volatility, price efficiency, and liquidity, and to obtain empirical data to help assess whether a short sale price test should be removed, in part or in whole, for some or all securities, or if retained, should be applied to additional securities.” *Id.* at 48009. 6 69 FR at 48033. 7 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50747 (November 29, 2004), 69 FR 70480 (December 6, 2004). 8 *See* Section 36 of the Act. In addition, pursuant to Section 3(f) of the Act, we considered the impact of this extension on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). I. New Pilot Termination Date We established the Pilot as part of our review of short sale regulation in conjunction with the adoption of Regulation SHO. 9 The Pilot is designed to assist us in assessing whether changes to short sale regulation are necessary in light of current market practices and the purposes underlying short sale regulation. 10 The Pilot is currently set to terminate on April 28, 2006. 9 69 FR at 48032; *See* Adopting Release at 48013. 10 69 FR at 48032. To determine whether additional rulemaking is necessary, our staff will evaluate the results of the Pilot. Although we do not plan to extend the period being studied beyond April 28, 2006, our staff's analysis will help them determine whether to recommend changes to the current short sale regulatory scheme. If we determine that any new or amended rules are necessary, we will commence the rulemaking process. This customarily involves issuing a proposing release soliciting comments on the proposed changes, analyzing such comments and, finally, adopting any final rules. The process of reviewing the data and completing any rulemaking will necessarily continue beyond the study period. We believe that it is in the interest of the markets and investors to maintain the price test scheme established by the Pilot until any rulemaking resulting from our analysis of the data is complete. Market participants made significant changes in their systems and practices to comply with the Pilot. Absent an extension of the Pilot's end date of April 28, 2006, the pre-Pilot short sale price tests would be restored, and market participants would be required to make changes to their systems and practices to ensure that they comply with these rules. If the Commission thereafter adopts rules that remove or change the nature of price tests for some or all securities, market participants would be required to change their systems and procedures again, which could result in substantial additional costs. Extending the Pilot ending date would keep the costs of changes to a minimum and help avoid market disruption. Prior to commencement of the Pilot, some market participants expressed concern about the duration of the Pilot. 11 We do not believe that this concern has borne out. The Second Pilot Order delayed the start of the Pilot period because market participants were not ready to begin the Pilot during the period specified in the First Pilot Order. The Pilot will be in place for slightly more than two years, with this extension. Based on our experience with the Pilot for nearly a year, the concerns regarding a prolonged time span have proven unfounded. Indeed, it would be more disruptive to end the Pilot prior to any Commission action rather than to continue it. Market participants have already undertaken the costs and burdens of systems changes, and have informed us that they would not face any additional burdens or costs from continuing the Pilot. The staff has found no evidence of market disruption during the Pilot thus far, and we do not anticipate that continuing the Pilot will trigger any problems in the future. 11 *See* Adopting Release, 69 FR at 48012 (discussing comment letters regarding the Pilot's duration from the Nasdaq, the NYSE, and the STA). In the Regulation SHO adopting release, the Commission stated that it “expects to make information obtained during the pilot publicly available.” 12 Correspondingly, the Commission's staff arranged for the appropriate self-regulatory organizations to make transactional short selling data public on a monthly basis on their internet Web sites. 13 To promote the best quality studies and to encourage transparency, the Commission expects the SROs to continue releasing this transactional data until the end of the Pilot on August 6, 2007. 12 Id. at n. 9. 13 A list of the internet Web sites making the monthly trading data public is available at *http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/shopilot.htm.* Based on the forgoing, we believe that it is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to extend the termination date of the Pilot to August 6, 2007. Accordingly, the Pilot will now terminate on August 6, 2007, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. II. Conclusion We find that extending the termination date of the Pilot to August 6, 2007, for the reasons stated above, is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors. Accordingly, *It is hereby ordered* that the suspension of the provisions of Rule 10a-1(a) and any short sale price test of any exchange or national securities association for certain securities and time periods, as set forth in the First and Second Pilot Orders, shall terminate on August 6, 2007, instead of April 28, 2006. The Commission from time to time may issue further orders affecting the operation of the Pilot. All other provisions of the First Pilot Order and Second Pilot Order shall remain in effect. By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6250 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of Image Globe Solutions, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading April 24, 2006. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Image Globe Solutions, Inc. (“Image Globe”), a Nevada corporation headquartered in Toronto, Ontario. Questions have arisen regarding the accuracy of assertions by Image Globe, and by others, in press releases and internet postings to investors concerning, among other things:

(1)The company's assets,

(2)the stated financing of the company's operations,

(3)the company's private placement of 10 million shares of its common stock in January 2006, and

(4)the company's stated investments in other start-up businesses. The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above listed company. *Therefore, it is ordered,* pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. e.d.t., April 24, 2006, through 11:59 p.m. e.d.t., on May 5, 2006. By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-3980 Filed 4-24-06; 11:44 am]

Connectionstraces to 4

Traces to 4 documents

U.S. Code

CFR