Notices. Notice of issuance of final directive
32,992 words·~150 min read·
/register/2006/05/22/06-4717A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service RIN 0596-AB93 Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines and Integration of Direction on Accessibility Into Forest Service Manual 2330 AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of issuance of final directive. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is issuing a final directive as an amendment to Forest Service Manual 2330, Publicly Managed Recreation Opportunities to ensure that new or reconstructed developed outdoor recreation areas on National Forest System lands are developed to maximize accessibility, while recognizing and protecting the unique characteristics of the natural setting.
The amendment guides Forest Service employees regarding compliance with the Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG). The amendment directs that new or reconstructed outdoor developed recreation areas in the National Forest System, including campgrounds, picnic areas, beach access routes, and outdoor recreation access routes, comply with these agency guidelines and applicable Federal accessibility laws, regulations, and guidelines. The FSORAG is linked to and referenced in this amendment.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) is preparing to publish for public notice and comment proposed accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas that would apply to Federal agencies subject to the Architectural Barriers Act. When the Access Board finalizes its accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas, the Forest Service will revise the FSORAG to incorporate the Access Board's standards where those provisions are a higher standard, as supplemented by the Forest Service.
The supplementation will ensure the agency's application of equivalent or higher guidelines and universal design, as well as consistent use of agency terminology and processes. DATES: This final amendment is effective May 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: The full text of the final amendment to FSM 2330 is available electronically on the World Wide Web at *http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives* . The administrative record for this final amendment is available for inspection and copying at the office of the Director, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff, USDA Forest Service, 4th Floor Central, Sidney R.
Yates Federal Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Those wishing to inspect the administrative record are encouraged to call Janet Zeller at
(202)205-9597 beforehand to facilitate access to the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Zeller, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff, USDA Forest Service,
(202)205-9597. 1. Background Although the Forest Service is committed to ensuring accessibility of agency facilities and programs to serve all employees and visitors, as well as complying with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
(ABA)and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, agency accessibility requirements for outdoor developed recreation areas have not been integrated into the Forest Service Directives System. The ABA requires facilities that are designed, constructed, altered, or leased by, for, or on behalf of a Federal agency to be accessible, as well as those funded in whole or in part by a Federal agency. To emphasize the need for accessibility guidelines for outdoor recreation areas, in 1993 the Forest Service developed Universal Access to Outdoor Recreation: A Design Guide. This guidebook blended accessibility into the recreation opportunity spectrum, ranging from urban areas in full compliance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, the ABA accessibility standards in place at that time, to primitive and wilderness areas. The Access Board is the federal agency responsible for issuing accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered facilities subject to the ABA. The Forest Service served on the Access Board's Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Outdoor Developed Areas (Reg Neg Committee). In 1999, the Reg Neg Committee completed draft accessibility guidelines for outdoor recreation facilities and trails. However, the Access Board was not able to complete the rulemaking process for the guidelines at that time. While awaiting completion of the rulemaking process for those guidelines, the Forest Service determined that it needed accessibility guidelines that would comply with the public notice and comment process for Forest Service directives pursuant to 36 CFR part 216. These guidelines, which are based on the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines, meet the agency's need to integrate accessibility into the development of outdoor recreation facilities and trails. The Forest Service's guidelines incorporate universal design and agency terminology and processes and in some respects establish higher accessibility standards than the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines. The Forest Service's guidelines are in two parts, the FSORAG and the Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG), both of which are available at *http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility* . The Forest Service is issuing an amendment to Forest Service Manual
(FSM)2330, “Publicly Managed Recreation Opportunities,” to require compliance with the FSORAG. The Forest Service published this policy for public notice and comment as a proposed amendment. Since this policy has been subjected to public notice and comment through publication in the **Federal Register** , the agency has decided to issue the final policy as an amendment to the FSM. The FSORAG will apply to newly constructed or altered camping facilities, picnic areas, beach access routes, outdoor recreation access routes, and other constructed features, including benches, trash, recycling, and other essential containers, viewing areas at overlooks, telescopes and periscopes, mobility device storage, pit toilets, warming huts, and outdoor rinsing showers in the National Forest System. The FSORAG is linked to and referenced in this amendment. The FSORAG maximizes the accessibility of outdoor developed recreation areas for all people, while recognizing and protecting the unique characteristics of the natural setting of each outdoor developed recreation area within the National Forest System. The FSORAG integrates the Forest Service policy of universal design to ensure the development of programs and facilities to serve all people, to the greatest extent possible. Universal design requires that all new or reconstructed facilities and associated constructed features, rather than only a certain percentage of those facilities, be accessible to all people. Universal design provides for the integration of all people in outdoor developed recreation areas, without separate or segregated access for people with disabilities. In addition, the final amendment clarifies internal agency procedures and policies related to the accessibility of outdoor developed recreation areas, including compliance with the FSORAG. Like the proposed accessibility guidelines developed by the Reg Neg Committee, the FSORAG establishes only one level of accessibility for all outdoor developed recreation areas and provides for application of conditions for departure and exceptions when necessary to preserve the uniqueness of each recreation area and when application of the FSORAG would cause a change in an area's setting. Compliance with the FSORAG will not always result in facilities that are accessible to all persons with disabilities because at some locations the natural environment might prevent application of some of the FSORAG's technical provisions. The Access Board plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)seeking public comment on proposed accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas. The NPRM will contain the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines and will apply to Federal agencies subject to the ABA. The Forest Service will work with the Access Board and the other federal land management agencies as the Access Board develops final accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas. When the Access Board finalizes its accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas, the Forest Service will revise the FSORAG to incorporate the Access Board's standards, as supplemented by the Forest Service. The supplementation will ensure the agency's application of equivalent or higher guidelines and universal design, as well as consistent use of agency terminology and processes. In a related notice published elsewhere in this part of today's **Federal Register** , the agency is publishing notice of a final directive to require compliance with the FSTAG, which will apply to trails that are designed for hiker/pedestrian use. The FSORAG and the FSTAG are both available electronically on the World Wide Web at *http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility* . Copies also may be obtained by writing to USDA, Forest Service, Attn: Accessibility Program Manager, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff, Stop 1125, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0003. 2. Public Comments on the Proposed Interim Directive On February 17, 2005, the Forest Service published the proposed interim directive in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 8060) for public notice and comment. The proposed interim directive was also posted electronically on the World Wide Web on the **Federal Register** site at *http://www.fs.fed.us/programs/recreation/accessibility* . The Forest Service received 37 letters or electronic messages in response to the proposed interim directive. Each respondent was grouped in one of the following categories: Business: 1 Federal Agencies: 6 Federal Agency Employees: 25 Individuals (unaffiliated or unidentifiable): 5 Most respondents supported the FSORAG. A few respondents were not supportive. One respondent opposed access by people with disabilities on Federally managed lands. Another respondent opposed any improved access and was concerned that improved access would lead to more hunting. Many respondents commented on specific sections of the FSORAG. The agency appreciates the spelling, pagination, and other similar nonsubstantive comments and has incorporated them into the FSORAG posted on the Forest Service's accessibility Web page at *http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility* . General Comments Many respondents appreciated that application of the FSORAG would result in the natural setting being maintained. All respondents who commented on format supported addressing outdoor developed recreation areas in a separate document from trails, as well as integration of the scoping and technical provisions in each document. Several respondents also expressed appreciation for revisions in the order of the technical provisions in the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines. *Comment* . Most respondents supported the Forest Service's policy of universal design. However, several respondents expressed concern that under this policy, developed recreation areas would be forced into a higher level of development or would all look alike, resulting in a change to their setting. *Response* . The Forest Service policy on universal design is defined in FSM 2330.5 as “the design of programs and facilities to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, while maintaining the natural setting, providing access to programs and facilities for all, without separate or segregated access for people with disabilities. New or reconstructed buildings, developed recreation sites, associated constructed features and alterations are to comply with the accessibility guidelines.” Therefore, all constructed features are required to be accessible, rather than only a certain percentage of those facilities, with few exceptions. In the Forest Service's accessibility guidelines, the policy of universal design is applied by starting with the assumption that all areas and constructed features will be accessible to the extent provided in the guidelines. In contrast to application of universal design to picnic tables and toilet structures, which occupy a small area, application of universal design to camping units and their connecting routes (called “outdoor recreation access routes” or “ORARs) raises a potential concern of over-development. However, under the FSORAG, the uniqueness of the site is preserved because departure from the guidelines is permitted when certain conditions exist at a site. Therefore, not all camping units and ORARs may have to meet the guidelines. The intent of universal design is met by maximizing accessibility while maintaining the character and experience of the setting, given the natural constraints of a site and its level of development. Page 16 of the Forest Service's Built Environment Image Guide states: “Under the ABA and other mandates, universal design requires complete integration of accessibility within our facilities. As with sustainable design elements, universal design principles applied to the site or facility from the outset seldom, if ever, have any obvious effect on the architectural character. When skillfully executed, universally designed facilities fit seamlessly within the natural and social environments.” *Comment* . One respondent expressed confusion concerning turning radius, clear floor or ground space, and other technical aspects of the guidelines. *Response* . Graphics will be included in the final FSORAG and in the Forest Service Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor Recreation and Trails, which will be available by the spring of 2006 at *http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility* . This guidebook will provide a clear explanation of the accessibility guidelines, with examples of best practices and illustrative photographs, graphics, and design tips. *Comment* . One respondent requested that technical provisions for parking lots be included in the FSORAG. *Response* . The FSORAG covers only the developed recreation elements that are not addressed in other accessibility guidelines. Parking lots are already addressed in the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards (ABAAS). *Comment* . One respondent requested that the text of all ABAAS provisions cited in the technical provisions of the FSORAG be integrated into the FSORAG, rather than appearing in an appendix. *Response* . The Forest Service has decided not to accept this recommendation because many ABAAS provisions are cited repeatedly in the FSORAG. For example, the reference to controls (ABAAS 308 and 309) are referenced ten times in the FSORAG and appear multiple times on the same page in several instances. If these provisions were included each time they were cited, the FSORAG would become unwieldy, as well as difficult to follow. Once a designer has consulted the same ABAAS citation several times in the FSORAG appendix, the designer should become familiar with the ABAAS requirement and not have to reference the appendix as frequently. *Comment* . One respondent believed that the FSORAG is not needed because there are enough laws and guidelines dealing with accessibility, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADAAG, and the new ABAAS. *Response.* The FSORAG is needed because no other accessibility guidelines that address outdoor developed recreation areas have completed the rulemaking process. Comments on Specific Sections of the FSORAG *Section 1.1 Conditions for Departure* . This section contains the conditions that would permit departure from a technical provision. *Comment* . All but one respondent who commented on the phrase “or would not be consistent with the applicable forest land and resource management plan” in the second condition for departure were supportive. *Response.* The National Forest Management Act requires each national forest and national grassland to develop a land management plan. These plans are developed through extensive public participation and generally are in effect for 10 to 15 years. These plans guide forest management, and the Forest Service is prohibited from authorizing actions that are inconsistent with the plans. The language regarding consistency with the plan was included in the second condition for departure because of this legal constraint. *Comment* . One respondent requested a definition of the character, setting, and experience of a recreation site. This respondent also requested a quantifiable, formula-based method to determine whether compliance with the guidelines would result in a substantial change to these characteristics. *Response* . The Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
(ROS)to characterize a recreation site. The ROS was developed to identify more clearly the relationships among a site's physical characteristics and the recreation activities and experience that the public expects at the site. More information about the ROS is available at *http://roadless.fs.fed.us/data/pdfdocs/rosguide.pdf* . Determination of a substantial change to the characteristics of a site from compliance with the FSORAG cannot be standardized or quantified because the determination will vary greatly depending on the specific circumstances and because recreational experience is perception-based. “Managing for recreation requires different kinds of data and management concepts than does most other activities. While recreation must have a physical base of land or water, the product—recreation experience—is a personal or social phenomenon. Although the management is resource based, the actual recreational activities are a result of people, their perceptions, wants, and behavior” (Final Report of the Committee of Scientists for Implementation of Section 6 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, February 22, 1979, 44 FR 26628, May 4, 1979). Since people's expectations differ depending on the setting, it is impossible to quantify change, for example, by saying that removing a certain number of trees per acre constitutes substantial change. The ROS assists landscape architects and recreation managers in evaluating all the factors that affect recreational experiences, including changes to the setting. For example, far more change can occur at a developed site before the effect would be substantial than at a site that has never been developed. Similarly, the surface at a site that has been worn down from heavy use may need to be hardened to accommodate the public's desire to recreate there and to protect the surrounding environment, and a significant amount of change may occur without substantially affecting the setting. However, at a site with a worn-down surface that is located in an environmentally sensitive area, the threshold of substantial change may be lower, and different measures may need to be taken, such as precluding public use of parts of the site or site rehabilitation instead of hardening. Any design solution needs to consider the full range of managerial and environmental needs. *Comment* . One respondent requested a definition for “significant natural feature.” *Response* . A significant natural feature generally has some special meaning and is held in some esteem in its locale. That meaning may be based on its uniqueness, rarity, beauty, historical significance, or other factors. The FSORAG includes a discussion of significant natural features. A significant natural feature may include a large rock, outcrop, tree, or body of water that would block or interfere with or would directly or indirectly be altered or destroyed by construction of the outdoor recreation facility or element at that point. Significant natural features also could include areas protected under Federal or State laws, such as areas with threatened or endangered species or wetlands that could be threatened or destroyed by full compliance with the technical provisions in the FSORAG or areas where compliance would, directly or indirectly, substantially harm natural habitat or vegetation. Significant cultural features include areas such as archaeological sites, sacred lands, burial grounds and cemeteries, and tribal protected sites. Significant historical features include properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and other places of recognized historic value. Significant religious features include tribal sacred sites and other properties held sacred by an organized religion. *Comment* . One respondent requested a definition for “significant harm.” *Response* . The FSORAG and the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines utilize the term “substantial harm,” not “significant harm.” The term “substantial harm” is used in the guidelines in conjunction with the term “significant feature” in the first condition for departing from the technical provisions. Therefore, this measure of the substance of the change and the harm that change would cause is not to be taken lightly. In this context, to cause “substantial harm,” the proposed change would have to have a considerable negative effect on the feature that has been identified as “significant” in that locale. *Comment.* A number of respondents requested that “infeasible” be replaced with “impractical” in the fourth condition for departure. *Response* . The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition (2000), cites “impractical” as the definition for “infeasible.” Since the words are interchangeable and “impractical” is used more commonly, the Forest Service has changed “would not be feasible” to “would be impractical” in the section-by-section analysis for the fourth condition for departure and in the fourth condition for departure. *Section 1.2 Definitions* . This section includes definitions of terms used in the FSORAG, including terminology used by the Forest Service. Camp Living Area and Parking Spur *Comment* . All respondents who commented on the terminology used to designate specific areas within a camping unit supported the use of that terminology. *Response* . For clarity, the FSORAG distinguishes between a camp living area and a parking spur. A parking spur is divided into a vehicle parking area and a driveway, each of which has its own technical provisions. This differentiation allows the designer to integrate a parking spur into the terrain. In many cases, designers need the flexibility to work with each component separately to accommodate a camp living area near a parking spur in a way that respects the lay of the land. In some cases, the camp living space may not be located immediately next to the parking spur because the terrain will not permit it. Developed Recreation Site and General Forest Area *Comment* . All respondents who commented on the distinction between a developed recreation site and a general forest area were supportive. *Response* . The Forest Service distinguishes in its management between developed recreation sites and general forest areas. The Forest Service's Infrastructure database defines a developed site as “a discrete place containing a concentration of facilities and services used to provide recreation opportunities to the public and evidencing a significant investment in facilities and management under the direction of an administrative unit in the National Forest System.” Developed recreation sites provide visitor convenience and comfort while protecting natural resources. Most of the agency's recreational improvements are located at developed recreation sites. The Forest Service defines general forest areas as “all lands available for recreation use and outside of Wilderness, developed sites, trails and administrative sites. Amenities or constructed features inside general forest areas are primarily for resource protection rather than for visitor comfort.” While some constructed features (such as picnic tables, fire rings, and toilet buildings) may be provided in general forest areas, these constructed features are usually for resource protection rather than visitor convenience. Any constructed features in general forest areas must be designed appropriately for the setting and must comply with the FSORAG's accessibility requirements. It is important to the recreating public that not all National Forest System lands be developed to the same extent, level, or intensity. The FSORAG requires that any constructed feature (such as a picnic table, fire ring, or bench) in a general forest area meet the applicable technical provisions. However, a connection to an ORAR is not required in general forest areas to ensure that these areas are not developed beyond what is desirable from managers' and visitors' perspectives. As a result, accessibility is maximized within the constraints of the outdoor environment, without requiring a fundamental change in the nature of the program. *Section 2.0 Outdoor Recreation Access Routes (ORARs)* . This section of the FSORAG includes the technical specifications for the pathways that connect constructed features in a picnic or camping area or at a trailhead. *Comment* . All respondents who commented on this provision supported the exception for slope, which is permitted for alterations only, not new construction. One respondent recommended that the same exception for slope permitted in alteration of ORARs should also be permitted in alteration of beach access routes. *Response* . Due to the terrain where a campground or picnic area was constructed, it may not be possible to meet the running slope requirements of an ORAR during alteration of the site without substantially changing the natural setting. Therefore, exceptions to slope requirements for alteration of ORARs are necessary. The FSORAG permits exceptions to slope requirements only when an area is being reconstructed or altered. These exceptions are not permitted in new construction because selection of the most appropriate site is part of the new construction process. While a campground may have been constructed some years ago at a location that would not now be considered appropriate because of its terrain, the location of a beach is generally determined by the best location for accessing the water. Therefore, exceptions to slope requirements for alteration of beach access routes are not appropriate. *Comment* . All except one respondent who commented on the provision exempting general forest areas from the requirement for ORARs supported the exception. *Response* . The FSORAG states that ORARs are not required in general forest areas. In general forest areas, a path connecting associated constructed facilities, as well as a path connecting them to a trail, must comply with the technical provisions for a trail enumerated in section 7.0 of the FSTAG. These paths are not ORARs and are not required to meet the technical provisions for ORARs in the FSORAG. ORARs are not required in general forest areas because the resulting additional construction and site modification would substantially alter the nature of the setting. While some constructed features (such as picnic tables, fire rings, and toilet buildings) may be provided in general forest areas, these constructed features are usually for resource protection rather than visitor convenience. Any constructed features in general forest areas must be designed appropriately for the setting and must comply with the FSORAG so that the facilities can be used by persons with a disability. *Comment.* Two respondents believed that handrails on ORARs are not appropriate in a recreation setting. *Response* . The agency agrees. References to handrails on ORARs have been deleted from the FSORAG, just as handrails on ORARs are not included in the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines. *Comment* . One respondent believed that because all picnic tables in a picnic area must be accessible, each picnic table would have to be located along an ORAR, which would result in numerous pathways through picnic areas. One respondent believed that the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines would require fewer picnic tables to be located along an ORAR than the FSORAG. *Response.* The FSORAG does not require all picnic tables to be located along an ORAR. Rather, the FSORAG requires that 20 percent of all picnic tables at a site be located along an ORAR. This requirement yields the same density of picnic tables located along ORARs as the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines. The Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines require that 50 percent of all picnic tables at a site, but no fewer than two, be accessible, and that 40 percent of these accessible picnic tables be located along an ORAR. The FSORAG requirement of 20 percent of 100 percent of the picnic tables at a site equates to the requirement in the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines of 40 percent of 50 percent of the picnic tables at a site. For example, under the FSORAG, if a site has 8 picnic tables, 8 × .20 or 1.6 (rounded up to 2) of them must be located along an ORAR. Under the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines, if a site has 8 picnic tables, 8 × .50 or 4 must be accessible, and 4 × .40 or 1.6 (rounded up to 2) of those 4 must be located along an ORAR. *Section 2.7 Protruding Objects.* This section includes the requirements for clear headroom on a trail. *Comment.* All respondents who commented on protruding objects supported the exception to the requirement for clear headroom or a warning barrier. *Response.* The FSORAG provides an exception to the requirement for 80 inches of clear headroom if a warning barrier is installed. However, on a narrow pathway through a cave or through certain types of trees, such as the walkway through the historic cherry trees around the Tidal Basin in Washington, DC, conditions may make it impossible to place a warning barrier and permit passage. In those types of situations, the FSORAG permits an exception to the requirement for 80 inches of clear headroom and installation of a warning barrier. This exception must be retained to address unusual situations in the natural environment. *Section 3.0 Beach Access Routes.* This section includes technical specifications for pedestrian routes that access beaches. No comments were received on this section. *Section 4.0 Constructed Features for Developed Picnic Areas.* This section includes technical specifications for picnic units in developed recreation areas. No comments were received on this section. *Section 5.1 Parking Spurs.* This section includes technical specifications for parking spurs in camping units. *Comment.* All respondents who commented on the distinction between a camping unit and a parking spur and the further breakdown of a parking spur into parking and driveway areas were supportive of those distinctions. *Response.* The FSORAG identifies two typical components of a camping unit:
(1)A camp living area and
(2)a parking spur. A parking spur is further divided into a vehicle parking area and a driveway. These distinct components are identified to facilitate application of the scoping requirements and to integrate parking spurs into camping units in an environmentally sensitive manner that maximizes accessibility. *Comment.* Many respondents agreed that the width of an accessible parking spur may have an impact on the natural setting. *Response.* The FSORAG requires the same number of 20-foot-wide parking areas for recreational vehicles that are required under the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines. The rest of the parking spurs in a campground must be 16 feet wide, where that width would not substantially change the nature of the setting. If that width is not feasible because of the presence of a condition for departure, the width may be reduced to13 feet. If the 13-foot width would not be possible without substantially changing the nature of the setting, the parking spur is exempt from the technical provisions. This technical provision provides the flexibility to design accessible parking spurs, while taking into account varying terrain. This flexibility in design results in facilities that are not only universally usable, but also respectful of the natural environment, which is a primary reason people recreate outdoors. Unlike the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines, the FSORAG includes technical provisions for parking spur driveways. Because parking spur driveways are not required to be as wide as parking spurs at the end of the driveways that are adjacent to the living area, parking spur driveways have less visual impact on the natural setting than parking spurs. The FSORAG takes this difference into account, thus maximizing accessibility while ensuring the best environmental fit on the ground. *Comment.* Several respondents thought the parking chart in Figure 5.1 of the February 2005 draft of the FSORAG was confusing. *Response.* The Forest Service agrees. That chart has been removed from the FSORAG. The only parking chart that appears in the current version of the FSORAG addresses the minimum number of 20-foot-wide parking spurs for recreational vehicles that is required. The FSORAG requires the same percentage of 20-foot-wide parking spurs for recreational vehicles as the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines. *Section 5.2 Tent pads and platforms.* This section includes the technical specifications for tent pads and platforms. *Comment.* All respondents who commented on this provision supported the flexibility in the FSORAG to determine whether edge protection should be required. *Response.* The FSORAG states that edge protection, where provided, is to be at least 3 inches high, whereas the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines require that all tent platforms have 3-inch edge protection. The FSORAG allows the designer to determine where edge protection should be provided for safety and where edge protection is not needed due to the design or location of a tent platform or absence of a drop-off that would preclude access. Thus, the FSORAG requires edge protection only where it is necessary. *Comment.* All respondents who commented on the tent pad and platform provisions supported them as they appear in the FSORAG. *Response.* The FSORAG requires that at least 20 percent of the tent pads or platforms provided at a developed recreation site meet the FSORAG's technical provisions and be connected to an ORAR. The FSORAG requires 5 percent of the tent pads or platforms in a general forest area to meet the technical provisions, but does not require connection to an ORAR in a general forest area. This difference in scoping and the requirement for connection to an ORAR reflects the differences between developed recreation sites and general forest areas. The agency agrees with the respondent who stated that this distinction gives the designer a realistic and reasonable ability to comply with accessibility requirements. Where an area's natural terrain permits, 100 percent of the tent pads or platforms may be accessible and connected to an ORAR. *Section 5.3 Fire Rings.* This section includes the technical specifications for fire rings. *Comment.* All except one respondent who commented on this section supported the exception in general forest areas to the requirement for the height of the fire-building surface. The dissenting respondent suggested that rock circles in general forest areas be piled higher and that soil be added inside the rocks to achieve the height required for the fire-building surface at developed recreation sites. *Response.* To permit the use of a circle of rocks or other low-profile campfires in remote or wilderness settings, the FSORAG provides an exception in general forest areas to the height of the fire-building surface if one or more conditions for departure exist. Without this exception, the fire-building surface in a fire ring would have to be at least 9 inches above the ground, which could have a substantial negative impact in a wilderness setting. The Forest Service is not accepting the suggestion to provide for rock circles in general forest areas to be piled higher and for soil to be added inside the rocks to achieve a 9-inch height for the fire- building surface because the agency is concerned about the safety of such a structure. *Comment.* Several respondents expressed concern that the design for accessible fire rings is unsightly and therefore unpopular. *Response.* The primary accessibility requirement for fire rings is that the fire-building surface be at least 9 inches above the ground. This requirement does not preclude fire ring designs that are innovative, attractive, and appropriate in developed recreation settings. Fifteen years ago, the most common fire ring design that supposedly was accessible looked like a barrel. Today the most common accessible fire ring design is not unattractive. Designers can be creative and check other sources for appropriate designs that fit the developed recreation setting and that are accessible. *Section 5.4 Wood Stoves and Fireplaces.* This section includes technical specifications for wood stoves and fireplaces at developed recreation sites. No comments were received on this section. *Section 5.5 Utilities.* This section includes technical specifications for utilities at developed recreation sites. No comments were received on this section. *Section 5.6 Utility Sinks.* This section includes technical specifications for utility sinks at developed recreation sites. No comments were received on this section. *Section 6.1 Benches.* This section includes technical specifications for benches at developed recreation sites. No comments were received on this section. *Section 6.2 Trash and Recycling Containers.* This section includes technical specifications for trash and recycling containers. *Comment.* One respondent recommended that bear-proof storage containers be addressed in the FSORAG because none with accessible controls are readily available. *Response.* The Forest Service agrees. The phrase, “other essential containers” has been added to the heading and text of section 6.2. “Other essential containers” includes trash, recycling, food storage, and other animal-resistant containers. *Section 6.3 Viewing Areas at Overlooks.* This section includes technical specifications for viewing areas at overlooks. No comments were received on this section. *Section 6.4 Telescopes and Periscopes.* This section includes technical specifications for telescopes and periscopes. *Comment.* All respondents who commented on this section supported the provision that does not appear in the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines for telescopes and periscopes. *Response.* Unlike the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines, the FSORAG requires maneuvering space at each accessible telescope and periscope. Maneuvering space is needed to ensure that telescopes and periscopes are accessible to a person who uses a wheelchair. *Section 6.5 Mobility Device Storage.* This section includes technical specifications for storage facilities for mobility devices at developed recreation sites. No comments were received on this section. *Section 6.6 Pit Toilets.* This section includes technical specifications for pit toilets. *Comment.* All except one respondent who commented on this section supported the specifications in the FSORAG, including the exception to the requirement for a level entrance into a pit toilet. One respondent believed that there should never be an exception to the requirement for a level entrance to a pit toilet, regardless of the difficulties presented by the structure or location of a pit toilet's waste disposal system. *Response.* The FSORAG requires that the clear floor or ground space adjacent to a pit toilet comply with ABAAS requirements for toilets. The FSORAG clarifies that pit toilets are permitted only in general forest areas and that privacy screens rather than walls are commonly used for pit toilets in remote areas. To address safety concerns, the agency clarified the FSORAG to provide that grab bars are to be installed only on walls that will withstand 250 pounds of force, in accordance with ABAAS. In addition, the FSORAG now specifies the orientation of the riser inside the pit toilet structure to maximize accessibility of the toilet's interior. These additions will ensure that pit toilets are designed and installed to be accessible for people with disabilities. The FSORAG permits exceptions to the requirement for a level entrance into a pit toilet. Providing for exceptions is necessary because some pit toilet floors have to be located above the ground due to operation and maintenance requirements of the toilet's waste disposal system. Where the entrance cannot be located at ground level, a trail or ramp, if feasible, must be provided from the ground to the entrance. Where a trail or ramp is not feasible and no other alternative is possible because of the presence of one or more conditions for departure, transfer steps meeting specifications similar to those for play areas in Chapter 10 of ABAAS may be provided. These exceptions allow trail planners and facility designers to work with an area's topography and other physical characteristics, rather than forcing planners and designers to alter the natural setting unreasonably. *Section 6.7 Warming Huts.* This section includes technical specifications for warming huts at developed recreation sites. No comments were received on this section. *Section 6.8 Outdoor Rinsing Showers.* This section includes technical specifications for outdoor rinsing showers at developed recreation sites. No comments were received on this section. 3. Regulatory Certifications Environmental Impact Section 31.12, paragraph 2, of Forest Service Handbook
(FSH)1909.15 (67 FR 54622, August 23, 2002) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.” The agency concludes that this amendment falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Regulatory Impact This amendment has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866 on regulatory planning and review. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that the amendment is significant because of its relationship to the accessibility guidelines to be established by the Access Board. Accordingly, this amendment has been reviewed by OMB pursuant to Executive Order 12866. A cost and benefits analysis of this action was developed and is available at *http://www.fs.fed.us/programs/recreation/accessibility.* The remaining portions of the proposed amendment, which addressed other aspects of the agency's accessibility program not related to the accessibility guidelines, were not deemed significant by OMB and were issued as a final interim directive on July 13, 2005. Moreover, this amendment has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 *et seq.* ). It has been determined that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the act because the amendment will not impose record-keeping requirements on them; it will not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and it will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. The amendment will establish accessibility guidelines that will apply internally to the Forest Service and that will have no direct effect on small businesses. No small businesses have been awarded contracts for construction or reconstruction of recreation facilities covered by these accessibility guidelines. No Takings Implications This amendment has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630. It has been determined that this amendment does not pose the risk of a taking of private property. Civil Justice Reform This amendment has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. After adoption of this amendment,
(1)All State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this amendment or that impede its full implementation will be preempted;
(2)no retroactive effect will be given to this amendment; and
(3)it will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions. Unfunded Mandates Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the agency has assessed the effects of this amendment on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This amendment will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or Tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required. Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments The agency has considered this amendment under the requirements of Executive Order 13132 on federalism and has determined that the amendment conforms with the federalism principles set out in this Executive Order; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the agency has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary. Moreover, this amendment does not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” and therefore advance consultation with Tribes is not required. Energy Effects This amendment has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” It has been determined that this amendment does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive Order. Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public This amendment does not contain any record-keeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply. Dated: April 10, 2006 Dale N. Bosworth, Chief, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E6-7775 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service RIN 0596-AB92 Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines and Integration of Direction on Accessibility Into Forest Service Manual 2350 AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of issuance of final directive. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is issuing a final directive as an amendment to Forest Service Manual 2350, Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities to ensure that new or altered trails designed for hiker/pedestrian use on National Forest System lands are developed to maximize accessibility for all people, including people with disabilities, while recognizing and protecting the unique characteristics of the natural setting of each trail. The amendment guides Forest Service employees regarding compliance with the Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG) and directs that these trails comply with the FSTAG and applicable Federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. In addition, the amendment clarifies agency procedures and policies related to the accessibility of trails. The FSTAG is linked to and referenced in this amendment. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) is preparing to publish for public notice and comment proposed accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas that would apply to Federal agencies subject to the Architectural Barriers Act. When the Access Board finalizes its accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas, the Forest Service will revise the FSTAG to incorporate the Access Board's standards where those provisions are a higher standard, as supplemented by the Forest Service. The supplementation will ensure the agency's application of equivalent or higher guidelines and universal design, as well as consistent use of agency terminology and processes. DATES: This final directive is effective May 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: *The full text of the amendment* is available electronically on the World Wide Web at *http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives* . The administrative record for this final amendment is available for inspection and copying at the office of the Director, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff, USDA Forest Service, 4th Floor Central, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Those wishing to inspect the administrative record are encouraged to call Janet Zeller at
(202)205-9597 beforehand to facilitate access to the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Zeller, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff, USDA Forest Service,
(202)205-9597. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background Although the Forest Service is committed to ensuring accessibility of agency facilities and programs to serve all employees and visitors, as well as to comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, agency accessibility requirements for outdoor recreation areas have not been integrated into the Forest Service Directives System. In addition, no accessibility guidelines have completed the rulemaking process that apply to the construction or alteration of trails designed hiker/pedestrian use within the National Forest System (NFS), while considering the uniqueness of the setting and maximizing accessibility for persons with disabilities. In 1999, using a regulatory negotiation committee (Reg Neg Committee), the Access Board completed draft accessibility guidelines to address outdoor developed areas, including trails. However, the Access Board was not able to complete the rulemaking process for the guidelines at that time. The Forest Service determined that it needed accessibility guidelines for trails that would comply with the public notice and comment process for Forest Service directives pursuant to 36 CFR part 216. Based on the Reg Neg Committee's draft accessibility guidelines, the Forest Service developed the FSTAG. Application of the FSTAG will ensure that the full range of trail opportunities continues to be provided, from primitive, long-distance trails to highly developed trails and popular scenic overlooks. All Interagency Trail Data Standards trail classes and terminology will remain unchanged. The FSTAG will apply only in the NFS. Like the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines, the FSTAG applies to trails designed for hiker/pedestrian use, establishes only one level of accessibility, and includes specific conditions for departure and exceptions when necessary to preserve the uniqueness of each trail or when application of the technical provisions would cause a change in a trail's setting or in the purpose or function for which a trail was designed. Thus, most primitive trails would not be subject to the FSTAG. However, the FSTAG could apply to portions of these trails where they pass through a more urban area. The FSTAG contains exceptions that would prevent accessibility from being pointlessly applied piecemeal throughout a trail when access between segments is not possible. In addition, the FSTAG requires accessibility to special features where possible. The Access Board plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)seeking public comment on proposed accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas. The NPRM will contain the Reg Neg Committee's draft accessibility guidelines and will apply to Federal agencies subject to the Architectural Barriers Act. The Forest Service will work with the Access Board and the other federal land management agencies as the Access Board develops final accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas. When the Access Board finalizes its accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas, the Forest Service will revise the FSTAG to incorporate the Access Board's standards, as supplemented by the Forest Service. The supplementation will ensure the agency's application of equivalent or higher guidelines and universal design, as well as consistent use of agency terminology and processes. In a related notice published elsewhere in this part of today's **Federal Register** , the agency is publishing notice of a final directive to require compliance with the Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG), which apply to new or reconstructed outdoor developed recreation areas. The FSTAG and FSORAG are both available electronically on the World Wide Web at *http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility* . Copies also may be obtained by writing to the USDA Forest Service, Attn: Accessibility Program Manager, Recreation and Heritage Resources Staff, Stop 1125, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0003. 2. Public Comments on the Proposed Interim Directive On February 17, 2005, the Forest Service published the proposed interim directive in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 32) for public notice and comment. The proposed interim directive was also posted electronically on the World Wide Web on the **Federal Register** site at *http://www.fs.fed.us/programs/recreation/accessibility.* The Forest Service received 79 letters or electronic messages in response to the proposed interim directive. Each respondent was grouped in one of the following categories: Nonprofit Organizations: 38 Businesses: 1 Federal Agencies: 6 Federal Agency Employees: 21 Individuals (unaffiliated or unidentifiable): 13 Most respondents generally supported the FSTAG. One respondent was not supportive. One respondent opposed access by people with disabilities on Federally managed lands. Another respondent expressed general opposition to any improved access based on the belief that improved access would lead to more hunting. Many respondents commented on specific sections of the FSTAG. The spelling, pagination, and other similar nonsubstantive comments that respondents shared were appreciated and have been incorporated into the FSTAG. General Comments Many respondents commented that the FSTAG is superior in its recognition of situations encountered in trail building and its detailed explanations, use of terminology employed by the trails community, and step-by-step implementation processes. All respondents who commented on format strongly supported separating the FSTAG from the FSORAG, as well as integration of the scoping and technical provisions in each document. Respondents appreciated the appendices containing the overview of the FSTAG implementation process, related technical provisions from the FSORAG, and provisions from the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards cited in the FSTAG. *Comment:* Many respondents expressed the need for a more user-friendly document that details the process of applying the FSTAG. *Response:* The *Forest Service Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor Recreation and Trails (Guidebook)* is expected to be available on the Forest Service's Web site by the spring of 2006 at *http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility.* The *Guidebook* will explain the FSTAG in simple terms, with examples of how to apply the guidelines, helpful graphics and photographs, and design tips. *Comment:* Several respondents expressed a concern that the FSTAG would be changed to apply to all trails in the NFS as well as trail maintenance. *Response:* The Architectural Barriers Act applies only to new or altered facilities, elements, and constructed features and to the routes that connect them. Although section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to all agency programs, it also requires that there be no fundamental alteration of those programs for purposes of making them accessible. Therefore, the scope of the FSTAG, which applies to new or altered trails as long as the character or experience of the trail is not changed, will not be broadened to include all trails in the NFS or trail maintenance. *Comment:* Several respondents commented on the need for supplemental educational materials and training opportunities for the FSTAG, both for Forest Service employees and trail volunteers. *Response:* The Forest Service has offered centralized training on the FSTAG and FSORAG. However, attendance revealed that cooperators and volunteers had difficulty meeting the travel and time constraints for the training. Therefore, in addition to developing the *Guidebook,* the Forest Service will offer to provide training locally when trail cooperators provide the opportunity at a meeting or training session. Because the FSTAG applies only to construction or alteration of trails, not to trail maintenance, the FSTAG will be used in designing, constructing, and altering trails. The FSTAG will not be used by cooperators and volunteers performing trail maintenance. *Comment:* Several respondents expressed the concern that an accessible trailhead or trails will allow all-terrain and other motor vehicles to be used on nonmotorized trails. *Response:* Nothing in the FSTAG permits the use of a motorized vehicle on a trail restricted to nonmotorized use. However, a person who uses a wheelchair as defined in 36 CFR 212.1 (70 FR 68264, November 9, 2005) is permitted anywhere foot travel is permitted. To prevent use of motor vehicles in nonmotorized areas and on nonmotorized trails on NFS lands, gates, rocks, berms, posts, or other restrictive devices may be used. However, under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, people with disabilities may not be denied participation in an agency program open to all other people. Thus, when foot travel is allowed beyond a restrictive device, as at a trailhead, at least 32 inches of clearing width must be provided around or through the device to ensure that a person in a wheelchair can travel beyond the restriction. Thirty-two inches of clearing width has been deemed sufficient, since that is the minimum width required for a door under the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards. If the trail beyond the entry point does not meet the criteria for applicability of the FSTAG, there is no requirement to make the trail accessible simply because there is a clearing width of 32 inches at the trailhead. A wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, is a device that is designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area. “Designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion” means that the wheelchair was designed and manufactured solely for use for mobility by a person with a disability. Thus, “wheelchair or mobility device” does not include a motorized unit that has been retrofitted to make it useable by a person with a disability. “Suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area” means useable inside a home, mall, courthouse, or other indoor pedestrian area. *Comment:* Several respondents questioned how the FSTAG will affect trail maintenance backlogs. *Response:* Since the FSTAG does not apply to trail maintenance, the FSTAG will not affect trail maintenance backlogs. *Comment:* Several respondents expressed concern that the FSTAG will require increased maintenance on trails. *Response:* Routine maintenance on a trail that is accessible is not required to occur more frequently solely because the trail was constructed in compliance with the FSTAG. Trail maintenance is conducted in accordance with the standards established for each trail based on its trail class and designed use. While accessible trails are likely to be within the trail classes that receive more frequent maintenance based on the established maintenance standards for those trail classes, there may be a period when a trail segment does not meet conditions for accessibility or availability due to normally occurring conditions in the outdoor environment, such as fallen branches. *Comment:* Several respondents expressed concern that the Interagency Trail Data Standards
(ITDS)designation of managed use of hiker/pedestrian was not correct because managed use does not address the technical aspects of a trail's design and construction. These respondents believed that the ITDS designation of designed use of hiker/pedestrian would be more appropriate. *Response:* “Managed use” and “designed use” are terms used in the Interagency Trail Data Standards and the Forest Service's trail classification system. Managed uses of a trail are the modes of travel for which the trail is actively managed. The designed use of a trail is determined by the managed use that requires the most demanding design, construction, and maintenance parameters. The Forest Services agrees that the FSTAG should apply to trails with a designed use, rather than a managed use, of hiker/pedestrian because the FSTAG applies to construction and alteration of trails, not to management of trails. Accordingly, the FSTAG has been revised to provide that it applies to trails with a designed use of hiker/pedestrian. *Comment:* All comments on the requirement that buildings (such as toilets and shelters) be accessible if they are constructed in conjunction with a trail subject to the FSTAG were supportive. *Response:* The construction of any building is a disturbance to the setting. Designing a building that is appropriate to the setting and is accessible takes planning, but ensures that all people can use it. The resulting structure is large enough for any person to fit through the door and turn around inside while carrying a backpack. As one respondent stated, “Hiking is challenge by choice. Using a toilet is not a choice, so it shouldn't be a challenge.” Comments on Specific Sections of the FSTAG *Section 7.1.1 Conditions for Departure.* This section enumerates the conditions that would permit departure from a specific FSTAG technical provision for the distance those conditions impact a trail. *Comment:* Several respondents expressed a concern that the FSTAG would change the fundamental character of trails. *Response:* The Forest Service firmly believes that the primitive character of trails designed as simple footpaths must not be compromised. The FSTAG reflects this belief through the use of tight criteria for triggering the technical provisions and the use of conditions for departure and exceptions from the technical provisions. The FSTAG applies only to trails within the National Forest System that
(1)are new or altered (an alteration to a existing trail is a change in the original purpose, intent, or design of a trail);
(2)have a designed use of hiker/pedestrian under the Interagency Trail Data Standards and Forest Service Trail Planning and Management Fundamentals; and
(3)connect directly to a currently accessible trail or to a trailhead. A trailhead is a site designed and developed by the Forest Service, a trail association, trail maintaining club, trail partners, or other cooperators to provide staging for trail use. For purposes of the FSTAG, the following are not trailheads:
(1)Junctions between trails where there is no other access and
(2)intersections where a trail crosses a road or users have developed an access point, but no improvements have been provided by the Forest Service, a trail association, a trail maintaining club, trail partners, or other cooperators beyond minimal signage for public safety. In addition, the FSTAG includes four specific conditions for departing from the guidelines if meeting a technical provision, such as trail width, would change the character or experience of the trail at a specific point. If one or more of those conditions exist, then exceptions to the technical provisions, on a case-by-case basis, are provided. By applying the guidelines, but allowing for exceptions if applying the guidelines would change the character or experience of a trail, trails that are designed to meet the full range of visitor choice will be available, from the paved trails at a visitor center to long-distance, primitive footpaths. Visitors can then choose the type of recreation they want to pursue and the setting for that experience. *Comment:* All respondents who commented on the distinction in the FSORAG between developed recreation sites and general forest areas were supportive. *Response:* The Forest Service distinguishes in its land management between developed recreation sites and general forest areas. The Forest Service's Infrastructure database defines a developed recreation site as “a discrete place containing a concentration of facilities and services used to provide recreation opportunities to the public and evidencing a significant investment in facilities and management under the direction of an administrative unit in the National Forest System.” Developed recreation sites provide visitor convenience and comfort without adversely impacting natural resources. Most of the agency's recreational improvements are located at developed recreation sites. In contrast, general forest areas are “all lands available for recreation use and outside of Wilderness, developed sites, trails and administrative sites. Amenities or constructed features inside general forest areas are primarily for resource protection rather than for visitor comfort.” While some constructed features (such as picnic tables, fire rings, and toilet buildings) may be provided in general forest areas, these constructed features are usually for resource protection rather than visitor convenience. Any constructed features in general forest areas must be designed appropriately for the setting and must comply with the FSORAG's accessibility requirements. It is important to the recreating public that not all NFS lands be developed to the same extent, level, or intensity. *Comment:* All but one respondent who commented on the provision in the FSORAG exempting general forest areas from the requirement for outdoor recreation access routes (ORARs) supported the exemption. *Response:* The FSORAG states that ORARs are not required in general forest areas. In general forest areas, a path connecting associated constructed facilities, as well as a path connecting them to a trail, must comply with the technical provisions for a trail enumerated in section 7.0 of the FSTAG. These paths are not ORARs and are not required to meet the technical provisions for ORARs in the FSORAG. ORARs are not required in general forest areas because the resulting additional construction and site modification would substantially alter the nature of the setting. *Comment:* A number of respondents requested that “infeasible” be replaced with “impractical” in the fourth condition for departure. *Response:* The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, (2000), cites “impractical” as the definition for “infeasible.” Since the words are interchangeable and “impractical” is used more commonly, the Forest Service has changed “would not be feasible” to “would be impractical” in the section-by-section analysis for the fourth condition for departure and the fourth condition for departure. *Comment:* One respondent expressed concern that the second condition for departure in the FSTAG differs from the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines in citing inconsistency with the applicable land management plan as a basis for allowing utilization of an exception in the technical provisions. *Response:* The National Forest Management Act requires each national forest and national grassland to develop a land management plan. These plans are developed through extensive public participation and generally are in effect for 10 to 15 years. These plans guide forest management, and the Forest Service is prohibited from authorizing actions that are inconsistent with the plans. *Comment:* All except one respondent expressed support for inclusion of the Interagency Trail Data Standards
(ITDS)trail classes in the second condition for departure. *Response:* The second condition for departure in the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines permits deviation from the guidelines “[w]here compliance would substantially alter the nature of the setting or the purpose of the facility, or portion of the facility.” Trails are very different from campgrounds and picnic areas, where there is a high degree of development due to the nature of the use. Trails generally cause little change to the nature of the setting because trails merely traverse an area. This difference should be reflected in the conditions for departure that, when met, allow utilization of an exception to the technical provisions. When the first draft of the FSTAG was posted on the Forest Service website in late 2002, the trails community immediately requested clarification of the phrase the “nature of the setting” of the trail for purposes of applying the second condition for departure. The trails community suggested that the ITDS trail classes be added to that condition for departure because they take into account user preferences, setting, protection of sensitive resources, and other management activities. The ITDS trail classes match the Forest Service's trail classes, which range from minimally developed (Trail Class 1) to fully developed (Trail Class 5). There are substantial differences among the five trail classes. In addition, respondents suggested that the ITDS trail class chart and terminology be added to the FSTAG as a reference tool. The Forest Service agrees with these comments and has added trail class as a factor to consider in applying the second condition for departure. The agency also has added the ITDS trail class chart as an appendix to the FSTAG. If compliance with a specific technical provision of the FSTAG would trigger a change in the ITDS trail class, the trail designer is alerted to the potential for a substantial change in the setting of the trail if that provision is applied. A substantial change in the setting of the trail would constitute a condition for departure from the technical provisions. However, the presence of a condition for departure does not exempt a trail from the FSTAG. An exception is permitted only where one or more conditions for departure exist and an exception applies (see section 7.1.1). Moreover, some exceptions in the FSTAG provide for applicability of a technical provision with modifications (see, e.g., section 7.3.4, Clear Tread Width, Exception 1, and section 7.3.7, Protruding Objects, Exception 1). *Section 7.1.2 General Exceptions.* This section contains the two general exceptions to applicability of the FSTAG. *Comment:* One respondent asked why there were two general exceptions instead of one. *Response:* The first general exception addresses four trail characteristics or limiting factors that may make complying with the technical provisions difficult or impractical. The second general exception addresses the reasonableness of applying the technical provisions when one or more conditions for departure result in deviations from the technical provisions for over 15 percent of the length of a trail. When either of these two exceptions applies, the trail would not need to comply with the technical provisions beyond a certain point. However, since these exceptions address different situations, they are not interchangeable nor can they be combined. The loss of either one would result in different coverage of the technical provisions. *Comment:* Several respondents requested that direction be added to the FSTAG concerning the impact or cumulative effects of applying the technical provisions and resulting change to the user experience and physical characteristics of the trail. *Response:* The second general exception addresses the reasonableness of applying the technical provisions if deviations from the provisions occur on over 15 percent of the length of a trail due to conditions for departure. This situation could result in trails that have a few segments that comply with all the technical provisions interspersed with segments that do not comply with one or more provisions. The second exception provides a means of quantifying the cumulative effect of many deviations from the guidelines on the overall trail experience. The overview of the FSTAG implementation process in Appendix A of the FSTAG can be used when laying out the flag line on a trail to tally the segments of the trail where one ore more conditions for departure result in deviations from the technical provisions. If one or more conditions for departure result in deviations from the technical provisions for over 15 percent of the length of the trail, then the second general exception does not require compliance with the technical provisions beyond a certain point. *Comment:* The third limiting factor in the first general exception allows for deviation from all the technical provisions (provided one or more conditions for departure exist) when the minimum trail width is 18 inches or less for a distance of at least 20 feet. These narrow segments of trail are referred to as “pinch points.” One respondent believed that no one with a disability would be able to get through an 18-inch-wide pinch point, even if it extended a short distance. *Response:* A person with a disability may be able to get over or around a pinch point that extends for a short distance. However, if a pinch point extends for a long distance, it is less likely that the pinch point can be negotiated successfully. The Reg Neg Committee established the limit of over 20 feet for a nonnegotiable pinch point. The Reg Neg Committee also determined the minimum width of that pinch point to be 12 inches. The Forest Service increased the minimum width of a nonnegotiable pinch point to 18 inches in the FSTAG because any passageway with no possibility of a detour, such as a path along the side of a cliff, that is narrower than 18 inches should not be considered passable. *Comment:* The fourth limiting factor in the first general exception allows for deviation from all the technical provisions (provided one or more conditions for departure exist) when a trail obstacle of at least 30 inches in height extends across the full width of the trail. One respondent suggested that the minimum height of 30 inches in this limiting factor be reduced to 10 to 12 inches. *Response:* The Reg Neg Committee established the minimum height of 30 inches in the fourth limiting factor because a trail obstacle at that height would be extremely difficult for a person with a mobility impairment to navigate. At a height of 10 to 12 inches, a person with a disability could maneuver over the obstacle, albeit with considerable effort. *Section 7.1.3 Documentation.* This section addresses the requirement for documentation of a determination that the FSTAG does not apply to a trail. *Comment:* Respondents shared both support and concern regarding the requirement to document a decision that the FSTAG does not apply to construction or alteration of a trail that is designed for hiker/pedestrian use. *Response:* Often when trail managers leave their positions, they take with them the institutional knowledge and memory for a particular project. Therefore, the Forest Service needs to require documentation of a determination that the FSTAG does not apply to construction or alteration of a trail that is designed for hiker/pedestrian use. If a determination is made that the FSTAG does not apply to the entire trail or cannot be met on portions of the trail, a brief statement must be written and retained in the project file enumerating the rationale for that determination, which conditions for departure and exceptions apply, the date of the determination, and the name of the individuals who made the determination. There is no standard format for this documentation; each administrative unit may develop its own format to meet its specific needs. This documentation need not be lengthy; one page should be sufficient. This documentation will show that applicability of the FSTAG was considered at the onset of the project and that a good-faith effort was made to consider accessibility. *Section 7.2 Definitions.* This section includes definitions of terms used in the FSTAG. Alteration *Comment:* All respondents who commented on terminology supported the definition of the term “alteration.” *Response:* The definition for alteration is taken from page 5 of the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines (1999 Committee Report), which distinguish maintenance from alteration: “This type of work [maintenance] is not an alteration; it does not change the original purpose, intent, or design of the trail.” Accordingly, the FSTAG defines “alteration” as “a change in the original purpose, intent, or design of a trail.” Trail Terminus and Trail Segment *Comment:* Several respondents requested that definitions for “trail terminus” and “trail segment” be added to the FSTAG. *Response:* The Forest Service agrees. Both definitions now appear in section 7.2 of the FSTAG. A trail terminus is defined as “the beginning or ending point of a trail or trail segment, where the trail assessment or trail work begins or ends.” A trail segment is defined as “the portion of a trail being planned, evaluated, or constructed.” Trailhead *Comment:* Several respondents expressed confusion concerning the two definitions for “trailhead,” i.e., the definitions for “designated trailhead” and “developed trailhead.” Respondents requested that the definitions be clarified so that a dirt road crossing a trail where there is no developed parking area or other facilities would not be considered a trailhead. *Response:* The Forest Service agrees that clarification and consolidation of these definitions are needed. The two definitions have been revised and combined to reflect the definition for a trailhead in the Recreation and Heritage Resources Integrated Business Systems and the level of development required to constitute a trailhead. In addition, the definition now specifies what is not a trailhead. The resulting single definition for a trailhead is: “A site designed and developed by the Forest Service, a trail association, a trail maintaining club, trail partners, or other cooperators to provide staging for trail use. For purposes of the FSTAG the following are not trailheads: • Junctions between trails where there is no other access. • Intersections where a trail crosses a road or users have developed an access point, but no improvements have been provided by the Forest Service, a trail association, a trail maintaining club, trail partners, or other cooperators beyond minimal signage for public safety.” *Section 7.3.1 Trail Grade and Cross Slope.* This section includes the technical requirements for trail grade and cross slope. *Comment:* Several respondents requested more specific guidance on the distance between points of measurement when determining trail grade, cross slope, and other trail features. *Response:* The distance between points of measurement has not been specified because it will vary greatly depending on the area being evaluated for construction or alteration of a trail. When laying out the flag line for construction or alteration of a trail, the trail designer can best determine how frequently measurements need to be made to obtain the needed level of detail, depending on the terrain, changes in soil type, and other trail characteristics. Appendix A of the FSTAG contains an overview of the FSTAG implementation process that may be used when laying out flag line for construction or alteration of a trail. *Section 7.3.2 Resting Interval.* This section includes the technical specifications for a resting interval, where one is required. No comments were received on this section. *Section 7.3.3 Surface.* This section includes the technical requirements for trail surface. *Comment:* All respondents who commented on the method for evaluating a firm and stable surface in the FSTAG expressed strong support for the practicality of the method. *Response:* While the Forest Service supports the scientific approach to the evaluation of a firm and stable surface, the agency also recognizes that the expense of the equipment required for that approach may be prohibitive. Therefore, trail designers must have a mental tool to use to evaluate trail surface. *Comment:* Several respondents expressed concern that a firm and stable surface may not remain that way in all weather conditions. *Response:* The FSTAG recognizes that various types of weather can have a significant effect on trail surface. Page 19 of the FSTAG states: “Surface firmness should be determined and documented during the planning process for the primary seasons for which a trail is managed, under normally occurring weather conditions.” If it is not clear what those seasons are, the determination of surface firmness may be based on the primary seasons for which similar trails in the area are managed. *Comment:* One respondent recommended adding to the examples of types of actions that constitute maintenance the hardening of trail surfaces under certain conditions, such as installation of a boardwalk in an area that has become wet. The respondent believed that this addition was needed to clarify that this type of work would not trigger application of the FSTAG. *Response:* The agency does not believe that this change is necessary. The FSTAG specifically states that it applies only to trails within the National Forest System that
(1)are new or altered (an alteration is a change in the original purpose, intent, or design of a trail;
(2)have a designed use of hiker/pedestrian under the ITDS and Forest Service Trail Planning and Management Fundamentals; and
(3)connect directly to a currently accessible trail or to a trailhead. Constructing a boardwalk over a wet area of a trail would not constitute construction or alteration of a trail. Therefore, this type of work would not trigger the FSTAG. *Section 7.3.4 Tread Width.* This section includes the technical requirements for tread width. *Comment:* Several respondents were confused about the terms “minimum tread width” and “minimum trail width.” *Response:* The tread width is the width of a constructed trail. The minimum tread width is the width of the useable part of the tread width (i.e., that is not blocked by obstructions) at the narrowest point on a trail. The tread width does not include usable area adjacent to the constructed trail tread. The trail width is the width of the trail tread and the adjacent useable area. The minimum trail width is the width of the trail tread and the adjacent useable area at the narrowest point on a trail. An example of minimum trail width is where there is a rock outcropping on both sides of a trail that narrows the width of the trail tread as well as the adjacent useable area, and there is no way around the obstruction. Clear tread width is the width of the useable trail tread and adjacent usable surface. *Comment:* All except one respondent expressed support for the FSTAG's approach to trail bridges, boardwalks, and puncheon. *Response:* In accordance with the Forest Service Trail Planning and Management Fundamentals, trail bridges, boardwalks, and puncheon are constructed features of a trail and part of the trail tread. Therefore, they must be constructed in accordance with the width and other features of a trail. Thus, if a segment of a trail designed for hiker/pedestrian use is subject to the FSTAG's technical provisions, the trail bridges, boardwalks, and puncheon on that trail segment are also subject to those provisions. *Section 7.3.5 Passing Space.* This section includes the technical specifications for passing space, where it is required. No comments were received on this section. *Section 7.3.6 Tread Obstacles.* This section includes the technical specifications for allowable tread obstacles. No comments were received on this section. *Section 7.3.7 Protruding Objects.* This section includes the technical requirements for clear headroom on a trail. *Comment:* All respondents who commented on protruding objects supported the exception to the requirement for clear headroom or a warning barrier. *Response:* The FSTAG requires that if the vertical clearance of a trail is reduced to less than 80 inches because of a condition for departure, a barrier to warn people who are blind or visually impaired must be provided. However, the FSTAG also recognizes that in the outdoor recreation environment there are some areas, such as pathways through caves or specific types of trees, where the natural environment precludes both 80 inches of clear headroom and placement of a warning barrier. Therefore, the FSTAG allows an exception to these requirements where a condition for departure prevents providing 80 inches of clear headroom and installation of a warning barrier without changing the character of the setting. *Section 7.3.8 Openings.* This section includes the technical specifications for allowable openings in the trail tread. No comments were received on this section. *Section 7.3.9 Edge Protection.* This section includes the technical requirements for the height of edge protection provided along trail tread. *Comment:* All respondents who commented on the use of edge protection strongly agreed with the approach taken in the FSTAG that it should not be required for trails or tent pads and platforms. *Response:* Under the FSTAG, edge protection, where provided, must be at least 3 inches high. However, edge protection is not required. The trail designer determines where edge protection should be provided for safety and where it should be eliminated because it would preclude full access. The FSTAG also provides for flexibility in determining the use of edge protection because of concerns regarding accessibility of trails and tent pads and platforms in general forest areas adjacent to trails. *Section 7.3.10 Signs.* This section requires posting information signs at the trailhead of new or altered trails and trail segments that fall into Trail Class 4 or 5 and trails that have been evaluated for accessibility. *Comment:* All respondents strongly supported the requirement to post information signs at the trailhead of new or altered trails and trail segments that fall into Trail Class 4 or 5 and trails that have been evaluated for accessibility. One respondent recommended that the requirements for information signs be extended to all trails. *Response:* The Forest Service strongly supports providing trail information that is useful to all visitors. Providing information about the typical and maximum trail grade, typical and maximum cross slope, typical and minimum tread width, surface type and firmness, and obstacles helps visitors choose their own hiking experience. While it would be desirable to post this information at the trailhead of all trails, the Forest Service cannot require this type of signage at this time. *Appendices.* The appendices provide additional information to assist trail designers and managers in determining when and how to apply the FSTAG. *Comment:* Several respondents requested inclusion in the FSTAG of the ITDS and Forest Service trail class chart and related information. *Response:* In response to these requests, the Forest Service has added the ITDS and Forest Service trail class chart and related information as an appendix to the FSTAG. 3. Regulatory Certifications Environmental Impact Section 31.12, paragraph 2, of Forest Service Handbook
(FSH)1909.15 (67 FR 54622, August 23, 2002) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.” The agency concludes that this amendment falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Regulatory Impact This amendment has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866 on regulatory planning and review. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that the accessibility guidelines portion of the amendment is significant because of its relationship to the accessibility guidelines to be established by the Access Board. Accordingly, this amendment has been reviewed by OMB pursuant to Executive Order 12866. A cost and benefits analysis of this action was developed and is available at *http://www.fs.fed.us/programs/recreation/accessibility.* The remaining portions of the proposed amendment, which addressed other aspects of the agency's accessibility program not related to the accessibility guidelines, were not deemed significant by OMB and were issued as a final interim directive on July 13, 2005. Moreover, this amendment has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 *et seq.* ). It has been determined that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the act because the amendment will not impose record-keeping requirements on them; it will not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and it will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. The amendment will establish accessibility guidelines that will apply internally to the Forest Service and that will have no direct effect on small businesses. No small businesses have been awarded contracts for construction or reconstruction of recreation facilities covered by these accessibility guidelines. No Takings Implications This amendment has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630. The agency has determined that this amendment does not pose the risk of a taking of private property. Civil Justice Reform This amendment has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. After adoption of this amendment,
(1)all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this amendment or that impede its full implementation will be preempted;
(2)no retroactive effect will be given to this amendment; and
(3)it will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions. Unfunded Mandates Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the agency has assessed the effects of this amendment on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This amendment will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or Tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required. Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments The agency has considered this amendment under the requirements of Executive Order 13132 on federalism and has made an assessment that the amendment conforms with the federalism principles set out in this Executive Order; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the agency has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary. Moreover, this amendment does not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments,” and therefore advance consultation with Tribes is not required. Energy Effects This amendment has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” It has been determined that this amendment does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive Order. Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public This amendment does not contain any record-keeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply. Dated: April 10, 2006. Dale N. Bosworth, Chief, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E6-7753 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Risk Management Agency Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Conduct an Information Collection AGENCY: Risk Management Agency, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Risk Management Agency to request approval for the collection of information in support of the agency's mission under section 522(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act to develop and implement risk management tools for producers of agricultural commodities through partnership agreements. DATES: Written comments on this notice will be accepted until close of business July 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Virginia Guzman, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Research and Evaluation Division, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Risk Management Agency, 6501 Beacon Drive, Mail Stop 813, Kansas City, MO 64133. Written comments may also be submitted electronically to: *RMARED.PRA@rma.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virginia Guzman or David Fulk, at the Kansas City, MO address listed above, telephone
(816)926-6343. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Agricultural Risk Management, Research and Evaluation, Organic Transition Simulation Model and Online Training Course Project. *OMB Number:* 0563-NEW. *Type of Request:* New Information Collection. *Abstract:* The Risk Management Agency intends to collect information for purposes of product development and program evaluation. The product development data collection is necessary to obtain feedback from experts and potential users of a Web-based simulation model designed to assist farmers and agricultural extension specialists in understanding the economic and environmental consequences in making a transition from traditional to organic production techniques. Results of this collection will be used to revise and improve the simulation model. The program evaluation component of the data collection is required to assess the effectiveness of the fully developed simulation model and the accompanying training course. All data collections will be conducted online using an automated web-survey system. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve this information collection activity for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public concerning the information collection activities. These comments will help us: 1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; 2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection information; 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection technologies, *e.g.* permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of Burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 to 10 minutes per response, depending on the survey. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Farmers who are growing organic crops or are considering the production of organic crops and Cooperative Extension specialists who advise farmers and educators on the basics of organic production and marketing. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 1,660. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 8,120. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 1,111 hours. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Signed in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2006. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-7752 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No. 060505121-6121-01] Establishment of Advisory Committee and Clarification of Deemed Export-Related Regulatory Requirements AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS)is announcing the creation of a Federal Advisory Committee that will review and provide recommendations to the Department of Commerce on deemed export policy. The Deemed Export Advisory Committee
(DEAC)will help ensure that the deemed export licensing policy most effectively protects national security while ensuring the U.S. continues to be at the leading edge of technological innovation. This notice also provides an overview of steps that BIS has taken to improve understanding of deemed export policy within academia and industry, including outreach activities conducted by BIS. ADDRESSES: Although there is no official comment period for this notice, you may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 060505121-6121-01, by any of the following methods: *E-mail:* *publiccomments@bis.doc.gov.* Include “060505121-6121-01” in the subject line of the message. *Fax:*
(202)482-3355. *Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:* U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230, ATTN: Docket No. 060505121-6121-01. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcus Cohen, Regulatory Policy Division, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, telephone:
(202)482-2440 or e-mail: *mcohen@bis.doc.gov.* Copies of the referenced Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General
(OIG)Report are available at: *http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2004/BIS-IPE-1676-03-2004.pdf.* Public comments received by BIS in response to the ANPR are available at: *http://efoia.bis.doc.gov/.* Background BIS is proposing the establishment of a “Deemed Export Advisory Committee”
(DEAC)under the terms of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2). The DEAC will serve as forum to address complex questions related to an evolving deemed export control policy. Specifically, the DEAC will be charged with reviewing the current deemed export policy and determining whether to recommend any changes to that policy. A separate notice will specifically address the comments received in response to the “ *Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Revision and Clarification of Deemed Export Related Regulatory Requirements* ”
(ANPR)published in the **Federal Register** on March 28, 2005. A. Deemed Export Advisory Committee (DEAC); Notice of Recruitment of Private-Sector Members The nature of research and technological development is constantly changing and there is evidence of growing participation of foreign nationals in U.S.-based research as well as their employment in U.S.-based high-technology industries. There is also an increasing interdependence between commercial and academic research. Over the course of the past decade, these changes have inevitably led to the increased transfer of controlled information to foreign nationals in the course of research and commercial technology development. To ensure that the deemed export policy best protects U.S. national security, while striving not to impede the ability of U.S. industry and academic research to continue at the leading edge of technological innovation, BIS is establishing a “Deemed Export Advisory Committee”
(DEAC)under the terms of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2). The DEAC will undertake a comprehensive review of the national security, technology, and competitiveness dimensions of the deemed export issue and provide recommendations for potential changes to the current deemed export policy. The DEAC's review will include, but not be limited to, the recommendations made in the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General
(OIG)Report entitled “ *Deemed Export Controls May Not Stop the Transfer of Sensitive Technology to Foreign Nationals in the U.S.* ” (Final Inspection Report No. IPE-16176-March 2004). The DEAC, which will not exceed 12 members, will be structured to ensure a balanced membership that will offer a comprehensive point of view on the complex technical and policy questions at issue. The advisory committee will consist of representatives from industry, academia, and other experts in the field to ensure a full discussion of all aspects of deemed exports and knowledge transfer from the corporate, academic, and national security perspectives. Members will be called upon to advise BIS on highly technical issues surrounding technology transfer and to help ensure that BIS effectively carries out its critical national security function. To that end, the DEAC shall have a diverse membership with expertise in national security affairs, scientific research and development (R&D) policy, and the various forms of technology subject to the EAR, such as nuclear, chemical, missile, electronics, computer, telecommunications, and avionic technology. For a full list of technology and software subject to the EAR, *see* 15 CFR part 774, Supp. 1. DEAC members will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and serve a term of not more than one year. DEAC members must obtain a secret security clearance prior to appointment. These clearances are necessary so that members may be permitted access to the classified information needed to formulate recommendations to the Department of Commerce. The DEAC will convene as appropriate, but in no case less than quarterly. To respond to this recruitment notice, please send a copy of your resume to Ms. Yvette Springer at *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov.* This Notice of Recruitment will be open until July 21, 2006. B. Current Deemed Export Policy Given the extended public discussion of the OIG recommendations and the coming review of the deemed export policy by the DEAC, a reiteration of the current BIS deemed export policy regarding country of birth, the existing definition of “use” in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and the relationship of fundamental research to deemed exports is warranted. BIS has decided *not* to make any changes at this time to current regulations and policy on these three issues. C. BIS Activities Related to Deemed Exports In the past year, BIS has undertaken an enhanced and targeted deemed export outreach program. Since the issuance of the report by the OIG, BIS has significantly increased its outreach to the academic and research communities. This outreach has focused on the concerns identified by the OIG report to raise the level of awareness and to improve the understanding of the deemed exports regulatory requirements. In fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005, over 120 outreach events were conducted annually, almost tripling that conducted in previous years. A third of these events—which range in content from presentations to large audiences, seminars, one-on-one consultations, and site visits—have been with the university and government research organizations and laboratories. These organizations were identified by the OIG report as needing additional knowledge of the EAR's deemed export requirements. BIS is on track to conduct over 100 deemed export outreach events in the current fiscal year. BIS has already seen the benefit of increased outreach to, and communication with, the regulated community and believes that the DEAC will provide a particularly advantageous forum for further in-depth technical information exchange between and among BIS and the academic, corporate, and other interested sectors. In addition to onsite visits, seminars, and the information provided in Supplement No.1 to Part 734 of the EAR, BIS has also provided deemed export related guidance on its Web site. ( *See* Deemed Export FAQ's at *http://www.bis.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/index.htm* ) In particular, this guidance has addressed issues related to a foreign national's country of origin—an issue highlighted by the OIG report. This particular guidance explains that if the status of a foreign national is uncertain, it is important to consult with BIS to determine where the stronger ties lie, based on the facts of the specific case. BIS is committed to providing continued deemed export guidance and assistance to the regulated community on this important issue. BIS has also participated in several Task Forces to address the deemed export issue, including an American Association of Universities/Council on Government Relations Task Force, the National Academies' Government-University-Industry-Research Roundtable, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Security Higher Education Advisory Board, and a White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy Interagency Working Group comprised of agency representatives with research laboratories (e.g., Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, etc.). The goal of each of these groups is to assess the impact of the OIG's recommendations and to address concerns raised by the regulated communities. BIS has also increased its enforcement focus on deemed exports. A number of cases involving violations of deemed export requirements have been concluded with criminal and civil penalties and BIS will continue to pursue violations of the EAR's deemed export requirements to ensure U.S. national security is not compromised by unauthorized technology transfers to foreign nationals. In addition, BIS is collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on related enforcement issues through the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board. Finally, BIS received funding in the FY2006 budget to implement an Enhanced Deemed Export Control Initiative. This initiative has two components—licensing and enforcement. The initiative will enable BIS to:
(1)Process an increased volume of license applications in a timely manner, in order to ensure that U.S. entities are able to gain access to the expertise of foreign nationals who do not pose security concerns; and
(2)ensure that U.S. entities are aware of and comply with U.S. deemed export license requirements through expanded outreach and enforcement activities. Both aspects are necessary to enhance U.S. national and economic security. Dated: May 17, 2006. Matthew Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7778 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-900] Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2006. SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and preliminary determination of partial affirmative critical circumstances in the antidumping investigation of certain diamond sawblades and parts thereof (“diamond sawblades”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005. The investigation covers four manufacturers/exporters which are mandatory respondents and twenty-one separate rate applicants. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV and partial affirmative critical circumstances. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations for certain of the mandatory respondents and the weight-averaged margins for the separate rate applicants. 1 We have also granted a separate rate to four additional applicants. The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below. 1 Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Danyang Youhe Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co. Ltd., Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co. Ltd., Huzhou Gu Import & Export Co., Ltd, Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Jiangyin LIKN Industry Co. Ltd., Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd., Rizhao Hein Saw Co. Ltd., Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co. Ltd., Sichuan Huili Tools Co., Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrail Co., Ltd., Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Company, Ltd., Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd. (“Wanli”), Zhenjiang Inter-China Import & Export Co., Ltd., (collectively, “preliminary separate rate applicants”), as well as four additional separate rate companies, Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Shinhan”), Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd. (“Global”), Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Robtol”), and Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Huachang”) (collectively with preliminary separate rate applicants, “final separate rate companies”). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak or Carrie Blozy, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6375 or 482-5403, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final Determination We determine that diamond sawblades from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice. Case History The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on December 29, 2005. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 77121 (December 29, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). The Department conducted verification of Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. (“Bosun”), Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company (“BGY”), and Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co. Ltd. (“Hebei Jikai”) (collectively, “respondents”), the three mandatory respondents participating in this investigation 2 in both the PRC and the United States (where applicable), and Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co. Ltd. (“Shanghai Deda”), one of the separate rate applicants. See the “Verification” section below for additional information. 2 One mandatory respondent, Saint-Gobain Abrasives (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Saint Gobain”) did not participate in this investigation. On February 6, 2006, the Department solicited comments from all interested parties regarding changes to its calculation of financial ratios. On February 7, 2006, Bosun and Petitioner submitted additional comments on the valuation of factors of production (“FOPs”) for the final determination. On February 13, 2006, BGY also submitted additional comments on the valuation of FOPs for the final determination. On February 21, 2006, Bosun submitted a rebuttal to Petitioner's February 7, 2006, comments. On February 1, 2006, the Department received a separate rate application from Qingdao Shinhan. The Department determined on February 24, 2006, that Qingdao Shinhan's separate rate application was timely filed. *See* Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand dated February 24, 2006. On March 22, 2006, the Department preliminarily determined that the information contained in Qingdao Shinhan's separate rate application demonstrated that it qualified for a separate rate in this investigation. We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* . We received comments from the Diamond Sawblade Manufacturers' Coalition (“Petitioner”), the mandatory respondents, Quanzhou Shuangyang Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. (“QSY”), Global, Robtol, Electrolux Construction Products (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (“Electrolux”), and Huachang. On April 3, 2006, parties submitted case briefs. On April 10, 2006, parties submitted rebuttal briefs. On April 14, 2006, the Department rejected the case brief of Petitioner and the rebuttal briefs of Petitioner and BGY, because they contained unsolicited new factual information. Petitioner and BGY resubmitted their respective briefs on April 18, 2006. On January 6, 2006, Bosun requested that the Department hold a public hearing in this proceeding. On January 19, 2006, Petitioner requested the Department hold a public hearing in this proceeding. On April 3, 2006, Petitioner requested that the hearing held by the Department be a closed hearing. On April 25, 2006, the Department held a hearing in this proceeding. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China* , dated May 15, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice (“ *Issues and Decision Memorandum* ”). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculation for Bosun, BGY, and Hebei Jikai as follows: The Department has revised the surrogate financial ratios to utilize a source placed on the record by Petitioner after the *Preliminary Determination* . *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* , at Comment 1 for a discussion of this issue. *See also* Memorandum to the File: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Recalculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios for the Final Determination, dated May 15, 2006. Bosun The Department made corrections to Bosun's factors of production (“FOP”) database based on the minor corrections submitted by Bosun on the first day of the PRC verification, and changes to Bosun's constructed export price (“CEP”) database based on the minor corrections submitted by Bosun on the first day of the U.S. sales verification. *See* Memorandum to the File: Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of Diamond Saw Blades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China dated March 24, 2006 (“Bosun PRC Verification Report”), at Exhibit 2; Memorandum to the File: Verification of the U.S. CEP Sales Response of Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of Diamond Saw Blades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China dated March 27, 2006 (“Bosun US Verification Report”) at Exhibit 1 for a list of the corrections submitted by Bosun. For a description of how these changes were incorporated, *see* Memorandum to the File: Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. Program Analysis for the Final Determination dated May 15, 2006 (“Bosun Final Analysis Memo”). The Department has also corrected three clerical errors identified by Bosun after the *Preliminary Determination* . *See* , *e.g.* , *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 33; Bosun Final Analysis Memo. In addition, the Department made changes to Bosun's FOP and CEP databases based on comments received by Bosun and Petitioner. For a description of these changes, *see Issues and Decision Memorandum* , and Bosun Final Analysis Memo. BGY Based on the Department's determination in the Preliminary Determination to treat as a single entity with BGY, Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. (“AT&M”), and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd (“HXF”), the Department requested U.S. sales and FOP databases from the AT&M single entity. 3 The AT&M single entity certified that BGY and HXF were the only entities within the AT&M single entity to have exported, or sold for export, subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, and submitted complete U.S. sales and FOP information with respect to HXF. The Department has continued to find that BGY, AT&M, and HXF should be treated as a single entity for purposes of this final determination and, therefore, has incorporated HXF's and BGY's U.S. sales and FOP information in the calculation of a margin for the AT&M single entity. *See* “Affiliation” section below, and Memorandum to the File: Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. Entity Program Analysis for the Final Determination, dated May 15, 2006 (“AT&M Final Analysis Memo”), for a more detailed explanation of these changes. 3 As discussed below under “Affiliation,” the AT&M entity includes BGY and HXF. The Department made corrections to BGY's FOP database based on the minor corrections submitted by BGY on the first day of the PRC verification, and changes to BGY's CEP database based on the minor corrections submitted by BGY on the first day of the U.S. sales verification. *See* Memorandum to the File: Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated March 27, 2006 (“BGY Verification Report”) at Exhibit 3; Memorandum to the File: Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated March 27, 2006 (“GYDP Verification Report”). For a complete description of how these changes were made *see* AT&M Final Analysis Memo. *See also Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 19. In addition, the Department made changes to the AT&M entity's FOP and U.S. sales databases based on comments received by parties. For a description of these changes *see Issues and Decision Memorandum* , and AT&M Final Analysis Memo. Hebei Jikai The Department made corrections to Hebei Jikai's FOP database based on the minor corrections submitted by Hebei Jikai on the first day of the verification. *See* Memorandum to the File: Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co. Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of Diamond Saw Blades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China dated March 23, 2006 (“Hebei Jikai Verification Report”), at Exhibit 1. The Department also made corrections to the gross weight in Hebei Jikai's U.S. sales database based on information collected at the verification of Hebei Jikai. *See* Hebei Jikai Verification Report at 3. For a description of how these changes were incorporated in the final margin program, *see* Memorandum to the File: Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co. Ltd. (“Hebei Jikai”) Program Analysis for the Final Determination, dated May 15, 2006 (“Hebei Jikai Final Analysis Memo”). In addition, the Department made changes to Hebei Jikai's FOP and U.S. sales databases based on comments received by Hebei Jikai and Petitioner. For a description of these changes *see Issues and Decision Memorandum* , and Hebei Jikai Final Analysis Memo. Scope of Investigation The products covered by this investigation are all finished circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded below. Within the scope of this investigation are semifinished diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process). Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not included within the scope of the investigation. Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of the investigation. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of this investigation. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the scope of the investigation. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the investigation. Merchandise subject to this investigation is typically imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Rulings During the course of this investigation, the Department issued several scope rulings, all of which are affirmed through this final determination. Specifically, in the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department ruled that concave and convex cores, and finished diamond sawblades produced from such cores, are within the scope of this investigation. *See* Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, “Consideration of Scope Exclusion and Clarification Requests,” dated December 20, 2005, at page 8. The Department also ruled that metal-bonded 1A1R grinding wheels are within the scope of this investigation. *Id.* at 11. On April 7, 2006, the Department found granite contour diamond sawblades within the scope of the investigation. *See* Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, “Consideration of Scope Exclusion Request,” dated April 7, 2006. In this decision, the Department confirmed that the Rockwell C hardness threshold contained in the scope of the investigation applies only to cores, and not to finished diamond sawblades. *Id.* at 7. Lastly, the term “sawblade” is defined as those products that meet the 1A1R specification, where the segment thickness is larger than the thickness of the core. *See* Petitioner's May 3, 2005, submission at Exhibit I-10 (“The segment or rim is slightly wider than the steel blade to allow the attacking edge to penetrate the material without the steel blade rubbing against it”); Petitioner's May 10, 2005, submission, at page 14 (“the segment or rim is slightly wider than the steel blade to allow the attacking edge to penetrate the material without the steel blade rubbing against it”); Transcript to April 25, 2006, Public Hearing in the companion investigation of diamond sawblades from the People's Republic of China (statement by the petitioner that the “international codes for sawblades are 1A1R, 1A1RS, and 1A1RSS, where the R means recessed. And that refers to the core, {where} the core is thinner than the segments”); and ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-1093, August 2005 (“The segment, or rim, is slightly wider than the steel blade to permit the leading edge to penetrate the material without the steel blade rubbing against it and to discourage blade binding”). For this final determination, the Department has determined not to revise the scope of the investigation. *See also Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 3. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondents and one separate rate applicant for use in our final determination. *See* the Department's verification reports on the record of this investigation in the CRU with respect to Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai, and Shanghai Deda. For all verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by respondents. Critical Circumstances On November 21, 2005, Petitioner alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigations of diamond sawblades and parts thereof from the PRC. In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that critical circumstances exist for imports of diamond sawblades from Bosun and the PRC-wide entity, but that critical circumstances did not exist for the preliminary separate rate applicants, BGY, or Hebei Jikai. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, dated December 20, 2005 (“Prelim Critical Circumstances Memo”). Based on the changes made to Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai, and the final separate rate companies' margins, and as discussed further in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 10, the Department has re-examined its preliminary finding that critical circumstances exist for imports of diamond sawblades from Bosun, and Hebei Jikai, and the PRC-wide entity, but that critical circumstances did not exist for the AT&M entity. In addition, the Department has examined the final separate rate companies. Section 735(2)(3) of the Act provides that a final critical circumstances determination will include a finding 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. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine:
(i)the volume and value of the imports;
(ii)seasonal trends; and
(iii)the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the “relatively short period” of time may be considered “massive.” As discussed in detail in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 10, the Department continues to find that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by means of sales at LTFV of subject merchandise from the PRC. In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that
(1)Bosun and the PRC-wide entity had margins of more than 25 percent for export price sales and more than 15 percent for constructed export price sales, and
(2)BGY, Hebei Jikai, and the preliminary separate rate applicants did not have margins of more than 25 percent for export price sales and more than 15 percent for constructed export price sales. *See* Prelim Critical Circumstances Memo at Attachment II. For this final determination, Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the PRC-wide entity each have margins of more than 25 percent for export price sales and more than 15 percent for constructed export price sales, while the AT&M single entity and the final separate rate companies have margins less than 25 percent for export price sales and more than 15 percent for constructed export price sales. Therefore, the Department finds, for this final determination, that Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the PRC-wide entity have sufficient margins to impute importer knowledge of sales at less than fair value. *See* , *e.g.* , *Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances* , 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 11, 2002); Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. However, the AT&M single entity and the final separate rate companies' margins are insufficient to impute importer knowledge of sales at less than fair value. In addition, as no party in this proceeding has called into question the Department's preliminary determination of massive imports with respect to Bosun, BGY, Hebei Jikai, the final separate rate companies, and the PRC-wide entity, the Department also continues to find that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period for Bosun, the AT&M single entity, Hebei Jikai, the final separate rate companies, and the PRC-wide entity. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 10 and Prelim Critical Circumstances Memo at Attachment I. Therefore, given the analysis summarized above, and described in more detail in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 10, we determine that critical circumstances exist for imports of diamond sawblades from Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the PRC-wide entity. However, we do not find that critical circumstances exist for the AT&M single entity or the final separate rate companies. Surrogate Country In the *Preliminary Determination* , we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for the following reasons:
(1)It is a significant producer of comparable merchandise;
(2)it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and
(3)we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. *See Preliminary Determination* , 70 FR at 77124-77125. For the final determination, we made no changes to our findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. Affiliation In the *Preliminary Determination* , based on the evidence on the record, we preliminarily found that BGY was affiliated with AT&M and HXF pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and
(G)of the Act. In addition, based on the evidence presented in BGY's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily found that BGY, HXF, and AT&M should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of the antidumping duty investigation of diamond sawblades from the PRC. *See* Memorandum to the File from Anya Naschak: Affiliation and Treatment as a Single Entity of Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company, Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd., and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd.; Affiliation of Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. and Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Product Company; and Affiliation of Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc., SANC Materials, Inc., and Cliff (Tianjin) International, Ltd., dated December 20, 2005 (“AT&M Affiliation Memo”). This finding was based on the determination that BGY, HXF, and AT&M are affiliated, that BGY and HXF have production facilities for “identical products,” and no substantial retooling of either facility would be necessary in order to “restructure manufacturing priorities.” *See* 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). Additionally, based on levels of common ownership and control, and intertwined operations, the Department found that there is significant potential for manipulation of price or production between the parties. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Accordingly, the Department requested after the Preliminary Determination that the AT&M single entity provide complete responses to sections C and D of the Department's questionnaire with respect to all of the AT&M single entity's sales to the first U.S. unaffiliated customer and factors of production for these sales. *See* Letter from Carrie Blozy to BGY dated December 23, 2005. On January 26, 2006, the AT&M Group submitted the requested information. Based on the information contained in the AT&M single entity's responses to date, and based on information collected at verification ( *see* BGY Verification Report), the Department finds no evidence to countermand the Department's finding in the *Preliminary Determination* that BGY, HXF, and AT&M are affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and
(G)of the Act, and that these companies should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of the antidumping duty investigation of diamond sawblades from the PRC, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). Therefore, the Department continues to find, for this final determination, that BGY, HXF, and AT&M are a single entity, and will calculate a single antidumping margin for the AT&M entity. In addition, the Department also found in its *Preliminary Determination* that Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. (“GYDP”), is affiliated with BGY, pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act, and that GYDP, SANC Materials, Inc. (“SANC”), and Cliff (Tianjin) International, Ltd. (“Cliff”) are affiliated with each other pursuant to sections 771(33)(B), (E), and
(F)of the Act. *See* BGY Affiliation Memo. Since the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department has found no information that would rebut this determination. Therefore, the Department continues to find GYDP, SANC, and Cliff to be affiliated with each other pursuant to sections 771(33)(B), (E), and
(F)of the Act, and that BGY and GYDP are affiliated with each other pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act, for this final determination. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market-economy (“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 an 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. *See Notice of 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 *Notice of 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* ”), and Section 351.107(d) of the Department's regulations. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we found that BGY, Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the Separate Rate Applicants demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the AT&M entity, Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the Separate Rate Applicants demonstrate both a *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation, and, thus are eligible for separate rate status. The AT&M Single Entity With respect to the AT&M single entity, in the *Preliminary Determination* , based on the evidence on the record, we preliminarily found that BGY had both *de jure* and *de facto* control over its export activities, but noted that the Department would further examine this issue for the final determination. In light of the Department's decision in the *Preliminary Determination* that BGY was affiliated with AT&M and HXF, and that BGY, AT&M, and HXF should be treated as a single entity, the Department further examined AT&M, BGY, and HXF's claim to a separate rate. The Department finds, based on information submitted on the record of this proceeding after the *Preliminary Determination* , that the AT&M single entity has demonstrated both a *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control and should be granted a separate rate. As discussed further in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 16, the evidence provided by HXF and AT&M after the *Preliminary Determination* supports a finding of *de jure* absence of governmental control based on the following:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)the applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and
(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 4 The evidence on the record with respect to HXF also supports a finding of *de facto* absence of governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following:
(1)It sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)it retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)it has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4)it has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22586-87. Therefore, because the Department found no evidence that AT&M made shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, and because AT&M is a single entity including BGY and HXF, and BGY and HXF have demonstrated a *de facto* independence from government control, we find that the AT&M single entity has demonstrated a *de facto* independence from government control with respect to its export activities. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* , at Comment 16. 4 *See Sparklers* 56 FR 20588 and *Silicon Carbide* 59 FR 22585. Other Separate Rate Applicants Additionally, in the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department considered for a separate rate only the seventeen applicants whose applications were considered complete by the sixty-day deadline established by the application, and these companies, the Separate Rate Applicants, were granted a separate rate. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation for the Separate Rate Applicants that we granted a separate rate to in the *Preliminary Determination* demonstrates a *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation, and, thus are eligible for separate rate status. Therefore, for the final determination we are continuing to grant these seventeen applicants a separate rate. On February 1, 2006, the Department received a separate rate application from Qingdao Shinhan, and determined that Qingdao Shinhan's separate rate application was timely filed. *See* Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand dated February 24, 2006. On March 22, 2006, the Department preliminarily determined that the information contained in Qingdao Shinhan's separate rate application demonstrated that it qualified for a separate rate in this investigation. *See* Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand: Separate Rates Application of Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. dated March 22, 2006. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Qingdao Shinhan demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to its exports of the merchandise under investigation, and, thus is eligible for separate rate status. For a further discussion of this issue *See Issues and Decision Memo* at Comment 15. In addition, the Department received case briefs from QSY, Global, Robtol, Electrolux, and Huachang, arguing that the Department should grant these companies a separate rate. These companies had been denied a separate rate in the *Preliminary Determination* because the Department determined these applications were not filed in a complete manner by the deadline. *See* Memorandum to James C. Doyle from Carrie Blozy: Antidumping Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Deficient Separate Rate Applications, dated October 12, 2005. With respect to Global, Robtol, and Huachang the Department finds that, after analyzing their separate rates applications, these companies have demonstrated both a *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control and should be granted a separate rate. The evidence provided by these companies in their respective separate rates applications supports a finding of * de jure * absence of governmental control based on the following:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)the applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and
(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See* , *e.g.* , *Sparklers* , 56 FR 20588 and *Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR 22586-87. The evidence on the record with respect to these companies also supports a finding of *de facto* absence of governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following for each company:
(1)It sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)it retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)it has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4)it has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR 20589; *Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR 22586-87. Therefore, the Department is granting Global, Robol, and Huachang a separate rate. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* , at Comment 13 and 14 for a further discussion of this issue. Further, the Department is continuing to deny a separate rate to QSY and Electrolux because the Department still finds that the separate rate applications of QSY and Electrolux are deficient. Therefore, the Department will not conduct a separate rates analysis for these two companies. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 12 and 14. The PRC-Wide Rate In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that certain companies and the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for Q&V information and Saint Gobain, one of the largest exporters of the merchandise under investigation, 5 did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. In the *Preliminary Determination* we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate that they operate free of government control. No additional information has been placed on the record with respect to these entities after the *Preliminary Determination* . The PRC-wide entity, including Saint Gobain, has not provided the Department with the requested information. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department continues to find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). *See also “Statement of Administrative Action”* accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870
(1994)(“ *SAA* ”). 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 finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is appropriate. 5 *See* Respondent Selection Memo. Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a NME country are subject to government control and because only the companies listed under the “Final Determination Margins” section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide rate—to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies 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 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the respondents which are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below (except as noted). Corroboration At the *Preliminary Determination* , in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated our adverse facts available (“AFA”) margin using information submitted by certain respondents. *See* Memorandum to the File: Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated December 20, 2005 (“Corroboration Memo”). The *Statement of Administration Action* also clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value, *i.e.* , reliable and relevant. *See “Statement of Administrative Action”* accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870
(1994)(“ *SAA* ”) at 870. To assess the probative value of the total AFA rate it has chosen for Saint Gobain and the PRC-wide entity, the Department compared the final margin calculations of certain respondents in this investigation with the rate of 164.09 percent from the petition. We find that the rate is within the range of the highest margins we have determined in this investigation. *See* Memorandum to the File: Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated May 15, 2006 (“Final Corroboration Memo”). Since the record of this investigation contains margins within the range of the petition margin, we determine that the rate from the petition continues to be relevant for use in this investigation. As discussed therein, we found that the margin of 164.09 percent has probative value. *See* Final Corroboration Memo. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 164.09 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Combination Rates In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. *See Initiation Notice* , 70 FR 35625, 35629. This change in practice is described in *Policy Bulletin 05.1* , available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The *Policy Bulletin 05.1* 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.” *See Policy Bulletin 05.1* , at page 6. Therefore, for the final determination, we have assigned a combination rate to respondents that are eligible for a separate rate. As discussed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 18, the Department will continue to not issue a combination rate for exports made by Cliff and manufactured by BGY, as these sales were made by BGY. Further, the Department continues to find that BGY should be treated as a single entity with AT&M and HXF, and the AT&M single entity has demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate in this case. Therefore, the Department will apply a single combination rate for the AT&M single entity as the producer and exporter. However, exports where Cliff acted as a facilitator for the AT&M single entity are eligible to claim AT&M's antidumping duty cash deposit rate. For a further discussion of this issue, *see Issues and Decision Memorandum* , at Comments 16-18. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the POI: Exporter Producer Weighted-Average Deposit Rate Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. 6 2.50%% Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. Bosun Tools Group Co., Ltd. 34.19%% Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Danyang Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd. Danyang Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd. Fujian Quanzhou Wanlong Stone Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd. Guilin Tebon Superhard Material Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Co., Ltd. 48.50%% Huzhou Gu's Import & Export Co., Ltd. Danyang Aurui Hardware Products Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Huzhou Gu's Import & Export Co., Ltd. Danyang Huachang Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacture Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Jiangyin Likn Industry Co., Ltd. Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. 20.72%% Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd. Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Shanghai Deda Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. Hua Da Superabrasive Tools Technology Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shanghai Robtol Tool Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd. Shijiazhuang Global New Century Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Sichuan Huili Tools Co. Chengdu Huifeng Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Sichuan Huili Tools Co. Sichuan Huili Tools Co. 20.72%% Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. Wuhan Wanbang Laser Diamond Tools Co. 20.72%% Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. Xiamen ZL Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. Danyang Dida Diamond Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. Danyang Tsunda Diamond Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Zhejiang Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. Wuxi Lianhua Superhard Material Tools Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Wanli Super-hard Materials Co., Ltd. 20.72%% Zhenjiang Inter-China Import & Export Co., Ltd. Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 20.72%% PRC-Wide Rate 164.09%% 6 Including Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company as an exporter when merchandise was also produced by Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company, and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. as an exporter when merchandise was also produced by Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. 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). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption as follows: for the final separate rate companies, on or after the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** , December 29, 2005; for Bosun, Hebei Jikai, and the PRC-wide entity, on or after the date which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* , September 30, 2005, due to the final determination of critical circumstances. *See e.g., Preliminary Determination; Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 10. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. In addition, with respect to the AT&M single entity, in the *Preliminary Determination* , due to BGY's *de minimus* preliminary margin, the Department did not require any cash deposit or posting of a bond. However, based on this final determination that the AT&M single entity does not have a *de minimus* margin rate, the Department will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the AT&M single entity 7 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of publication of the *Final Determination* in the **Federal Register** . These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. 7 Including BGY and HXF. ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 15, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. List of Issues General Issues *Comment 1:* Whether The Department Should Revise Its Selection of Surrogate Financial Ratios *Comment 2:* Whether Process Materials and Energy Inputs Should Be Valued As Factors of Production *Comment 3:* Preliminary Scope Determinations *Comment 4:* Country of Origin Determination *Comment 5:* Whether the Department Should Revise the Physical Characteristics and Model Match Criteria *Comment 6:* Whether Employee Benefits Should Be Moved from Direct Labor To Manufacturing Overhead *Comment 7:* Treatment of Negative Margins *Comment 8:* Application of Sigma Cap *Comment 9:* Treatment of Packing Costs and Byproducts *Comment 10:* Whether the Department Should Reevaluate its Preliminary Partial Determination of Critical Circumstances *Comment 11:* Surrogate Value Issues A. Cores B. Oxygen C. Graphite and Steel Molds D. Copper Powder E. Diamonds F. Steel Sheet 5 Separate Rate Applicant-Specific Issues *Comment 12:* Separate Rate Status of Electrolux *Comment 13:* Separate Rate Status of Huachang *Comment 14:* Separate Rate Status of QSY, Robtol, and Global *Comment 15:* Separate Rate Status of Qingdao Shinhan Company-Specific Issues BGY Issues: *Comment 16:* Whether the Department should Deny a Separate Rate to BGY, Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. (“HXF”), and Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. (“AT&M”) *Comment 17:* Whether BGY was the Seller of Sawblades to the United States *Comment 18:* Whether the Department Should Revise the Combination Rates for BGY *Comment 19:* Whether the Department should Apply Total Adverse Facts Available to BGY *Comment 20:* Whether the Department should Calculate CEP Profit Based on BGY's U.S. and Third Country Sales *Comment 21:* Whether the Department Should Adjust BGY's Reported Electricity and Labor FOPs. *Comment 22:* Whether to Modify the Steel Surrogate Values for BGY *Comment 23:* Whether to Continue to Apply an Inflator to Market Economy (“ME”) Purchases of Diamond Powder Made Prior to the POI *Comment 24:* Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value for Gasoline *Comment 25:* Whether to Deduct BGY's Reported Interest Revenue from Gross Unit Price *Comment 26:* Whether BGY's Reported Billing Adjustments Should Be Considered Direct Selling Expenses *Comment 27:* Whether the Department Erred in Certain Statements in the BGY and GYDP Verification Reports Bosun Issues: *Comment 28:* Whether Returns Should Be Treated As A Selling Expense *Comment 29:* Whether Bosun's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses Should Be Revised *Comment 30:* Whether Movement Expenses and Repacking Expenses Should Be Included In The Calculation of CEP Profit *Comment 31:* Surrogate Value for Tape *Comment 32:* Surrogate Value for Acrylic Lacquer and Pallet Lacquer *Comment 33:* Whether The Department Should Correct Certain Ministerial Errors *Comment 34:* Whether The Surrogate Value For International Freight Should Be Revised *Comment 35:* Whether The Department Should Make Additional Adjustments to Bosun's U.S. Sales Data and Supplier Databases Hebei Jikai Issues: *Comment 36:* Whether to apply AFA to Hebei Jikai's Process Materials *Comment 37:* Whether International Freight to Two U.S. Customers Should Be Deducted *Comment 38:* Whether Labor and Electricity Should Be Adjusted For Certain Product Codes *Comment 39:* Surrogate Value for Nickel *Comment 40:* Surrogate Value for Copper Plate *Comment 41:* Surrogate Value Packaging Film *Comment 42:* Valuation of Steel [FR Doc. E6-7763 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-855] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2006. SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value
(LTFV)in the antidumping duty investigation of diamond sawblades and parts thereof from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of investigation
(POI)is April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final determination differs from the preliminary determination. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the investigated companies are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination Margins.” Finally, we determine that critical circumstances do not exist with regard to certain exports of subject merchandise from Korea by Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd.
(Ehwa)and Hyosung Diamond Industrial Co. (Hyosung). However, we find that critical circumstances do exist with respect to Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. (Shinhan) and the companies covered by the “All Others” rate. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor or Thomas Martin, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5831 or
(202)482-3936, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We determine that diamond sawblades from Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. In addition, we determine that there is no reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise produced by Ehwa and Hyosung. However, we find that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise produced by Shinhan and companies covered by the “All Others” rate. Case History The preliminary determination in this investigation was published on December 29, 2005. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Negative Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic of Korea* , 70 FR 77135 (December 29, 2005) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). Since the preliminary determination, the following events have occurred. In February 2006 and March 2006, we verified the questionnaire responses of the three participating respondents in this case, Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung. On April 17, 2006, we received case briefs from the petitioner, 1 Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung. We also received rebuttal briefs on April 24, 2006, from the petitioner, Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung. The Department held a public hearing on May 1, 2006, at the request of the petitioner, Ehwa, Shinhan, and Hyosung. 1 The petitioner in this investigation is the Diamond Sawblade Manufacturers' Coalition. Period of Investigation The period of investigation is April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 15, 2006, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of Investigation The products covered by this investigation are all finished circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded below. Within the scope of this investigation are semifinished diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, whether or not attached to non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond sawblade segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural or synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, but not limited to, a heating and pressing process). Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, are not included within the scope of this investigation. Diamond sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from the scope of this investigation. Circular steel plates that have a cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, are excluded from the scope of this investigation. Diamond sawblade cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the scope of the petition. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 (such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of this investigation. Merchandise subject to this investigation is typically imported under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). When packaged together as a set for retail sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff classification is provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Rulings During the course of this investigation, the Department issued several scope rulings, all of which are affirmed through this final determination. Specifically, in the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department ruled that concave and convex cores, and finished diamond sawblades produced from such cores, are within the scope of this investigation. *See* Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, “Consideration of Scope Exclusion and Clarification Requests,” dated December 20, 2005, at page 8. The Department also ruled that metal-bonded, diamond 1A1R grinding wheels are within the scope of this investigation. *Id* . at 11. On April 7, 2006, the Department found granite contour diamond sawblades within the scope of the investigation. *See* Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, “Consideration of Scope Exclusion Request,” dated April 7, 2006. In this decision, the Department confirmed that the Rockwell C hardness threshold contained in the scope of the investigation applies only to cores, and not to finished diamond sawblades. *Id* . at 7. Lastly, the term “sawblade” is defined as those products that meet the 1A1R specification, where the segment thickness is larger than the thickness of the core. *See* the petitioner's May 3, 2005, submission at Exhibit I-10 (“The segment or rim is slightly wider than the steel blade to allow the attacking edge to penetrate the material without the steel blade rubbing against it”); the petitioner's May 10, 2005, submission, at page 14 (“the segment or rim is slightly wider than the steel blade to allow the attacking edge to penetrate the material without the steel blade rubbing against it”); Transcript to April 25, 2006, Public Hearing in the companion investigation of diamond sawblades from the People's Republic of China (statement by the petitioner that the “international codes for ... sawblades are 1A1R, 1A1RS, and 1A1RSS, where the R means recessed. And that refers to the core, {where} the core is thinner than the segments”); and ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-1093, August 2005 (“The segment, or rim, is slightly wider than the steel blade to permit the leading edge to penetrate the material without the steel blade rubbing against it and to discourage blade binding”). Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Critical Circumstances In our preliminary determination, we found that critical circumstances did not exist for any mandatory respondent or any company subject to the “All Others” rate. *See Preliminary Determination* , 70 FR at 77142-77144. We received comments on our critical circumstances determination from the petitioner, Ehwa, and Shinhan. Based upon those comments, we have revised our analysis to include the margins listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below, and we based our analysis of whether imports were massive according to the value of shipments, rather than quantity. *See* Memorandum from Mark J. Manning, Acting Program Manager, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, “Final Determination of Critical Circumstances,” dated May 15, 2006. Due to the changes made in our analysis, we determine that critical circumstances do not exist for imports of subject merchandise from Ehwa and Hyosung because, as required section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, there is no evidence that importers knew, or should have known, that the exporter was selling subject merchandise at LTFV. In addition, we also note that the requirements of section 735(a)(3)(B) of Act are not met for Ehwa and Hyosung because their imports were not massive. However, we find that critical circumstances do exist for imports of subject merchandise from Shinhan and the “All Others” companies because, pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, there is evidence that importers knew, or should have known, that the exporter was selling subject merchandise at LTFV. In addition, we also note that Shinhan and the “All Others” companies satisfy section 735(a)(3)(B) of Act because their imports were massive. *Id* . Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by Ehwa, Shinhan and Hyosung for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 29, 2005, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** . However, since we have determined that critical circumstances exist with respect to subject merchandise produced by Shinhan and the companies covered by the “All Others” rate, we will instructed CBP to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by these companies that entered on or after September 30, 2005, which is 90 days before the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* . *See* section 735(c)(4)(B). We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown below. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005: Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Percentage Critical Circumstances Ehwa 12.76% No Shinhan 26.55% Yes Hyosung 6.43% No All Others 16.39% Yes In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have based the “All Others” rate on the weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the exporters/manufacturers investigated in this proceeding. The “All Others” rate is calculated exclusive of all *de minimis* margins and margins based entirely on adverse facts available. ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 15, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum *Comment 1* : Whether the Department Should Revise the Physical Characteristics and Model Match Criteria. *Comment 2:* Whether the Department Should Reaffirm Its Preliminary Scope Conclusions In the Final Determination And Include These Conclusions in Instructions to Customs. *Comment 3:* Whether the Department Should Treat the Location of Segment Manufacture As the Country of Origin for DSB. *Comment 4:* Whether U.S. Repacking Expenses, U.S. Warehousing Expenses, and U.S. Movement Expenses Should Be Treated as Selling Expenses for Purposes of Calculating CEP Profit. *Comment 5:* Whether Further Manufacturing Costs Should be Deducted from the Calculation of Net U.S. Price When Such Sales are Not Reported. *Comment 6:* Whether Further Manufacturing Costs and Revenues Should be Included in the Calculation of CEP Profit When Such Sales are Not Reported. *Comment 7:* Whether the Department Should Use the Adjustments to Respondents' Costs to Account for NME Inputs in the Calculation of CEP Profit. *Comment 8:* Whether the Department Should Correct VCOM and TCOM for any Changes it Makes to the Reported Costs. *Comment 9:* Whether the Department Should Reconsider its Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination. *Comment 10:* Whether the Department Should Adjust Ehwa's and Shinhan's Purchases from Affiliated Suppliers. *Comment 11:* Whether the Department Should Provide Offsets to Dumping. *Comment 12:* Whether the Department Should Adjust the Reported Costs for Purchases from Unaffiliated NME Suppliers. *Comment 13:* Whether the Department's Preliminary Decision to Collapse Ehwa and Shinhan was Contrary to Law and the Department's Longstanding and Consistent Past Practice. *Comment 14:* Whether the Department Should Treat Information Regarding a Particular Relationship Between Ehwa and Shinhan as Public Information. *Comment 15:* Whether the Department Should Collapse Ehwa with its Chinese Affiliates. *Comment 16:* Whether Ehwa's Other Discounts and Certain Billing Adjustments Should be Treated As Selling Expenses for Purposes of Calculating CEP Profit. *Comment 17:* Whether Ehwa Placed Conflicting Values Related to its Indirect Selling Expenses on the Record. *Comment 18:* Whether the Department Should Correct Formulas Used in Ehwa's Calculation of Indirect Selling Expenses. *Comment 19:* Whether the Department Should Disallow Ehwa's Allocation of Indirect Selling Expenses Between the Industrial and the Stone & Construction Divisions because Ehwa's Sales of 1A1R Merchandise are from the Industrial Division. *Comment 20:* Whether the Department Should Calculate the Indirect Selling Expense Ratio for Each of Ehwa's U.S. Affiliates. *Comment 21:* Whether Ehwa Properly Excluded its Sales of Refurbished Products from its HM Sales Database. *Comment 22:* Whether the Department Should Adjust Costs Related to the Allocation of Costs Between Indirect Selling and G&A Expenses. *Comment 23:* Whether Ehwa's Use of Surrogate Costs Was Appropriate. *Comment 24:* Whether the Department Should Adjust G&A Expenses to Account for the Over-Accrual of the Provision for Retirement Expenses. *Comment 25:* Whether Shinhan Failed to Report COM for SHINUS04 and SHINHM04. *Comment 26:* Whether the Department Should Base Shinhan's Starting Price on INVNPRU Rather than GRSUPRU. *Comment 27:* Whether the Department Should Apply AFA to Shinhan's Inland Freight Expenses. *Comment 28:* Whether the Department Should Allocate Shinhan's Freight Revenue on the Same Basis as Inland Freight. *Comment 29:* Whether the Department Double-Counted Shinhan's Freight Revenue. *Comment 30:* Whether the Department Should Recalculate Shinhan's HM and International Movement Expenses. *Comment 31:* Whether the Department Should Exclude Shinhan's Sales of Refurbished DSB from Shinhan's HM Sales Database or Weight-Average the Sales and Costs Databases for Refurbished and Non-Refurbished DSB. *Comment 32:* Whether the Department Should Collapse Shinhan With Its Korean Affiliates. *Comment 33:* Whether the Department Should Collapse Shinhan with Its Chinese Affiliate. *Comment 34:* Whether the Department Should Make Symmetric Adjustments to Shinhan's Reported Sales and Cost Data. *Comment 35:* Whether the Department Should Ensure that Segments are not Compared with DSB in the Dumping Margin Calculations. *Comment 36:* Whether the Department Should Allow Shinhan's Residual Cost Variance Adjustment. *Comment 37:* Whether the Department Should Use SG&A Methodology Submitted During the Cost Verification. *Comment 38:* Whether the Department Should Adjust for Items in Shinhan's G&A Expense Rate Calculation. *Comment 39:* Whether the Department Should Correct Certain Minor Errors in Its Proposed Cost Adjustments. *Comment 40:* Whether the Department Should Use the Costs Based on Shinhan's Normal Accounting System. *Comment 41:* Whether the Department Should Adjust Shinhan's Costs for Certain CONNUMs. *Comment 42:* Whether the Department Should Reduce Shinhan's Materials Rebate Adjustment. *Comment 43:* Whether the Department Should Adjust the Production Quantities of CONNUMS not Produced in the POI. *Comment 44:* Whether the Department Should Base Shinhan's Financial Expense Rate on Facts Available. *Comment 45:* Whether The Department Should Revise Certain Freight Expenses in Hyosung's U.S. Sales Database. *Comment 46:* Whether the Department Should Apply AFA to Hyosung's Reported HM Inland Freight. *Comment 47:* Whether the Department Should Revise the Indirect Selling Expense Ratio for Domestic and Export Sales. *Comment 48:* Whether Hyosung Fully and Accurately Reported all HM and U.S. Sales of Subject Merchandise. *Comment 49:* Whether the Department Should Allow a Duty Drawback Adjustment for Hyosung. *Comment 50:* Whether the Department Should Recalculate Credit Expense for the EP Sales with Revised Shipment Dates in the Final Determination. *Comment 51:* Whether the Department Should Use Hyosung's Originally Reported Costs of Production. *Comment 52:* Whether the Department Should Adjust Hyosung's Reported Costs for Unreconciled Differences. *Comment 53:* Whether the Department Should Exclude Hyosung's Prior Period Income Tax Payments From G&A Expenses. *Comment 54:* Whether the Department Should Allow the Short-Term Income Generated From Investment Securities as an Offset to Hyosung's Financial Expenses. *Comment 55:* Whether the Department Should Correct the Surrogate CONNUM for two Products on the COP Database. *Comment 56:* Whether the Department Should Ensure that the Products Purchased from Unaffiliated Suppliers Should be Assigned the Reported Costs of Production for Those Products. *Comment 57:* Whether the Department Should Reject the Petitioner's Case Brief for Failure To Comply With the Department's Regulations. [FR Doc. E6-7771 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-533-809 Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 7, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping order covering certain forged stainless steel flanges from India. *See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 11379 (March 7, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The merchandise covered by this order is certain forged stainless steel flanges as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice. The period of review
(POR)is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . We received no comments. Therefore, the final results are unchanged from those presented in the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner (Paramount Forge) (Paramount), David Cordell (Echjay Forgings Ltd.) (Echjay), or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6312,
(202)482-0408, or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of the 2004-2005 antidumping duty administrative review of certain forged stainless steel flanges from India. *See Preliminary Results* . The review covers Paramount Forge (Paramount) and Echjay Forgings Ltd. (Echjay), and the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. In the *Preliminary Results* , we invited parties to comment. We received no comments. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the scope of the order. Final Results of the Review We determine the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) Echjay Forgings, Ltd. 0.38 Paramount Forge 210.00 Liquidation The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where appropriate, we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. To calculate these rates, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. *Id* . Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we shall instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct CBP to assess the appropriate assessment rate against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries under the relevant order during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act):
(1)For the companies named above, the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms shown above, except that, for exporters with *de minimis* margins ( *i.e.* , less than 0.5%), no deposit will be required;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 162.14 percent. This rate is the “All Others” rate from the amended final determination in the LTFV investigation. *See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India* , 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until the publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). Dated: May 16, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7770 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Development and Implementation of Cross-border Privacy Rules in the Asia Pacific Cooperation Group Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* ACTION: Announcement of meeting and comment period. SUMMARY: The Office of Technology and Electronic Commerce
(OTEC)invites stakeholders to submit comments on the development and implementation of “cross-border privacy rules” in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Group (APEC). OTEC will also hold a public meeting at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington, DC on June 13, 2006. Written and electronic comments will be accepted until June 14, 2006. Topics to be discussed at the public meeting will include: the efficacy or need of cross-border privacy rules, obstacles to their creation, among other related issues. DATES: Written and electronic comments are due by June 14, 2006. If you would like to attend the meeting please respond by June 9, 2006. The public meeting will take place on June 13, 2006. The meeting time is TBD. ADDRESSES: All comments concerning this notice and requests to attend the meeting should be sent to the attention of Eric M. Holloway at one of the following addresses. See supplementary information for additional instructions on submitting comments. Eric Holloway: 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 2806, Washington, DC 20230 *eric.holloway@mail.doc.gov.* Meeting Location: 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, Room TBD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Holloway, Policy Analyst, Office of Technology and Electronic Commerce, Office of Manufacturing and Services, International Trade Administration by telephone at
(202)482-4936 (this is not a toll-free number) or by e-mail at *eric.holloway@mail.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The principles-based “APEC Privacy Framework” (Framework) is an important tool in encouraging the development of appropriate information privacy protections and ensuring the free flow of information between the member economies of APEC. There are 21 APEC member economies: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, the United States, and Vietnam. The Framework can be accessed on the APEC Web site at *http://203.127.220.112/content/apec/apec_groups/som_special_task_groups/electronic_commerce.downloadlinks.0004.LinkURL.Download.ver5.1.9.* This Framework, which aims at promoting electronic commerce throughout the Asia-Pacific region, is consistent with the core values of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's 1980 Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Trans-Border Flows of Personal Data, and reaffirms the value of privacy to individuals and to the information society. The Framework is also intended to provide clear guidance and direction to businesses in APEC economies on common privacy issues and the impact of privacy issues upon the way legitimate businesses are conducted. An important element of the Framework is the development and implementation of “cross-border privacy rules” (CBPRs) in the APEC region. The purpose of CBPRs would be to enable global organizations that collect, access, use, or process data in APEC member economies to develop and implement uniform approaches within their organizations for global access to and use of personal information. A uniform approach to CBPRs in APEC would allow for one approval system for CBPRs instead of the potential for approval systems for each of the 21 member economies. The Office of Technology and Electronic Commerce requests comments on the development and implementation of CBPRs in the APEC region. The Office of Technology and Electronic Commerce encourages comments on all aspects of CBPRs. General areas of discussion could include:
(1)Impediments to the cross-border flow of information,
(2)issues related to personal information protection,
(3)the verification process for CBPRs' compliance with the APEC Privacy Principles,
(4)mechanisms for the approval of CBPRs,
(5)mechanisms to demonstrate compliance with CBPRs,
(6)mechanisms to enforce compliance of CBPRs,
(7)mechanisms to ensure support of the concept of CBPRs by APEC member economies, and
(8)mechanisms to foster cooperation among various regulatory bodies to resolve cross-border disputes related to CBPRs. Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments from the date of publication of this notice through June 14, 2006. Comments can be written or sent electronically. All written comments must be legible and postmarked by June 14, 2006. Written comments should be sent to Eric Holloway, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 2806, Washington, DC 20230. Electronic comments should be sent to *eric.holloway@mail.doc.gov.* All written and electronic comments should include your name, title, and company or organization affiliation. Public Meeting A public meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 on June 13, 2006. If you would like to attend this meeting please respond electronically to Eric Holloway at *eric.holloway@mail.doc.gov* by June 9, 2006. Please include your name, title, company or organization affiliation, telephone number, and electronic mail address when responding. If you are not a U.S. citizen, please note this fact when responding to attend the public meeting. Non-U.S. citizens are required to supply the following additional information: full name, nationality, date of birth, and passport identification number. Dated: May 17, 2006. Eric M. Holloway, Policy Analyst, Office of Technology and Electronic Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E6-7779 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 051706C] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held on June 5-8, 2006. ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held at the Quorum Hotel, 700 North Westshore Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33607 *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Council Wednesday, June 7, 2006 *8:30 a.m.* - Convene. *8:45 a.m. - 9:15 a.m.* - Hear a report on the Implications of the National Research Council
(NRC)Review of Recreational Data Collection. *9:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.* - Receive public testimony on exempted fishing permits (if any). *9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.* - Open public comment period regarding any fishery issue or concern. *10:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.* - Hear a report on the Coastal Ocean Observing System. *1 p.m. - 1:15 p.m.* - Receive the Administrative Policy Committee Report. *1:15 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.* - Receive the Sustainable Fisheries/Ecosystem Committee Report. *2:30 p.m. - 4 p.m.* - Receive the Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Committees Report. *4 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.* - Receive the Southeast Data Assessment and Review Panel (SEDAR) Selection Committee Report and select persons to serve on the SEDAR 12 panels (CLOSED SESSION). *4:45 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* - Hold the AP Selection Committee/Council meeting in CLOSED SESSION to review fishery violations. Thursday, June 8, 2006 *8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.* - Continue with the Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Committees Report. *9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.* - Publicly report the Council action on the SEDAR Committee and AP Selection Committee/Council sessions. *9:45 a.m. - 10 a.m.* - Receive the Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum Committees Report. *10 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.* - Receive the Shrimp Committee Report. *10:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.* - Receive the Reef Fish Committee Report. *11:30 a.m. - 12 noon* - Other Business (Includes miscellaneous reports filed under Tabs O, P, Q, and R of briefing book). Committee Monday, June 5, 2006 *1 p.m. - 2 p.m.* - The Administrative Policy Committee will meet to review the Statement of Organization Practices and Procedures' (SOPPs) provisions on the Standing Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)operations; review the proposed NMFS Operating Agreement for Regulatory Streamlining; and hear a presentation on the draft Council communications plan. 2 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. The Sustainable Fisheries/Ecosystem Committee will review and comment on Congressional bills on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Tuesday, June 6, 2006 *8:30 a.m. - 12 noon* - The Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management Committees will receive a report on the decline in effort for selected recreational fisheries; and receive a report on the Ad Hoc Shrimp Effort Work Group. The Committees will also review a Partial Draft Joint Reef Fish 27/Shrimp 14 Amendment. This Amendment considers changes to regulations for the directed red snapper fishery, alternatives to reduce bycatch in the directed red snapper fishery and shrimp fishery, and alternatives to limit effort in the shrimp fishery. *1:30 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.* - The Shrimp Management Committee will receive a report on the near-shore areas where juvenile red snapper congregate. The Committee will also review the Draft Options Paper for Shrimp Amendment 15 that considers limits on trawling gear, restrictions on the transfer of vessel permits, bycatch quotas, and possible time/area closures. *2:15 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.* - The Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum Committees will receive a presentation on the siting of aquaculture facilities and an update on actions for drafting the Generic Amendment for Regulating Offshore Aquaculture. The Committee will also hear a report on Florida's Best Management Practices for Net Pens. *3:30 p.m. - 5 p.m.* - The Reef Fish Management Committee will receive a report of the Ad Hoc Grouper Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ)Advisory Panel
(AP)and a report on the status of the Grouper Allocation Amendment. The Committee will also review a report on the implications of the SEDAR 9 stock assessment to the stocks of greater amberjack, vermilion snapper, and gray triggerfish. The Committee will also approve the Red Snapper IFQ outreach workshops for the IFQ program. The committee reports will be presented to the Council for consideration on Wednesday and Thursday, June 7-8. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Trish Kennedy at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: May 17, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-7768 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 051706D] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Habitat/MPA/Ecosystem Committee Meeting in June, 2006 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. and Wednesday, June 7, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone:
(508)339-2200; fax:
(508)337-8677. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will review and recommend for Council consideration essential fish habitat
(EFH)designation alternatives for inclusion in Phase 1 of the EFH Omnibus Amendment 2 for all Council-managed species (with the exception of Atlantic Salmon). The committee will also review and recommend for Council consideration a prey species identification section for inclusion in Phase 1 of the EFH omnibus Amendment 2 for all Council-managed species (with the exception of Atlantic Salmon). In addition, the committee will discuss and consider topics covered at the May 8, 2006 Habitat Advisory panel meeting. Other topics may be covered at the committee's discretion. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at
(978)465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 17, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-7769 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 051706B] North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will hold public meetings/hearing in Kodiak, AK. DATES: The meetings will be held on June 5, 2006 through June 13, 2006. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific locations of meetings/hearing. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Council staff, telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, June 7, continuing through June 13, 2006. The Council will hold a Groundfish Rationalization Public Hearing on June 6, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Council's Advisory Panel
(AP)will begin at 8 a.m., Monday, June 5 and continue through Saturday June 10, 2006. The Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, June 5 and continue through Wednesday, June 7, 2006. The Enforcement Committee will meet Monday, June 5, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the Harbor Room. All meetings are open to the public except executive sessions. The meetings/hearing will be held at the following locations: *Council meeting address* : Westmark Kodiak Inn, 236 Rezanof Drive, Harbor Room, Kodiak, AK. *AP meeting address* : Elks Club, 102 Marine Way, Kodiak, AK. *SSC meeting address* : Fishermen's Hall, 503 Marine Way, Kodiak, AK. *Public hearing address* : Kodiak Island Borough School District, 722 Mill Bay Road, Commons A&B, Kodiak, AK. Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified. 1. Reports a. Executive Director's Report b. NMFS Management Report (including report on total allowable catch
(TAC)setting EIGH alternatives and potential comment) c. NMFS Enforcement Report d. U.S. Coast Guard Report e. NMFS Enforcement Report f. Alaska Department of Fish & Game Report g. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report h. Protected Species Report (seabird report, Steller Sea Lion
(SSL)compendium, SSL recovery plan, Right whale Critical Habitat, Fishery Management Plan Biological Opinion. 2. Improved Retention/Improved Utilization (IR/IU): Final action on Amendment 80; Review proposed data collection programs, and take action as necessary. Initial review of Maximum Retainable Amount
(MRA)adjustments. 3. Community Development Communities: Status report on legislation and implication for Amendment 71. 4. Trawl Catcher Vessel
(CV)eligibility: Progress report on analysis. 5. Halibut Charter: Review and refine moratorium alternatives, Receive stakeholder, committee report and determine direction: NMFS report on enforcement of Guideline Harvest Level
(GHL)preferred alternative (5-fish annual limit). 6. Observer Program: Final action on Observer Program analysis; Review discussion paper on video monitoring. 7. Halibut/Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ)Program: Final action on IFQ Omnibus 5 amendments. 8. Groundfish Management: Review Experimental Fishery Permit to test halibut excluder for Gulf of Alaska cod trawl fishery; Receive progress report on trawl excluder research. 9. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Review discussion paper on Bering Sea habitat conservation alternatives, and take action as necessary; Receive discussion paper on Bering Sea crab habitat and fishery interactions, and take action as necessary. 10. Crab Management: Preliminary review of Crab Overfishing definition (SSC only): Receive report from Crab Plan Team; Receive State/Federal Action Plan. 11. Ecosystem Based Management: Receive Committee report and take action as necessary. 12. Staff Tasking: Review Committees and tasking and take action as necessary. 13. Other Business The SSC agenda will include the following issues: 1. Protected Species Report 2. IR/IU MRA data 3. AI CV Eligibility 4. Observer Program 5. Groundfish Management 6. EFH 7. Crab Management 8. Ecosystem Management The Advisory Panel will address the same agenda issues as the Council. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at
(907)271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: May 17, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-7767 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent And Trademark Office Patent Prosecution Highway
(PPH)Pilot Program ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the new information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: *E-mail: Susan.Brown@uspto.gov* . Include “0651-00XX PPH Pilot Program comment” in the subject line of the message. *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Brown. *Mail:* Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to Robert J. Spar, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7700; or by e-mail at *Bob.Spar@uspto.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Patent Prosecution Highway
(PPH)pilot program is being established between the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO). This program will allow applicants whose claims are determined to be patentable in the office of first filing to have the corresponding application that is filed in the office of second filing be advanced out of turn for examination. At the same time, this program will allow the office of second filing to exploit the search and examination results of the office of first filing. The one-year pilot program will begin on July 3, 2006. In order to participate in this program, applicants must meet certain requirements. Some of the requirements are:
(1)The U.S. application must validly claim foreign priority to the JPO application;
(2)the JPO application must have at least one claim that was determined to be patentable;
(3)all the claims in the U.S. application must be amended to sufficiently correspond to the patentable claims in the JPO application;
(4)examination of the U.S. application has not begun;
(5)applicant must submit copies of the JPO office actions and English translations thereof; and
(6)applicant must file a petition to make special along with the required petition fee. This information collection includes one proposed form, Request for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway
(PPH)Pilot Program Between the JPO and the USPTO (PTO/SB/20), which may be used by applicants to request participation in the pilot program and to ensure that they meet the program requirements. II. Method of Collection Requests to participate in the PPH pilot program must be submitted by fax to the Office of the Commissioner for Patents (571-273-0125) to ensure that the request is processed in a timely manner. The USPTO will consider alternative methods of submission under this program after the one-year pilot period is concluded. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-00XX. *Form Number(s):* PTO/SB/20. *Type of Review:* New collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; businesses or other for- profits; not-for-profit institutions; farms; the Federal Government; and state, local or tribal governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 500 responses per year. *Estimated Time Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately two hours (2.0 hours) to gather the necessary information, prepare the form, and submit the completed request to the USPTO. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 1,000 hours per year. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $304,000 per year. The USPTO expects that the information in this collection will be prepared by attorneys. Using the professional rate of $304 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for this collection will be approximately $304,000 per year. Item Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Request for Participation in the Patent Prosecution Highway
(PPH)Pilot Program Between the JPO and the USPTO 2.0 hours 500 1,000 Total 500 1,000 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $65,000 per year. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, postage, or recordkeeping costs associated with this collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of filing fees. The filing fee for a request to participate in the PPH pilot program is $130 under 37 CFR 1.17(h), and up to 500 filings are expected per year. Therefore, the total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection is estimated to be $65,000 per year. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: May 16, 2006. Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division. [FR Doc. E6-7737 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [No. DoD-2006-OS-0084] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Notice. The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 21, 2006. *Title and OMB Number:* Commercial Solicitation on DoD Installation; OMB Control Number 0704-TBD. *Type of Request:* New. *Number of Respondents:* 15. *Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Annual Responses:* 15. *Average Burden per Response:* 2.27 hours. *Annual Burden Hours:* 34. *Needs and Uses:* No person has authority to enter upon a DoD installation to transact personal commercial solicitation without meeting specific requirements. This information collection is necessary to ensure established annual procedures for DoD registration for the sale of insurance on U.S. military overseas installations are met. Insurers are required to submit a letter of application certifying that they meet all criteria. The letter received from the applicant's provides information relative to the areas they intend to do business in and attest to agreement to satisfy application prerequisites. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* Ms. Hillary Jaffe. Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jaffe at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. *DoD Clearance Officer:* Ms. Patricia Toppings. Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 22209-2133. Dated: May 10, 2006. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-4717 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 19
Traces to 19 documents
register
U.S. Code
CFR
- Definitions.§ 212.1
- In general.§ 351.401
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- De minimis net countervailable subsidies and weighted-average dumping margins disregarded.§ 351.106
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
- Patent application and reexamination processing fees.§ 1.17
6 references not yet in our index
- 36 CFR 216
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 5 CFR 1320
- Pub. L. 92-463
- 15 CFR 774
- Pub. L. 104-13
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of issuance of final directive
Cite36 CFR 216
Cite2 USC 1531-1538
Cite5 CFR 1320
Cites 25 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources