Notices. Notice of Jointly Owned Inventions Available for Non-Exclusive, Royalty-Free Licensing

10,039 words·~46 min read·/register/2006/05/26/06-4894

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

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-588-804] Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan; Five-year Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order: Amended Final Results AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Frank, AD/CVD Operations 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 4, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its final results of the five-year sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan and Singapore. See *Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan and Singapore; Five-year Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders; Final Results* , 71 FR 26321 (May 4, 2006) ( *Sunset Final Results* ). On May 5, 2006, NSK Ltd.

(NSK)submitted a ministerial-error allegation, stating that the Department used the incorrect weighted-average margin that would likely prevail if the order were revoked with respect to NSK. Citing the *Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan* (70 FR 61252 (October 21, 2005), NSK claims that the ultimate margin the Department determined for NSK in the 2003/2004 administrative review was 8.25 percent, not 8.28 percent as the Department stated in the *Sunset Final Results* . We have reviewed NSK's allegation and agree that the weighted-average margin we intended to use in the *Sunset Final Results* was 8.25 percent because that is the ultimate margin resulting from the 2003/2004 administrative review. Therefore, pursuant to section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224, we are amending the *Sunset Final Results* by correcting the error in this notice of amended final results of sunset review. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 18, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8169 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-337-806] Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2004-2005 Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-1279. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department of Commerce (“Department”) to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Background On August 29, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile, covering the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). On March 7, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the time limit for the preliminary results in the antidumping duty administrative review to no later than June 13, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. *See Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2004-2005 Administrative Review* , 71 FR 11386 (March 7, 2006). The preliminary results for this administrative review are currently due no later than June 13, 2006. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results The Department requires additional time to review, analyze, and verify the sales and cost information submitted by the parties in this administrative review. Moreover, the Department requires additional time to analyze complex issues related to producer and supplier relationships, issue additional supplemental questionnaires and fully analyze the responses. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the current time limit ( *i.e.* , June 13, 2006). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results to not later than July 31, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 18, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8170 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-833] Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2004-2005 Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri or Andrew McAllister, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3853 or

(202)482-1174, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department of Commerce (“Department”) to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Background On June 30, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”) from Taiwan, covering the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 37749 (June 30, 2005). After being extended once, the preliminary results for the antidumping duty administrative review of certain PSF from Taiwan are due no later than May 24, 2006. *See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan and the Republic of Korea: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2004-2005 Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 1508 (January 10, 2006). Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results The Department requires additional time to review and analyze Far Eastern Textile Limited's most recent supplemental questionnaire response. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the previously established time limit ( *i.e.* , May 24, 2006). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results to not later than May 31, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 22, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8183 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-826] Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from V & M do Brasil, S.A. (VMB), the respondent, and United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), the petitioner, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Brazil (A-351-826). This administrative review covers imports of seamless pipe from VMB. The period of review

(POR)is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that sales of seamless pipe by VMB have not been made at less than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit:

(1)A statement of the issues,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or David Kurt Kraus, 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)482-0405 or

(202)482-7871, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 3, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from Brazil. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil* , 60 FR 39707 (August 3, 1995). On August 1, 2005, the Department published the opportunity to request administrative review of, *inter alia* , seamless pipe from Brazil for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on August 31, 2005, the respondent VMB and the petitioner U.S. Steel, requested that we conduct an administrative review of VMB's sales of seamless pipe. On September 28, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 7, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to VMB. VMB submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on November 10, 2005, the responses to sections B and C on November 30, 2005, and the response to section D on December 16, 2005. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C on December 20, 2005, and a supplemental questionnaire for section D on January 20, 2006. The Department received the supplemental questionnaire response for sections A, B, and C on January 30, 2006, and the supplemental questionnaire response for section D on February 17, 2006. Period of Review The period of review is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are seamless pipes produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of this order also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters below, regardless of specification. For purposes of this order, seamless pipes are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. These pipes are commonly known as standard pipe, line pipe or pressure pipe, depending upon the application. They may also be used in structural applications. Pipes produced in non-standard wall thickness are commonly referred to as tubes. The seamless pipes subject to this antidumping duty order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The following information further defines the scope of this order, which covers pipes meeting the physical parameters described above: Specifications, Characteristics and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM standard A-106 may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM standard A-335 must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for A-106 and the ASME codes. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipelines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications. Such triple certification of pipes is common because all pipes meeting the stringent ASTM A-106 specification necessarily meet the API 5L and ASTM A-53 specifications. Pipes meeting the API 5L specification necessarily meet the ASTM A-53 specification. However, pipes meeting the A-53 or API 5L specifications do not necessarily meet the A-106 specification. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers triple-certify the pipes. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple-certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and offshore), such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, or API 5L standards shall be covered if used in a standard, line or pressure application. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe that, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in A-106 applications. These specifications generally include A-162, A-192, A-210, A-333, and A-524. When such pipes are used in a standard, line or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order. Specifically excluded from this order are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 or API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line or pressure applications. In addition, finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods

(OCTG)are excluded from the scope of this order, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. Finally, also excluded from this order are redraw hollows for cold-drawing when used in the production of cold-drawn pipe or tube. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether VMB made sales of seamless pipe to the United States at less than fair value, we compared the constructed export price

(CEP)to the normal value (NV), as described below. Specifically, in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEP of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NV. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we considered all products produced by VMB covered by the descriptions in the Scope of the Order section of this notice to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to VMB's U.S. sales of seamless pipe. We have relied on the following six criteria to match U.S. sales of seamless pipe to sales in Brazil of the foreign like product: product specification, manufacturing process (cold-finished or hot-rolled), outside diameter, wall thickness, surface finish, and end finish. All U.S. sales were matched to sales of identical merchandise in the home market. Constructed Export Price Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by, or for the account of, the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d). In the instant review, VMB sold seamless pipe through an affiliated company, Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes Corporation (VM Corp.) of Houston, Texas. VMB reported all of its U.S. sales of seamless pipe as CEP transactions. After reviewing the evidence on the record of this review, we have preliminarily determined that VMB's transactions are classified properly as CEP sales because these sales occurred in the United States and were made through its U.S. affiliate to an unaffiliated buyer. Such a determination is consistent with section 772(b) of the Act and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *AK Steel Corp. et al. v. United States* , 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ( *AK Steel* ). In *AK Steel* , the Court of Appeals examined the definitions of export price

(EP)and CEP, noting that “the plain meaning of the language enacted by Congress in 1994, focuses on where the sale takes place and whether the foreign producer or exporter and the U.S. importer are affiliated, making these two factors dispositive of the choice between the two classifications.” *Id.* at 1369. The court stated, “the critical differences between EP and CEP sales are whether the sale or transaction takes place inside or outside the United States and whether it is made by an affiliate,” and noted that the phrase “outside the United States” had been added to the 1994 statutory definition of EP. *Id.* at 1368-70. Thus, the classification of a sale as either EP or CEP depends upon where the contract for sale was concluded ( *i.e.* , inside or outside the United States) and whether the foreign producer or exporter is affiliated with the U.S. importer. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that VMB's transactions are classified properly as CEP sales. For these CEP sales transactions, we calculated price in conformity with section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty-paid prices to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These movement expenses included foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, which also included imputed credit expenses and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared VMB's volume of home market sales of seamless pipe to the volume of U.S. sales of seamless pipe, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because VMB's aggregate volume of home market sales of seamless pipe was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of seamless pipe, we determined that the home market was viable. *See* Section A Response, at Exhibit 1. B. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed segment, the Department determined that VMB made sales in the home market at prices below its cost of production

(COP)and therefore excluded such sales from its calculation of NV. *See Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 24524 (May 10, 2005). The Department's affirmative findings of sales-below-cost in the preliminary results of the prior period review did not change in the final results. Therefore, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, that VMB made sales in the home market at prices below the COP for this POR. As a result, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether VMB's sales in the home market were made at prices below the COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of VMB's material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative expenses, interest expenses and packing costs. We relied on the COP data reported by VMB, except that we revised VMB's reported total cost of manufacturing by recalculating the correction factor ( *i.e.* , INDCOR) by allocating certain costs related only to seamless pipe over the reported cost of manufacture of seamless pipe, and allocating costs related to both subject and non-subject merchandise over the cost of goods sold of all products. For further details regarding this adjustment, see the Department's Cost of Production Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results V & M do Brasil, S.A. (COP Memorandum), dated June 2, 2006. We compared the weighted-average COP figures to the home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b)(1) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices net of any applicable billing adjustments, indirect taxes (ICMS, IPI, COFINS and PIS), and any applicable movement charges. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of VMB's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of VMB's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because:

(1)They were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act, and

(2)based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Our cost test for VMB revealed that for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that for certain models, more than 20 percent of the home market sales of those models were sold at prices below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV. C. Price-to-Price Comparisons We matched all U.S. sales to NV. We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We adjusted gross unit price for billing adjustments, interest revenue, indirect taxes, and the per-unit value of any post-transaction complementary invoices (or credit notes) that were issued to adjust for any errors in the originating invoice. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, insurance and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as for differences in circumstances of sale (COS), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses, warranty expenses, and commissions. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the export transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. We consider only the selling activities reflected in the U.S. price after the deduction of expenses incurred in the United States and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. We analyze whether different selling activities are performed, and whether any price differences (other than those for which other allowances are made under the Act) are shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP and NV. Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or downward adjustment to NV for LOT if the difference in LOT involves the performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined. Finally, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine a LOT adjustment, we reduce NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the foreign comparison market on sales of the foreign like product, but by no more than the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred for CEP sales. *See* section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. In the present review, VMB claimed that there was no LOT in the home market comparable to the LOT of the CEP sales, and requested a CEP offset. *See* Section A Response at A-29. VMB claimed two LOTs in the home market based on distinct channels of distribution to two categories of customers: distributors and end-users. We examined the reported selling functions and found that VMB's home market selling functions for all customers include sales forecasting, planning, order processing, general selling functions performed by VMB sales personnel, technical assistance, and provisions for warranties, guarantees, and freight/delivery. VMB also claimed packing as a selling function performed for all customers. See Section A Response at Exh. 12. However, packing is an activity related to preparing the finished merchandise for shipment to the customer, and as such, does not constitute a selling activity that is relevant to a LOT analysis. In addition, VMB reported several selling functions unique to each channel of distribution. Personnel training, sales promotion, distributor/dealer training, sales/marketing support, market research, and a provision for cash discounts are selling functions performed only in sales to distributors. While many sales to distributors go through unaffiliated warehouses, VMB does not incur inventory carrying costs for these sales. In contrast, engineering services, advertising, procurement/sourcing services, and after-sales services are provided solely to end-users. VMB also paid commissions on sales to some end-users. In addition, VMB reported the selling function of inventory maintenance with regard to sales to one end-user customer, for which a small percentage of VMB's sales are transferred to unaffiliated warehouses from which this customer regularly extracts merchandise on a just-in-time basis. *See* Section A Response at A-23; *see also* Section B Response at B-59. Based upon the above analysis, we preliminarily conclude that the selling functions for the reported home market channels of distribution are sufficiently different to consider them as two distinct LOTs. Because VMB reported that all of its U.S. sales are CEP sales made through one channel of distribution to its U.S. affiliate, we preliminarily agree with VMB's claim that there is only one LOT in the U.S. market. We examined the claimed selling functions for VMB's CEP sales, *i.e.* , the selling functions performed for sales to VM Corp., which include sales forecasting, order processing, technical assistance, delivery of the merchandise, and warranties. *See* Section A Response at Exh.12; *see also* VMB's Supplemental A-C Questionnaire Response dated January 30, 2006, at 12. VM Corp. handles the remaining selling functions of strategic planning, sales negotiations and promotion, sales support, and customer service involved in the CEP sales to the unaffiliated customer in the United States, which are not considered in our LOT analysis. Based upon the above analysis, we preliminarily determine that there is no LOT in the home market comparable to the CEP LOT, and it is therefore not possible to determine whether the difference in LOT affects price comparability. Consequently, we examined whether a CEP offset may be appropriate pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(f) of the Department's regulations. We find that the selling functions VMB performs for sales to its U.S. affiliate are fewer and less complex than the selling functions VMB performs for either LOT in the home market. Compared to U.S. sales, the chain of distribution in the home market is at a level much more advanced. For example, many sales to distributors go through unaffiliated warehouses and VMB provides after-sales services to end-users. In contrast, VMB's selling functions for U.S. sales end with delivery at the port of entry. Accordingly, because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, but the LOT in the home market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, we preliminarily determine that a CEP offset adjustment is appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005, to be as follows: Manufacturer / Exporter Margin (percent) V & M do Brasil, S.A. 0.00 The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. *See* section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date. The Department will issue the final results of these preliminary results, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific *ad valorem* rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP to liquidate entries subject to this review without regard to antidumping duties. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results for which the reviewed company did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less than fair value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 124.94 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil* , 60 FR 39707 (August 3, 1995). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 19, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8178 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-807] Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received a request to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey published on April 17, 1997 (62 FR 18748). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(d), we are initiating an antidumping new shipper review of Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S., a producer of subject merchandise, and its affiliated export trading company, Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. (collectively “Kroman”). EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone

(202)482-0656 or

(202)482-0498, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department received a timely request from Kroman, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey* , 62 FR 18748 (April 17, 1997). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b), Kroman certified that it is both the exporter and producer of the subject merchandise, that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of the investigation

(POI)(January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995), and that it was not affiliated with any exporter or producer that exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Kroman also submitted documentation establishing the date on which its shipment of subject merchandise first entered for consumption, the volume shipped, and the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes

(i)plain round rebar,

(ii)rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, and

(iii)all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Initiation of Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d), we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey produced and exported by Kroman. *See* the Memorandum from the Team to the File through Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Office Director, entitled “Initiation of AD New Shipper Review: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,” dated May 22, 2006. Normally, we would issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 180 days after the date on which the review is initiated. However, on May 15, 2006, Kroman agreed to waive the time limits in order that the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), may conduct this review concurrently with the ninth administrative review of this order for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006, which will be conducted pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, we intend to issue the final results of this review not later than 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the period of review

(POR)for a new shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month, will be the 12-month period immediately preceding the anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper review of Kroman is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise from Kroman and allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the merchandise exported by Kroman in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Kroman certified that it both produced and exported the subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for this new shipper review request, we will permit the bonding privilege only for those entries of subject merchandise for which Kroman is both the producer and the exporter. Interested parties may submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d). Dated: May 22, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8166 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Jointly Owned Inventions Available for Non-Exclusive, Royalty-Free Licensing AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Jointly Owned Inventions Available for Non-Exclusive, Royalty-Free Licensing. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are jointly owned by the U.S. Government, as represented by the Department of Commerce, and the University of Colorado. The Department of Commerce's interest in the inventions is available for non-exclusive, royalty-free licensing, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on these inventions may be obtained by writing to: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Technology Partnerships, Attn: Mary Clague, Building 820, Room 213, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Information is also available via telephone: 301-975-4188, fax 301-869-2751, or e-mail: mary.clague@nist.gov. Any request for information should include the NIST Docket number or Patent number and title for the invention as indicated below. The inventions available for licensing are: [Patent Number 6,831,522 Issued: 12/14/2004] *Title:* Method of Minimizing the Short-Term Frequency Instability of Laser-Pumped Atomic Clocks. *Abstract:* A method is provided for optimizing the performance of laser-pumped atomic frequency references with respect to the laser detuning and other operating parameters. This method is based on the new understanding that the frequency references short-term instability is minimized when

(a)the laser frequency is tuned nominally a few tens of MHz away from the center of the atomic absorption line, and

(b)the external oscillator lock modulation frequency is set either far below or far above the inverse of the optical pumping time of the atoms. [Patent Number: 6,806,784 Issued: 10/19/2004] *Title:* Miniature Frequency Standard Based on All-Optical Excitation and a Micromachined Containment Vessel. *Abstract:* A microwave frequency standard is provided which allows for miniaturization down to length scales of order one micron, comprising a modulated light field originating from a laser that illuminates a collection of quantum absorbers contained in a micro-machined cell. The frequency standard of the present invention can be based on all-optical excitation techniques such as coherent population trapping

(CPT)and stimulated Raman scattering or on conventional microwave-excited designs. In a CPT-based embodiment, a photodetector detects a change in transmitted power through the cell and that is used to stabilize an external oscillator to correspond to the absorber's transition frequency by locking the laser modulation frequency to the transition frequency. In a stimulated Raman scattering

(SRS)embodiment, a high-speed photodetector detects a laser field transmitted through the cell beating with a second field originating in the cell. Both the locked laser modulation frequency and the beat frequency are very stable as they are referenced directly to the atomic transition. Dated: May 18, 2006. Hratch G. Semerjian, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E6-8154 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 051806C] Endangered Species; Permit No. 1298 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit modification. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Riverbanks Zoo and Garden [Principal Investigator, Mr. Charles Scott Pfaff], P.O. Box 1060, Columbia, SC 29202, has been issued an amendment to Permit No. 1298 to extend the expiration date of the permit through May 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: The modification and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone

(301)713-2289, fax

(301)427-2521. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore and Kate Swails

(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 21, 2001, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (66 FR 27940) that Permit No.1298 had been issued to the Riverbanks Zoo and Garden for the continued maintenance of eleven adult shortnose sturgeon ( *Acipenser brevirostrum* ) received from the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources in 1996 for education purposes. This permit amendment extends the duration of the permit from May 31, 2006, to May 31, 2007. The requested modification have been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the provisions of § 222.306 of the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened fish and wildlife (50 CFR 222-226). Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit:

(1)Was applied for in good faith;

(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species; and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: May 19, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-8179 Filed 5-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 051906C] Endangered Species; File No. 1579 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; Receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. (Edward P. Taft, Responsible Party), 30 Shrewsbury Street, Holden, MA, 01520, has applied in due form for a permit to take shortnose sturgeon ( *Acipenser brevirostrum* ) for purposes of scientific research. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before June 26, 2006. The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9328; fax (978)281-9394. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by email. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the email comment the following document identifier: File No. 1579. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Jennifer Skidmore (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226). The applicant proposes to conduct research on entrainment and impingement rates for selected bar rack and bypass configurations in attempt to identify design criteria for a downstream passage facility at the Hadley Falls Hydroelectric Project on the Connecticut River. The applicant would use captive-bred sturgeon and all testing would take place in the Alden Lab testing flume. Annually, up to 200 sturgeon would be transported from hatcheries, measured, handled, Passive Integrated Transponder tagged, and participate in the flume testing. At the end of the five-year study the sturgeon would be sacrificed. Dated: May 19, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-8181 Filed 5-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 041806D] Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act; Atlantic Striped Bass Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of scoping process; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: In a document published in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2006, NMFS announced its intention to re-open the scoping process and accept further comments on the recommendations contained in Amendment 6 to Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass (Amendment 6). NMFS originally conducted scoping on the matter in 2003, but decided to re-open the scoping process and accept further comments due to the passage of significant time and the availability of new information. The intent of this document is to announce the extension of the public comment period from May 26, 2006, to June 26, 2006. DATES: Comments on this action must be received (see ADDRESSES ) no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on or before June 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests for copies of the draft document should be sent to: Tom Meyer, State-Federal Fisheries Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East West Highway, Room 13248, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Mark the outside of the envelope “Striped Bass Scoping.” An electronic copy of the draft document and supporting documents (ANPR and a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS (NOI)) may also be obtained on the State-Federal Fisheries Division's Web site under *Regulatory Activities* at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/state_federal.htm* . Comments may also be sent via fax to

(301)713-0596, or via e-mail to: *Striped-Bass.Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the fax or e-mail the following document identifier: *Striped Bass Scoping* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Meyer, telephone

(301)713-2334, x173. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As announced in the **Federal Register** on July 21, 2003 (68 FR 43074), NMFS requested comments on potential revisions to the Federal Atlantic striped bass regulations for the U.S. EEZ in response to recommendations from the Commission to the Secretary. The comment period was subsequently reopened on August 26, 2003 (68 FR 51232), for an additional 30-days. A “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)and Notice of Scoping Process”

(NOI)was published in the **Federal Register** on October 20, 2003 (68 FR 59906) and public meetings were held in nine Atlantic coast states between November 5 - December 10, 2003, and the public comment period closed on December 22, 2003. Significant time has passed since the nine initial scoping hearings. Accordingly, NMFS thought it prudent to seek additional scoping on its preliminary draft analyses of Federal management options to open the EEZ to the harvest of Atlantic Striped Bass. NMFS, therefore, re-opened the scoping process in a **Federal Register** Notice on April 24, 2006 (71 FR 20984) and established a 30 day public comment period. NMFS believes that extending the comment period an additional 30 days would provide the public a more appropriate opportunity to provide meaningful commentary on the agency's list of potential alternatives and other management measures. See ADDRESSES for information on how to obtain a copy of the draft document and where to send comments. Background Atlantic striped bass management is based on ASMFC's Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP), first adopted in 1981. From 1981 - 1994, four ISFMP Amendments were developed that provided a series of management measures that led to the rebuilding of the stocks. In 1995, ASMFC declared the Atlantic striped bass population fully restored and implemented Amendment 5 to the ISFMP to perpetuate the stock so as to allow a commercial and recreational harvest consistent with the long-term maintenance of the striped bass stock. Since then the population has expanded to record levels of abundance. To maintain this recovered population, ASMFC approved Amendment 6 in February 2003 (copies of Amendment 6 are available via ASMFC's website under *Interstate Fisheries Management-striped bass* at *http://www.asmfc.org* ). ASMFC believes that the measures contained in Amendment 6 are necessary to prevent the overfishing of the Atlantic striped bass resource while allowing growth in both the commercial and recreational fishery. Development of Amendment 6 took almost 4 years and involved extensive input from technical and industry advisors, and provided numerous opportunities for the public to comment on the future management of the species. Amendment 6 incorporates results of the 2001 Atlantic striped bass stock assessment, developed by the Atlantic Coast States, ASMFC, NMFS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see section 1.2.2 of Amendment 6 for summary). Amendment 6 also included recommendations to the Secretary on the development of complementary measures in the EEZ. Management of Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ was one of the issues that was considered throughout development of Amendment 6. Recommendation to the Secretary In addition to the recommendations to the Secretary in Amendment 6, the Secretary also received a letter on April 24, 2003, from ASMFC with the following three recommendations for implementation of regulations in the EEZ:

(1)Remove the moratorium on the harvest of Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ;

(2)implement a 28-inch (71.1-cm) minimum size limit for recreational and commercial Atlantic striped bass fisheries in the EEZ; and

(3)allow states the ability to adopt more restrictive rules for fishermen and vessels licensed in their jurisdictions. In support of its request, ASMFC cited a number of reasons, including: ASMFC declared the striped bass stock restored in 1995; commercial harvest is controlled by individual state quotas; with the EEZ closed striped bass caught there are required to be discarded, and are often dead when thrown back - Opening the EEZ will convert some of the discarded bycatch of striped bass to landings; and Amendment 6 incorporates measures that would address future concerns about the stock status. See ADDRESSES for information on how to obtain a copy of the NOI, which has a complete list of ASMFC's cited reasons. ASMFC also stated that its Atlantic Striped Bass Technical Committee would monitor annually the Atlantic striped bass population, and, if at some point in the future ASMFC determines that the Atlantic striped bass population is overfished or that overfishing is occurring, it may recommend further management measures for the EEZ. Delay in the Development of an EIS In September 2004, ASMFC's Striped Bass Technical Committee prepared its 2004 Stock Assessment Report for use by the Striped Bass Management Board (Board), which included data through 2003. That assessment contradicted previous assessments, which had indicated that the striped bass population was not overfished and continued to grow in abundance. Instead, the results of the modeling portion of the 2004 assessment indicated that the stock was overfished and that spawning stock biomass had been reduced to below target levels. However, the members of the Technical Committee did not feel the assessment provided an accurate representation of stock status, especially given that results of tagging study analyses did not show a similar increase in fishing mortality. The Technical Committee was concerned with any conclusions that might be derived from these estimated and recommended the 2004 assessment results not be used for management decisions until both the modeling software and the input data sets were reevaluated during the 2005 assessment process. The results from the 2004 stock assessment have not been used by ASMFC for management decisions. With the great uncertainty in estimates of spawning stock biomass, and fishing mortality rates during 2003, as presented in the 2004 stock assessment, NMFS decided to delay the completion of the EIS to be able to incorporate the 2005 stock assessment in the EIS. During 2005, the Technical Committee and Stock Assessment Subcommittee reviewed model inputs and the model itself to determine if the results from the 2004 assessment truly reflected status of the population or were an artifact of data or model errors. They concluded that a number of the indices used in the 2004 effort were not consistent with what was observed in the population as a whole, or were contradictory to the majority of other reliable time series. Those indices were removed from subsequent model runs. The Technical Committee believes the current assessment reflects the true status of the population (within reasonable ranges of certainty). Both the 2004 and 2005 Striped Bass Stock Assessments are available on ASMFC's website under *Interstate Fisheries Management-striped bass* at *http://www.asmfc.org* . Addendum I to Amendment 6 During the development of Amendment 6, there were concerns over the impacts of bycatch mortality on the overall population. To address these concerns, ASMFC is currently developing Addendum 1 to Amendment 6 to increase the accuracy of data on striped bass bycatch in all sectors of the striped bass fishery. Addendum I will outline mandatory data collection and bycatch mortality studies for the commercial, recreational, and for-hire fisheries for striped bass. Further Public Participation Due to the significant time that has passed since the nine initial scoping hearings were held in November-December 2003, NMFS is seeking additional scoping on its preliminary draft analyses of Federal management options to open the EEZ to the harvest of Atlantic Striped Bass. See ADDRESSES for information on how to obtain a copy of the draft document and where to send comments. At this time, a preferred option has not been identified. Options being considered in this draft document include:

(1)open the entire EEZ, implement a 28-inch (71.1-cm) minimum size limit, and allow states to adopt more restrictive regulations for fishermen and vessels licensed in their state (ASMFC recommendation);

(2)open the entire EEZ, implement a 28-inch (71.1-cm) minimum size limit, allow states to adopt more restrictive regulations for fishermen and vessels licensed in their state, implement a recreational bag limit of 2 fish per day, require circle hooks for all commercial and recreational hook and line fishing using bait, and commercial trip limits and bycatch trip limit options;

(3)open the entire EEZ, implement a 28-inch (71.1-cm) minimum size limit, allow states to adopt more restrictive regulations for fishermen and vessels licensed in their state, allow hook and line gear only, implement a recreational bag limit of 2 fish per day, require circle hooks for all commercial and recreational hook and line fishing using bait, and implement a commercial trip limit of 30 fish per trip or day whichever is greater; and

(4)status quo - maintain moratorium in the EEZ. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5151 *et seq.* Dated: May 23, 2006. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-4894 Filed 5-23-06; 2:25 pm]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

CFR